--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> > wrote: > > > > > > (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again > > > to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between > > > sattva and purusha, or judging "it's a really, really *good* > > > movie" vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. > > > While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging > > > anyone's behavior as "enlightened" or "not enlightened" would > > > to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the > movie.) > > > > Ah, the light dawns. > > > > Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. > > > > It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of > > their own states of consciousness, in the same way > > that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a > > good filmmaker. > > > > One *can* "suspend disbelief" and enjoy even an > > Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the > > film block a few times, that suspension of dis- > > belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one > > is watching a Really Bad Movie. > > > > The problem with you guys and your claims about > > your own states of consciousness is *not* that > > you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both > > believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe > > that you're creating great works of "consciousness > > cinema" with your posts here. > > > > The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're > > both really bad actors, > > > > What you mistake for high drama and uplifting > > cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination > > still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. > > > > Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless > > your audience can be convinced to moodmake along > > with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. > > Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!!
And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a "right" to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. You claim to be enlightened because your view of what enlightenment means is that you don't have to take any responsibility for your words and your actions. That's not enlightenment, dude, it's being an asshole.
