--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB <snip> > My point is that people seem to be stopping at the > surface of this whole tempest in a pisspot, and not > looking beneath the surface at its implications. I'm > merely looking at them, and bringing them up for > consideration. Not that I think any of these things > will actually be considered. In my experience, the > allegiance to a long-held set of beliefs is almost > always stronger than the allegiance to reality. > > So are you saying that no one is or has been genuinely > enlightened, and that all supposedly enlightened people > have been or are guilty of the delusions you mention, > or are you saying that many have been, and that it may > be hard for many people to sort out the genuine ones > from the bogus ones? I ascribe to the latter perspective.
Me too, with the caveat that it's not that hard to make the distinction when you're talking about the extreme ends of the spectrum, e.g., Ravi versus Rama Maharshi. It's the ones in the middle who can be difficult to sort out (and there you may well be dealing as much with philosophy and semantics as with clinical distinctions).
