Unk, I find not the lease friction with your words below.
But, hey, in my loneliness, why not allow me to have an imaginary playmate? I'm not thinking that there's an old white guy stroking his beard and inventing puzzles that make us scratch bloody furrows in our scalps trying to un-knot them. But, I love the concept! If one posits a sentient God with omnipotence, then, logically, that God must perforce be infinitely omnipotent. And that's where I start having fun with paradox. And in order to play with paradox, one has to have duality. But, yeah, there's no God except the one behind your eyes, behind your mind, you know, the one that's behind God's eyes and God's mind. One finds the same God behind, in front, under, inside everything always. Your words speak of this. I think when I write "God" that most folks think "religion." And, the TM movement beat that addiction out of me. 29 years of doing program and 29 years of outside of program spent pretending that saturating myself with dogma was the same as "personality reformation." Nope. Turns out differently than the first lecture literature. I can see Maharishi giggling, "Surprise, Edg!" If I can't posit a sentient God, then where's the fun in that? I get the Buddhist void thingy, honest, I think I really do, but what poet can resist having a nice red wheelbarrow to write about? The Red Wheelbarrow William Carlos Williams so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens. I think the Buddhists know this. They know that as insignificant as a tiny wandering monks at the bottom of their giant canvases seems to be in the artist's creation, the monk still must be there. The witness that doesn't do, must be there to not-do-the-doing, or something's wrong with the picture, right? I don't want to be a person, but as long as I'm stuck with pushing this behemoth around like a homeless person's shopping cart, well, let me kiss my mezuzah or bend a knee to a corpse on a cross. It's fun! Like reverse peek a boo. First you don't believe in God, then you do, then you don't. Listen to Donovan! So, Unk, in your silent traveling that takes no time, next to the paths you do not walk, aren't flowers of every sort, strewn madly like confetti? Do you miss it? Do you miss the times when their colors could suck you into oblivion? Edg TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good place to start. Did you notice that in the above > you are talking about God in the Third Person? As if > He/She/It is *separate* from yourself, or even your > Self? *God* has weird taste in entertainment, not *you*. > *God* and *Satan* fucked with Job, not *you*. > > Even if one disguises the belief in a sentient God by > calling it the Absolute, I think the real issue comes down > to whether one conceives of the Absolute and the Relative > as *separate*. I do not. I conceive of these two sides > of life as two sides of the same coin. > > I have no need for the concept of a sentient God, one > with a "plan" for the universe. For me, and for many > Buddhists, the universe works *just fine* as Operating > System, an interplay of karma and free will. Nothing > else would be necessary to describe everything we see > around us in creation. Therefore, taking an Occam's > Razor approach to the issue, if nothing but karma and > free will are *necessary* to run things, why postulate > a Sentience With A Plan *that* runs them? > > The Absolute is just the "silent side" of me, my self, > my Self. The Relative is the "active side" of me, my > self, my Self. Just as I don't think of the Absolute as > "separate" from the Relative, I don't think of the notion > of God (if there were one) as separate from *me*, the > deeper Self. > > The problems you seem to have with the existence of > evil and Bad Things in the world are *all* described in > the Third Person, as if some *separate* entity from > your Self was the one being evil. In my view, it's ME > that we're talking about. The existence of Bad Things > in the world are merely ME. In coming to some accept- > ance of these things, I have to come to an acceptance > of that aspect of my Self. > > > God is the one Who has the choice, right? > > Wrong. (In my opinion, of course...not "wrong" as in > "You're wrong and I'm right." I don't deal in such shit.) > Each of us, as individual aspects of Self, has *every > one* of the choices you ascribe only to God. I don't > believe for an instant that we are mere actors in a play > written by a thug named God who has bizarre taste in > entertainment. *We* create the world, and create *all* > of it -- the "good" parts and the "bad" parts, the > glories and the horrors. When trying to come to grip > with those horrors, I do so because they are aspects of > my Self, not the senile amusements of some deity who is > separate from my Self. In coming to grips with the > glories, same thing. > > > But, your next thought, you're waiting for God to give that > > to you, right? > > Wrong. (Same "in my opinion" caveat...your mileage may > vary.) "My" thoughts, the ideas that pop up in the mind > of this self that is part of a larger Self, are the > thoughts and ideas *of* that self/Self. Again, I have > no sense of separateness between Absolute and Relative, > between "God" and "me." If you do, I wish you well with > that one. > > > Don't have to be a Hindu to see the end of time coming. Just be > > a true-believer-physicist. At the end of the universe's life, at > > heat death, as you sit in your ringside seat, waiting for the > > last photon to decay into virtuosity... > > This is the argument that, in my opinion, most "drives" > the belief system of the God freak. It's basically the > result of linear thinking, and the belief that there > must have been a "first creation" or Creation. I don't > believe that. I believe more in the Buddhist idea that > there has never *been* a "first creation." The universe > is, has always been, and will always be. There has never > been a moment in all of eternity in which both Absolute > and Relative did not coexist. The "Big Bang" that scien- > tists believe in was just one tiny exhalation in a much > larger series of in-breaths and out-breaths. > > And if there was never a "first creation," one has no > need to ponder the notion of a Creator. The universe can > be conceived of as an eternal Operating System, the > interaction of the eternal force of karma and the equally > eternal force of free will. *All* of the things we see > around us could have been created by those two forces > interacting, without the need for a God, much less the > need for a God With A Plan. > > > ...we're all as dutiful as ventriloquists' dummies, right? > > I don't believe that. I believe instead that I am *very > much* the doer, and that as such I bear full responsibility > for my actions. I find that a lot of God freaks essentially > want the opposite, they want *desperately* to be "not the > doer," so that they don't have to feel any responsibility > for the Bad Things in the world, much less the