--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" > > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote: > > > > > > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's > > > judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted > > > him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, > > > because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him > > > to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for > > > him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? > > > This is what I understand you to be explaining here. > > > > Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic > > one. But that's the basic idea. > > > > The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know > > what nature "wants" and why. The consequences and the > > "reasons" may be impossibly complex, or might not even > > resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let > > alone fitting the human notion of "perfection." > > > > Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume > > authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility > > for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the > > phrase "spontaneous right action," the emphasis is on > > "spontaneous," not "right." The premise about > > enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts > > spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, > > without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. > > > > But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened > > can't "mood-make" that he or she is not the author of > > his/her actions. > > T'would seem that many of those who have claimed > enlightenment have not been so constricted, and > as a result have been able to moodmake that > they were not the author of their actions very > successfully, so convincingly that many weak- > minded people actually believe it. :-)
No surprise that "t'would seem" that way to you, given that you've closed your mind to the possibility that anybody could even have that experience, let alone to the possibility that it's true ontologically.
