Following up on my own post because this is one of my favorite subjects...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... there is a way that someone could > attempt to put their realization into words > that is NOT offensive in the least. It's simple, > and it's the VERY thing that is missing in most > such attempted descriptions here on FFL. > > Using your terminology, it's the difference > between "a Spiritual Reality" and "Just Another > Spiritual Reality." The offensive part is the > belief that there is only ONE "reality" or > "ultimate reality." > > What would be *unoffensive* would be the inclu- > sion of language in one's description that said, > "This is just MY experience. It was a really > neat experience, and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm > not saying that it's "THE" experience, or the > "ULTIMATE" experience, only that it was my exper- > ience. I don't know what the experience means, or > even IF it means anything; I'm just reporting on > what I experienced. I also don't know whether it's > "higher" or "lower" or "better" or "worse" than > anyone else's experience; It was just my experience. > > What is to argue about with such a presentation? > > . . . > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > them is any "higher" than another. And interestingly enough, one can believe the opposite -- that there IS a "highest" reality -- and not be the least bit offensive about the way in which they express that belief. Consider the following two sentences: 1. "I believe that there is an Ultimate Reality, a state which is higher than all the rest." 2. "There is an Ultimate Reality, a state which is higher than all the rest." The first sentence makes it clear that the speaker honestly believes this, but there is nothing at all offensive or elitist or condescending in the state- ment; it is merely an expression of his belief. The second sentence is a claim to "know the truth" and to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with *what* the speaker considers the "highest state" is somehow mistaken. Two little words. That's the only difference between the two statements, but they make all the difference in the world.
