Hey T, Thank you for taking the time to go do deeply on this topic. It will take me a while to work up a response that does justice to the level of thought in your post. This has been one of the most satisfying exchanges I have had here on FFL, so thanks for that! It is really advancing my thinking and allowing me to reconsider topics in a fresh way. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate this opportunity for discussion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis, this was one of your excellent posts, which at the time I ahd > neglected. Today is Friday, and I still have a few posts free ;-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his > > experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. > > > > T " I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, > > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything." > > There are experiences where thinking is stopped,and there is simply > witnessing of a force. Thoughts are literally drained off your brain. > This is another experience, as the one quoted above, where I claerly > was reflecting, while having the experience. There was some 'insight' > here, some intuition together with the experience in the bar (and > coming from it) They were different years towns etc. > > > I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how > > compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful > > to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different > > character than my own "insights". Here T sums up what he sees as my > > perspective: > > I would never judge your insights or intuitions. I just explain mine, > and why I go for it. > > > > T > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the > > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different > > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could > > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally > > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, > > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where > > > > > intellect is 'in control' > > > > > > I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my > > insights are gained in this way: T: "he tries to understand them > > rationally > > > only," > > Okay, Curtis, I could not have known how this worked for you. I > appreciate that there is more to it than pure intellectual reflection. > What that 'more' is, one has to see, because due to the very nature > of atheism it couldn't have been a ehm revelation of any sort, like a > intuition coming from a higher, or more knowing source I assume. > > In fact, as you explain, as atheism is very much something defined > through a negative, it can only be a reaction to this, the falling > away of something, which you must feel is oppressing, thus a liberation. > > Yesterday in TV they interviewed this man (Richard Dawkins) who almost > religiously endorses atheism, he just wrote a bestseller. The > commentators said more or less that his viewpoints and argumentation > wasn't really applying to Europe, as there are many more atheists > here than in the USA. If you take East-Germany, the majority are > actually atheists, and the people there, who are believers, did so > against he ideological oppression of the former communist government, > who had postulated a 'dialectic materialism' as a states-ideology. I > would therefore categorize your liberating experience as a reflection > of your own religious history, within the context of the type of > religion followed in the USA. It certainly also is a reflection on > Christianity a a whole, and whenever you or Turq speak of Theism, you > mention 'a Creator God', yet this is in my oppinion not a defining > factor of religion, or the kind of theism I persue. > > In fact Advaita, which has been my starting point, and still is > defining very much what I believe, a personal God is admitted, as real > as we are, but he is not a creator, as there is no creation at all, > the universe is just a projection, a reflection within Maya, > illussion. God, Ishwara, is still subject to Maya! That's the > bottom-line. There are various other theologies especially with the > Vaishnavas, who postulate a Creator-God, but very different than in > Christianity. In Dvaita, eg. God is not the Creator, the universe and > the souls are crated by samsara and karma, very much like in > Buddhism,God is there rather for liberation instead of creation. > Visishtadvaita claims God to be the 'efficient and material' cause of > the universe. So its a Creator God, but we are all parts of God, like > his limbs! > > So there are many different ways of looking at it, we in the west are > usually just exposed to ONE mode of Theism, and if that comes along > with oppressive thoughts and ideologies, like the threat of eternal > condemnation, its quite understandable, that being free of these > concepts must be a liberation. But what if you had never believed in > any of these anyway, like me, who was not religiously raised? I didn't > have all this baggage with me, I rather freely embraced spirituality, > more like exploring it and going by my own experience only. > > > > This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to > > atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive > > and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier > > if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the > > deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that > > my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and > > liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of > > becoming awakened. > > See above. > > > The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has > > effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a > > total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious > > awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. > > In a way this is the predicament of atheism. You describe it in a way > that is almost religious. I am fine with it, I have no objection, it > may work for you, and I believe you got free of oppressive > conditioning. But, due to its very defintion, atheism is bound to > relate to something else. And you admit, that you cannot know, if > there is an ultimate ground, God etc. Basically atheism, as I see it > defined is just the admitting of 'Not Knowing' There couldn't be any > insight really, except that you don't know. > > There is another reason why I refer to atheism as relying on Ratio. > You say, we shouldn't accept an experience however sublmime on face > value, or as it presents itself to us, we should rather check it with > our mind, with ratio. Now this is where I differ with you. Not that i > say, my experience is proof of something, but to me ratio doesn't > proof anything either.I can very well leave a factor of uncertainty, > and still take my stand, that is believe. You may say that this is a > kind of weakness, that in actuality, we just seek some kind of comfort > in this. You may say so, and it was said. But I ask you: Where is this > kind of ethics or morale coming from? > > Here we have another problem; Any ethics or morality, if you don't > believe in a higher source, or ultimate goal of the universe, is > rather weak and self-imposed. I mean humanism is fine, but in a way it > is just derived from Christianity, who places man as the crown of > creation. If Humanism would have grown in a Buddhist culture it would > have incorporated all living beings. So I think that all value sytems > are depended on the culture one is coming from, and in Europe or > America this is Christianity. > > So, why should I deny an experience, because I think that I cannot > know it is 100% 'True'? You see what I mean? Truth, to speak the truth > is 1 of the 10 Commandments. Why should you even care about the Truth > (or Non-Truth), if there is no value-system, no goal, no hereafter > etc. Why care about telling anybody that they are oppressed or in need > of liberation, when in the end of the day, no archeologist, when he > finds your sculp will care what you believed and how smart you were. > So, Curties, why really care? Why say: 'I'm an atheist and you should > look into this', or why say: 'the liberative experience I had is of > the qualitative same order, or rather not lower, than your mystical > insight' Maybe, but why care, when there is no value-system, and if > you believe in a value-system, then for what reason? > > > > I don't believe that people who view life from a theological > > perspective will "evolve" into atheism. I think some believers in God > > think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or > > another life) again. > > Probably thats what I believe, but I am not sure about it. It could > just as easily be that some souls just pass out like this. I have no > problem with this. > > > Given enough evidence I surely could believe > > again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as > > most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by > > man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide > > that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. > > Now here something has to be said. Whatever you call a God, or > different Gods, that is surely cultural, marred with human imagination > and ideas. But it doesn't mean there is no reality behind it. To me > this kind of thought comes from a very narrow definition of Theism, > which I had abondend when I was 14. > > > > It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand > > philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were > > involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as > > challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and > > deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their > > internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using > > their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know > > the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to > > admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know > > what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using > > your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal > > perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to > > approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have > > discovered along the way. > > Yes, exactly. Please don't be offended by any kind of criticsm I have > made about atheism in general. It's just general thougths. The way you > have explained yourself before, you general openess to mysticism and > possibly pantheism, doesn't make you an atheist the way I view it. I > could also be an atheist from the POV of a Vaishnava Theist, for all > what I know. >