Bad Things > they do in their tiny corner of that world. "The Bad Things > are *God's* problem, not mine." Well, for me, there is no > difference. Self is just a larger, silent aspect of my self. > There is no difference between the Absolute side of me and > the Relative side of me. If there are Bad Things in the > world, they are *my* Bad Things, *my* doing. And I'm OK > with that. > > I wish you well with your path in life, and hope that you > find one in which you and your God can walk that path side > by side, not as separate as you seem to be in your writings > so far. Me, I'll just keep walking my own path by mySelf. > I assume we'll end up in pretty much the same place, no > matter what *either* of us believes. > > Unc > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edg, just for fun I'll make one post about the God > thang, and then drop it. It's clear that you have > strong feelings about this, and clear also that you > are an even more long-winded writer than I am, so I > think that out of compassion one post on this subject > is all that either of us should impose upon this > august forum. :-) > > > Like God, today's masses sure love their gory > > movies, right? So, it's God dream, and, like us, > > He too can conjure up a dark tale -- you know, > > for entertainment's sake. Like when God and Satan > > diddled bigtime with Job. When God and Satan took > > decades to see how miserable they could get Job > > to be, see if he had a breaking point, well, > > classic drama, right? Funzies! (By the way, "God" > > is a word I use more for the Absolute than for a > > manifest personage.) > > Good place to start. Did you notice that in the above > you are talking about God in the Third Person? As if > He/She/It is *separate* from yourself, or even your > Self? *God* has weird taste in entertainment, not *you*. > *God* and *Satan* fucked with Job, not *you*. > > Even if one disguises the belief in a sentient God by > calling it the Absolute, I think the real issue comes down > to whether one conceives of the Absolute and the Relative > as *separate*. I do not. I conceive of these two sides > of life as two sides of the same coin. > > I have no need for the concept of a sentient God, one > with a "plan" for the universe. For me, and for many > Buddhists, the universe works *just fine* as Operating > System, an interplay of karma and free will. Nothing > else would be necessary to describe everything we see > around us in creation. Therefore, taking an Occam's > Razor approach to the issue, if nothing but karma and > free will are *necessary* to run things, why postulate > a Sentience With A Plan *that* runs them? > > The Absolute is just the "silent side" of me, my self, > my Self. The Relative is the "active side" of me, my > self, my Self. Just as I don't think of the Absolute as > "separate" from the Relative, I don't think of the notion > of God (if there were one) as separate from *me*, the > deeper Self. > > The problems you seem to have with the existence of > evil and Bad Things in the world are *all* described in > the Third Person, as if some *separate* entity from > your Self was the one being evil. In my view, it's ME > that we're talking about. The existence of Bad Things > in the world are merely ME. In coming to some accept- > ance of these things, I have to come to an acceptance > of that aspect of my Self. > > > God is the one Who has the choice, right? > > Wrong. (In my opinion, of course...not "wrong" as in > "You're wrong and I'm right." I don't deal in such shit.) > Each of us, as individual aspects of Self, has *every > one* of the choices you ascribe only to God. I don't > believe for an instant that we are mere actors in a play > written by a thug named God who has bizarre taste in > entertainment. *We* create the world, and create *all* > of it -- the "good" parts and the "bad" parts, the > glories and the horrors. When trying to come to grip > with those horrors, I do so because they are aspects of > my Self, not the senile amusements of some deity who is > separate from my Self. In coming to grips with the > glories, same thing. > > > But, your next thought, you're waiting for God to give that > > to you, right? > > Wrong. (Same "in my opinion" caveat...your mileage may > vary.) "My" thoughts, the ideas that pop up in the mind > of this self that is part of a larger Self, are the > thoughts and ideas *of* that self/Self. Again, I have > no sense of separateness between Absolute and Relative, > between "God" and "me." If you do, I wish you well with > that one. > > > Don't have to be a Hindu to see the end of time coming. Just be > > a true-believer-physicist. At the end of the universe's life, at > > heat death, as you sit in your ringside seat, waiting for the > > last photon to decay into virtuosity... > > This is the argument that, in my opinion, most "drives" > the belief system of the God freak. It's basically the > result of linear thinking, and the belief that there > must have been a "first creation" or Creation. I don't > believe that. I believe more in the Buddhist idea that > there has never *been* a "first creation." The universe > is, has always been, and will always be. There has never > been a moment in all of eternity in which both Absolute > and Relative did not coexist. The "Big Bang" that scien- > tists believe in was just one tiny exhalation in a much > larger series of in-breaths and out-breaths. > > And if there was never a "first creation," one has no > need to ponder the notion of a Creator. The universe can > be conceived of as an eternal Operating System, the > interaction of the eternal force of karma and the equally > eternal force of free will. *All* of the things we see > around us could have been created by those two forces > interacting, without the need for a God, much less the > need for a God With A Plan. > > > ...we're all as dutiful as ventriloquists' dummies, right? > > I don't believe that. I believe instead that I am *very > much* the doer, and that as such I bear full responsibility > for my actions. I find that a lot of God freaks essentially > want the opposite, they want *desperately* to be "not the > doer," so that they don't have to feel any responsibility > for the Bad Things in the world, much less the Bad Things > they do in their tiny corner of that world. "The Bad Things > are *God's* problem, not mine." Well, for me, there is no > difference. Self is just a larger, silent aspect of my self. > There is no difference between the Absolute side of me and > the Relative side of me. If there are Bad Things in the > world, they are *my* Bad Things, *my* doing. And I'm OK > with that. > > I wish you well with your path in life, and hope that you > find one in which you and your God can walk that path side > by side, not as separate as you seem to be in your writings > so far. Me, I'll just keep walking my own path by mySelf. > I assume we'll end up in pretty much the same place, no > matter what *either* of us believes. > > Unc >
