[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Yes, this was part of my point. I wasn't challenging John, just providing support and reasoning for an affirmative answer to his question below. Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? TM mediation is just a relaxation technique, right? (TEASING) No conflict there with true atheism (a lack of belief in "Gods," not a disbelief). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
S/B "the dynamics that, at a larger level of evolution were brought to bear upon our *evolution* " (not "revolution")—although that word works too.. Ha, I must have "revolution" on my mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "There are many layers of ideas to understand the meaning of this story." One way Gary Zukav discusses the story is in the context of the "evolution" of human beings and humanity, of the transition of our species from one rooted in "external power" and our "five senses", leading to this "suffering the effects of this sin in the various forms of violence, murder, terrorism, fundamentalism, racism, greed, hatred, jealousy, ethnic cleansing, et cetera." that you note, to one of humans operating with "authentic power," a power that must be earned through responsible choice in resisting temptation and choosing responses based in "love and trust"—and one that cannot be attained *solely* through prayer and meditation. A...temptation. Opportunities to challenge one's "dark" aspects of the personality, and as stated by Zukav, the snake "cannot destroy the soul"—it merely tempts the personality. "The Garden of Paradise story describes the beginning of the whole experience of Earth and the human species. It refers to principles of energy that were brought to bear upon larger bodies of group consciousness that had stress, that had formation energies, creation energies. In their process of forming their own polarities, polarities that would become the polarities of the human experience, doubt and fear stood opposing to trust and Light and so they came into being. Yet, it is not inappropriate to understand the Garden of Eden story in terms of human choices between doubt and fear on one hand and wisdom on the other, because the choice to learn through wisdom or through doubt and fear is very much a single challenge that every human being comes up against within every minute of every day, and this challenge reflects the dynamics that, at a larger level of evolution were brought to bear upon our revolution. ~Gary Zukav I would disagree that "the atheistic idea" was introduced back in the Book of Genesis—I would tend to disagree. That idea came much later from the Greeks is translated as "without God or Gods," and reflects a lack of belief. What you discuss below is a story of the effect of temptation on human beings, not atheism. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, We must remember that the atheistic idea was already mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. Satan, in the form of a snake, tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in order to be like God. When she ate the fruit, she too convinced Adam to do the same. There are many layers of ideas to understand the meaning of this story. One of them is that the first humans disobeyed the rules set by the Father in the Garden. Thus, they were banished from the life of heaven here on earth. But one Jewish rabbi mentioned that Satan was only following the orders of God to tempt the first humans in order to give them the opportunity to exercise their free will and freedom of choice. So, Satan-- albeit a fallen angel-- was more than willing to use his remaining angelic powers to make Adam and Eve to commit the original sin. Ever since then, the descendants of Adam and Eve are suffering the effects of this sin in the various forms of violence, murder, terrorism, fundamentalism, racism, greed, hatred, jealousy, ethnic cleansing, et cetera. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because i
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Re: "There are many layers of ideas to understand the meaning of this story." One way Gary Zukav discusses the story is in the context of the "evolution" of human beings and humanity, of the transition of our species from one rooted in "external power" and our "five senses", leading to this "suffering the effects of this sin in the various forms of violence, murder, terrorism, fundamentalism, racism, greed, hatred, jealousy, ethnic cleansing, et cetera." that you note, to one of humans operating with "authentic power," a power that must be earned through responsible choice in resisting temptation and choosing responses based in "love and trust"—and one that cannot be attained *solely* through prayer and meditation. A...temptation. Opportunities to challenge one's "dark" aspects of the personality, and as stated by Zukav, the snake "cannot destroy the soul"—it merely tempts the personality. "The Garden of Paradise story describes the beginning of the whole experience of Earth and the human species. It refers to principles of energy that were brought to bear upon larger bodies of group consciousness that had stress, that had formation energies, creation energies. In their process of forming their own polarities, polarities that would become the polarities of the human experience, doubt and fear stood opposing to trust and Light and so they came into being. Yet, it is not inappropriate to understand the Garden of Eden story in terms of human choices between doubt and fear on one hand and wisdom on the other, because the choice to learn through wisdom or through doubt and fear is very much a single challenge that every human being comes up against within every minute of every day, and this challenge reflects the dynamics that, at a larger level of evolution were brought to bear upon our revolution. ~Gary Zukav I would disagree that "the atheistic idea" was introduced back in the Book of Genesis—I would tend to disagree. That idea came much later from the Greeks is translated as "without God or Gods," and reflects a lack of belief. What you discuss below is a story of the effect of temptation on human beings, not atheism. