"Does God make mistakes?"
Charles A. Hillig
chillig at JETLINK.NET
Tue Jul 8 06:06:01 CDT 1997
>>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.
The Self "thinks" and the illusory "you" SEEMS to be having the thoughts.
But any so-called conflict is only in the "I" of the beholder.
>>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. :-)
But maybe there is no real "goal" to be arguing about. For that
matter, maybe such arguments are also illusory. Maybe there's only the Self.
>>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.
But, by WHOM?
> 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.
WHO is there who is going to get rid of this sense of separation.
Can you really be present as a witness to your own awakening?
>>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.
Yes, the illusion of violence does, seemingly, come and go.
>>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.?
When I have seen violence, it's always been appropriate for me to try
to stop it in any way I can....even though nothing is really "wrong."
>>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?
Actually, at any time.
> 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
The thought of separation is still a thought. But then you still have
to deal with the Thinker of this thought. Who is that?
To be against anything is to validate its apparent separation.
> 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.
If the oneness has always been there, then the problems were never
really present either.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list