--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "mathatbrahman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Interesting theory, but the facts yell out re: MMY ...he > has "I, > > I, I...written all over him. Still, he's Enlightened. (at least > many > > believe. I believe he is). > > Take Adi Da (aka Franklin Jones). Haven't met him personally but > > have read all of his books, talked with his disciples, seen videos > of > > him. No doubt, he's Enlightened. But WHAT an EGO.!!! Nope, > saying > > that Enlightned people are "different" and they have their own > rules > > definitely contradicts some very bizarre behavior on their part, > in > > some cases including immoral and even criminal behavior. > Standards > > have to apply to everyone. Saying there's nobody "there" doesn't > > hold water, since the body is there and "it" is doing the > behavior. > > The question of Enlightenment only applies to identification, not > the > > role of the body acting in the world. As long as there's a body, > > desires must be present. Relinquishing the notion of a > mental "doer": > > (i.e. realizing the true nature of the Self and seeing the nature > of > > Mind); doesn't change the fact that relative bodies are performing > > actions, exhibit desires, have programs, agendas; even selfish > > desires which do harm to people. I suppose you would say that it's > > impossible for an Enlightened person to harm another person? (or, > > are you one of those who maintain Enlightened people are incapable > of > > making mistakes? It would be a mistake to believe that notion. > > Don't fall for it. > > > yes, interesting theory. You are trying to ascribe motive > to 'enlightened action', as a class by itself. First you have > decided that certain people are enlightened, and then you judge > their behavior. How can you possibly know who is enlightened and who > isn't? > > You said, "The question of Enlightenment only applies to > identification, not the role of the body acting in the world. As > long as there's a body, desires must be present." > > So on the one hand there are desires, and on the other, there is no > identification with the desires. Where's the contradiction? That is > precisely why there is 'nobody' there. > > Everything continues as before, just no 'I'. The notion of 'I' is > completely absurd and rediculous.
Of course there is "I". "I" isn't the doer, however. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
