I may be mistaken...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

I am pleased to see how this thread is developing with the depth that it is!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Here is a major (pun-ish me if you like )) difference between us.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I simply do not believe in miracles or angels of any kind. I do believe that the reality that we operate on is greater than that commonly perceived and it is this that results in what may appear to be miracles or prayers answered...for example. But these are natural phenomena not divine. Although we appear to operate on 4 dimensional planes I suspect the truth is we use several more without ever truly being aware of it. This is why prayer is sometimes effective. If you imagine for a moment that we are not separate entities but are part of a 'soup' of intercommunicating matter then its quite easy to visualise how a prayer is like a signal to what I'd compare to a central nervous system. Repeat that prayer often enough and with sufficient will then it is picked up and the "whole" sets in motion what is required to remedy it. Of course most prayer is half-hearted mantra or thoughtless repetition and never registers on the nerve endings. I think will is key to this. Will is a powerful force that keeps people alive when they should by rights die, and the opposite too. Where its absence lets people die who need not. But I digress.

Ah! The quantum "spooky-action-at-a-distance" thing, web of life and all. OK, I can see that. Good point about prayer, etc., although I have also seen reference along a similar vein in Paganism...that thoughts are things (or can become things). I suppose in my own way I believe similar, in that I do think we become what we believe of ourselves...but I always considered that psychology, not particularly spiritual. Then again, maybe I missed the point.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The Tao in its appreciation that that that is is unfathomable, ungraspable and impenetrable comes closest to my own way of thinking....as you might guess... of anything that might be considered a religion. Which it is not.... to my mind anyway. To me the Tao, as a philosophy, does not speak of 'universal law' but of the proper governance of man for man. But as water cannot flow uphill so man cannot fundamentally go against what the parameters of greater nature permit.

Minor digression, but I always envision the Silver Surfer when I think of the Tao. Meaning, why leave my course to fate and whim...why not hop on my board and chart my course?

I suppose what I get from my comparison is not that the Tao would speak of universal law, the Tao is the universal law. Still, much as you allude to, universal laws cannot fundamentally be broken. Gravity, for instance, is still gravity, and bodies will gravitationally attract each other and so influence each other. Gravity is only one universal law. In that sense, yes we are all subject to the Tao / universal law and cannot avoid otherwise except in minuscule and temporary ways.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Even child murder is a crime within humanity and not a sin before nature. I cannot and do not subscribe to the elevation of mans law to universal law. And further I feel that it is the effort to do this that results in religiously motivated atrocities. It may seem pretty obvious that religious differences result in the claim of divine sanction to behave against humanity but it seems to me few people actually care to see that this will never cease to be the case till our spirituality is totally divorced from human law.

Yet, we run great risk in completely divorcing ourselves from human law, at least so long as we live in a social civilized setting. I understand misgivings with abuse of power in the name of Divine Sanction, I think many of us here at least pay lip service to acknowledgment of this human problem. Still, I can't help but wonder the underlying *need* for such human endeavor. I have heard allusion to morality being the logical extension of what is best for a society to progress as a whole; yet that seems to me too simple, almost trite. There is certainly enough ambiguity and diversity between cultures over what is moral and what is not...yet I still am not satisfied that our encompassing desire for moral guidelines is anything less than Divinely inspired. Morality is too contrary to our selfish predilections. Morality isn't about what is good for me (or you), morality is about what is good for us.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Again if you imagine for a moment that both the bacteria and us are a part of the same 'soup' then they could well be interacting pro-actively. They may not be concious and have the illusion of independence we do, (you only have to realise the importance of ecosystems to realise we are not at all independent), but I feel fairly certain given a battery of info I've read down the years that even humble bacteria react and respond to conditions.

Reacting to conditions is fundamental to adaptation. Of course, I would think this would have to be more or less a large scale event. One bacteria morphing is nothing if the morph isn't passed to the next generation. This is also the root problem with "lone wolf" reasoning, a complete divorce from social guidance.

