--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> <jpgillam@> wrote:
> > --- Gillam wrote:
> > >
> > > he was more interested in
> > > truth as he saw it than in converting someone
> > > else. Surely you can see how the two can coexist.
> >
> > This last sentence doesn't make sense. It should be,
> > "Surely you can appreciate the difference." Thanks.
> I liked the first version better. :-)
> And the reason I liked it better is that my
> life experiences have shown me that the word
> "truth" is basically an illusion, a name we
> put on our current state of attention and
> point of view. I honestly don't believe that
> there is such a thing as Truth with a capital T.
> In my earlier post, I wasn't really talking
> about the letter from Iran's President per se,
> but about the nature of spiritual conversations,
> and what you said about LBS. The point I was
> trying to make is that arguing for your position
> is great if you only have one position. But I'm
> capable of holding multiple positions on the
> same subject at once, each one of them approp-
> riate to a particular state of attention.
> Because I've *had* to (I worked with a teacher
> who, however he managed to do it, could just
> blow your small-s self right out of its socks,
> over and over and over, as quickly as you can
> snap your fingers. So you'd be sitting there
> in one state of attention, convinced you know
> the "truth" about the thing being discussed,
> and then snap! you'd move into another state
> of attention in which there was a completely
> different "truth." And then snap! he'd do it
> again, and again, and again, until after five
> minutes you'd have seen and experienced ten
> or twelve different states of attention, and
> ten or twelve different "truths."
> So now...which one of them is Truth?
> The only sense I've been able to make of the
> whole experience is that all of them are, *from
> the state of attention for which they represent
> truth*. From another, they are not.
> I readily admit that in some conversations there
> is an aspect of factual truth that can be main-
> tained and argued about. But in spiritual dis-
> cussions, to me truth is and will always be
> relative. Two people can be presenting completely
> opposite points of view on a subject and *both*
> of them are correct. That's why I brought up the
> example of the other discussion group I'm a part
> of sometimes where almost all of the participants
> feel this way, and no one argues and tries to
> sell his or her particular flavor of truth. They
> just present their point of view, and then the
> next person presents theirs, and no one tries
> to say that one is better or more correct or
> "more true" than another. I find it refreshing.
> In the case of this particular letter, I agree
> with you that the US would be better served by
> listening to what the President of Iran is saying,
> and trying to figure out who they're really
> dealing with, instead of imagining it based on
> their prejudices. And if they disagree with him
> on some points (which of course they would),
> they could reply presenting their version of
> things, "their" truth. In an ideal world, they
> could do this without trying to paint him as a
> bad guy or a liar because they disagree on these
> points; he could present his point of view and
> they could present theirs, and allow the lurkers
> to choose which they preferred. But we know that
> ain't gonna happen. International affairs are all
> too often like FFL; some people feel compelled
> *to* sell their point of view as the best or the
> "most true," and compelled at the same time to
> paint anyone who doesn't agree with that point
> of view as a bad guy, or a liar, or stupid, or
> whatever.
> The sad reality is that the US won't even go as
> far as to *listen* to what this guy says. They'll
> just start painting him as a bad guy without even
> reading it. But the point I tried to make yester-
> day was really oriented more to spiritual discus-
> sion groups like this one, where I think -- or
> hope -- that we have more flexibility, and can
> discuss things on a different level.
Good stuff. Thanks.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi


Reply via email to