--- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> Interesting answers, but not to the question I was asking, > > or meaning to ask. I didn't make it clear enough in my > > first try, and that is my fault. I wasn't asking whether > > it was possible that you could be mistaken about being > > *permanently* enlightened, I was asking whether it was > > possible that you could be mistaken about being enlight- > > ened, period. > > > > Are you willing to stand on "Nope?" > > So if I defined enlightenment and you agreed with most of the > definition...
No, I *agreed* with very little of the definition. I agreed that it was *your* definition. > ...and I said I based the definition on my experience and you > ask me if I could be mistaken about my experience (of > enlightenment), then doesn't life turn into one big infinte > regress, and as a result nothing means anything? Duh. *Of course* you could be mistaken about your experience. You dodged the question about the test. Did you see the moonwalking bear the first time you took it? If you didn't, then you were mistaken about your experience. (If you didn't and claim that you did, you were not only mistaken about your experience, but willing to lie about being mistaken.) What I see you doing is 1) defining enlightenment as "What I experience," and 2) asserting that you cannot possibly be mistaken about the nature of that experience. So here are the next questions (I'm running out of posts for the week, so I have to get them in as I can): 3. Can an enlightened being, as you have defined one using yourself as the definition, be mistaken about ANYTHING? 4. If someone who is enlightened as you have defined enlightened speaks or writes, can what that person says be assumed to be correct? In other words, are the enlightened always right when they say something?
