---Regarding actions that the Enlightened are enjoined (must) to something spontaneously while the un-Enlightened are stuck with some other course of action doesn't make sense. The only difference is the identification. Here's the statement --below-- (which seems to imply that given equal actions, the E'd accumulate no bad karma whist others do). IMO: both groups incur the bad karma and ascertaining what is spontaneous and what's not is an impossibility. This would imply that the unenlightened are capable of BOTH spontaneous AND non- spontaneous actions, while the E'd are capable of only the former. Doesn't make sense and the lack of logic can (and has) easily led to a slipperty slope to the false argument that the E'd are incapable of making "mistakes".
"To swindle someone and not be enlightened is to incur karma and one will have to pay the price of breaking the rule of "not being a thief," but an enlightened person can -- MUST -- do whatever spontaneously springs forth, and sometimes that's swindling someone In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Moses was told to kill whole tribes -- genocide pure and simple. I > can hardly write the words -- it's terrible. > > Okay, what do you do with that when you want to consider the > personality of God? > > First I note that God didn't say to Moses, "I want that you really > enjoy killing." I'm no biblical scholar but I'm going to be surprised > if anyone can find a biblical passage that has God telling Moses to > taint his soul with an identification into being a murderer. > > And like Jim, even Lot argued with God that Sodom and Gomorrah should > be spared. The carnage is a harsh bit to surrender too. That was > Noah's meat robot not having clarity....yet. > > I do consider Moses' actions as one of the worst case scenarios, and > God's letting Satan take all of Job's wives, etc. was another. But, > it happened -- there had to be examples of hard actions being seen as > holy in that a deeper lesson was being revealed. And that a robotic > POV was to be transcended. > > Kali Yuga -- I'm guessing you folks don't understand the concept that > no one exists and thus cannot be killed, or if they do exist then they > are fated to be killed in some manner down the line. This is God's > way in every tradition -- not in Edg's interpretations of traditions. > > God has no attachment to the dream characters in exactly the same > fashion that none of us are attached to any of our own dream > characters. We wake up from dreams having been every kind of > personality and do not think twice about what "we did" therein. > > Maharishi says, "Don't look for the Absolute in the Relative." > > Well, that means none of the ten commandments are Absolutes. > Exceptions to every rule donchaknow. > > Every rule -- well, maybe except "identification." > > That's why Vaj might be found meditating on a corpse -- to get over > the illusion of death -- not because it's the best place to meditate, > but to get over the attachment to being human and fearing death. > > To swindle someone and not be enlightened is to incur karma and one > will have to pay the price of breaking the rule of "not being a > thief," but an enlightened person can -- MUST -- do whatever > spontaneously springs forth, and sometimes that's swindling someone. > > Jim doesn't want to kill or swindle -- that's a good sign that he's > not going to spontaneously manifest those dynamics, but, don't kid > yourself, like all of us, he'd kill anyone holding a knife to his > child's throat if that was his "Jack Baur moment" of doing the hard > thing to be in tune with righteousness. > > All scriptures say these things. This is not about me. > > I think it's touching that Jim is taking the position below, but he > would be the first to say that no concept ever invented will come > between him and God. > > God says, "Jump off the cliff." You gotta jump, right? > > Oh, I know the slaughter that has been justified by these concepts, > but those are by unenlightened personalities who are taking advantage > self-servingly and ruining a religion in doing so. It seems every > Pope in history did just such an egoic thingy. It was wrong. > > Anyone here who fills their gas tank today will be colluding with > BushCo in the swindling of oil reserves from invaded nations. You all > will justify this somehow, but you cannot see yourselves ever > justifying killing or swindling? Yeah, right. > > All my sins, thus far, have been by a meat robot, but if I do get > enlightened, I don't expect life to change instantly, and in the > meanwhile, I expect that my dark proclivities will be useful to God in > some manner. If God needs someone ass raged upon, well, all He's > gotta do is take me off the leash. > > All of you, upon awakening from a dream would be incredibly astounded > if one of your dream creations did something you didn't intend. Just > so does an enlightened person "belong to God." This is freedom from > sin, and it puts it all "on God." > > If someone identifies with killing etc., then one is sinning and is > not following God's intent. There's no wiggle room here. If you're > identifying, you're sinning....even if you're praying. Only at maybe > the highest levels of bhakti does one have the possibility of > identifying without sinning, but that is still not a state of > enlightenment.....merely perfection -- not freedom. > > Doership is the primal sin....it is an act of thievery from God. > > Doership is a crime by Jim's definition and usage below, and of > course, in the present venue, where almost everyone is not > enlightened, of course, his knee jerk would be to naysay such harsh > actions that I have used for my hyperbolic creative writing, but maybe > we can get Jim to delineate what a "crime against his nature" would > really be, and see if he doesn't struggle with the words, because > there's no commandment that's an absolute. > > And of course, given my limitations, I would never, not in my deepest > most true believing days, have jumped off a cliff for Maharishi -- he > just was never "God" to me. But that said, I did lie for him, and > knew I was a liar. The lies might have not been sins, they might by > chance have been serving the needs of evolution, but me thinking that > they were sins was my true crime....identification with doership is > always a step in the wrong direction. > > And given my posting history here, with my wildass wordplay, for any > of you, at this late date, to take me "at my words" without > considering that I had a complex support matrix for them is a tell > that you naysayers can't even abide that I might, you know, be a real > human being at Rick Party, and instead, try to portray me as one with > really corrupt morals for even the handling in my mind of such > concepts. You've come at me like I am ready to form a Crusade and > wipe out the infidels. As if. > > But, I understand. It's hard to be a meat robot, and find one's self > drooling in a bar and be so ashamed of the lowness of it, that one > must attack anyone who would rub your noses in it. > > Get with the program: God gets to do anything, robots get to do > nothing. If you're drooling in a bar, it's wrong. If God is drooling > in a bar, it's absolutely the correct thing to do. > > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > "Every scripture has "saints who kill, lie, rape, swindle, etc." in > > > the cause of upholding the integrity of spirituality itself. Those > > who > > > will not even consider that God exists are the proper targets for > > such > > > "low behavoir" on the parts of the enlightened." > > > > > > Atheists are all too aware of this fanatical position throughout > > > history. Seeing it supported in this day and age by you Edg creeps > > me > > > out to the max. But it doesn't surprise me one bit. > > > > > I agree-- that does sound fanatical, and I cannot think of it being > > ever OK to commit a crime in the name of enlightenment. > > >
