--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a "personal" deity then your > blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara > tradition taught "God" as the impersonal. I always got a charge out of > reading the free books ISKON was handing out, especially their Srimad > Bhagavatam where Prabupad would go on a rant against the impersonal and > he, of course, was ranting against the competition of the time. :) > > "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what > many call "God" especially in abstract terms rather than some being that > micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then > turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to > you. :) > > I was not raised in a religious family. I only went to church to get a > scout badge and after that I was through with it. To me, even at that > age it was pretty lame. As a teenager I was a big fan of the > existentialist movement (particularly reading a lot of Sarte) and > considered myself an atheist. I now think that becoming an atheist is > the last stage before one treads the true path of "God" realization. > Note I put "God" in quotes. I think it was Bucky Fuller who gave a talk > (maybe with MMY) that "God" was concept and you could name that concept > whatever you want. The three letter word tends to be a little lacking > though. > > Now, I "believe" or "experience" "God" as the totality of everything > that is, has ever been or will ever be. I also like to think of the > analogy of "God" in terms of sound physics.
I enjoy saying the word in my mind and being aware on a vibrational level the sum total of what the word is, and isn't-- Easy enough to do, since words repeated about five times in succession lose their literal meanings... It's like a string on a > guitar or bass. "God" is the fundamental tone and the rest of the > universe is the overtone series. That explains the expansion and > energy which is creation. It also allows me to explain pre- destiny > which cannot be disproved any more than free will can. Under this > analogy we would be nothing more than a vibration whose destiny was > created when the "string" was plucked. Everything you have though, now > think and will be thinking is an overtone of that. I like this analogy a lot, though I would say the plucking of the string, including overtones is our full potential. Whether or not we realize it fully in this life or another remains a mystery. > > What one should be experiencing in meditation is the absolute stillness > from which all things spring. If you have that experience then it is > pretty undeniable and a good platform to understand all of creation and > its logic. To the religious, who believe there is a "Satan" then I like > to suggest that "Satan" is the "ego" which blinds you from having this > knowledge because to experience it the "ego" must fall away. To the > religious I also like to suggest that Jesus was one of many teachers who > taught this (though their teachings were perverted with time). > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > > to become "in tune with God's will." > > > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > > > > >
