Thank you for the quote. First, let me preface this by saying that I acknowledge that what I inferred Jim was saying may not be what he intended. From the larger context of his posts on this topic, beyond the quote, and even from the quote itself, I am not yet sure that what I inferred was off base.
It may be. And I may be subtexting from his post, some lengthy posts by Rory on this subject. That is, since Jim and Rory appear to agree on most things in this particular realm of "Everything is perfect", I may have assumed some meanings from Jim's larger set of posts, assuming he shared various definitions, assumptions and perspectives with Rory. I may incorrectly have understood certain commonalites in views between the two. I am not interested in Jim or Rory -- the personality -- or in parsing what they said individually. My interest here is in examining a generic "view" which Jim and Rory seem to subscribe to with regards to "Everything is Perfect"-- but with which each or both may have some different slants. Let me restate, or focus, my inquiry here -- prefacing what I previously wrote. And this intent of the inquiry is linked to the qualifications I made in my last paragraph (not here to demoninze anyone, but I am exploring ideas contained in posts) Restatement of Focus: There appears to be a view subscribed to by some, that might be summarized as "Everything is Perfect as it is". While there are many different implications and possible subview following form this statement, I am particularly interested in the one for which a particular type of passivity is the prescription to most things. Jim and Rory, IMO, eptiomize to some this view, though they may not perfetly fit the generalized description that I am seeking to understand and examine the implications of. There fore, while I am using ideas and inferences from each of their posts, my interest and focus is not on their personalities and individual nuances, but of the generalized view. I am no sure where such an inquiry leads. I don't have some conclusion that I am trying to cherry pick examples in order to support such a non-existent conclusion. I don't know that where ideas and inquiries may lead in almost all my posts. I take an idea an run with it-- follow it, try to sniff it out, ending up where I do not know (from the start), but often ending up in a place of greater insight (for myself). -------------- --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > 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. >
