I would be interested to know too, if others think this is simply total incoherence. The keyword is infinite correlation. I was not thinking about death threats, that is Krishna's domain.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: >> >> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >>> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>> <anartaxius@> wrote: >>>> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >>>>> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>>>> <anartaxius@> wrote: >> >>>> <snip> >>>>>> Emily, (and Ann) seem to have the capacity to actually >>>>>> converse with Barry and Curtis on some points, and it >>>>>> would be a shame if they lost that capability by becoming >>>>>> more reactionary or antagonistic, regardless of how >>>>>> antagonistic Curtis or Barry might seem. That requires >>>>>> they transcend their psychological 'buttons'. You cannot >>>>>> soften these guys up emotionally, you need to find >>>>>> another approach. >>>>> >>>>> There is no way to "soften up" Barry or Curtis except >>>>> by acquiescing in their dishonesty and thus losing one's >>>>> own integrity. >>>> >>>> The key here is what integrity is construed to be. I am >>>> going to assume, without proof that we would disagree on >>>> this. Let me make a guess, which if wrong, I will admit: >>>> >>>> I would pick the second of these two definitions for myself, >>>> but I sense you would pick the first for yourself, or pick >>>> both; in my estimation, your actions seem to speak for the >>>> first definition as being dominant. >>>> >>>> 1. Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral >>>> character; honesty. >>>> >>>> 2. The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: >>> >>> Not only would I pick both, I don't see how you can have >>> either one without the other. > > Just out of curiosity, does anybody get the point Xeno is > trying to make in light of the above exchange with his > remarks below? I sure don't. The two seem entirely > unrelated. > > >> There is a saying in Zen: 'Walk off with the farmer's ox; steal the blind >> man's food.' It is an expression of unboundedness. It does not mean one will >> do that, but it indicates that reality has more properties than is >> constrained by moral thinking. The objective nature of the world as we call >> it, is filled with morally abhorrent things. So either reality is >> essentially non moral, or those horrible things, such as a monk burning >> himself into a pile of ash, are in reality not horrible. Wonderful perhaps? >> If Maharishi cognized reality, does this have any relation to things some >> have accused him of, such as siphoning money off to relatives, relations >> with women etc.? Things that, if the talk was true, he would not be capable >> of doing. There is something unholy about the full expanse of being. >> >> Krishna speaking to Arjuna: >> Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to >> destroy all people. With the exception of you, all the soldiers here on both >> sides will be slain. Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. >> Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put >> to death by my arrangement, and you, O SavyasÄcÄ«, can be but an instrument >> in the fight. Drona, BhÄ«sma, Jayadratha, Karna and the other great warriors >> have already been destroyed by me. Therefore, kill them and do not be >> disturbed. Simply fight, and you will vanquish your enemies in battle. >> >> One sees this in many things, a cute squirrel being ripped apart alive by a >> hawk, a burning monk, a child drowned by their parent, Bernie Madoff >> fleecing his clients, the list goes on and on. The world does not track a >> moral intelligence. >> >
