What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us through monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the inclusion of modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the trans rational. I have been tossing around your no free will concept, and suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. I have the same trouble when people talk about the world being "illusion", or the world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is duality, but there is also more, there is non duality. And we can choose our viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at the pool of Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the waters. Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and in this awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach the point where we understand that what we are choosing is to be aware of our own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that it always is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but awareness of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can understand.
On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum and responded > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that I’ve caused > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my > statements confusing in certain ways, particularly in the area of > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum based on the > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, Lee’s reticence > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my viewpoint, > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. So, I feel > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding in this > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from the chapter > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve described my > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older members > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string theory to > describe the universe as a function of one entity of stringy energy > and explains that this one entity, the only entity that really exists > is, in fact, God.). Note: I don’t go into the ‘damnation’ topic in > this excerpt; I’ll retain that card for a moment. > Now, of course, I don’t expect everyone will agree with my > theory, as no one, yet, has come up with a theory to which everyone > subscribes. But I expect that the following excerpt will allay some > fears people have when they realise that the NEW morality that is > derivable from my theory is the old morality. The difference being > that, now, rather than relying solely on faith, we can practice it in > the knowledge that it is based on logic and a scientific view of > reality (given that I work from a premiss that my theory is > correct). > So, to paraphrase The Who, “Meet the new morality. Same as the > old morality.” As always, let me know what you think!! ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > What is sin if there is only one actor in the system? Wise > King Solomon had the answer to that when he told us, in the book of > Ecclesiastes, of the woes begotten of vanity: “Vanity of vanities; all > is vanity.” (Eccl. 1:2) > When a soul thinks “I”, he separates himself from the one that > is. Vanity is when we think “I”. This fundamental grasping of our own > identity is completely counter to the concept of the oneness (rather > than ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ describes God as One without unity) of God. > In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon says, “The thing that hath been, it is > that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be > done; and there is no new thing under the sun.” The first clause of > Eccl. 1:9 is another declaration of the oneness of God, saying that > God (the thing that hath been) is the only thing that exists and is, > thus, that which shall be. The second clause pertains to the argument > of fate vs. free will. In our space-time continuum, all events are > extant in the whole of space-time. The future is just as much “there > and then” as is the past. That which is (to be) done is that which > shall be done. The concept of obligation inherent in the concept > “shall” is also relevant because God is obliged by His very nature to > perform every act at the right time and at the right place everywhere > always. The third clause is saying that there is no new thing under > the sun (a metaphor for God) because there can be nothing other than > the one thing, which IS God. It is also a metaphor for understanding > that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from > one form to another; because ‘that which exists’ is energy that has > always existed and always will, there can be nothing ‘new’. > In the Torah, eight of the Ten Commandments are negative > commandments, i.e., those that prohibit behaviours. The first > negative commandment is, “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no > other gods before me”. God states that it is a sin to acknowledge the > existence of Gods OTHER than Him. It would be impossible for a > monistic God to acknowledge an entity other than itself. After all, > He’s omniscient; He would know there was no other. So, too, it is > wrong and vain for man to acknowledge any other. > The second negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not make unto > thee any graven image…of anything that is in Heaven or on the Earth… > for I AM a jealous God.” In this commandment, God gives His reasoning > for the prohibition. Jealous, in THIS usage, means demanding of > complete loyalty. One is not permitted to try to depict God as any > one thing because He demands complete loyalty and, in order to be > completely true to the concept of a monistic God, one would have to > depict the entirety of space-time in order to be comprehensive. > Anything less is a vain attempt. To think that one could, in any > item, truly depict God “in toto” is vain. > The third negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the Lord > thy God’s name in vain.” Here, it’s plainly stated. Again, to think > that one could change destiny by calling out the name of God is simply > vain. Remember that