--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > comments below: > > --- 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. > > > **** > Actually, thinking seems to be the problem here. I've been hoping > that you could step back a moment from your ordinary self and maybe > chuckle a bit about how "in your head" you can be.
I guess you missed my earlier comment about how for me, I have to fight my intellect to the death, using the intellect as a weapon (thorn to remove a thorn). There's no need for you to call my attention to it, thank you very much. In any case, you appear to have completely missed the point of what I was saying, so it's just as well you're bowing out. In any case, it's > been fun "sparring" with you, though I had no such intention. Please > feel free to have the last word on this. It's been fun. :D > ------------------------ 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/
