--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote: > > > > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's > > judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted > > him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, > > because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him > > to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for > > him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? > > This is what I understand you to be explaining here. > > Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic > one. But that's the basic idea. > > The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know > what nature "wants" and why. The consequences and the > "reasons" may be impossibly complex, or might not even > resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let > alone fitting the human notion of "perfection." > > Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume > authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility > for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the > phrase "spontaneous right action," the emphasis is on > "spontaneous," not "right." The premise about > enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts > spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, > without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. > > But this is experiential; the person who isn't enlightened > can't "mood-make" that he or she is not the author of > his/her actions.
T'would seem that many of those who have claimed enlightenment have not been so constricted, and as a result have been able to moodmake that they were not the author of their actions very successfully, so convincingly that many weak- minded people actually believe it. :-)
