--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip>... the distinction between sattva and > purusha, or judging "it's a really, really *good* movie" vs. actually > freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic > behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior > as "enlightened" or "not enlightened" would to me fall into the > category of judging the quality of the movie.
I'd like to refine this comparison a bit, because I think it's crucial, and it's come up a lot here on FFL lately. Judging a person as "enlightened" or "unenlightened" by his or her behavior is somewhat like judging an actor in a movie as being a genuinely "good" or "bad" person *based upon one's response to the dramatic role s/he happens to be playing in the movie*, when the real issue is whether the spectator even knows s/he is watching a movie. Except it is even funnier than that, because it's not just a movie, it's a mirror, so we could see the whole judgment-process as more like the canary pecking away at his own reflection. I don't know much about logic, but I imagine one could call it a "category error". *lol*
