--Bronte, I agree with you on this; but to add a few points, nobody is disputing that the Absolute "Perfect"; but some readily obtainable conclusion regarding the strictly relative aspect of Brahman may not be forthcoming soon, if at all. First, one would have to define "perfect", but I've heard that story before: it's a typical example of Maharishi-speak. But this topic has been covered a number of times before you got here, for example, a qualifier would be ...
a. Everything's perfect, including the desire to make things better. Here, we could run into a genuine paradox; but we're dealing with karma and Dharma, areas which are innately unfathomable. Therefore, even Sages may fall short of expertise on the topic of what's perfect and what's not in relative existence. By no means should audiences accept verdicts on topics in any area of relative existence as the Gospel Truth, if coming even from a great Sage. MMY's Enlightened Spiritual state, for example, certainly doesn't qualify him to be an expert in economics, or even philosophy, or quantum physics. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Flanegin wrote: > Yep, from the standpoint of dualistic, relative life, multiple > problems are seen, and must be solved, as they should be, living a > dynamic and responsible life. From the non dual experience of Being > though, even the change is seen and embraced as perfect. The union > of the one with the many is a profound paradox that is naturally > accepted and lived when self realization becomes permanent, and not > until. Unity and diversity become indistiguishable from one another. > When those who comment on such things write that everything is > perfect, the only way a mind embracing duality can comprehend such a > statement is in terms of inertia (keep everything as it is, relative > to a specific moment), or rationalization (it happened, therefore it > is perfect, even though I know damned well it isn't), neither of > which is the intended perspective. :-) > > > Bronte writes: > > Jim, with all due respect, what this sounds like is "You can't possibly know the truth because you aren't on my level." Not that you are the first to pull that punch. It's a typical end-of-argument comment that gurus are renowned for. Translation: "Don't question what we say. Don't question the view of the ultimate reality we are handing you. We are at the top of the mountain, and you aren't. You speak from the perspective of delusion. Your position has no merit in terms of ultimate truth, because you are obviously way too unevolved to comment on the subject." > > And why do you assume I am too unevolved? Simply because I don't agree with your pespective. Your argument is vicious circle, kept alive by your assumption of superior knowledge and experience. I am not going to try to weight my argument by startung a one-up-you game with you comparing the profundity of our spiritual experiences. I will just say this: the vision I have of reality is based not just on reason and relative experience, but very much on spiritual experience -- my own, and that of many people who don't share the assumptions of the Indian tradition. It IS possible to experience nonduality, the union of all life, in great and blissful clarity and in the same sublime moment perceive clearly that the universe is a play in progress, with unsuccessful scenes that have to be rewritten, similar to the analogy of the cake baker in my earlier email to Judy on this subject. > > So whose cosmic reality is right: yours or ours? I don't believe we can decide that by trying to determine which group of "seers" is more evolved. Because expectation and teachings we've studied and accepted very much color our experience of higher states. Instead, we need to rely on reason, on objective analysis, on consideration of all relevant data from experience, both the relative and the nondual kind. The four blind men have to maintain open minds and respect each other's experience in order to arrive at total truth about the elephant. What happens when one says, "Guy, your description of this animal is just not holistic like mine is. When you get my superior level of perception, you'll experience the animal the way I do." Not too conducive to productive dialog, that attitude, is it? > > Some folks on this forum have challenged my viewpoints on the grounds that thousands of years of Indian tradition teach otherwise. I say, does thousands of years of history make something right? People have killed one another and eaten meat for thousands of years. Does the length of time make THOSE things right? I would suggest that if after thousands of the years the world is still the kind of place it is, perhaps that suggests the philosophy of the ages NEEDS to be re [-examined: without bias and traditional assumptions ... with questioning minds and with open hearts. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >
