--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > 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? > > No ego in the Absolute; the ego is "in" the self.
I am sure you get the point. If there IS absolutely, emphatically NO EGO or individuality in Enlightenment, as Peter claims as the universal definitional of enlightenment -- valid and true for ALL -- as well as this being his OWN 'experience', then how can such a NONEXISTING ego feel diminishment? It is a paradox Peter refuses to explain even though he has been asked to do so a number of times. One hypothesis, the only one presented so far -- and thus the "standard" -- the bogey to "disprove" - is that Peter indeed has a space of relative, in-the-world, ego and individuality that feels diminished at times by "percieved" insults, but that Peter is blind to this ego area within himself. Like problems of the eye trying to see itself. And the identification of this "ego area" is particularly difficult for Peter -- so the hypothesis claims -- because it would mean that by HIS own clearly stated definition of enlightenement -- the SOLE criteria of which is NO-EGO -- that Peter is not enlightened. And, per the hypothesis, this would be a huge blow to the existing, yet hidden from (Peter's) view, ego. Thus the hidden ego fights voraciously to protect its claim to enlightenment, its core "attainment", by denying its own existance. Yet it gets flustered and angry when confronted with clear evidence of its own existence: the experience of feeling insulted - that is the ego feels diminished. (Which could not occur if the ego did not exist, as Peter claims). I say "percieved" insults, because of the continuing flow of personal cognitive errors that Peter contines to lay out for us. (For example, a number of times he will say, "This post said xyz." When indeed an examination ofthe post says no such thing.) Its a rope and snake thing. For some reason Peter often sees a snarling snake (insults) when indeed all that is there is a rope on the floor. One would expect that as vasana knots loosen, or dissolve, such cognitve errors should decline. Thus another interesting contradiction in Peter's case. > > Some supposedly enlightened people *do* use > circumlocutions like "This body is cold" rather > than "I am cold," but such expressions have > always struck me as a bit pretentious. Amma goes as far as speaking in the 3rd person, "Mother did this and Mother said that...". ------------------------ 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/
