--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > 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, just calling attention to the discrepancy > > between what folks expect and the reality. > > > > The discrepancy is at least partly due to the > > language used to describe enlightenment, such > > as in the quote from my post that you were > > commenting on, which was actually a pastiche of > > quotes from the observations you and Tom and Peter > > had made here in a recent thread about the state > > of your own consciousness. > > > > That someone could live such experiences 24 hours > > a day and still issue the kind of obscene insults > > Peter did to Lawson is what I was referring to as > > "the paradox of Brahman." > > OK- quite a contrast, huh? > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Sure, it's one kind of 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. > > > > Does this constitute mentioning it without > > any judgment? > > > > "Hey Sparaig, I was on Purusha when it first started in > > DC for a year. Where were you, biatch? And I do my > > program twice a day, so go f*ck yourself holier than > > thou prick." > > > > I have a lot of trouble seeing "go f*ck yourself holier > > than thou prick" as not involving judgment. So I have > > to figure being judgmental is part of the paradox. > > I just meant I didn't see Peter's remarks as meant to > put down or wound Lawson, purely for the sake of it- > sadistically. Rather, there was a lesson to be learned, > i.e. walk the walk vs just talk the talk. You may see it > differently.
Yeah, I see it as "Peter" being so pissed off at Lawson that he lost his cool and cursed at him, thereby giving us all a lesson in how the enlightened can behave. I'm sure that Peter was experiencing the infinite silence and bliss of the Self as he wrote it, witnessing "Peter" losing his cool and cursing at Lawson without being touched by it at all.
