Similar thoughts occur to me on this Judy. I have had some nice go arounds with Jim, Rory and others on this. (And I am using your post as a springboard for some thoughts that have occurred to me, and I am not directly addressing each of your points.)
If I have understood his position, Jim, rather emphatically as I recall, stated that, paraphrasing, he did not want to help the suffering in Iraq, even thought he says he has the ability to quickly fulfill all desires, because that suffering was God's will and he did not want to disrupt God's will -- and only fools would do such a thing. And that the suffering in Iraq was Perfect and that he did not want in any way to disrupt that Perfection - because doing so would be an afront to God. Rory would not directly address the issue but skirted around half a dozen inquiries about why he does not use his proclaimed ability to achieve all desires to desire and and to suffering in Iraq. At least Jim finally gave an answer upon similar rounds of questioning from Curtis. There are subtleties and nuances to this question, which I acknowledge can be distorted by DA (District attorney) type questioning. For example, thoughts arise, effortlessly, by themselves (or some other dynamic) but not from any effort on our part. (as the stealth technique of checking clearly reveals) How can we claim ownership of such?! Thus, for example, I understand, directly, that thoughts, and the subset of thoughts called desires, is not from any individualities' effort. Thus, the nuance, that "might" be sympathetic and understanding of Jim's and Rory's apparent position of: they don't desire the end to suffering in Iraq because they are not in control of such a desire, and such a thought never arose in them. (On of the several things that is odd, IMO, here is that EVEN if the thought to end suffering did not arise in them, at all, through natural observation and interaction with the world, then at least it was introduced to them as a possibility in the on-line discussion. And yet "the thought to help the suffering in Iraq never arises in me, thus how can I fulfill that desire" is the thought that still arises in them.) And I understand from the view of karma. (And the theory of karma is just a theoretical view that may have some ability to accurately describe phenomenon and predict it, yet has not successfully been refined to sufficiently to explain and predict anywhere near what other common scientific theories can). >From the view of karma, suffering is the result of past actions and that the universal dynamic of reaping what one's sows is (if one likes or needs to think of an anthrpormorphic "God") is is a Perfect dynamic, in accord with "Gods" will, and utter genius, as a self-regulating path of education -- as seen from the stance of many lifetimes. However, such nuances can cleverly be used as ploys. We have all encountered clever such wordsmiths who teflonically use such things as "thats just their karma" and "I have no desires" as excuses for staying wrapped up in a bubble of laziness, and non-compassion. I am not equating Jim or Rory with the latter. Yet,I can only state that their responses are counter to my experiences of those examples above of the nuances of desire and karma. Its "perfect" that outer life is ever changing, ever working itself towards greater "integration" and "happiness". (I use quotes because various people have various concepts about such -- they are just labels for something that are like the sweet spot, the commonality of many (millions) of offset Venn diagrams -- with a common center, and also a lot of "outlander" meanings not held in common with many others). This sequence of ideas is a incompleted "thought" -- but since people don't read, or well digest, long posts, -- and I have things to do -- I will end here and pick up the thread of that thought later. ,,,, And while I think the following goes without say, others apparently do misinterpret intentions so I will try to clarify. I am, as often is the case, exploring a set of idea that has occurred to me. Since some of these ideas are stimulated from current and past posts of others, these posts and ideas of others are naturally part of my "thinking out loud" process. I am not, as some have incorrectly speculated in the past, intending to "demonize" or "attack" anyone. I am exploring some ideas from other posts -- who wrote them is not my concern. (I would be just as happy to label Jim's or Rory posts anonomously -- from Mr x and Mr Y. Which to me they are -- I have not met either, their names are just "labels to me.) --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a note on the assertion that "everything is > perfect just as it is," which seems to engender > some misunderstanding (including in the interview > with Ramesh Balsekar that qntmpkt posted): > > --- In [email protected], Bronte Baxter > <brontebaxter8@> wrote: > <snip> > > One of the conditions of passing through is that you > > accept the world as it is, so when you become an empowered > > master you won't mess up the system that keeps the gods on > > top and the human race underneath. Three things have to > > happen to the aspirant before he is blessed with "the Self > > unfolding the Self to itself": > > > > 1) he must come to believe that the world is perfect as > > it is (so he won't want to change anything) > > 2) he must come to believe that having desires or > > viewpoints of his own is a bad thing (so he won't want to > > change anything) > > 3) he must willingly give up his individuality and even > > his mind (so he won't BE ABLE to change anything) > > A TMer once asked MMY, "If, as you say, everything is > perfect just as it is, why are we working so hard to > change things?" > > MMY responded, "That too is perfect just as it is." > > Virtually every teaching I've ever encountered about > enlightenment has said the same thing (usually at > much greater length): experiencing (not just believing) > that everything is perfect just as it is does *not* > mean not wanting to change anything. > > How could it? Are one's opinions and desires and > behaviors somehow not part of "everything"? If > everything is perfect just as it is, so is wanting to > change things, as well as the changes one is able to > bring about. > > "Just as it is" doesn't mean frozen in time and space, > never to be changed. It means *at this instant in time* > everything is perfect. If in the next instant "this" is > changed to "that", "that" is also perfect for that > instant. And so on... > > Change is constant and inevitable. That being the case, > "Everything is perfect just as it is" cannot possibly > foreclose change to "just as it is." > > (Why a *bad* thing should be perfect just as it is even > for an instant is a different question entirely. It's > known in theology as "the problem of evil," and people > have been wrestling with it for millennia, coming up > with many different solutions, some more satisfactory > than others. Most, however, do not conclude that the > solution implies that one is to refrain from fighting > evil, from working as hard as one can to change things.) > > In the interview with Ramesh Balkesar, the interviewer > kept objecting that one could use the premise that > one's behavior was entirely determined by God's will > as an excuse to do bad things. Ramesh could have > pointed out that according to this premise, having the > motivation to use the premise as an excuse *would also > be God's will*. > > The apparent disadvantages of the determinist premise > (which is basically the same premise as that everything > is perfect just as it is) tend, in my observation, to > be a function of not taking it as an absolute, of > inadvertently assuming free will around the edges, as > it were. >
