--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > You are saying that the only reason it "appears" that > > > you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are > > > not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. > > > Is that correct? > > > > > > OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled > > > to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist > > > belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, > > > but you seem to like it. > > > > > > But could you do me one favor, just in the interest > > > of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? > > > Please explain to me a statement you made some time > > > ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- > > > spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, > > > and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, > > > that Buddha had said, "God is love." > > > > Try this: The "perfection" was in saying Buddha > > had said "God is love" and getting you all freaked > > out about the factual error. > > Despite your attempt to do exactly what Jim > has been doing and make it all about me and > claim that I am "freaked out," I'm not.
Yeah, it freaks you out. You've brought it up over and over and *over* again. In any case, I'm not trying to make it "all about" you, much as that might appeal to you. I'm trying, once again, to expand your painfully pedestrian conceptual vocabulary about enlightenment. > It is simply that this comment of Jim's is a > clear example of him having made a mistake. > He has never admitted this mistake. And you're still not getting it. The "perfection" doesn't stop at freaking you out over the error itself; it includes never admitting the mistake (which also freaks you out). The perfection of the factual error and the way Jim deals with it, in other words, isn't self-contained: It includes all the reactions to it as well. It would > seem that he cannot, because to do so undercuts > what he says about the nature of enlightenment. Au contraire, Pierre. What it undercuts is your understanding of the nature of enlightenment.
