--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> 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. > > > > Every aspect of Peter's response oozed attachment. > > > Perhaps involvement, perhaps passion, perhaps frustration, but > attachment? How can you possibly tell? Attachment or non attachment is > not something that can be determined by any sort of logical formula. > > This is a HUGE misconception regarding enlightened consciousness vs > unenlightened consciousness, that somehow based on someone's speech or > actions, a determination of attachment can be made. That some logical > conclusion can be reached. This is silly and wrong to think this way.
True, it is impossible to tell whether someone is enlightened based on heir behavior, including choice-of-words, but I see no reason to assume that Peter's use of the f-word and personal attacks in his response to me was anything more than an ego-based response to my characterization of his giving medical advice over the internet (not to mention his OWN characterizations of family doctors and counselors whom he has never met) as "unethical and stupid." I have family members who practice TM, are under psychiatric care and use anti-psychotic medication. Peter was quite blatantly trying to usurp the authority of specific medical providers and I called him on it. Rather than say: "ur right, I was speaking generically, and shouldn't have said that," he just fumed until given the opportunity to lash out at me. I see no other way of interpretting his initial comments and his subsequent remarks save as ego-based. You, of course, can make all sorts of noises about enlightened behavior and so on, and on a theoretical level, you are correct. However, I see no reason to assume that Peter is honest with himself about his own state of consciousness, based on his recent unethical medical behavior. in this forum. There's no coneivable reason to put yourself on a limb professionally the way he did save ego, and no conceivable reason to lash out against me the way he did save ego. Think what you will. I've given you MY thoughts on the matter.Of course, by your own claim, you don't have thoughts, in general, since you are blazing Brahama...
