--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > <snip> Hey, it's just the Paradox of Brahman. > > > > > > > > Not at all- its the failure of you and sparaig to just deal > > > > with Peter as Peter, and instead thinking that he should act > > > > differently than he is because he was talking about > > > > enlightened states earler. > > > > > > But that *is* dealing with Peter as Peter! > > > > OK- I think I understand- but if you are expecting Peter to act or > > speak differently because he was speaking about enlightened states, > > then there is possibly an expectation you have about enlightened > > states, and a person's consequent actions from within them. Fair > > enough, and to be expected (a universal expectation), but the > > expectations will prove to be false. > > No, just calling attention to the discrepancy > between what folks expect and the reality. > > The discrepancy is at least partly due to the > language used to describe enlightenment, such > as in the quote from my post that you were > commenting on, which was actually a pastiche of > quotes from the observations you and Tom and Peter > had made here in a recent thread about the state > of your own consciousness. > > That someone could live such experiences 24 hours > a day and still issue the kind of obscene insults > Peter did to Lawson is what I was referring to as > "the paradox of Brahman."
OK- quite a contrast, huh? > > > > > No memo > > > > > needed. I mean, if *anybody* can accuse somebody > > > > > else of being "holier than thou," it's the > > > > > enlightened person, right? > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by this. > > > > > > The enlightened person is holiness personified. > > > S/he really *is* holier-than-thou, so s/he gets > > > to chide those who only pretend to be. > > > > > The way I always understood to say someone was acting 'holier than > > thou' is that they/I were/was on an ego trip. > > Sure, it's one kind of ego trip. > > In terms of the > > relationship of that to an enlightened person is yes, the > > enlightened person will see that clearly, though without any > > judgement, and may decide, or not, to mention it. Chiding for > > chiding's sake though would have no value. > > Does this constitute mentioning it without > any judgment? > > "Hey Sparaig, I was on Purusha when it first started in > DC for a year. Where were you, biatch? And I do my > program twice a day, so go f*ck yourself holier than > thou prick." > > I have a lot of trouble seeing "go f*ck yourself holier > than thou prick" as not involving judgment. So I have > to figure being judgmental is part of the paradox. I just meant I didn't see Peter's remarks as meant to put down or wound Lawson, purely for the sake of it- sadistically. Rather, there was a lesson to be learned, i.e. walk the walk vs just talk the talk. You may see it differently.
