--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
> > 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. Again, I agree in the abstract, but not with the specifics of this discussion: 1) "There absolutely is not ego and anyone who finds such is not enlightened" 2) "There is an ego in enlightenement (and some have said "you are insane if you think there is not.)" These are not subtle semantic disagreements, not a stumbling to capture suble nuance. And the tone of each is emphatic. Not "I sort of see it like this...." In the case of statement #1, its a oft repeated, absolutist, emphatatic declaration. Not too much room for ambiguity in its interpretation. > 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. See above. Peter has a "take no prisioners" appraoch in his absolutist declarations. He leaves NO doubt that in his view if there is ANY trace of ego, there is NO enlightenemnt. > > > 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. It may be a type of pretty extreme semantic laziness or slopiness -- build on a house of cards foundation of a very hazy and blind-spot prone interpreation of ones "experience." > > 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. See above. Its the emphaticness and absolutist thrust of the statements over time that drive my conclusions above. But as I said, I am open to a hypothesis that it is a phenomenon of "very sloppy and blind-spot prone interpretation and articulation of 'experiences'" Thats one reason I am pressing the point. To help people face the inconsistencies of their claims and help them reconcile them -- either with clearer semantics or reappraisal of what they think they experience. > 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. But that is NOT how Peter repeated describes his "state". He borrows from, or is parallel in expression with, neo-advaitists in declaring forcefully that there is NO trace of ego left. For him, per his experessions, its Not a matter of degree of identifiction with self vs Self. "No trace of self, indviduality or ego remains!!" is his "report". > That doesn't mean the person who is enlightened > can't speak about what the self is feeling, e.g., insulted. Not in this case. One could say "the body is cold". Because there is a body, but one does not identify with it. But an insult referes to the sense of diminishment of ego. if there is no ego, "ABSOLUTELY no ego", then how can the sense of ego be diminished? > But when the person says there is no ego in enlightenment, > perhaps they are speaking of the Self, what they now > identify with. That may be the case with some people who say that. Per his often repeated claims, itis NOT what Peter is referring to. > 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. Peter has made it emphatically clear: "there is absolutely no trace of ego or individuality." Its not a matter of degree of emphasis or a partial shifting of identification. > 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. Again, Peter has made it emphatically clear: "there is absolutely no trace of ego or individuality." > It might be if you sat 'em both down and asked > them questions that elicited the distinctions, you'd > find they were in agreement. I have attempted to. Several times. On the list. The results have been comic. And kind of sad. ------------------------ 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/