I am wondering...I find myself ready to discard the baby with the bathwater pertaining to social guidance. But I have to correct myself...it is not the social guidance that is the culprit, it is the misuse of social guidance by less than scrupulous persons. The gun doesn't kill, it is the human aiming and pulling the trigger that kills. It is the continuing misuse of social guidance by persons willing to do so for power, wealth, fame or ???, that is the culprit. In other words, the culprit is us.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Juantoo, forgive me if I ever come across as personal in such debates and let me assure you I never am. I wholly respect your views and opinions and value the thinking they force me into. I am not here to deride or belittle anybody nor their ideas and beliefs. I come here because I find debate on these never-solvable questions fun and stimulating. Of course some I have little patience with but even then I endeavour to be respectful even when what I hear I find laughable. I know I do not always succeed but I do try

I know you meant no offense, and I took no offense. Recently I was asked what I would do if I had been called arrogant, considering I had brought it to another's attention that they had moments of arrogance. I can be arrogant, I know this. It is a weakness of mine I struggle with, and often give in to, usually when I am met with arrogance. That is one of my own personal issues, and I must be honest with myself when facing it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Science is not a spiritual quest I agree but it has opened up can after can of worms for the churches. Spiritual and common wisdom has no effect on science. Science can does give added dimension to the whole that we know, and the rate of growth of human knowledge is phenomenal. For those of us enquiring and individualistic enough to take what we need from where we find it this presents no issues. I do not and will never be an advocate for science as a spiritual discipline but it is our most powerful tool to...as I said in my last post... wonder at its profundity. So for someone like me it strengthens my belief in the existence of that super-entity we debate about.

In essence I agree. The can of worms is for those bound in superstition. But the reverse is also true, and equally fraught. So again, it is balance with commonsense that is necessary when considering such things. We speak here of Quantum entanglements...that is the current vogue of science. Yet science is notoriously fickle, what will tomorrow say of Quantum science? In our lifetimes that is perhaps the best understanding science may hope to offer us, but generations from now it may all be moot. Such is the limitation of science, and words for that matter, in trying to convey what we are to each other. Perhaps these words we write here will not be seen by our great-grandchildren; but if they were, would they still mean the same things?

I realize religion in general suffers from much the same problems, yet there is still a continuity that remains. Will science be here in 3 or 4 generations? Probably, but I wonder how much different it will look. Will religion still be here in 3 or 4 generations? Probably, and while it likely will adapt to changes in the times and knowledge, there is still an underlying wholesomeness that will remain. At least, I sure hope so.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Yes creation is invariably an ecstatic experience to behold or partake in.

Ecstatic experience is precisely why I hope the core of religion stays the same.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo,

It is a good discussion

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Ah! The quantum "spooky-action-at-a-distance" thing, web of life and all. OK, I can see that. Good point about prayer, etc., although I have also seen reference along a similar vein in Paganism...that thoughts are things (or can become things). I suppose in my own way I believe similar, in that I do think we become what we believe of ourselves...but I always considered that psychology, not particularly spiritual. Then again, maybe I missed the point.

Even the humble mirror was once considered spooky, then the camera. As we learn more about quantum connectivity it becomes less spooky and starts to make a lot of sense in explaining the how of why things are all linked together. The why is itself still open to debate Paganism, American Indian beliefs, Native Australian and the Tao all have this deep understanding of the connectivity of all things. So what I believe is far from new or completely born of science. Aboriginal belief in the "dreamtime" for which they use a combination of ethnogens and ritual to access is to my thinking a way of connecting more effectively with the super-reality that transcends our normal 4 dimensional existence. They believe that even the wind and rocks have spirit. In effect they see God in everything, just as I express it. I make some attempt to strip away the clutter of cultural embellishments to get at what is hopefully an honest attempt to understand to the best of my ability the basic truths. Maybe this is why I might sometimes appear to be hostile to the big mono-theisms, because in them I find endless clutter and few truths.

Minor digression, but I always envision the Silver Surfer when I think of the Tao. Meaning, why leave my course to fate and whim...why not hop on my board and chart my course?

My understanding of the Tao is not that one should leave ones self to the course of fate and whim. To me the Tao is about finding the path of least resistance, so that I am aided in my journey rather than constantly battling against forces much greater than I. The surfer is an excellent analogy for this as he harnesses the flow to propel himself forward with the least resistance. The Tao to me is not at all about conceding destiny to fate, its about finding the most effective route through it.

Yet, we run great risk in completely divorcing ourselves from human law, at least so long as we live in a social civilized setting. I understand misgivings with abuse of power in the name of Divine Sanction, I think many of us here at least pay lip service to acknowledgment of this human problem. Still, I can't help but wonder the underlying *need* for such human endeavor. I have heard allusion to morality being the logical extension of what is best for a society to progress as a whole; yet that seems to me too simple, almost trite. There is certainly enough ambiguity and diversity between cultures over what is moral and what is not...yet I still am not satisfied that our encompassing desire for moral guidelines is anything less than Divinely inspired. Morality is too contrary to our selfish predilections. Morality isn't about what is good for me (or you), morality is about what is good for us.

