Both of you are looking at the Relative in a rather upbeat way, 
perhaps reflecting transient (for most mortals) blissful moods (maybe 
states or permanent stations in your cases??). Doesn't help the 
wilderbeast being tormented to death by lions or some innocent 16-
year old in Pakistan having acid thrown in her face because in love 
with a Hindu or not wearing full Islamic dress. Take a snapshot of 
the WHOLE of Nature and all there is, 99.99 of it, is suffering. So 
where is the expansion of happiness in that? Maybe the flaw in Unity 
is an inherent madness - well, who would NOT go mad in total 
isolation? Put anyone in solitary confinement with sensory 
deprivation and they will hallucinate and create nightmares for 
themselves. That's the real story perhaps - a madness without cure. 
It goes on FOREVER because even when it transcends time it ends up 
recreating it all over again. There is no sense in a creation which 
just gives suffering to everyone. Either God is mad, bad or just a 
fool - so much (supposed) intelligence in the geometry and sequence 
of laws of nature but then making a total mess with the experiment. 
There are states of matter, because of laws of nature, which are not 
permissable. For instance H2O, at a given temperature and pressure, 
is always water. If Unity truly wanted to expand happiness also in 
every phase of the Relative, all you'd need is some corollary laws 
concerning suffering. Make one step towards goodness, Unity etc = 1 
million times stronger than one step towards badness, anti-Unity. 
Then Unity can safely wander into diversity without resulting in 
suffering for no-one. That is what MMY says is going to happen NOW, 
right? So why not have that as an invariable law in the first place? 
We would be deprived of many experiences yes - but do you mind 
terribly if you don't taste the experience of being a torturer? or a 
victim of torture? What about free will? Where is the free will when 
all the probabilities are stacked in favour of you ending up 
suffering, even when you chose bliss? Sorry, but there IS a flaw with 
Unity and the supposed "expansion" of happiness via the Relative. 
I've never seen a convincing argument to the contrary... Wish there 
was one though!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "I" sees through both "my" eyes.  I sees through all 100 trillion 
> eyes on this planet.  So what's the use of yet another pair of eyes 
> to see with, unless it's to check out what the binocular 
perspective 
> from that moving point in the universe is like.  
> 
> Being yet one more hot squidge of granodiorite cooling off in some 
> crack in the mantle 70 miles below Mt. Shasta is just another way 
to 
> experience what Is, too.  Or moving into a garden apartment in 
> Sitges, busking on the sidewalks in DC, walking the trails in 
> Fairfield, pounding out more code in San Jose, or offering flowers 
to 
> the lotus feet of another monkey that looks more like me than I do 
> myself.
> 
> It's all play.  Just wonderful, tragic, frustrating, sad, tedious 
and 
> exquisite play.
> 
> Have to say that FFL seems particularly sweet this morning. Thanks 
> for that.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > "constantly crossing and recrossing the gap of ignorance" might 
> imply 
> > > therefore that something is lacking in UNITY? Never saw the 
sense 
> of 
> > > the purpose of life as "expansion of happiness" by going into 
> > > ignorance.. if the happiness is in the return to Unity, why 
> wander 
> > > off in the first place??
> > 
> > Because happiness is the return to Unity, enriched by the 
> experience of 
> > non-Unity. How else can we "expand happiness" except by moving it 
> into 
> > where it (apparently) wasn't? How can we learn and grow if not 
> through 
> > creation, through stories? Now on the other hand, if you wish to 
> say 
> > that in truth we *don't* actually learn or grow, that Isness is 
all 
> > there ever Is, you'll get no real argument from me! :-)
> >
>


Reply via email to