--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The more important issue IMO is that people
> who have chosen to believe that enlightenment
> is a state in which the enlightened can do no
> wrong
Can you define "wrong action"?
I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one
act "wrongly"? Wrong is relative to any number of moral codes. I
suggest, for sake of discussion, that there is no absolute right or
wrong. There is only action and its consequences.
Due to painful consequences some chose not to do somethings. Due to
happy consequences some chose to do other things. Where is the right
and wrong?
In this context, "right" differs from correct. 2 + 2 = 4 ("or whatever
your want it to be sir" if your are corporate accountant). 4 is the
correct answer. However, 4 is not "right" in a moral sense.
In the mega-Costco of life,"Take what you want, but pay the price"n
Another potentially false premise of the question is free-will. (And
the absence of free-will does not require or imply determinism as the
sole alternative.) If you don't control or initiate thoughts, and
action stems from thoughts, where is the free will. I suggest all
action is a set of 500-layer deep learned responses to various
situations. No volition. One can only do what they have learned -- and
for some innovation is one of those things.
And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label
of enlightenment. Some people are brighter, shinier, clearer than
others. Some are all of this is some areas of life, but are in
darkness in other areas. The label of enlightenment is a one big MF --
a bill of goods sold to the naive.
So ... "enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no
wrong" -- hmmm, my take on your question is: a bogus conceptual state
in which the deluded who have no real volition appear to act and other
deluded ones falsely categorize those actions as right and wrong.