Here is perhaps where we most fundamentally disagree. As stated before that I believe that morality is purely a consequence of us being social animals. Yes we have a degree of selfishness but that self also extends to family, group, nation, culture etc. L.Ron Hubbard stole this obvious fact for his 4 'dynamics' in his book Dianetics. This is well explained by him in that book and is perhaps a key reason why some are sucked into believing the charlatan to be genuine. His 'insights' are nothing more than obvious truths that anyone with any interest in social anthropology knows.
To me God has no morality that we can understand or connect with our morality save that we are a part of the super-nature. A solitary cat, say a tiger, has no moral sympathy for the weakness and vulnerability of a fawn, it just sees an easy meal. Yet we will transfer our innate need to protect our own young onto the bambi. There is no evidence of any kind to believe that an all-powerful entity has similar empathy to us. Quite the contrary, when you think of the blood spilled in His name. Further I believe that by delegating the source of morality to God you actually give sanction to abuse of it. If morality was entirely understood to be a human necessity for the greater good of all then it could not be abused by those that would cite an atrocity to be the will of God. Delegating morality as something required by God actually absolves us from our human responsibilities to one another in the name of something higher. It's a disenfranchisement that cuts to the very core of our humanity of and is to my mind so deeply important as to say it is the cause of virtually all inter-cultural conflict. Why must we have morality for God? Why not have morality for Us.

I know you meant no offense, and I took no offense. Recently I was asked what I would do if I had been called arrogant, considering I had brought it to another's attention that they had moments of arrogance. I can be arrogant, I know this. It is a weakness of mine I struggle with, and often give in to, usually when I am met with arrogance. That is one of my own personal issues, and I must be honest with myself when facing it.

Well you never see yourself as others see you Juantoo, and all I can say I have never seen an arrogant nuance in you, let alone an overt display.

In essence I agree. The can of worms is for those bound in superstition. But the reverse is also true, and equally fraught. So again, it is balance with commonsense that is necessary when considering such things. We speak here of Quantum entanglements...that is the current vogue of science. Yet science is notoriously fickle, what will tomorrow say of Quantum science? In our lifetimes that is perhaps the best understanding science may hope to offer us, but generations from now it may all be moot. Such is the limitation of science, and words for that matter, in trying to convey what we are to each other. Perhaps these words we write here will not be seen by our great-grandchildren; but if they were, would they still mean the same things?

Well we cant know the future, (or can we? ), but though we now have fancy words and mathematical formulas for quantum physics some thinkers have known about it for centuries. Let me ask you a question, do you...on some level... never find anything you learn from science a 'surprise'? And a second one.. do you perceive 'synchronicity' to be a fact? My answers are No and Yes respectively. I believe that 99.99% of our existence as we perceive it to be effectively stuck in linear 4 dimensional constraints. The reason for this is simply that this on the whole works well for us. But we still have that 0.01% that connects to something bigger.... to the super-nature. That super-nature I believe would operate in all dimensions.
Our grandchildren will know a bit more than we do but still they will be faced with countless questions which with each answer will pose many more. This is the way things are. And I love it!!! Both religion and science will exist as long as man is man and we will continue the same debate almost indistinguishable from that of our earliest ancestors till then end of our time. We can never hope to have all the answers, we can just enjoy trying to answer them to the best of our ability.


Kind regards

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

thank you for your thoughtful post!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Even the humble mirror was once considered spooky, then the camera. As we learn more about quantum connectivity it becomes less spooky and starts to make a lot of sense in explaining the how of why things are all linked together. The why is itself still open to debate

I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke that said something to the effect of: "any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to those not so advanced." I can only imagine the "magic" thought to be behind the compass or gunpowder. Yes, the "why" is still open to debate, or this discussion wouldn't be necessary...(not that it is actually necessary, but the points would be givens for both of us).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Paganism, American Indian beliefs, Native Australian and the Tao all have this deep understanding of the connectivity of all things. So what I believe is far from new or completely born of science. Aboriginal belief in the "dreamtime" for which they use a combination of ethnogens and ritual to access is to my thinking a way of connecting more effectively with the super-reality that transcends our normal 4 dimensional existence. They believe that even the wind and rocks have spirit. In effect they see God in everything, just as I express it. I make some attempt to strip away the clutter of cultural embellishments to get at what is hopefully an honest attempt to understand to the best of my ability the basic truths.

