"Does God make mistakes?"

[Martin Gifford]

Hi Chuck!

You asked:

>Q. Why not "SELF-stuff?"

A. Yes, fair enough. The point I was making is that spiritual philosophers
get very intellectual and tend to forget they have a heart, etc.

>Q. But exactly WHO owns this aspect? WHO disowns it?

A. Just as one person has conflicting thoughts so does God have conflicting
thoughts - perhaps only in the physical plane.

>Q. Can pure consciousness ever be divided from Itself?

A. Well - WITHIN Itself. As is evident. Otherwise all the body/mind
mechanisms would be saying the same thing and working towards the same goal
and not arguing about advaita, etc. :-)

>Q. But what SEPARATE one is really there to sense this so-called "separation?"

A. There is no separate one. The division is only imagined at particular
points in space and time. The separation is believed. That is the point. And
it causes mischief and waste. Yes or no? And our goal is to get rid of this
sense of separation.

>Q. How can violence really "come" and "go?"  Isn't the Self always complete?

A. The word "violence" pertains to a particular experience which we all
know. And it comes and goes. And the shockwaves continue on.

>Q. ...violence may not really be the problem at all.

I disagree. When you see violence do you just say "all is one" and leave it
there? I feel it in my heart and my guts. I sense there is something wrong.
Surely most of us do.?

>Q. The problem may only be in believing that there is a quintessential
difference between the "victor" and the "victim."

A. Before or after the violence? I'd say before. If there wasn't the thought
of difference, division, separation then there would be no violence. Right?
So pure consciousness means the end of that thought - then it's pure. All
Advaitists are against the thought of separation: that's the whole piont
isn't it? When the thought of separation is gone then the oneness that has
always been there is realised and that is the end of the problems.

This comment you make I feel is the essential error that some advaitans
make. "All is one" should come BEFORE actions. Not after ignorant actions!
And not as justification for ignorant actions!

>Q. The Self is all that there really is.

A. And It's expression - activities, thoughts, feelings, experiences,
intuitions creativity and love.

I suppose this raises the question "Does God make mistakes?" Well for what
it's worth I'd say that there are limitations in the physical plane. eg. it
takes 15 years to even learn to cope with life! And so there are birth pains
experienced in living this physical creation. But We thought it was worth
it. And as these pains are discovered and understood We should fix them! Not
just continue on! When Humanity explored space and found problems in space
equipment we fixed them! We didn't just repeat them with the addition of the
feeling of Oneness! We have intelligence, etc. to work these things out!

Best wishes to All,

Martin.

At 03:49 PM 7/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi   Martin,
>
>>Who is there to make a distinction? Beauty, love, intelligence, feelings.
>>You know.... human stuff, heart stuff.
>
>    Why not "SELF-stuff?"
>
>
>>Who is being violent to whom? An owned aspect of consciousness is being
>>violent to a disowned aspect of consciousness.
>
>     But exactly WHO owns this aspect?   WHO disowns it?
>
>     Can pure consciousness ever be divided from Itself?
>
>
>>I am asking - What is the motivation for violence? Isn't it caused by the
>>sense of separation?
>
>     But what SEPARATE one is really there to sense this so-called
"separation?"
>
>>If so, then when that sense of separation is gone,
>
>     .......from WHOM?......
>
>>violence should be gone too.
>
>     How can violence really "come" and "go?"  Isn't the Self always complete?
>
>>Human violence is clearly a distortion caused
>>by ego. If a person has feelings (we spiritual philosophers tend to forget
>>about feelings) then it is more than a philisophical question.
>
>     But the violence may not really be the problem at all.
>
>     The problem may only be in believing that there is a quintessential
>difference between the "victor" and the "victim."  The Self is all that
>there really is.
>
>                                   With Blessings,
>
>
>                                      Chuck Hillig
>
>
>
>
>>Martin Gifford.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 02:15 AM 1/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Mark,
>>>
>>>     But if, as you say, there "is no duality, no self/other split," then
>>>how is so-called "violence" (or, for that matter, even "non-violence") even
>>>recognizable as such?   "Who" is really there to be making  that distinction?
>>>
>>>     In other words, "who" is being "violent" towards "whom?"
>>>
>>>     When your ego seemingly disappears (it doesn't really exist in the
>>>first place),  there will be no separate one left to give "us" an answer,
>>>anyway.  What a paradox!
>>>
>>>                                With Blessings,
>>>
>>>                                        Chuck Hillig
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>