--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
<jflanegi@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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...
>
Before we go any further about what I am about to do, or not, I just
want to say that this response of yours makes perfect sense, in that
it is a rational explanation for how you are seeing Peter's
behavior. I was responding to your comment earlier that Peter's
response was all about attachment. That's all.
