--- In [email protected], "larry.potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Learn to accept contradictions and don't be obsessed with > your *truth*. > > Christine Breese has many amazing satsangs but I thought this > short talk will be relevant/appreciated on this forum, many times > people here will find themselves in such defensive situations that > they feel they need to protect their "truth" no matter what. > > It's worth the 7 min to listen to it,imo. > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=MKf9CmNzpxY > > Enjoy.
Interesting, but I also found it interesting that she didn't offer much justification for *why* she's saying what she's saying about becoming comfortable with contradiction. She did mention the "mental body" vs. the "heart," but to me that's NewAgeSpeak. One additional point of information that can actually give some justification for her stance is in MMY's olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness." Even *within* his system there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The description of "reality" is different from the POV of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra- dictions. But very possibly all true. It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some- thing is "true," and to actively get someone else to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get them to *share your state of consciousness*. Any appeal to others to believe something that is true only from the unenlightened waking state is, almost by definition, an appeal to these others to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight- ened waking state. If these others are looking at the situation from another state of consciousness, from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as described by someone in the state of ignorance is *not* true, for them. But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham- mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's "wrong," and that they should look at things from the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is ignorance. If you need an example of this, look at Rory's recent post #140834. I thought that was a marvelous example of "stepping back" and expressing the same situation from a completely different POV and SOC, from which it looks entirely different. What *seems* true when looking at the situation from one POV is no longer true when looking at the same situation from another POV. Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from which 'truth' is determined?"
