where is it?

Submitted by Mohammed Waza Khiddif Id'ullah (Australia), Sep 12, 2015 at 03:22

Going back to square one. Your original statement was : "..."..there is no such thing in religious matters as "That may be right for YOU, but not for me." .

OK? So let's look at that statement another way. It is saying - In religious matters, because something is right for you - then it must be right for me also.

So if the 'you' is an islamic imam - and something is right for him - like going to the Hajj - then it is right for you also? This of course , begs the question - what is 'right'? In whose mind is something right? Can a thing be 'right' at some times but 'not right' at others?

"...By doing this, you were transforming me in your mind from an inquirer into truth, into a dangerous, murderous bigot..."

Now that is a prime example of hugely misconstruing things. I think no such thing. Why would I? And even in the remote chance that I did - how would you know? That's almost like saying computers can read minds.

"I am a bit uneasy, though, with the thought that one of those people might turn out to be you. "

Seriously, not being offensive here, but that does sound just a little delusional. Why would I want to kill someone (unless they physically were attacking me)? When it comes down to it, who cares what someone else thinks? Or better still - why would you care and how would you stop them thinking what they were thinking - an what would be your motivation for wanting to? There are 7.3B versions of 'reality' happening on this planet now. Almost everyone of them is a sort of personal delusion, a best-fit rationalisation of an expanding reality. People have been having this for a few million years now it seems . Why should I get hung up on what people think - unless they are acting detrimentally directly to me?

"..I am all too aware that I HAVE a self; but I do not identify with it. Just think of it as a fighter pilot donning his flight suit, complete with his "magic helmet" that puts him into a world of virtual reality that mimics the world outside his aircraft. While flying the plane, the pilot no doubt identifies with his suit and helmet, and they act as one. Once he's back on the carrier deck, though, he understands that he is not his outfit and his outfit is not him, and he takes it off..."

Good. That is along the lines of what I see - with one big caveat - you ARE the Self. The real (non-ego) you. Try to remain on the carrier deck as much as possible.

"We are not our flesh; we HAVE flesh; .."

yes, we're all dressed up in our finest meat-suit - having the time of our lives......and time is having us.

"...to the extent that I, through ingrained habit, allow it to dominate me; but I do not identify with it."

Mind/ego is on one level. The , let's call it awakened self is sort of above and behind this. You know it when you connect with it. There is no question or doubt, because it's on an ontological level. If you know the answe - the questions cease to exist. Part of us is subject to habit - that's not 'bad' necessarilly. I know how to do some useful habitual, repetitive actions well - mundane example: use hammer and nails, write code to connect to a database, But I know that activity will not give me the experience I know I need.: feeling really free and aware. That sort of freedom can only be experienced where it resides - at the source of consciousness. And where do we find this - if not within?

"...We identy with the lord we serve..."

And where do we find this - if not within?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".