--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > **** > > How do you know this Judy? > > > > Some people who claim to be enlightened, or appear to have a lot of > > wisdom say that this is true. When they say it, it never appears to > > be an "argument" for them, simply an innocent statement about how > > they experience, or an expression of frustration about > > communicating their experience. > > > > Is it a valid thing to *argue* "that the intellect cannot grasp > > what enlightenment is" from the point of view of one who is not > > enlightened? Does this not imply a strong adherence to a belief > > rather than a statement of fact? > > No, it's a logical deduction, as I went on > to explain: > > > > 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. > > > > **** > > These words have a coherent meaning. But they seem to side step the > > questions that I posed above. > > I suggest you think again. Hint: I'm using > "Self-reference" as a sort of synonym for the > nature of enlightenment because MMY has indicated > that's its nature. You could just substitute > "enlightenment" for "Self-reference" if you like, > although it isn't really necessary. > If I may leap into the fray... There appear to be two distinctions here. One, can the intellect locate the Self, or enlightenment? and Two, can it subsequently be described?
My take on this, if I may, is that the intellect easily locates the Self. However, it is impossible to describe unless we are speaking with someone who is enlightened and then it is more of a non-verbal acknowledgement between the interested parties. That is precisely why so much is written about the experience of enlightenment- it is Infinite, it is the realization of the Infinite within and out. Can't say enough about it, and yet, just like chocolate, it really must be experienced to be understood. ------------------------ 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/
