--- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Well, Anon, the only solution is to "get" enlightened > > > and join the fun. But in all seriousness, the > > > difference in expressions and attitudes regarding > > > enlightenment are just the impact of That on different > > > "mind-streams (if I may borrow a Gangaji term). It's > > > why there is no one spiritual tradition. There is > > > never going to be total intellectual agreement > > > regarding That, although That is the "same" for all. > > > > The reason there isn't intellectual agreement, it > > would seem to me, is that such agreement depends > > on language. It's sort of like a gathering of > > poets discussing how to describe a particular > > tree. Each poet will use words differently in > > his/her description, because the "job" of a poet > > is to convey his/her subjective impressions, not > > to provide an objective picture as a scientist > > would. So the poets will never come to > > intellectual agreement as to how to describe > > the tree. > > > > An enlightened person must of necessity be a "poet" > > in describing his/her subjective state because there > > *is* no way to describe that state objectively. It > > would be as unlikely for two enlightened people to > > agree on a description of the enlightened state, even > > if that state is the "same" for all, as it would be > > for two poets to agree on a description of the tree. > > Judy, I agree with you in the abstract. In the past, I have even used > the same analogy of poets (or was it artists) describing the same thing. > > But in the specifics of this particular discussion, the poetic analogy > does not hold up. We are not talking about various nuances or > impressions. We are talking about emphatic, absolute statements that > are in clear contradiction.
The *statements*--the words--appear to be in clear contradiction, but that may simply be a function of trying to nail down in words a state that transcends words. That two people use different words to describe the state does not necessarily mean that the state they're describing is inherently different in each of them. It may *be* different, but you can't be sure of that on the basis of the fact that they use different (even apparently contradictory) words to describe it. > And while some may try to pawn that off as "the paradox of > Brahman", I suggest such ploys are a head in the sands of absurdity. You might suggest it, but it's possible that it's not the case. Or it may be a matter of laziness, or inability to put things in words more clearly, rather than head-in-the-sand. > The specific point at hand are Peter's often repeated claims (#1) > that: > > 1) Peter: There is absolutley no ego or sense of individuality in > enlightenment and anyone who cliams there is is not enlightened. > > 2) Other self-proclaimed enlightened ones: There is an ego in > enlightenemt and anyone who says that there is not is insane. > > 3) Peter (recently): All of this is all consistent, this is just the > impact of THAT on different minds. > > 4) Peter: And the fact that there is some personal and individual > part of me that still feels insulted and gets angry at percieved > slights is totally consistent with point #1. > -------- > > This is not a problem of semantics, nuance and poetic differences. > The four statments together are a farce. Its either absurd or > insane. Its not mystical insight, spiritual paradox, or poetic > license. Its double speak pusshing its own limits. I'm not sure how you can state this with such certainty. Seems to me it could well be a matter of semantics. It could also be a matter of *sloppy* semantics. The way MMY explains it, for example, is that enlightenment is a matter of what one identifies with: the self (the ego) or the Self. The self doesn't go away in the state of enlightenment, it's just no longer what one identifies with. That doesn't mean the person who is enlightened can't speak about what the self is feeling, e.g., insulted. But when the person says there is no ego in enlightenment, perhaps they are speaking of the Self, what they now identify with. The trick is to make it clear which--self or Self--is the referent in a particular statement. If it's not made clear, confusion and apparent contradiction may result. Same with the person who says there *is* ego in enlightenment; they may be referring to the self rather than the Self but simply not making that distinction clear. It might be if you sat 'em both down and asked them questions that elicited the distinctions, you'd find they were in agreement. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