all events are extant in the whole of space-time > and it is God that drives them all. There is nothing any of us can do > to alter the will of God and to think we can is to be vain; rather, > that which we do is an enactment of God’s will, as there is no other. > The fourth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not murder.” To > think that we are as powerful as to be able to snuff out life is > vain. To an object of energy, all events can be boiled down to > various transformations of energy. In our universe, we have > discovered that energy is conserved and not lost. It only changes > from one form to another. At the moment that we call death, there may > well be a series of energy transformations such that the non-corporeal > elements of our existence are separated from the corporeal but that > does not mean that life, which is experienced through our > consciousness, ends. As I’ve mentioned before, once a field of > consciousness has been created, it has an anchor to the Calabi-Yau > space which is outside of time. This field cannot cease to exist. It > stretches outside of time. Energy transforms. That is all. > Consciousness is, if anything, freed from the confinements of the body > at death as much as it is when we dream. In our dreams, we can act > without fear because there is nothing there, truly, but ourselves. To > think otherwise is to deny one’s own being. Life, in this case, more > properly, one’s ability to remain self-aware cannot be ended so long > as there is an extra-spatio-temporal aspect to the field of > consciousness. To think otherwise is vain because it denies the > oneness and the continuity of God’s self-awareness. > The fifth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not commit > adultery.” This is about internal consistency, loyalty and acting in > good faith. In creating this universe, God has said “These things > will happen”. And those things will happen. There is no changing the > will of God. To act in such a way as to break our will, which is > implied as adultery is an act against a solemn vow to NOT act in a > particular way, is to deny the oneness of God. There is no new thing > under the sun. To think that we have acted in such a way as to break > the will of God, is vain and it is, also, to believe that God is not > omnipotent. If something happens, then it must have been in > accordance with God’s will, otherwise God is less than omnipotent. > And THAT is not the case. Also, we cannot act against our OWN will. > Will is resolute. If it is ones will to do A, A will be done. If A > is not done, it could only have been a desire to perform A, followed > by a desire to not do A. Will is always performed. If adultery is > perceived to occur, a wise man should realise that it was never the > partner’s will to remain faithful but, rather a desire to remain > faithful, followed by a desire to not be faithful. In the Torah, Jews > are entreated to not make vows lightly as vows are a declaration of > will. If a man presumes to declare his will and acts otherwise, he > soon loses the respect of his peers. Simply put, adultery is > seemingly duplicitous behaviour and “One” cannot be duplicitous. That > alone would be enough but God, also, acts ONLY on will, as God has no > desires. Desires are based on a perceived lack of something and God > lacks nothing. When you are all that there is, what could you > possibly desire? > The sixth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not steal.” The > well-respected Torah commentator Rashi states that this commandment > pertains to kidnapping, i.e., the stealing of other people (The > punishment for breaking any of the Ten Commandments was death and the > Ten Commandments dealt with relationships between man and God and > between man and man. Theft of property was punishable by fines and/or > material compensation. Kidnapping, though, was punishable by > death.). In a broader sense, it deals with the concept of owning an > individual. If you steal someone, you have taken them like you would > take an object. You hold a claim of ownership over the individual. > Slavery is a form of kidnapping where the victim is first stolen and > then forced to work for the captor. To think that one is capable of > owning another is vain. To believe that we are powerful enough to own > another human with a living soul is to deny the oneness of God by way > of thinking that the Creation, or aspects of the Creation, is separate > from God. What can you remove from God? All is all. Even the taking > of items does not remove them from God and to think that you can steal— > to remove anything from the presence of God—is vain. > The seventh negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not bear false > witness.” To think that you can hide the truth from He who is > omniscient is vain. To believe that we are actually capable of > preventing the truth from being known is a logical tautology. We know > the truth, therefore, the truth is known and, through us, God knows > the truth. Our recognition that “others” may not know the truth does > not prevent the truth from being known (by God) and it is vain to > think otherwise. > The eighth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not covet > anything that is thy neighbour’s.” To desire material things is to > become attached to transient objects. To feel that God has not > provided us with all that we need is vain. We will encounter, in our > lives, everything that we will encounter. There is no part of our > experiences where we can gather more to us than was allotted to us. > To think otherwise is to deny the oneness of God and His Creation. > Our lives are His and there is nothing that is not already God’s. > The negative commandments define actions that cannot be performed > by the One God and oblige us to act godly: > The One God cannot recognise another. (You should have no other.) > The One God cannot make nor create any item that is a subset of the > whole that can fairly represent the whole. (You should not make any > image attempting to depict God.) > The One God cannot change that which will be. (Both taking the Lord’s > Name in vain and committing adultery are derived from