Curtis, thank you, brother, for this (below). What you wrote reminded me of my dearest friend, the artist Toc Fetch* (whose brushes I'm not worthy to wash), who is also what I'd characterize as an exalted atheist. I would never expect him to "evolve" into anything higher because, like you, his atheism is so wonderful (and exactly what I'd aspire to for myself).
My own theism is like Michael's (t3rinity's) inasmuch as I'm just naturally drawn to it; it fits me like my clothes, but it doesn't conflict with what you've described as your own point of view; at least it doesn't create any waves of conflict in me. Marek (*tocfetch.com) ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with Marek that this discussion has brought up some cool > insights. Thanks to Mr. T for going so deeply into his own perspective. > > I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his > experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. > > T " I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything." > > I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how > compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful > to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different > character than my own "insights". Here T sums up what he sees as my > perspective: > > T > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where > > > > intellect is 'in control' > > > I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my > insights are gained in this way: T: "he tries to understand them > rationally > > > only," > > This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to > atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive > and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier > if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the > deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that > my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and > liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of > becoming awakened. The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has > effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a > total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious > awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. > > I don't believe that people who view life from a theological > perspective will "evolve" into atheism. I think some believers in God > think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or > another life) again. Given enough evidence I surely could believe > again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as > most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by > man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide > that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. > > It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand > philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were > involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as > challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and > deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their > internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using > their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know > the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to > admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know > what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using > your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal > perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to > approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have > discovered along the way. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Michael, I have to say that I think the problem > > > is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. > > > > > > Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? > > > > I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists > > believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them > > differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada > > Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma > > as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. > > I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. > > Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya, > > Illusion. Some people would call Shankaras Advaita a concealed > > atheism, but its very much my position. > > > > > Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no > > > need to postulate a Creator or "another entity" > > > that is in control of their lives. They see life > > > as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma > > > and free will. Those two forces account for every > > > phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, > > > without the need for a God or "another entity" to > > > be "responsible" for it. > > > > May I note that ist interesting you call 'free will' a force. And I > > don't think its just a semantic mistake: Thats what Buddhism says, > > everything is just the interplay of forces. And mind you they say the > > same thing about the individual ego, its just a composite, nothing of > > an entity in itself. A composite of different elements (dathus I > > believe) held together by different forces (karma and Samsara). This > > is very much what I say: We are not an entity, we are a play of > > forces. The 'I' is an illusion which takes authorship of this > > interplay, and at the same time, this wrong identification is part of > > the play. There is no I doing it, its part of the play of forces. > > > > > > > At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel > > > separate from the world, or "independent" from it? > > > > No. > > > > > I certainly wouldn't. My experience has shown me > > > that they tend to feel more of a sense of inter- > > > dependence between all sentient beings than most > > > people who go around talking about their belief in > > > a God and how separate He/She/It is from them. > > > > > > I don't believe God is separate from us. We are totally God or we are > > part of God, either view is ikay with me. > > > > > There is also no inherent belief in atheism that "I > > > am in charge of my life." I'm pretty sure than any > > > New Orleans atheist who lived through Katrina doesn't > > > believe that. What they are in charge of is how they > > > handle what life throws at them. > > > > But thats what I mean. I deny that they are in charge of how to handle > > what life throws at them. I mean that thee are several levels of how o > > look at that. At an immediate level, thats what I would advise anybody > > to do as well: Just act in a responsible manner. Of course. But I > > believe that whether you follow such advise or fool around or how > > exactly you think what is responsible is not really in your hands. Its > > guided by forces not known to you. > > > > > They tend, in my > > > experience, to *take responsibility* for handling > > > those setbacks and challenges, and neither blame > > > God for them nor ask Him/Her/It for help in dealing > > > with them. They just deal with them. > > > > A lot of people blame God, even if they are atheists. Or the blame > > life or whatever. OTOH people who are believers may just act very > > responsible and not blame God, as they feel it to be a test or they > > feel some other ways of support from God. > > > > > Myself, I think it's all about preference. After 40+ > > > years on a spiritual path, I have no need to postulate > > > any kind of a God. I have never encountered a single > > > phenomenon that requires the existence of a God to > > > explain it. Therefore, using Occam's Razor, if a God > > > is not necessary to explain the world I see around me, > > > it is far more likely that there isn't one than that > > > there is one. > > > > I totally understand your