--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *To the extent that MMY made assertions about the > > > > > behavior of enlightened people--speaking the "sweet > > > > > truth" and such--he contradicted himself. I assume > > > > > he did so in an effort to encourage his students to > > > > > behave in the manner he described. This might make > > > > > for an interesting discussion if we could get off > > > > > the stupid dime here of charges and countercharges. > > > > > > > > Speaking the sweet truth is a behavioral rasayana. > > > > > > OK, great clarification and explanation. But MMY *did* > > > describe the alleged behavior of enlightened people. > > > > I don't know that he described the behavior of enlightened > > people per se, but only pointed out that some behavior > > might be more enlighten-ING (life supportive) than other > > behavior, in general. > > Well, you and raunchy are making me doubt, now. I could > have sworn I remembered hearing descriptions of > enlightened behavior, but I can't recall the context. I > wasn't thinking of behavioral rasayanas; I know "sweet > truth" is one, but I had thought it was descriptive as > well as prescriptive. Maybe not. > > > One cannot JUDGE another persons' enlightenment merely on > > the level of their behavior if one is unenlightened, I > > believe is a broader expression of his observations on the > > topic. > > Yes, as I was pointing out in my original post. What's > quoted above was just a footnote to that. >
He might have. I reserve MMY's right to be self-contradicting in word and action because, even if he WAS enlightened, that doesn't mean he was perfect in any Western scientific sense of the word. L.
