---the two modes exist simultaneously together, yet you insist on conflating them in the same context without clarifying which mode you are referring to. The Neo-Advaitin aspect (i.e. the no need to rectify things, is obvious; even to Indian philosophy intellectuals, or should be). The other mode (relative-in-itself); is also obvious since even though you say there's no need to rectify the answer, you did rectify it!. Also, you previously referred to MMY as saying "I don't make mistakes"; which should be obvious re: the Neo-Advaitin mode. It's also obvious that he makes an abundance of relative mistakes. Therefore, the two modes coexist perfectly. The problem arises when one party is referring to the relative mode, and the inquiree plays the Neo-Advaitin shuffle by arbitrarily switching back from one mode to another...resulting in ridiculously false Neo-Advaitin statements such as one might find coming from the mouth of Ramesh Balsekar such as (there's no mistakes, no karma, no suffering, ....)....all Neo-Advaitin gobbledenonsense.
In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote: > > > > > --- > > > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical > > > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over > > > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't > > > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, > > > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > It's all one, so why bother? > > Because it's all one, we "bother". > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current impulse to > clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s). > > I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this, and > you're just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn't get it, > for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is > indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get this > and are just playing dumb, there are others who don't, so this may be > actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking to > come back to "Me." > > I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently -- was it Curtis? > Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a kid > who doesn't get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one contain > the same amount of water. He won't get it even if we pour the water > back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it's some > kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the fat > glass is bigger -- he can't see that tall+thin = short+fat. > > Nonetheless, I'll pour the water a few more times, just for the fun of > it. > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical > impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion scenario. > > My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our > particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly still > *and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and* noisy, > simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free, > simultaneously. > > It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is US, > and we're more than spacetime, more than any particular story. > > It is -- we are -- whatever we put our attention on and thereby evoke > from the vasty deep. > > Chopra has a good analogy -- if we look at the movement of the crowd in > a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent chaos, > and yet there is an underlying order; everyone's needs are being met. > > To me, that's a great description of Life -- everyone's needs are being > met. If we don't think our needs are being met, we look closer, feel > the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open our > heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this > moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more fullness > more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than we > expected. If we're completely honest with ourself, completely open, we > will find what we've been craving, and infinitely more. But again, > maybe only when we're ready to see the two glasses of water are > equivalent! :-) > > *L*L*L* >
