--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > But the "energy signiture" appears quite different between the > > two. An > > > obvious thing Jim appears to have missed. Normally, no harm, no > > foul. > > > > > > But for Jim, who has made (it appears to me) quite definitive and > > > fully-confident observations based on his ability to clearly > > > distinguish "energy-signitures" of different people, or to "look at > > > them a certainway" virtually --not in person -- and "gain specific > > > knowledge" of them, as well as the ~"only WE can recognize each > > other" > > > phenomenon, it perhaps is significant that his foo foo raydar is > > > malfunctioning in the case of Barry and Gezzerfreak. Makes you > > wonder, > > > could it also be malfunctioning in other confident observations of > > his? > > > > > > Not to pick-on or focus on Jim, but (mis)interpreting ones > > abilities, > > > experiences and states is a key issue /hurrdle, IMO. This is one > > of a > > > number of examples posted, periodically, where the interpretation > > does > > > not fit the circumstances, though to the observer they really > > [really] > > > seem to. > > > > > > Thus, perhaps,the value of a Guru who has lived the Supreme state > > for > > > 30-40 years, has seen many false claims and false starts, to > > > verify and label experiences, and not to solely rely on co- > > dependent > > > praises from "a circle of friends." [Termed a "circle jerk" by one > > wag".] > > > > > > As to states of consciousness that Barry brought up, on the > > surface, > > > there appears little connection to the ability to distinguish two > > > posters -- and the state of ones consciousness. > > > > > > Unless, if one claims they have special knowledge, insights and > > > abilities that stem from their "Enlightenment" -- however defined - > > - > > > and these special abilities are shown to be only imaginations, > > then it > > > does cast some shadows on claims of total Enlightenment. And/or the > > > persons correct interpretation of what they experience. > > > > > > > Now, if you recall the question I asked of you awhile back, please > > name just one person on the entire planet today who is enlightened. > > Just one. > > Jim, I usually don't answer silly questions.particularly those that > have nothing to do with the points being.* Particularlythose thatI > have addressed in various other posts. > > Look at my recent "Innocence" post. It has some points you may wish to > ponder. I cite people who are saints. "Enlightened" if you are so > attached to that word that you need it. As you know, I don't put much > stock in labels. Yet, I value hugely the living embodiment of THAT in > these total mukti's, their darshan -- in-person and "away", their > insights, works, talks, and "courtesies" bestowed. > Thank you! I am heartened by your answers. And I did read your 'innocence' post.
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/
