--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, within MMY's framework, any behavior that is detrimental to > > > further spiritual growth is inconsistent with enlightenment... Wait, I had to read this a few times. Is this like saying that any behaviour that is detrimental to enlightenment is inconsistent with enlightenment? Did I miss something? But wait: Why is not any behaviour that is not helpful to *gain* enlightenment, detrimental to it once you 'gained' it. Quid libet Jovi non licet bovi. > So was/is Krishna enlightened? MMY's stance is perfectly supportable by quoting the Gita. Doesn't the Gita also say that there are no marks by which you could recognize an enlightened? And then *after* that first statement go on to give a whole list of psychological and moralic features? My impression is that the Gita gives first the highest Truth, that there is no way enlightenment can be limited/defined etc. And then gives lower truth about the type of behaviour that is more conducive for the aspirant to gain this state. There are other scriptures like the Avadhut Gita by Dattatreya who are more outspoken about the first point, who says that the enlightened is literally free to do anything, he is beyond any law, he can behave like an idiot or a madman etc. The Gita it seems has softened that more radical stance somewhat. 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/
