--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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.
Here's what I said to start with: "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that there was a state in which one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material." That's what I was referring to when I said "assuming that such a state exists." So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for the sake of argument, that there is such a state. And if you can't, then you really don't have any basis for complaint, because you're *also* insisting that there is only "one reality"--a reality in which everyone has a different spiritual reality. In other words, you've fallen into yet another infinite regress.
