--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <sandiego108@>
> 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.
>
...Judy wrote this...