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, We must remember that the atheistic idea was already mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. Satan, in the form of a snake, tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in order to be like God. When she ate the fruit, she too convinced Adam to do the same. There are many layers of ideas to understand the meaning of this story. One of them is that the first humans disobeyed the rules set by the Father in the Garden. Thus, they were banished from the life of heaven here on earth. But one Jewish rabbi mentioned that Satan was only following the orders of God to tempt the first humans in order to give them the opportunity to exercise their free will and freedom of choice. So, Satan-- albeit a fallen angel-- was more than willing to use his remaining angelic powers to make Adam and Eve to commit the original sin. Ever since then, the descendants of Adam and Eve are suffering the effects of this sin in the various forms of violence, murder, terrorism, fundamentalism, racism, greed, hatred, jealousy, ethnic cleansing, et cetera. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrot
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
S3, Using MMY's ideas from his Gita commentary, atheists are unconditionally in bondage because they believe there is no such thing as transcendence from the phenomenal or relative world. Also, the term "immoralist" is a pejorative word referring to people without any ideals grounded in ethics and justice. So, if de Sade and Nietzsche coined that word, I don't have any argument against that. Further, since atheists have rejected the existence of the absolute, they are forever limited to the relative world which is stained with inconsistencies, dissatisfaction, injustice, violence, greed and suffering. As such, how can ideal values be created in an imperfect world? It would seem that the law of the jungle or the survival of the fittest would be the criteria for existence. Lastly, I've personally seen a YouTube video in which Dawkins said he was not absolutely sure about the validity of atheism since he did not have any scientific evidence to prove it. So, he said he could properly be called an agnostic. Isn't he being hypocritical to the atheist's cause? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Old-skool atheists like the Marquis de Sade, Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre all saw the "death of God" as heavy shit. It meant we are now unconditionally free. We could be "immoralists" (de Sade/Nietzsche). Or we must face the fact that we are all alone in this mean, bad world and it is now our own responsibility to create values which aren't grounded in anything outside us (Camus/Sartre). New atheists like Dawkins believe we've simply got rid of a shed-load of superstitious claptrap and can now breathe a sigh of relief and get on with creating a right-on, PC society. Dawkins seems a very superficial optimist compared to his predecessors. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : MD, IMO, they think they are "gods" which is the theme that was mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : So they won't feel *alone* in the universe. From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Old-skool atheists like the Marquis de Sade, Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre all saw the "death of God" as heavy shit. It meant we are now unconditionally free. We could be "immoralists" (de Sade/Nietzsche). Or we must face the fact that we are all alone in this mean, bad world and it is now our own responsibility to create values which aren't grounded in anything outside us (Camus/Sartre). New atheists like Dawkins believe we've simply got rid of a shed-load of superstitious claptrap and can now breathe a sigh of relief and get on with creating a right-on, PC society. Dawkins seems a very superficial optimist compared to his predecessors. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : MD, IMO, they think they are "gods" which is the theme that was mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : So they won't feel *alone* in the universe. From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
MD, IMO, they think they are "gods" which is the theme that was mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : So they won't feel *alone* in the universe. From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Emily, We must remember that the atheistic idea was already mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. Satan, in the form of a snake, tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in order to be like God. When she ate the fruit, she too convinced Adam to do the same. There are many layers of ideas to understand the meaning of this story. One of them is that the first humans disobeyed the rules set by the Father in the Garden. Thus, they were banished from the life of heaven here on earth. But one Jewish rabbi mentioned that Satan was only following the orders of God to tempt the first humans in order to give them the opportunity to exercise their free will and freedom of choice. So, Satan-- albeit a fallen angel-- was more than willing to use his remaining angelic powers to make Adam and Eve to commit the original sin. Ever since then, the descendants of Adam and Eve are suffering the effects of this sin in the various forms of violence, murder, terrorism, fundamentalism, racism, greed, hatred, jealousy, ethnic cleansing, et cetera. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
That's right! We'll *MAKE'M transcend! That'll teach'em.