I have a dear friend of some 6 years or so now, who follows the shaman path of her Apache grandfather. By no means does this make me expert on the subject, but she and I have had many long hours of discussion, some of which surpassed my attempts to understand (not for lack of trying). She would agree, I think, with all you say here but would include an express belief in what Christians would call "angels." Actually, belief is not sufficient...according to her she frequently communes with these angels. And not simply garden variety run-of-the-mill angels either, but some pretty powerful dudes. Now, the logical part of me wants to outright dismiss this possibility. But the spiritual part of me in some sense is envious. Nor is this the first or only reference I have seen to this within Native American beliefs. The Native American medicine "man" typically while on spirit quest communes with the grandfathers.

I add this as only another wrinkle to the story, not to try to dismiss your point of view.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Maybe this is why I might sometimes appear to be hostile to the big mono-theisms, because in them I find endless clutter and few truths.

I half agree with this. The institutions of religion have heaped endless clutter on top, and do make it difficult for a sincere seeker. But I do find great truths in my path, buried under the clutter. I see it something like this: there had to be something there at the beginning that was worthwhile or it would have never taken off like it has to begin with. There is a saying, I think from Buddhism, that says something like not to follow in the footsteps of the guide (for me, the man Jesus), but rather to be like him. Now, I've got a seriously long row to hoe to even think I'm getting there, but I find great truth at the source, in the teachings of my chosen human spiritual guide.

This seems a good place to interject, that with the plethora of self-proclaimed prophets in the world, they all seem to me to be focussed on self. "Look what I have done!" Whereas those sincere individuals who we collectively hold as genuine spiritual leaders were about empowering others, not themselves. Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr., Martin Luther, Jesus, the Buddha, the shaman, were all about empowering others, not themselves. Those heaps of clutter piled high on top are piled by those with ulterior motives, often not about empowering others, but ensnaring or enslaving them.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

My understanding of the Tao is not that one should leave ones self to the course of fate and whim. To me the Tao is about finding the path of least resistance, so that I am aided in my journey rather than constantly battling against forces much greater than I. The surfer is an excellent analogy for this as he harnesses the flow to propel himself forward with the least resistance. The Tao to me is not at all about conceding destiny to fate, its about finding the most effective route through it.

Ah! Would that we were always so inclined! If we were always in the Way, then we would have no need for instruction. I do believe our selfish desires often tempt us to paddle upriver every once in awhile.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Here is perhaps where we most fundamentally disagree. As stated before that I believe that morality is purely a consequence of us being social animals. Yes we have a degree of selfishness but that self also extends to family, group, nation, culture etc. L.Ron Hubbard stole this obvious fact for his 4 'dynamics' in his book Dianetics. This is well explained by him in that book and is perhaps a key reason why some are sucked into believing the charlatan to be genuine. His 'insights' are nothing more than obvious truths that anyone with any interest in social anthropology knows.

Actually my view of self and selfishness is inspired more by Ayn Rand and Sun Tzu (business major, what can I say?). I suppose that is where we often get ourselves into trouble...practical application. Real world scenarios are seldom black and white choices.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

To me God has no morality that we can understand or connect with our morality save that we are a part of the super-nature. A solitary cat, say a tiger, has no moral sympathy for the weakness and vulnerability of a fawn, it just sees an easy meal. Yet we will transfer our innate need to protect our own young onto the bambi. There is no evidence of any kind to believe that an all-powerful entity has similar empathy to us. Quite the contrary, when you think of the blood spilled in His name. Further I believe that by delegating the source of morality to God you actually give sanction to abuse of it. If morality was entirely understood to be a human necessity for the greater good of all then it could not be abused by those that would cite an atrocity to be the will of God. Delegating morality as something required by God actually absolves us from our human responsibilities to one another in the name of something higher. It's a disenfranchisement that cuts to the very core of our humanity of and is to my mind so deeply important as to say it is the cause of virtually all inter-cultural conflict. Why must we have morality for God? Why not have morality for Us.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but I can't help but feel it is missing something. That Tiger has to eat something, and until he learns to eat grass he will continue to hunt bambi. That is what he does, the role he fills and the purpose he serves. Doesn't seem too pleasant to bambi's mother, I'm sure, or to grass when he gets to that point. Life feeds life, life requires life, life cannot be sustained by something that is not alive. (This is Native American teaching as well) Yes, our perverted sense of morality may interfere with comprehending this, perhaps even wanting the Tiger dead for being a Tiger. That is us imposing our modern interpretations onto natural reality. The Tiger is moral, to other Tigers of its clan. Bambi's family is moral to the members of its clan. Humans strive in this day and age to enfold every human within one clan, where historically we have been many clans. I don't know how to answer this dilemma in a PC way, other than to say I choose to treat all other humans as members of my clan, and even to great extent include my brothers and sisters in the animal world.

