--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > You indicate that you are not enlightened, yet talk in great 
> > > detail and apparent authority as to what it enlightenment is 
> > > and what the path is and what the path is not. However, if 
> > > enlightenment has not happened, and all pre-enlightenment is as 
> > > Judy quotes MMY "a mistake of the intellect",  or as others 
> > > appear to echo "its NOTHING like you thought it would be", then 
> > > it seems anything said in the unenlightened state about 
> > > enlightenment is wrong. I would guess the 
> > > words are even more deeply wrong, the more emphatic and 
> > > authoritative the unenlightened speaker speaker is.
> > 
> > But anything said *in the enlightened state*
> > about enlightenment is wrong as well.  The
> > closest you can come is paradox or infinite
> > regress, because language itself exists only
> > in the context of the "mistake of the
> > intellect."
> 
> Well, it can easily be said that all words, all expressions are not
> fully true, in any state of consciousness. Words, what is "said", is
> an imprecise and generalized mapping of a symbol to a concept and/or
> experience/state/understanding. Words, what is "said", never hits
> its mark precisely.

True.  But it's true *in spades* of enlightenment
(of the nature of consciousness generally).

> The real issue is that the "grasp", the "groking" of the "the
> enlightened state* by the "enlightened" is valid. The "grasp", the
> "groking" of the "the enlightened state* by the "unenlightened" is 
> and will always be invalid and incorrect.

To an extent, sure.

> Words of each may appear or even be the same. And will never hit
> the mark.
> 
> > But anything said *in the enlightened state*
> > about enlightenment is wrong as well.  The
> > closest you can come is paradox or infinite
> > regress, because language itself exists only
> > in the context of the "mistake of the
> > intellect."
> 
> And if you you are not enlightened, then this is mere speculation, 
> and probably wrong, if the points in the above post to Unc are 
> valid.

Actually it's a logical extension of MMY's
teaching.  My speculation is that he's got
it right.

> As are my words of course. :)

Yupper.





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/
 



Reply via email to