--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> > wrote: > > > > Both of you are looking at the Relative in a rather upbeat way, > > perhaps reflecting transient (for most mortals) blissful moods > > (maybe > > states or permanent stations in your cases??). Doesn't help the > > wilderbeast being tormented to death by lions or some innocent 16- > > year old in Pakistan having acid thrown in her face because in > > love > > with a Hindu or not wearing full Islamic dress. Take a snapshot of > > the WHOLE of Nature and all there is, 99.99 of it, is suffering. > > So > > where is the expansion of happiness in that? Maybe the flaw in > > Unity > > is an inherent madness - well, who would NOT go mad in total > > isolation? Put anyone in solitary confinement with sensory > > deprivation and they will hallucinate and create nightmares for > > themselves. That's the real story perhaps - a madness without > > cure. > > It goes on FOREVER because even when it transcends time it ends up > > recreating it all over again. There is no sense in a creation > > which > > just gives suffering to everyone. Either God is mad, bad or just a > > fool - so much (supposed) intelligence in the geometry and > > sequence > > of laws of nature but then making a total mess with the > > experiment. > > There are states of matter, because of laws of nature, which are > > not > > permissable. For instance H2O, at a given temperature and > > pressure, > > is always water. If Unity truly wanted to expand happiness also in > > every phase of the Relative, all you'd need is some corollary laws > > concerning suffering. Make one step towards goodness, Unity etc=1 > > million times stronger than one step towards badness, anti-Unity. > > Then Unity can safely wander into diversity without resulting in > > suffering for no-one. That is what MMY says is going to happen > > NOW, > > right? So why not have that as an invariable law in the first > > place? > > We would be deprived of many experiences yes - but do you mind > > terribly if you don't taste the experience of being a torturer? or > > a > > victim of torture? What about free will? Where is the free will > > when > > all the probabilities are stacked in favour of you ending up > > suffering, even when you chose bliss? Sorry, but there IS a flaw > > with > > Unity and the supposed "expansion" of happiness via the Relative. > > I've never seen a convincing argument to the contrary... Wish > > there was one though!! > > > **snip to end** > > You're right, there is no convincing argument to negate the apparent > ubiquity of suffering. But as Buddha pointed out (along with many > others, including Maharishi), there is an end to suffering and that > is by removing one's perspective (attention) from the plane of > existence where suffering is always present to another (you could > say higher) plane where no suffering can possibly exist. > > On the plane of the movie story, Jack Nicholson's character in The > Shining is always going to go stark raving, and homicidally, mad > each and every time you watch it. But on another (arguably more > fundamental) plane, that movie is just colored light dancing and > flickering on the screen in whatever theatre, CRT, LCD, or plasma > device you're catching it on. Of course, if your attention is just > on the flickering light then not only do you not get the pants > scared off of you, but you miss all the great parts of the story > and the acting and the cinematography, etc. > > It's not denying that suffering exists, but that it only exists to > the degree you put your attention on it.
Well said. One of the best posts here on FFL in quite some time.