But there is paradox...I don't look my supper in the face as it is killed and butchered. I try to be mindful, but I am not very good at it. Killing for sustenance though should be a mindful and purposeful thing, not done with pleasure or torture. But by allowing others to perform this dirty deed, I relinquish my part in the picture, and vicariously absolve myself of the process that I sense is necessary to genuine understanding of this paradox. The Native Americans viewed their prey as brothers, and thanked them for their service and offering of themselves for sustenance. The Christian grace at the supper table is a faint and distant reminder of this, and a hundred years ago when momma killed the chicken for supper herself it probably meant something. Now it seems to me in most cases to be simple rote with no meaning. We don't feel for the cow that becomes our fast food burger, and sadly we really don't even care to. "That's someone else's responsibility, I just eat what's put on my plate." Native Americans took great pains to use every part of the creature in some manner or other, in their beliefs that was to honor the sacrifice of the dead brother. Western cultures don't consider honor in our sacrifices, with one glaring exception...those sacrifices of our own human brothers and sisters. Not to belittle in any way, but I do feel that that honor should extend far beyond those limited bounds.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well you never see yourself as others see you Juantoo, and all I can say I have never seen an arrogant nuance in you, let alone an overt display.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well we cant know the future, (or can we? ), but though we now have fancy words and mathematical formulas for quantum physics some thinkers have known about it for centuries. Let me ask you a question, do you...on some level... never find anything you learn from science a 'surprise'? And a second one.. do you perceive 'synchronicity' to be a fact? My answers are No and Yes respectively.

Not to be too picky, but I suppose it depends on what one means by "surprize" and "synchronicity?" By synchronicity I presume you mean the Jungian philosophy of chance and coincidence? I have experienced many occasions of unexplained coincidence. How that connects here I can't say? Are we back to quantum relations and / or thinking things into reality? As for science, there are vast realms of science I have little more than cursory knowledge of. There are other realms that fascinate me and keep me enamored, from a strictly amateur perspective. Even in those realms I do have interest, I am frequently met with pleasant surprizes. So I am not sure I follow...

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I believe that 99.99% of our existence as we perceive it to be effectively stuck in linear 4 dimensional constraints. The reason for this is simply that this on the whole works well for us.

To the logic based Western mind, I agree.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But we still have that 0.01% that connects to something bigger.... to the super-nature. That super-nature I believe would operate in all dimensions.

This steps outside of where the logic based Western mind is comfortable. Which, IMHO, is a large portion of the reason science cannot make inroads in the spirit realm. Other traditions are content and comfortable dealing within this "super-nature" realm, some you alluded to like aboriginal tribes. Science by and large dismisses these traditions...

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Our grandchildren will know a bit more than we do but still they will be faced with countless questions which with each answer will pose many more. This is the way things are. And I love it!!! Both religion and science will exist as long as man is man and we will continue the same debate almost indistinguishable from that of our earliest ancestors till then end of our time. We can never hope to have all the answers, we can just enjoy trying to answer them to the best of our ability.

Thanks, as always, you're a great sport!

[Tao_Equus]

Hi bud.... thx for your response

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke that said something to the effect of: "any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to those not so advanced." I can only imagine the "magic" thought to be behind the compass or gunpowder. Yes, the "why" is still open to debate, or this discussion wouldn't be necessary...(not that it is actually necessary, but the points would be givens for both of us).

Have you read " a childhoods end"? If so do you think he inadvertently started all this indigo stuff?

I have a dear friend of some 6 years or so now, who follows the shaman path of her Apache grandfather. By no means does this make me expert on the subject, but she and I have had many long hours of discussion, some of which surpassed my attempts to understand (not for lack of trying). She would agree, I think, with all you say here but would include an express belief in what Christians would call "angels." Actually, belief is not sufficient...according to her she frequently communes with these angels. And not simply garden variety run-of-the-mill angels either, but some pretty powerful dudes. Now, the logical part of me wants to outright dismiss this possibility. But the spiritual part of me in some sense is envious. Nor is this the first or only reference I have seen to this within Native American beliefs. The Native American medicine "man" typically while on spirit quest communes with the grandfathers.