From: "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 6:02 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
As a livestock person reading Armstrong here, then atheists are religious
parasites cycling again. Damned worms eating at the guts of the animal.A good
dose of authentic spiritual experience would be the de-wormer of choice of an
invasion of endemic infectious atheism. Belief is religion but faith comes in
experience. Simple quiet spiritual experience will put a fast end to parasitic
atheism. I have seen it happen many times. “,,Now please come and take this
flower..sit here..”
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming
along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks.
..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their
thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
John, you may find this interesting.
"Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se
but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an
early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called
"atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality
of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed
blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of
theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical
Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was
essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God
that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period.
The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam
Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God
developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism
constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen
Armstrong
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Emily,
Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to
eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a
metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them,
satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for
them is their own individual selves.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe?
Do they?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Ebill,
The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is
similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there
is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a
scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions
of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of
Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns
supreme.
People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative
experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the
hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge.
This is the very definition of a religious ideology. #yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542 -- #yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp #yiv6348591542hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp #yiv6348591542ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp .yiv6348591542ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp .yiv6348591542ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542ygrp-mkp .yiv6348591542ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542ygrp-sponsor
#yiv6348591542ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542ygrp-sponsor #yiv6348591542ygrp-lc #yiv6348591542hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542ygrp-sponsor #yiv6348591542ygrp-lc .yiv6348591542ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6348591542 #yiv6348591542actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6348591542
#yiv6348591542activ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
So they won't feel *alone* in the universe.
From: "jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Ebill,
The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is
similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there
is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a
scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions
of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of
Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns
supreme.
People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative
experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the
hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge.
This is the very definition of a religious ideology. #yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346 -- #yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp #yiv0545199346hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp #yiv0545199346ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp .yiv0545199346ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp .yiv0545199346ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346ygrp-mkp .yiv0545199346ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0545199346ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346ygrp-sponsor #yiv0545199346ygrp-lc #yiv0545199346hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346ygrp-sponsor #yiv0545199346ygrp-lc .yiv0545199346ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv0545199346 #yiv0545199346activity span
.yiv0545199346underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0545199346
.yiv0545199346attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv0545199346
.yiv0545199346bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 dd.yiv0545199346last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv0545199346 dd.yiv0545199346last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv0545199346
dd.yiv0545199346last p span.yiv0545199346yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346file-title a, #yiv0545199346
div.yiv0545199346file-title a:active, #yiv0545199346
div.yiv0545199346file-title a:hover, #yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346photo-title a,
#yiv0545199346 div.yiv0545199346photo-title a:active, #yiv0545199346
