--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential > > reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately > > call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential > > reality. > > > * * * Yes! Separateness is an entirely legitimate experiential > reality, one based on our subtle rejection of what IS. And our > perception of our experiential reality -- what IS -- is > completely fine, completely innocent, no matter what we think. > Where it hurts -- what I am calling a lie -- is when we think > it *should* be different than that.
I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise. As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie. In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh, well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as it is. It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be for me.
