--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judy: > > > But what I was trying to get at was your previous > > > statement about it being necessary to posit an "I" > > > that sees the flower, even in enlightenment. If you > > > try to go at it that way in describing enlightenment, > > > you run into the problem Peter described of using > > > a lower-order tool to portray a higher-order state. > > > Irmeli: > > Very clearly I don't share your enlightenment.
Judy: > I beg your pardon? When did I ever suggest I was > enlightened? > Irmeli: I mean your idea about enlightenment. Apparently you have not read what I have written earlier on this topic. I have said that the "I" doesn't go away in enlightenment. It's nature changes. The "I" is not a solid entity. It changes as man evolves Irmeli: > I cannot miss it either. > > I am happy, experience bliss 24 hours a day, feel I'm learning and > > evolving and my health has become much better and I feel I'm also > > capable of helping others to evolve. There is nothing more I could > dream > > from life. > > There is only one intellectual problem here: There are many people > who > > are claimed to be enlightened. They also clearly can have many > kinds of > > character problems: be narsissists,need constant adulation by > followers > > etc.What is so special about that kind of enlightenmet. Can these > > narsissistic or even other enlightened people help really fellow > humans > > prosper better in the world? I have no clear observation of that. > > I have seen that responsible, nonmanipulative compassionate > ordinary > > people can do a lot to help their fellow humans to get over their > > problems. Judy: > I have no idea what you're blathering about here. > I thought we were talking about the difficulty > of describing enlightenment. > Irmeli: What I'm blathering here is that what Peter calls enlightenment, I don't. My problem with him is basically that he sees a certain rather limited stage of "I" development as an ultimate state of enlightenment. I'm trying to take here a detour to make clear the absurdity of his story. What value I give the sort of enlightenment Peter is describing can be illustrated by the following ranking list. If I could choose my company the priorities would be the following: 1.Responsible, nonmanipulative, empathetic people, who are capable of being in a dialogue. Enlightened or not, no difference here. 2.Animals 3.People with character disorder 4."Enlightened" people with character disorder ( a common receipt for gurus) Nature uses "enlightened" people with character disorder for certain purposes, but that doesn't make them more valuable tools than other disasters in nature. They are no proper models for spiritual growth, even if they may be able to transmit certain states. Irmeli ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
