--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The "perfection," if it exists, is in the enlightened > > person saying, "Do this." Nature "wants" the person > > to say that.
Not an argument of this, but an exploration. If Nature is perfect (a premise of some, and some statements), "wanting" implies some lack of fulfillment. If this is the case, why would a desire by an unfulfilled Nature be "perfect". > > But Nature does not necessarily "want" you to do it, > > only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do > > it. Nature may "want" you to say to yourself, "That's > > dumb, I'm not going to do that." > > Nature "wants" the person to do the Bad Things (we > > cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to > > accept them. Nature may "want" others to be outraged > > and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or > > punish him/her for having done them. If we accept this speculation, then why not accept other speculation? On what grounds is the above speculation more useful than or as true as, "Nature wants me to do this and Nature does not want you to be outraged when I do it." > > It all goes back to the old "Unfathomable is the > > course of action." You can't second-guess it; I can second guess, or not accept any dogma that I choose to. > > you > > aren't relieved of the necessity of making your > > own decisions. The "perfection" of the enlightened > > person's actions is relevant ONLY to the > > enlightened person. As, I suppose, is their so-called, so self-defined "enlightenment". Why not keep ones subjective view,and labels to oneself? Its only relevant to them. > > Those of us in ignorance What do you mean "we", kimosobe? >>shouldn't respond to the > > enlightened person any differently than we do to > > anybody else. That the person is enlightened is > > irrelevant to the rest of us. So why even bring it up, or discuss it. Its like the color of my pee this morning. Not really relevant to anyone else, so I don't bring it up. > > > And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- > > > serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that > > > deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? > > > > The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are > > "perfect" is one thing. And like all dogma should be left to rot where it stands, and not played in like a pile of manure -- posing as a pristine sandbox. > > The dogma that THEREFORE you > > should accept everything the enlightened person does > > is something else entirely. Two dogmas don't make a right. Humping dogmas only produce cute cuddly puppy dogmas.
