--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > Every aspect of Peter's response oozed attachment. > Perhaps involvement, perhaps passion, perhaps frustration, but attachment? How can you possibly tell? Attachment or non attachment is not something that can be determined by any sort of logical formula.
This is a HUGE misconception regarding enlightened consciousness vs unenlightened consciousness, that somehow based on someone's speech or actions, a determination of attachment can be made. That some logical conclusion can be reached. This is silly and wrong to think this way. Conversely, the other side of this misconception, that because someone exhibits some kind of impassioned behavior that they are therefore attached and therefore acting unenlightened, is also Completely Wrong-- It is the attempt of the waking state mind to make sense of the experience of enlightenment, by observation, and logical parsing. This Is Not Possible. Maharishi states this clearly in the Gita- the quote has been posted here before. Believe it, please.
