--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
<anartaxius@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > We all understand what it means to say everyone is
> > enlightened, Xeno. As true as it may be on one level,
> > some of us think it's unhelpful and counterproductive,
> > even obfuscatory, when used in an exchange like that
> > quoted above. [post #343925]
> As you present this Judy, yes. But it is not ultimately
> unhelpful.

My comment was on your use of it in the quoted exchange,
and your remark suggesting that more Buddhists understand
it (than the folks on FFL, presumably).

There are things to be said along these general lines
that could be helpful, ultimately or immediately. But the
flat statement "Everyone is enlightened" has no 
informational content in and of itself. It's only
informational as a counter to the statement "Not everyone
is enlightened," but it doesn't *negate* that statement:

> I wasn't trying to bamboozle Nabby. Nabby and everyone else
> has the full value of being inside, outside, through and
> through. We could not discover it if it were not. The only
> difference is if you think it is something other than what
> you are experiencing as ordinary everyday experience,
> something you have to look for, you do not see it.
> All the practices we do are just to get the mind to stop dead
> and give up looking. It is so odd it can take such a long time
> to come to a truly persistent standstill.

And it's this difference that validates the statement "Not
everyone is enlightened."

While I'm at it, though, I'd like to suggest that you make
it clearer that you're talking about *your* experience. You
make a lot of general statements as if your experience is
the "final answer," the standard, and I'm not at all sure
that's something you could possibly know.

Reply via email to