--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Both of you seem > motivated primarily by a desire to "understand" > enlightenment, to get some kind of intellectual > "handle" on it. My experiences with the beast > convince me that that's a fool's quest, and that > when the experience happens, it can be *lived*, > but never "understood."
One more thing. See, Barry, your chronic hypocrisy makes you simply not credible on any of this. If someone else were to lay down rules for what enlightenment is and is not, you'd be mocking and scorning and chastising them to beat the band. Yet here you are, doing exactly that. *Your* "experience" is the standard, as far as you're concerned, and anything that doesn't conform to that standard is somehow deficient. If anybody else made that kind of statement, you'd be howling bloody murder, especially if you thought the person hadn't had the kind of "experience" you've had. Well, this "experience" I'm talking about is one you haven't had. You don't even know what I've been talking about. So you'd best just notice that the chickens have come home to roost.
