Because again these conclusions of yours are product of your view. You are taking certain notions and attempting to place them into your own conceptual model, in hopes of creating (what you consider to be) a logical explanation. And the only way they are going to fit with your model is if you peg them as "subjective experiences" in an inherent sense (such a notion has no basis in the teachings, only the mind of Andrew). However in the actual context of the system there is no conflict. In the true view of the system there is no need to relegate these occurrences to inherently existent subjective experiences, no need to scratch one's head wondering how these individuals can be integrated, these are the residual conflicts of your own ideas, not the system. Why is that? Because the system can allow for conventional and ultimate standpoints and so on. Aspects of the teaching that your materialist view utterly lacks, and so you face contradictions and conflicts within your view, yet you act as if you're encountering conflicts apart from your own projections.Andrew108 wrote:I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. I'll write some more latter this evening. There is a thread on psychotherapy and Dharma. In that thread Jeeprs posted that he saw realization and realized individuals as 'supernormal'. I would agree with this. That these individuals are highly integrated. One wonders how some one who constantly reified a subjective experience could be integrated at all?
To repeat what I wrote in my last post; your contention that these systems are reifying subjective experiences in the way you are suggesting is pure delusion.