Just to finish this up... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > There was nothing -- repeat, *nothing* -- in what > > > > I wrote that suggested or even hinted at determinism. > > > > > > Point is, Barry, back then you were arguing > > > *against* the idea that there was nothing one > > > could do to become enlightened, and mocking it. > > > Now you're arguing *for* it, and mocking the > > > opposite idea. > > > > > > I don't care what you want to call it. I'm > > > just pointing out that your perspective has > > > changed rather drastically. > > > > No, actually, it hasn't. There is a *great* > > deal one can do to facilitate the realization > > of enlightenment. And to block its realization. > > It's just that neither is the final determining > > factor, just a factor. > > If there are other factors involved than what you > yourself can do, then realization is not "available > at any time," which is what you've been claiming.
WHY? It seems to me that you are saying, "I cannot conceive of a universe in which some things are out of my control in which realization is not available to me at any time." Right? Well, I *can* conceive of it. I do not share your conceptual limitation. Realization is available at all times. Sometimes via the mechanism of control, and sometimes through other mechanisms. > > Get it now? > > > > > > In fact, it was specifically about the randomness > > > > of the universe. > > > > > > You mean, the course of action is unfathomable, > > > just as Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita? > > > > > > I wouldn't call it "randomness," though, given > > > what you say above about a "consensus result of > > > the entire "set" of causes/actions." That sure > > > ain't randomness. > > > > Yes it is. The composition of the "set" is random, > > at every moment. > > Not if cause and effect is involved, it isn't. > Not if "consensus" is involved, it isn't. > Not if that consensus is a *result*, it isn't. WHY? Again, it seems to me that you are saying, "I cannot conceive of these three things being supported by a completely random universe." Fine. I can. No problemo. All three can (and, as far as I can tell, do) gleefully coexist with randomness. > > > > But I can see how it might comfort you to see deter- > > > > minism all around you, even if it's not really there. > > > > > > And I can see how it might comfort you to think > > > you're in total control. > > > > I *am* in total control of the things I do to > > facilitate my realization of enlightenment. But > > I am not silly enough to believe that's all there > > is to it -- "Do X and Y will appear." There are > > other factors that are not in my control > > Again, if that's the case, then realization is not > "available at any time." Ah, but it is available at any time. AND there are factors that are not in your control. :-) You cannot juggle these two concepts simultaneously. I can. End of story. > Sometimes it is *not* > available, if there are other factors involved over > which you do not have control. No, it is completely available during *all* of those periods when factors exist over which you have no control. :-)