div.yiv0545199346photo-title a:hover, #yiv0545199346
div.yiv0545199346photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0545199346
div#yiv0545199346ygrp-mlmsg #yiv0545199346ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv0545199346yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv0545199346
.yiv0545199346green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv0545199346 o {font-size:0;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346photos div label
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv0545199346
#yiv0545199346reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv0545199346 .yiv0545199346replbq
{m
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
As a livestock person reading Armstrong here, then atheists are religious parasites cycling again. Damned worms eating at the guts of the animal. A good dose of authentic spiritual experience would be the de-wormer of choice of an invasion of endemic infectious atheism. Belief is religion but faith comes in experience. Simple quiet spiritual experience will put a fast end to parasitic atheism. I have seen it happen many times. “,,Now please come and take this flower..sit here..” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
I like this Armstrong quote, seems atheists are just new religionists coming along in sheep skins aching to explain their experience to larger flocks. ..and, we find now in their writings that these modern day atheists after their thrashing of fundamentalism are meditationists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
John, you may find this interesting. "Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes it's reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feurbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religions." ~The Case For God by Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Emily, Yes, they do. Atheists are fairly similar to Satanists who were able to eliminate the use of prayers in Arizona. For them, the image of satan is a metaphorical symbol against any established religions. But, for most of them, satan does not exist like the gods in myths and legends. IMO, what exists for them is their own individual selves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Re: "So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? Do they? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Ebill, The atheist's belief that their are no gods, transcendence or Samadhi is similarly an non-religious ideology. But, by the atheist's definition, there is no support of Nature nor transcendence which cannot be proved on a scientific basis. So, why do atheists want others to believe what they believe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
To argue that "spiritual experience" is conformable only to the definitions of the TMO is to admit that TM is only a belief system. No experience of Transcendence/Samadhi is actually necessary when the belief system reigns supreme. People who inhabit the "Domes of Doctrine" have separated their meditative experience and their "innocent, native transcendence" and are inhabiting the hierarchy of TMO indoctrination just to keep their badge. This is the very definition of a religious ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
S3, As I understand it, there are several degrees of atheism. There are the scientific types like Richard Dawkins and the nihilist types like Camus. Even Dawkins thinks that he could be considered as an agnostic, and not as an atheist. But Shelley does not sound like an atheist. He could be a Buddhist, although he may reject the term since it becomes a label. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "Atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field": Oh yeah? How about Percy Bysshe Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism: "There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken." Shelley's poetry shows he considered some form of pantheism to be intellectually respectable. And take this sentence from one of his letters: ''I think that the leaf of a tree, the meanest insect on which we trample, are in themselves arguments more conclusive than any which can be adduced that some vast intellect animates Infinity.'' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : S3, This is an interesting point in comparing atheism to MMY's teachings. However, the comparison is misleading since the objective of transcending is to attain unity with the Universal Intelligence or the Unified Field. As I understand it, atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field. On the other hand, MMY and the TMO did not and do not prohibit atheists from practicing TM. Why? Because MMY believed that samadhi or the state of transcending is a natural phenomenon inherent in the human mind and physiology. In that case, belief is not required in attaining samadhi. Nonetheless, IMO the depth of attaining pure consciousness is somewhat limited to the self and does not encompass the Universal Intelligence. IOW, what you see is what you get--WYSIWYG. