Very nice, Juditha, and very much to the point.
You are taking a posture of positive action, which is one of the least popular approaches to metaphysical or psychic phenomena, but one that we need the most. The PUL posture is also unquestionably valid, and additionally I'm one of the types that wants to use the "figure it out" approach. That sort of sums up reality - actions involving emotional states and understanding, the three basic aspects of yoga.
Looking at the discussion, I notice that there is a tendency toward dualism. This is not uncommon in life, as we often speak differently of the roots of a plant, than we do of its flowers and fruit. My hippie days are an example, being mostly occupied by ME-vs-the world, and how does something affect ME, and MY opinion, and MY feelings, and so on. That's pretty dualistic, and not very PUL in nature. I can't really say that it was maturity that led me to include others in my thinking, but it certainly was recognition that if I didn't, nothing works. That is, both the roots and the flowers have to be considered - and while we're doing that, we get stuck with the need to add the earth that the roots grasp, and then the rest of the universe sort of comes along too.
The "soft dualism" that comes from failing to bring the entire cosmos into the discussion, as well as all the ways to interact with others, and all the modes of integration and unity, isn't really "wrong". And, in actual fact, it is incomplete only if we wish to look at a "bigger picture", but any specific perspective, honestly presented, is certainly valid in itself. However, as we add levels of more and more universality, we also seem to get different perspectives.
Using the flower analogy, the Gardner is likely to tolerate misshapen plants, and maybe even a few weeds. One the level of the plants, there is a conflict, which to the Gardner might be a beautiful arrangement of multiple colors of the blooms clustered into a small region. And, of course, there is one Sun that shines universally on the sinners as well as saints. My point is that as we generalize toward the Origin, we lose sight of the locally discrepant states. And as we specify more and more locally, we lose sight of the universality of it all. From this we seem to generate a great deal of controversy.
There's also a lot to be said for Doc's comparison of monism to quantum indeterminacy, as noone can know the will of God. However, I'm inclined to suggest that we can occasionally identify a few properties that seem pervasive. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I suspect that God must have an immense sense of humor, as well as PUL, omniscience and omnipotence. Given that, all the rest seems to become a bit blurred around the edges, not quite so cut and dried. - Reminds me of one of the old Zen masters who said that after enlightenment, there's nothng left but to have a good laugh.
dave
Home
Pages: 
