Grace (My appologies to toombaru)

[Guest guest]

Arnór ,

 

<<

I am sorry if I have made undue claims in an overbearing manner in my

posts. Arrogance and its root cause, fear based in seperation, has been

with me for so long that most of the time I don't recognize it for what

it is.

>>

When I said " arrogant " , I was not referring to you.

I mis-spoke when I said the " original author " of the post.

I see you were the original author. But I was referring

to the person who wrote the " logical refutation of the

notion of grace " (toombaru).

Nevertheless, it was an arrogant thing for me to say that.

My appologies to toombaru.

 

It was your post that left me feeling a need to write my retort

to toombaru's argument. I had felt his argument was specious from

the beginning but had not bothered to reply. But became

concerned when it seemed that some people might be taken

in by it.

 

I just looked back at your original post and saw these lines:

 

> My understanding is this: The creator, the essential counterpart of the

> creation, does not lose his grace when radiating it by his mere be-ing;

> the transfer from the creator to the created is beginning-less and

> therefore end-less. Since the transfer is impersonal it cannot, by its

> very nature, be 'selective'; the creator loves his creation...not

> because of the creations merit but because of the creations existence.

>

> If the grace of the guru follows the same principles it cannot, by its

> very nature, be selective of the people its given to.

 

I think you make a very good point.

This particular list is *very* non-dual, and a notion of " creator " such

as you use will tend to come under attack here. You might find

yourself more at home on the SufiMystic list.

 

Bill