--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > Of the three folks who regularly say that they > > are enlightened (or at the very least experiencing > > enlightened states of mind, even if they don't call > > themselves "enlightened") on FFL, during the last > > month: > > > > * Jim has made +120 posts, the majority of them > > defending his view of himself against critics and > > those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- > > making. > > > > * Rory has made +100 posts, the majority of them > > defending his view of himself against critics and > > those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- > > making. > > > > * Tom T has made one post, just having fun with > > some photos that someone posted: > > > > "I thought that the guys you picked to show > > me were much to handsome. I am much fatter > > and have all gray hair. Great shots of the > > gang on Weds nite. Enjoyed this very much." > > > > > > So here's a question -- if you were a betting man > > (or woman), based solely on their behavior, which > > of these three do you think is more likely to have > > actually experienced enlightened states of mind? > > > > :-) > > > I am sure not betting on You, Buddhi Boy! > In all seriousness, this attempt to turn the actions of the enlightened into a popularity contest for the unenlightened is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen-- almost demonic dude.
So what you are saying is that living within your personal boundaries if you deign to judge my actions or another enlightened person's actions as worthy of your acceptance, or not, then you deem that person as enlightened, or not? Don't you get how completely f*cked up that sounds? I would hope that as a person I am liked by at least some on this forum, but to put my actions in the perverted spotlight that you are proposing is just crazy.
