--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- authfriend wrote: > > > > > > --- Patrick wrote: > > > > > > > > More recently acquired positivist thinking > > > > refuses to even entertain the premise. > > > > > > Say more... > > > > About the positivist thinking? It's just a scholarly-sounding > > excuse for not speculating about things beyond my ken, > > which most everything seems to be. > > > > > (My guess is that "desire" and "intention" are human > > > terms that don't apply in this case, but that there > > > is some aspect to Nature's activity that sorta > > > somehow corresponds in Naturely terms.) > > > > The milk wants to sour. The silence wants to manifest. > > Are we anthropomorphizing nature, or did nature create > > humans in its own image? > > I just said, they're human terms that don't apply. > At least not in any even remotely literal sense. > Who knows what "creative intelligence" is? But it > progresses in some sort of orderly manner, or at > least orderly from the cosmic perspective, although > it may seem awfully messy to us. > > Or not. I doubt it particularly matters which > view you hold as long as you have no way of > knowing, so you might as well pick the one that > feels congenial. If randomness floats your boat, > go for it. > > It's probably unwise, however, to abdicate one's > judgment in favor of that of the enlightened person > on the theory that he or she "speaks for Nature" > if you've decided to believe Nature is driven by some > kind of impulse in an ultimately positive direction, > because if Nature *does* have a direciton, you don't > have any way of knowing which way is "positive"--so > it could just as well be that Nature "wanted" the > enlightened person to make a mistake, and even, > perhaps, "wanted" you to reject what the enlightened > person said and make your own choices. > > (The one exception, it seems to me, is if you've > entered into a formal "surrender" relationship with > an enlightened master as your sadhana, in which case > the act of surrender itself would be the "engine" of > your development; *what* you're told to do is > basically irrelevant.) > Yep- that whole bit about "acting in accordance with Natural Law" is entirely silly, because it is impossible to come up with an action which is NOT in accordance with Natural Law. Sure, some evil sin may be committed, but its not like the person committing it gets away with anything. Dharma exists as an absolute, regardless of whether we choose to recognize it.
The only difference between enlightened action and unenlightened action is that the enlightened one acting knows what he/she is doing; can feel the gunas in transition along every moment of action, becuase the intention for action evaporates as the action is carried out. But the same Natural Laws always apply. Always. Otherwise they wouldn't be natural. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
