--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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.
FWIW, this is not at all what I understood Jim to be saying. Here's what he actually said: "The immensity and totality of God, Divine Will, is such that each of us acts out his and her karma, according to what is in place and in play. it is no more useful to wish to subvert the will of God by supposedly doing good, than by supposedly doing evil." In a later post, attempting to clarify, he wrote: "What I meant was that mass miracles are in short supply, even from the enlightened folks, in the way your are defining miracles. Its not a choice, is what I was trying to explain." I strongly suspect this is the same exact point Ramesh Balkesar was trying to get across to his interviewer, just in different words.
