--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], defenders_of_bhakti > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" > > > > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Although I think that also God makes mistakes and learns > > > > > through and from them. > > > > > > > > Question on this one point: By what standard can it > > > > be said that God makes mistakes? > > > > > > On the basis of this is of course gnostic thinking (Freemasonree, > > > Rosecrucians). The basic idea behind it, is that creation is like > a > > > prison. I still believe that it owes a lot to Buddhism, possibly > > > even the Upanishads, who say, that the Gods keep man like cattle. > > > In Tantra there is a term calling it the 'original ignorance' Why > > > would ignorance be there at the first place, if the creation was > > > perfect, just as it is? > > > > Ignorance *of what*? > > > > You can only have "ignorance" by comparison with > > something else that is not ignorance. Ignorance is a > > lack of some sort. Where is what is lacking in > > ignorance to be found? > > > > Here's what I'm getting at: If God makes mistakes, > > if creation is imperfect, where is the perfection > > that is lacking? > > > > Or to put it another way, what is it that we're > > calling "God"? If what we're calling God makes > > mistakes, then this God cannot be the ultimate, > > because there has to be perfection for there to > > be a mistake. > > > > MMY gives a lecture where he describes the creation of the universe > in terms of the ultimate mistake: the unmanifest notices that it > exists by virtual of the buddhi -- the fundamental intellect. This > mistake is inevitable given that the nature of consciousness is to > become conscious and the nature of the intellect is to make > distinctions but it is a mistake nonetheless because there IS no > distinction between Self and Self and yet the buddhi recognizes > enough of one to come into [as it comes into?] existence and > note "Self and Other."
Right, but this is still not what I was asking Irmeli, originally. She said: "I think that also God makes mistakes and learns through and from them." What I was trying to get at is that for there to be a mistake, especially one that can be corrected, there has to be a corresponding NOT-mistake, i.e., perfection. So if God makes mistakes, then there is something "beyond" God that is free of mistakes. So this God cannot be the ultimate entity/state/condition. The point being that if when you say "God" you're referring to that Ultimate, but when I say "God" I'm referring to the mistake-making entity/state/condition, we're not going to understand each other very well. It seemed a lot more profound before I actually wrote it down. ;-) ------------------------ 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/
