--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I beg your pardon? When did I ever suggest I was > > > > > > enlightened? > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > Then why so adamant about your "position" on the topic? > > > > > > > > The topic of how difficult it is to discuss > > > > enlightenment in relative terms, you mean? > > > > > > > > One doesn't have to be enlightened to have a > > > > sense of where the intellect leaves off and > > > > what it can't do. > > > > > > *** > > > No. The topic of what enlightenment is. It's attributes. For > > example > > > (only), whether or not the enlightened brahmin sees differences > > > between a brahmin, a cow, etc. > > > > Jeez. That was me *quoting Maharishi*. > > > > I don't have to be enlightened to quote MMY, > > do I? > > *** > Not at all. Not really meaning to get on your case. You did a good > job of quoting MMY. > > And not to pick on you in particular. I just get a sense sometimes > when reading threads such as this one that some people are living > too much in their conceptual worlds about what enlightenment is > supposed to be about based on formulaic expressions coming from a > variety of sources, be they MMY or Buddhist teachings or what not.
If that's your point, it's a bit odd that you were including me at all, since I was arguing that the intellect cannot grasp what enlightenment is. I've said here and on alt.m.t a number of times that when you take any of MMY's teachings, or any authentic intellectual teaching about consciousness, and take it right down to the nitty-gritty, you end up in contradiction or infinite regress, which is what Self-reference looks like to the "mistaken" intellect. I quoted MMY as an example of that. And yes, what I just expressed is a concept, but it's a concept about the nature of the limits of the intellect, not about enlightenment per se. ------------------------ 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/
