--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> Hey, it's just the Paradox of Brahman. > > > > Not at all- its the failure of you and sparaig to just deal with > Peter > > as Peter, and instead thinking that he should act differently than > he > > is because he was talking about enlightened states earler. > > But that *is* dealing with Peter as Peter!
OK- I think I understand- but if you are expecting Peter to act or speak differently because he was speaking about enlightened states, then there is possibly an expectation you have about enlightened states, and a person's consequent actions from within them. Fair enough, and to be expected (a universal expectation), but the expectations will prove to be false. > > > No memo > > > needed. I mean, if *anybody* can accuse somebody > > > else of being "holier than thou," it's the > > > enlightened person, right? > > > > I don't understand what you mean by this. > > The enlightened person is holiness personified. > S/he really *is* holier-than-thou, so s/he gets > to chide those who only pretend to be. > The way I always understood to say someone was acting 'holier than thou' is that they/I were/was on an ego trip. In terms of the relationship of that to an enlightened person is yes, the enlightened person will see that clearly, though without any judgement, and may decide, or not, to mention it. Chiding for chiding's sake though would have no value.