This may be true. Perhaps a limitation of mine is that my journey has been on the whole a solitary one. And perhaps the definition of 'angel' is of relevance. Certainly I have great respect for these ancient traditionalists that utilise learning I have never been privy to. This is the great advantage of being born into an already ancient history. I have not had that and have felt, because my own first requisite is to filter wheat from chaff, often that pieces are missing because I lack cultural knowledge. Who knows what paths I may follow in the future tho. Last post I foolishly dismissed the idea of angels. Perhaps because of the archetypal Gabrial figure predisposes me to scepticism. Like I say we have to define angel. The Christian narrative always paints angels as messengers of, or those elevated by God. This does not sit comfortably into my thinking. But if you were to describe an angel as a being that is able to transcend our usual 4D boundaries then I have some scope for acceptance...... and even experience. But thats a whole other story
You are lucky to have a friendship with someone so connected to such an ancient understanding. The first girl I ever fell in love with was 1/2 navaho, I was 14 and we were skiing buddies, and she made me think a lot because she was incredulous at my lack of spirituality. It may be that often times I come across as an analytical scientific type. Well truth is I am, and see great merit in such an approach. But, and for me it is a big BUT.... I do see that this everything is very very very unlikely to be chance alone. Science is a wonderful tool. But that's all it is.

I half agree with this. The institutions of religion have heaped endless clutter on top, and do make it difficult for a sincere seeker. But I do find great truths in my path, buried under the clutter. I see it something like this: there had to be something there at the beginning that was worthwhile or it would have never taken off like it has to begin with. There is a saying, I think from Buddhism, that says something like not to follow in the footsteps of the guide (for me, the man Jesus), but rather to be like him. Now, I've got a seriously long row to hoe to even think I'm getting there, but I find great truth at the source, in the teachings of my chosen human spiritual guide.

I never discuss anything in an effort to persuade anyone of anything........ only to examine my own thoughts. Yeh yeh yeh...i'm a selfish gitt

This seems a good place to interject, that with the plethora of self-proclaimed prophets in the world, they all seem to me to be focussed on self. "Look what I have done!" Whereas those sincere individuals who we collectively hold as genuine spiritual leaders were about empowering others, not themselves. Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr., Martin Luther, Jesus, the Buddha, the shaman, were all about empowering others, not themselves. Those heaps of clutter piled high on top are piled by those with ulterior motives, often not about empowering others, but ensnaring or enslaving them.

Yes!! I think i have now spent long enough on these forums being a critic. Everybody who cares now knows exactly where I stand. Time i stopped ranting the same line to the same people.

Not to be too picky, but I suppose it depends on what one means by "surprize" and "synchronicity?" By synchronicity I presume you mean the Jungian philosophy of chance and coincidence? I have experienced many occasions of unexplained coincidence. How that connects here I can't say? Are we back to quantum relations and / or thinking things into reality? As for science, there are vast realms of science I have little more than cursory knowledge of. There are other realms that fascinate me and keep me enamored, from a strictly amateur perspective. Even in those realms I do have interest, I am frequently met with pleasant surprizes. So I am not sure I follow...

Basicly I believe scynchronicity to be a recognizable facet of our inter-reaction with quantum reality. Quantum multi-dimensional reality is the integral framework of our everyday limited reality. Sometimes we get glimpses of the bigger picture. I hope to go into that in greater depth in the Zero Point Musing Thread over in science soon.

This steps outside of where the logic based Western mind is comfortable. Which, IMHO, is a large portion of the reason science cannot make inroads in the spirit realm. Other traditions are content and comfortable dealing within this "super-nature" realm, some you alluded to like aboriginal tribes. Science by and large dismisses these traditions...

Perhaps because its not really the remit of science to ponder the imponderable? Science is really the art of dissection and reduction.... belief is the art of holistic realisation. two sides of the same coin of our common human endeavour to seek explanation. I like people who dismiss neither avenue of exploration.


ever your respectful brother in debate

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi bud.... thx for your response
Have you read " a childhoods end"? If so do you think he inadvertently started all this indigo stuff?

Sadly, no, I hear it is his best work. 2001, 2010, Rendezvous with Rama, but not Childhood's End. BTW, what's this "indigo stuff" you mentioned?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perhaps a limitation of mine is that my journey has been on the whole a solitary one. And perhaps the definition of 'angel' is of relevance. Certainly I have great respect for these ancient traditionalists that utilise learning I have never been privy to. This is the great advantage of being born into an already ancient history. I have not had that and have felt, because my own first requisite is to filter wheat from chaff, often that pieces are missing because I lack cultural knowledge. Who knows what paths I may follow in the future tho. Last post I foolishly dismissed the idea of angels. Perhaps because of the archetypal Gabrial figure predisposes me to scepticism. Like I say we have to define angel. The Christian narrative always paints angels as messengers of, or those elevated by God. This does not sit comfortably into my thinking. But if you were to describe an angel as a being that is able to transcend our usual 4D boundaries then I have some scope for acceptance...... and even experience. But thats a whole other story

FWIW, I try to look beyond the mere words, and try to envision the concepts. Yet, I am but a humble follower up the trail like so many others. I know the menu is not the food...I also realize that at best I may only be sniffing the smells from the kitchen and longing for supper to begin.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You are lucky to have a friendship with someone so connected to such an ancient understanding. The first girl I ever fell in love with was 1/2 navaho, I was 14 and we were skiing buddies, and she made me think a lot because she was incredulous at my lack of spirituality.