this principle, > as you should not ask God for help when YOU can help yourself nor > should you act duplicitously.) > The One God cannot extinguish, at any time, that which has a portion > outside of time. (You should not murder) > The One God cannot remove anything from the whole of space-time. (You > should not steal) > The One God cannot NOT know the truth. (You should not lie) > The One God cannot add anything to the whole of space-time. (You > should not covet) > > These negative commandments tell us that we should not act in a > way that denies the oneness of God and imagining that we have the > power to actually DO these things is the vanity of all vanities to > which Solomon referred when he said, “Vanity of vanities; all is > vanity”. The more absorbed in the physical we get, the less absorbed > we are by the One. Roman Catholicism has contributed greatly to our > understanding of the spiritual harm done by indulging ourselves in > outlining the Seven Deadly Sins: Lust, Avarice, Vanity, Pride, Sloth, > Anger and Gluttony (For a good monistic, mnemonic, acronymic aphorism > for the 7 Deadlies, try “Look, Acting Vainly Pits Self Against God”). > These desires prey on our sense of self and make us act ungodly, as > God has no desires. So, we should act selflessly. We only have a > sense of self because God has a sense of self. Because THAT self is > the selfsame as our self, we literally owe our selves to God. > The positive commandments are of a different ilk, as they don’t > outline sins. What they do, though, is encourage us to remember our > past by honouring our parents and to encourage us to have hope in the > future by remembering the Sabbath. By honouring our parents, we have > a strong link to our origins and, if they have honoured theirs, our > link extends even further back and we have an even greater sense of > our place in history. This will allow us to learn from our past and > not have to repeat some of the same lessons. The machinery of our > bodies works better, generally, if we have at least some break from > work. So, too, much of the machinery that mankind has created works > better when occasionally rested. And, it’s all too common in today’s > world, on Monday morning, to have our eyes firmly focused on the > weekend (the modern, Western Sabbath). It gives us something to look > forward to. It gives us a reason to continue. Remembering the > Sabbath was not about remembering the previous one or even the concept > OF the Sabbath but remembering that another one is soon to come and > our lives will be better after it. So, very subtly, the Ten > Commandments tell us the things that God can’t do (so we shouldn’t) > and they tell us how to learn from the past and how to have hope for > the future. > In the New Testament, Jesus is asked regarding the greatest > commandments of the Torah. In other words, what is the greatest bit > of advice in the Torah that would help mankind become closer to God? > His response is, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all > your soul, and with all your mind”; i.e., think God, feel God, BE > God. And Jesus followed that by saying the second greatest > commandment is, “Love your neighbour as yourself”. The Hebrew (Some > may think, “Why Hebrew? Jesus spoke Aramaic.” But Jesus was quoting > the Torah, so his response would have been in Hebrew.) preposition ‘K’ > translated as “as” does not mean “as much as” but, rather, “as if > equal to” like the “as” in “A is to B as Y is to Z”. Jesus is > teaching that we should love our fellow humans “as if they were” > ourselves. And, of course, love is spiritual gravity, the attractive > spiritual force. We are entreated to fully attract ourselves to God, > gravitate towards Him, and to consider others as no different from > ourselves. > In a monistic system, the focus is the Self. The aim is to > realise that one’s own self is no different than the One Self of God. > When we act selfishly, we increase the difference between us and God, > so vanity or selfishness is sinful. However, when we act selflessly— > the monistic virtue—and put God first in our hearts our minds and our > very being, we lose our transient selves and gain our True Self. > Each of us is here to do that which we will do. So what is it > that you would like to do? Remember the old adage of "God helps those > who help themselves"? God works through His creation. Armed with the > rather dichotomous and Rumsfeldian knowledge that we know we don't > know our own future, irrespective of how fixed it is, you still have > to get there. So we should each be trying to be the very best 'us' we > can be as well as promoting others to do the same. Also realise that, > in a monistic system, the only will is that of the One. We can sit > back and be depressed and think, "Why bother, if my life is fixed?" or > we can work towards doing the things we've always wanted to see done > in the world. Actions cause reactions and that is an overriding > factor. This is a universe where action is important: energy DOES. > So if we want to DO something or see something DONE, we must strive > for it. The knowledge that when we act, it is, in fact, God acting, > should serve to infuse us with great confidence knowing that each and > every one of us is an Ambassador of God's Will. Of course, some > people, who put themselves before the One, could (have and will) use > that to justify horrifying actions; most people, I believe, would like > to be of benefit to the world in some way and would naturally act > ethically, if given the chance to DO so. > Jesus reiterated the importance of the Torah's commandments that > we should put God first and love one another as if there were no > difference between us. With those incredibly monistic guidelines, if > followed, we would act far more empathetically and, if we tried to > understand others more, we'd probably learn a lot more about ourselves > in the process. Imagine a world of people that really cared for one > another. It can only happen, though, one at a time and, as there is > only one, one can only motivate oneself. > > copyright © Patrick D. Harrington 2009 All Rights reserved > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
