--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I guess what I'm looking for is a straightforward account
> of
> > > > > sources of where these practices come from. If "the gods"
in
> > > > > Vedic literature are synonomous with "laws of nature," as
Jon
> > > > > Shear (mid-1970's) and Bevan Morris (8/88) indicated to me
> in
> > > > > conversation, then I feel a straighforward account is in
> order,
> > > > > e.g what does it mean to "see" and/or "talk to" a "law of
> > > > > nature?"
> > > >
> > > > You do realize that by "laws of nature" they mean "devas",
> > > > gods?
> > >
> > > Or: You do realize that by "devas," gods, Vaj means
> > > "laws of nature"?
> >
> > Similarly, "being in tune with the laws of nature"
> > really means "being willing to give up the right
> > to think for yourself." Life is so much easier when
> > you get the definitions right, and ours are right.
>
> Um, no, it doesn't mean that at all.
>
It is a paradox on the face of it. Yep, being in tune with the laws
of nature means more freedom not less freedom, because you are more
able to see what is going on around you and how you fit into all of
it. Also, fewer mistakes. It cannot be understood on the level of
the intellect. Its results are known moment by moment. The
consciousness of the individual is stabilized, centered, and
balanced, so that each percieved moment is a moment of all possible
choices, and all possible outcomes. There is no specific action or
behavior associated with being in tune with the laws of nature.