Sounds like a wonderful experience in itself.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It may be that often times I come across as an analytical scientific type. Well truth is I am, and see great merit in such an approach. But, and for me it is a big BUT.... I do see that this everything is very very very unlikely to be chance alone. Science is a wonderful tool. But that's all it is.

In this we share much.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I never discuss anything in an effort to persuade anyone of anything........ only to examine my own thoughts. Yeh yeh yeh...i'm a selfish gitt

Ummm...equally guilty here too.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Basicly I believe scynchronicity to be a recognizable facet of our inter-reaction with quantum reality. Quantum multi-dimensional reality is the integral framework of our everyday limited reality. Sometimes we get glimpses of the bigger picture. I hope to go into that in greater depth in the Zero Point Musing Thread over in science soon.

Sounds like an interesting thread, have been meaning to look in and just haven't made myself do so yet.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perhaps because its not really the remit of science to ponder the imponderable? Science is really the art of dissection and reduction.... belief is the art of holistic realisation. two sides of the same coin of our common human endeavour to seek explanation. I like people who dismiss neither avenue of exploration.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

ever your respectful brother in debate

I dunno...debate sounds to me like there must be a winner and a loser.

Would you mind if I were your respectful brother in discussion? That way, we both win, and maybe others too.

[Tao_Equus]

Juantoo,

I dunno...debate sounds to me like there must be a winner and a loser.

Would you mind if I were your respectful brother in discussion? That way, we both win, and maybe others too.

Ok you win.... discussion it is

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perhaps you are right but your logical response is a human one.

Hi TE

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, am working hard to get my new business off the ground so time is very limited.

Phew, confirmation I am human

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I fail to see any evidence that God shares such sentiments.

We can only agree to disagree here because I believe that G-d has communicated directly with mankind. Of course I was not there and cannot say I witnessed this but my heart/gut/mind tell me there is truth behind the web of 'religion' that has been spun, by the religious leaders, over the centuries.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The other living things that we nurture and cherish are those things that we would eat. Would you be as quick to believe that we are but a snack for God?

I don't eat animals so the answer would have to be no.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I never try to define God, I just try to get the most complete picture of what is given our limitations. The nature I see has no benevolent nor wrathful, vengeful God. I see nothing anthropocentric outside of man himself.

I can see G-d in everything, I sit and look at the sea, the mountains or the stars and there is G-d's creation. It is just what works for me, there is no way to prove or disprove G-d's existence or what He creates, controls or judges - I think that is why it is called faith.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But neither does it infer that God is concious of us, where for analogy we become the blood cell in the 'body' of God.

Again, for me it is simply a matter of faith. G-d has told us that He is concious of every living creature and I believe every word that G-d says. I do not feel the need to see burning bushes, plagues or angels in order to believe in G-d or His knowledge of us.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I must point out however that in your opening paragraph you very distinctly anthropomorphised Gods nature.

You are right to point it out and you are correct. This is where I find such difficulty in this conversation. I cannot in any way, shape or form define G-d but in order to discuss G-d, particularly with someone with beliefs different to my own, I have no choice but to discuss Him in human terms - which sort of defeats the whole point.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do not see God in human terms but I look at creation with human eyes. I try at all times to use logic and observation using logic to understand the physical universe. Being raised in a religion-free household by poorly educated parents every track of seeking I ever followed has been my of own choosing.

I am delighted to hear it. My father is strictly athiest, my mother is agnostic (her beliefs are very similar to your own) and before I became a 'wife' my career was in a scientific field. My choices and beliefs are also of my own doing, G-d gave me a good brain and I shall continue to use it or as long as I can.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

and are thus in constant unconscious communication with that whole we have this sense we define as spirituality or belief in God. Its a real thing. But it is poorly understood by most religions.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you but are you not stating your opinion as fact here? I am more than willing to accept that my beliefs may be wrong, or yours may, or we may both be wrong and someone else has it right. That is the strange thing about belief and science, even when you think something is a fact there is another person due any moment that will disprove all your facts/theories and perhaps even beliefs.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Spirituality is, I believe, our sense of perception of the whole. Nothing more. But if you think about it for any length of time you will I am sure begin to see that it explains every facet of the esoteric and has a beauty and simplicity that becomes stunningly obvious.