argument. When in young adolescence, I would > > call myself atheist as well. I was more a passive atheist or an > > agnostic, but I wouldn't kow at the time. With this I started TM, and > > read the Science of Being, very much swallowing the Vedantic concept > > of the impersonal, very much not taking God references in the book > > serious. But it was experiences that made me accept the God concept. > > Like somebody else here related, I was 'touched' by something in > > meditation along with a sudden certainty that this was pertaining to > > God, and that God actually existed. I simply believed this experience. > > I had more experiences like that, pertaining to a personal Godhead, in > > one case in its unmistakable female expression. Whatever my > > philosophic mindset may be, there is now way I could deny these > > experiences. I couldn't really interpret them any different, because > > personal Godhead is he very content of these experiences. And, at the > > time they were not affirmative of my beliefs but contrary to them. The > > only way I could interpret them differently is to call them delusional > > aberations of the mind. But I believe more my experiences than my mind. > > > > In the same way, that I believe that we are not responsible for our > > actions, that we are guided by an unseen force is again something > > which I experienced, and which again caught me unexpected. I was > > struck by a force beyond my volition at a time of no particular > > aspiration. The force made me feel that there is nothing I could do, > > ie. regarding enlihtenment, that it wasn't in my hands. This was in > > India in Madras 9 yrs back. I was just strolling the streets and busy > > backlanes around my hotel Broadlands, which I now after 9 yrs just > > revisited, and I still love the place. Lateron I came across a > > philosophy affirming this belief. While listening to the man, Ramesh, > > this time in Bombay, in the evening I had a similar experience being > > in a bar. (somebody with whom I lived had dragged me there, and I > > wanted to be nice) I had, in the bar with loud music and smoke, and > > people drinking alcohol, again a stroke of a force, together with a > > sense of detachment and desinterest. I left and went to my sleeping > > place. I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. > > > > > > > But basically, when it comes to God, I just don't care. > > > If there is one, fine; if there isn't, fine. What I > > > believe about the matter doesn't affect God (if there > > > is one) one way or another, and what He/She/It (if > > > there is one) thinks about me doesn't affect me one > > > way or another. > > > > Sure. I understand this very well. I also don't resort to anyone > > particular religion or even philosophy. I have direction, but i > > couldn't tell I am a pure Advaitin etc. Maybe I am a Visishtadvaitin > > to some extent. This is the intellect playing around with ideas. But i > > am interested in almost all religions. The very act of faith attracts > > me. I can not be absolutely sure if there is God/dess, but I love > > Him/Her. My mindset in this way, I suppose is different from yours. > > > > > My perception -- at every level of > > > state of consciousness I have ever experience, which > > > covers quite a range -- is that no God is necessary > > > to explain how the world looks from that POV. So why > > > waste time thinking about one? > > > > Well, I just think very similar. We cannot know 100%, so why waste > > time, so I have decided to believe, and if its just a metaphor for the > > unknowable. At least it makes it easy for me to believe in my own > > experiences. Why should I resort to some logic of some materialist > > philosopher I don't really care about. This I would regard as being > > stuck in the mind. (Of course I don't mean the Buddha) > > > > > Others feel differently, that's fine in my book. They > > > can base their lives on the belief that they aren't > > > in control of them all they want. And guess what...if > > > that's what you believe, that's what will happen. If > > > you believe that God does everything and that you don't > > > have much of a choice in the matter, you'll probably > > > sit around on your ass most of your life waiting for > > > Him/Her/It *to* do something, to "show you a sign" or > > > "help out" or "take care of these problems for me." > > > > Well, Barry its the other way round. I run around dong things, > > manipulating etc, when I get struck by something showing me that it > > was totally insignificant and I am not in charge. I am not, you are > > not, nobody is. > > > > > I call it the "Beam me up, Scotty" theory of spirit- > > > uality. *Scotty* is in charge, not me. It's all up > > > to Scotty, and all I can do is praise him and hope > > > that he beams me to the right place. Sorry, not my > > > idea of fun, or of a productive way of living one's > > > life. But your mileage may vary. > > > > Well, it doesn't really matter wo is in charge. Main thing is that its > > not you, because this would enforce your sense of a separate being and > > your sense of authorship. But that you think that way is of course > > Gods will. > > > > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where > > > > intellect is 'in control' > > > > > > And, if you are right and he is wrong, > > > > There is no right and no wrong > > > > > that is GOD > > > doing all that. Curtis doesn't have a CHOICE, right? > > > > RIGHT. > > > > > He's just a meat puppet doing the will of God. So > > > it's GOD who is saying these things, according to > > > what you believe, not Curtis. > > > > Correct. > > > > > Curtis, in the view > > > that I think you're trying to promote, *has* no > > > individuality or individual free will with which > > > *TO* say or think any of these things. God is doing > > > it all, is sitting there with His hand up Curtis' > > > shirt using him as a kind of Howdy Doody puppet, > > > throwing His voice and making it seem as if Curtis > > > is saying these things. Right? > > > > I think you are finally getting it ;-) > > > > > I mean, if you really believe the things you're > > > saying, that's the bottom line, right? So by complain- > > > ing about or taking issue with the things that Curtis > > > says, YOU ARE BITCHING ABOUT GOD. > > > > You are falling back here Barry. I am not bitching about God, but God > > is bitching about himself. Its none of my business, I am just doing > > what I can't help doing, as dictated by my experiences, my mental > > disposition, my philosophic outlook, and my eagerness to fool around > > with my mind. Its a disposition, I can't help. And if I can help, it > > will be the result of a spiritual maturity, which is part of a > > development which is again outside of my intellect or any type of > > volition. > > > > > > > My advice to you, given your belief system, is to > > > lighten up, dude...or He might decide to smite you. > > > > Maybe I am less serious than you think > > > > > > My advice to Curtis is to keep thinking for himself, > > > because he obviously still can. > > > > I disagree ;-) > > > > > > > > > [ The preceding was just a fun little rant over > > > coffee, not a real attempt to berate tr3nity or > > > give him any shit. I just find these discussions > > > between people who believe they have no free will > > > and those who believe they do hilarious, espec- > > > ially when those who believe that the "free willer" > > > is using his lack of free will (in their belief > > > system) to express something offensive or wrong. > > > If their belief system is correct, then the person > > > they're criticizing for believing that they are > > > really "in charge" really isn't, and who they are > > > really criticizing is the being that they believe > > > IS "in charge." ] > > > > > >
