Isn't the 'scope of desire fulfillment' supposed to be for the
individual sadhaks life, not the world in general? My understanding
of the traditinal principle behind M's ideas is that householders
worship worldly gods to receive worldly benefits. Boons or favors
from the gods.
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:28 AM, new.morning wrote:
Great post Curtis. Peg Leg Sam -- a classic. (No relation to Toothpick
Sad Sam Jones I suppose -- (now thats an obscure reference)).
Sort of reminds me of what I envision MMY or others might say when
asked to fly. "I could, but I don't really like flying."
Which brings me to Rory and Jim. Guys, I appreciate your responses.
And I have understood them I think, and appreciate the views you
expressed. But you didn't directly answer my question. Not that you
are obligated to.
Jim, you sort of implied an answer -- that you weres peeved at Bush
and Iraq -- and this expressed disatisfaction might be an agent for
change. Which implies, to me, your ability to fulfill desires doesn't
extend to big things like Iraq. So its a limited qualified type of
desire fulfillment. Same with wholeness swallowing and healing
particles -- though thats more Rory's story. Your wholeness appears
not Whole or powerful enough to swallow and heal the traumatized
particle of Iraq. Or some other constraint I am not aware of.
Rory you were a bit more oblique in your answers, skirting the
question. A first for you. :) Loving what is is fine -- though see my
counter post that you inspired -- Loving What Isn't. Your response has
more of a Peg Leg Sam quality perhaps. Perhaps you could heal Iraq if
you desired, or your Wholenes swallowed that traumatized particle, but
you choose not to. Its all just Perfect as it is. Nothing needs
healing.