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : New Statesman has a review of a new book that argues that atheism has a long history stretching back to the Ancient Greeks so isn't the product of modern science its current advocates maintain. The review was mostly favourable but did point out that atheists of old were far from being the full-on materialists we have today. Anyway this passage amused me : Yet it is possible, even in the light of this book, to interpret ancient atheism in a rather different way. The more we know about those philosophers whom the ancients described asatheoi, the less like contemporary sceptics they seem. Epicurus, for instance, though he featured in Sextus’s list of famous atheists, not only believed in gods but was an initiate of the local mysteries, and went as far as to demand sacrifices from his followers “for the care of my holy body”. His materialist convictions were not, as his 17th-century admirers liked to imagine, bred of a scientific cast of mind, but of the precise opposite: a conviction that they would help him to attain inner peace. The only value of research into the natural world, so Epicurus believed, was to enable the philosopher, by properly appreciating the pointlessness of superstition, to attain the state of tranquillity that was, so he taught his disciples, the ultimate goal of life. The closest modern parallel is probably not Richard Dawkins but rather Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Re "Atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field": Oh yeah? How about Percy Bysshe Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism: "There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken." Shelley's poetry shows he considered some form of pantheism to be intellectually respectable. And take this sentence from one of his letters: ''I think that the leaf of a tree, the meanest insect on which we trample, are in themselves arguments more conclusive than any which can be adduced that some vast intellect animates Infinity.'' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : S3, This is an interesting point in comparing atheism to MMY's teachings. However, the comparison is misleading since the objective of transcending is to attain unity with the Universal Intelligence or the Unified Field. As I understand it, atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field. On the other hand, MMY and the TMO did not and do not prohibit atheists from practicing TM. Why? Because MMY believed that samadhi or the state of transcending is a natural phenomenon inherent in the human mind and physiology. In that case, belief is not required in attaining samadhi. Nonetheless, IMO the depth of attaining pure consciousness is somewhat limited to the self and does not encompass the Universal Intelligence. IOW, what you see is what you get--WYSIWYG. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : New Statesman has a review of a new book that argues that atheism has a long history stretching back to the Ancient Greeks so isn't the product of modern science its current advocates maintain. The review was mostly favourable but did point out that atheists of old were far from being the full-on materialists we have today. Anyway this passage amused me : Yet it is possible, even in the light of this book, to interpret ancient atheism in a rather different way. The more we know about those philosophers whom the ancients described asatheoi, the less like contemporary sceptics they seem. Epicurus, for instance, though he featured in Sextus’s list of famous atheists, not only believed in gods but was an initiate of the local mysteries, and went as far as to demand sacrifices from his followers “for the care of my holy body”. His materialist convictions were not, as his 17th-century admirers liked to imagine, bred of a scientific cast of mind, but of the precise opposite: a conviction that they would help him to attain inner peace. The only value of research into the natural world, so Epicurus believed, was to enable the philosopher, by properly appreciating the pointlessness of superstition, to attain the state of tranquillity that was, so he taught his disciples, the ultimate goal of life. The closest modern parallel is probably not Richard Dawkins but rather Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Re "Atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field": Oh yeah? How about Percy Bysshe Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism: "There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken." Shelley's poetry shows he considered some form of pantheism to be intellectual respectable. And take this sentence from one of his letters: ''I think that the leaf of a tree, the meanest insect on which we trample, are in themselves arguments more conclusive than any which can be adduced that some vast intellect animates Infinity.'' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : S3, This is an interesting point in comparing atheism to MMY's teachings. However, the comparison is misleading since the objective of transcending is to attain unity with the Universal Intelligence or the Unified Field. As I understand it, atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field. On the other hand, MMY and the TMO did not and do not prohibit atheists from practicing TM. Why? Because MMY believed that samadhi or the state of transcending is a natural phenomenon inherent in the human mind and physiology. In that case, belief is not required in attaining samadhi. Nonetheless, IMO the depth of attaining pure consciousness is somewhat limited to the self and does not encompass the Universal Intelligence. IOW, what you see is what you get--WYSIWYG. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : New Statesman has a review of a new book that argues that atheism has a long history stretching back to the Ancient Greeks so isn't the product of modern science its current advocates maintain. The review was mostly favourable but did point out that atheists of old were far from being the full-on materialists we have today. Anyway this passage amused me : Yet it is possible, even in the light of this book, to interpret ancient atheism in a rather different way. The more we know about those philosophers whom the ancients described asatheoi, the less like contemporary sceptics they seem. Epicurus, for instance, though he featured in Sextus’s list of famous atheists, not only believed in gods but was an initiate of the local mysteries, and went as far as to demand sacrifices from his followers “for the care of my holy body”. His materialist convictions were not, as his 17th-century admirers liked to imagine, bred of a scientific cast of mind, but of the precise opposite: a conviction that they would help him to attain inner peace. The only value of research into the natural world, so Epicurus believed, was to enable the philosopher, by properly appreciating the pointlessness of superstition, to attain the state of tranquillity that was, so he taught his disciples, the ultimate goal of life. The closest modern parallel is probably not Richard Dawkins but rather Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