I am so pleased this works and feels right for you. However, my beliefs give me the same satisfaction and the One True G-d is to me 'stunningly obvious'. Isn't faith/belief so frustrating, you know in your heart you have the answer but other people just can't see the truth of it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

OMG!! I'm proselytising!!! Lmao.....wonders will never cease

Will wonders never cease, hee, hee. I can't wait to see what you say by the end of this thread. Lmao.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Again here throughout these 2 paragraphs you actually ascribe man-like qualities to God while attempting the opposite. You cant have it both ways!!!

I know but a discussion about a thing we cannot describe, imagine or understand is going to be a very short discussion. Actually that one is driving me mad, how can I discuss G-d without putting Him in human terms?!!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Then why do I hear so often from Muslims these challenges to defy the ineffable nature of the Q'uran?

I also believe in the truth of the Quran, however I also love to read it and when G-d tells me there will be no compulsion in religion I believe Him. I cannot make you hold my beliefs, as you cannot make me believe yours. G-d also tells us numerous times that had He wanted to He would have made the world one nation. This message, to me, is very clear, G-d created us to walk different paths according to His will.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As I have come to know you a bit on this forum I can only say that you are atypical of Muslim's I have met here. So while I absolutely respect where you are coming from forgive me if I still continue to bash Islam at times

I shall take that as a compliment. I believe age has a lot to do with it, I speak all the time to Muslims who were born into the religion, have never left the middle east and are a similar age to myself, they also hold very similar views, as myself, of our religion (often more relaxed because as a convert I tend to be a bit more gung-ho about it). Perhaps as you pass that 40 line you naturally mellow? The other thing to bear in mind is that most of the mellow, laid back faithful feel no need to discuss their faith, they are simply comfortable with their belief. I came here as a means of communicating in my own language or to be honest I would rarely speak of my religious beliefs, other than during my studies. So bash away, the young should always have their views challenged or they don't grow. (Wow I really sound like an old fart sometimes).

Salaam
MW

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can see possibility that we may be of some import to G-d. At the very least, what is our purpose in a spirit body? What are we in training here in this existence for, anyway? I don't know the answer, but it seems enough to doubt our complete and total unimportance.

As salaam aleykum Juantoo

I believe each and every one of us is very important to G-d, not just one group or faith or colour or gender. If we were not important why would He send us so many Prophets (pbut)? Why give us so many chances, why not just scrap the whole idea at Adam and Eve (pbut) and write us off as a failure? That is not to say that I believe we, in ourselves, are important or are any more important than a cat or mouse. We are merely servants of G-d, as are all of His creations.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I agree, but I have never come to terms with what that should be taken to mean...other than that we will be called to task for what we do and say in this existence.

This is a great problem, is it not? God gave each scripture in human terms and in ways we could understand but of course He is able to create universes so how could we possibly even begin to fathom what He is? To take All Seeing and All Knowing literally would be to suggest eyes and ears and the limitations that brings. I agree with you completely, I also believe it is a warning to us that we will answer for everything we choose to do in this life.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can't help but feel all of our analogies here are wanting, not for lack of desire to make our points, but that we are all attempting to use human terms to define something far beyond mere humanity.

Exactly but what else can we do? I used to teach nuclear, biological and chemical warfare in the military and believe me it is very hard to explain to people with no scientific background. You have to explain things in terms they can grasp, even though your explanations may not be strictly accurate but give the general idea. Yet this is a subject any human can, with the right education, understand. So what hope have we of explaining the completely unexplainable??

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I guess what is causing me confusion here, is the "science experiment / technology" thing. If we actually are a science experiment, it would kinda give credence to the whole "alien-landing-in-a-spaceship" idea of extraterrestrial meddling in the evolution of humanity. Not that I haven't considered the possibility, but I feel more comfortable reaching beyond that. Who knows?

I have no doubt that G-d has created beings other than the ones on earth. The Quran refers to the judgement of "all the worlds" and I think one can safely assume that G-d does not intend judging barren lumps of rock and gas. I also think it is very arrogant of humans to think we are the be all and end all of life.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Without telepathy, I'm not sure it is possible.

Interesting idea Juantoo but if I could see into your mind what would I see as your image of G-d? If we cannot imagine G-d would telepathy help? Any image we hold of G-d is purely our attempt to understand what is impossible to understand and would be limited to our understanding of things.

Salaam

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you for your reply

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman