--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > inasmuch as the term "want" when applied to Nature > is actually inapplicable because how could a closed system ever have > a lack of anything.
Thus, it would follow, Brahman lacks and desires nothing. It is, to borrow a phrase, "perfect". > But to continue, why does a ball roll downhill, or water or wind > moves from high-pressure to low-pressure, for that matter? Aren't > gravity and thermodynamics just different words for > Nature's "desire" for things to go in a certain direction, a certain > flow? Only in a most poetic sense. What entity is desiring? (Nature: "I really really want that ball to go down hill. Yaaah, look its going down hill. Now lets see it go uphill. Phoooey, it won't go uphill") And what if Nature was busy peeing when I placed the ball on a hill. And forgot to desire for it to go down hill. What then? (Aside from a LOT of pee). > When you flushed the toilet this morning after noting the > color of your pee, which way did the pee water turn going down -- > clockwise or counter-clockwise -- and why? Isn't it just in the > nature of things to happen the way they happen? That is Nature's nature. Nature being a poetic description of "the way things work" -- not (necessarily) an Entity. Of course you may be thinking of "God" when you say Nature. But tooting about what God's Will is seems both problematic and at times dangerous. (However, discussing what God's Willie is like, now THATS interesting. And makes statements like "the world is fucked" come to life.) > And our apparent > participation in events -- isn't it just another chunk of potato in > the soup bumping around with the other vegetables as it roils on the > stovetop?] Nice chicken soup for the soul. I do (as do you -- ((but probably ONLY us)), act 100% in accord with Nature. When I pee it eventually hits the ground -- and doesn't fly up and hit the clouds. When I cut myself I bleed. When I eat an apple, (that has fallen to the ground and not towards the sun) I digest it into fruit sugars, polyphenols, and such and not into gold. WOW,I am SO phenomenol! How, pray tell, can I not be 100% in accord with Nature? Further on this angle, I don't act. I do Nothing!. Nature does it all. >From generating thoughts, to creating desires, to responding to things in learned ways. So not only am I 100% in accord with Nature, I am not the doer. Some, with vivid but quite limited imaginations, claim this to be living as a puppet, with Nature or God holding the strings, acting out a predestined script. I disagree. > [The relevance in bringing up the whole premise of Enlightenment is > to note the pattern of the flow in a person's life. What is the distinction. EVERYONES life is 100% according to the laws of Nature. What life flows differently than that? > The problem for us may be that we were > exposed to -- and indoctrinated in -- the idea that Enlightenment > was a "goal" where we were not at yet, but through required and > ongoing tutelage of an ever-evolving system of new techniques and > courses, developed or revealed and authorized by a distant guru and > administered through cadres of ever more questionable lieutenants > and lackeys we would arrive at a place that seemed to make less and > less sense with each passing year and with each new "petal of > knowledge" unfolded. What is Awakening and what is the Goal? > For myself, and many here (as far as I can tell), relinquishing > the "goal" has proved to be far more satisfying and fulfilling than > striving for it; and far more consonant with the original sense of > it. Desiring "really really hard" for the "desireless state" has always cracked me up. > If I've "let go" of the goal, is that a form of sanyama? Thats an interesting idea.