S3, This is an interesting point in comparing atheism to MMY's teachings. However, the comparison is misleading since the objective of transcending is to attain unity with the Universal Intelligence or the Unified Field. As I understand it, atheists do not believe in such intelligence or field. On the other hand, MMY and the TMO did not and do not prohibit atheists from practicing TM. Why? Because MMY believed that samadhi or the state of transcending is a natural phenomenon inherent in the human mind and physiology. In that case, belief is not required in attaining samadhi. Nonetheless, IMO the depth of attaining pure consciousness is somewhat limited to the self and does not encompass the Universal Intelligence. IOW, what you see is what you get--WYSIWYG. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : New Statesman has a review of a new book that argues that atheism has a long history stretching back to the Ancient Greeks so isn't the product of modern science its current advocates maintain. The review was mostly favourable but did point out that atheists of old were far from being the full-on materialists we have today. Anyway this passage amused me : Yet it is possible, even in the light of this book, to interpret ancient atheism in a rather different way. The more we know about those philosophers whom the ancients described asatheoi, the less like contemporary sceptics they seem. Epicurus, for instance, though he featured in Sextus’s list of famous atheists, not only believed in gods but was an initiate of the local mysteries, and went as far as to demand sacrifices from his followers “for the care of my holy body”. His materialist convictions were not, as his 17th-century admirers liked to imagine, bred of a scientific cast of mind, but of the precise opposite: a conviction that they would help him to attain inner peace. The only value of research into the natural world, so Epicurus believed, was to enable the philosopher, by properly appreciating the pointlessness of superstition, to attain the state of tranquillity that was, so he taught his disciples, the ultimate goal of life. The closest modern parallel is probably not Richard Dawkins but rather Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists old and new
Well, To have 'faith' in the Unified Field by virtue of spiritual experience would not necessarily be a 'theism'. Different than 'belief' it could be is just how the watch mechanism works as fluctuating Being in experience. Transcendental meditationists for instance, transcendentalism, like the American and old European transcendentalists by experience 'sans-diety' and and free from a theism go way back. Not theology or philosophy but experience. Yes, the human nervous system as a reflector of Being goes way back in time. Ideology, separate from spiritual experience, -ism with the zealotry of religious people and their held 'idea' forms of 'belief' about the world goes way back too. ..”If only you would just be with us and believe in Allah, or Jesus..” Spiritual people who really know other wisely by experience tend to separate and just go under ground faced with such stupid inquisition. ..in time and history. Even now this is the very conflict between the religious in TM and practitioners of meditation. “Do you believe like us?” If not, then no badge to get in... regardless. With some vindictiveness, like written within the TM guidelines, for letting/getting in the Domes to meditate with the group the 'religious' destroy the 'spiritual' experience in time, again and again. Likewise, the meditators in TM are mostly gone now. Look at Rick Archer's Buddha-at-the-gas-pump. Batgap.com . The old TM'ers he has interviewed though they meditate are mostly gone and likely not admissible at all as spiritual as they are by what are now the policy guidelines that still effect the access to group meditations in the Domes and Peace Palaces of the movement by what are administrative rigid ideological guideline of some religious of TM . Evidently History repeats itself real fast, -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : New Statesman has a review of a new book that argues that atheism has a long history stretching back to the Ancient Greeks so isn't the product of modern science its current advocates maintain. The review was mostly favourable but did point out that atheists of old were far from being the full-on materialists we have today. Anyway this passage amused me : Yet it is possible, even in the light of this book, to interpret ancient atheism in a rather different way. The more we know about those philosophers whom the ancients described asatheoi, the less like contemporary sceptics they seem. Epicurus, for instance, though he featured in Sextus’s list of famous atheists, not only believed in gods but was an initiate of the local mysteries, and went as far as to demand sacrifices from his followers “for the care of my holy body”. His materialist convictions were not, as his 17th-century admirers liked to imagine, bred of a scientific cast of mind, but of the precise opposite: a conviction that they would help him to attain inner peace. The only value of research into the natural world, so Epicurus believed, was to enable the philosopher, by properly appreciating the pointlessness of superstition, to attain the state of tranquillity that was, so he taught his disciples, the ultimate goal of life. The closest modern parallel is probably not Richard Dawkins but rather Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
