--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > And if you're skeptical, it sure does sound like > > > a rather bizarre excuse--particularly when you're > > > then told the egotistical behavior is a lesson > > > for *you*. > > > > > I know, to the mind it all sounds very fucked up, no > > question. Time to call on one of Maharishi's time > > honored expressions: "Take it easy, take it as it > > comes". > > I'm not *arguing*, Jim,
I see that now. except to take issue with > your calling it "silly" to assume behavior is > related to state of consciousness. fair enough- I just reached a point where I couldn't clarify or add anything. > > I'm not even skeptical. I've made similar points > myself. I'm just trying to highlight the paradox > as starkly as I can. Great! And at the same time, suggest > that enlightened folks don't get special treatment. > That they don't experience themselves as authors of > their actions doesn't mean they're excused from > accountability for those actions. > Right- I agree 100%. The world wouldn't operate as it should if they did.
