I found a series of books, beginning with Bangkok 8, to be quite enlighening regarding spiritual matters. Particularly is the Thai Buddhist concept of Nirvana. Nirvana is equated with zero. Zero is the total elimination of the self and reuniting with "The Force". :-)
I think of it to be similar to the water cycle. I am the rain drop falling from the sky, an individual formed by condensation around a mote of dust. The individual lives but a brief life before striking the earth whereby the mote returns to the dust and the drop makes it way to the sea. The drop still exists but the individual does not. And parts evaporate into the cloud to once again envelope the dust. Terry On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM, OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I sense another tremor in diatribe forces... > > It might see ironic, perhaps even contradictory to some, that Sir > Arthur, being the resolute atheist that he was, would also appear to > have had a "...deep seated yearning toward the mystical" as Jed > speculated. I would like to suggest that such a psychological > combination really isn't so odd after all. > > I have often noted the fact that a number of atheists I've known are > actually deeply spiritual individuals, and I mean that on a primal > level. Ironically, most hard-core religious fundamentalists I've met > (particularly those that come from traditional religious institutions) > don't seem to comprehend the kind of spirituality that atheists can > naturally exude from deep within the inner cores. > > Witness the crazed suicidal bomber who tries to take out as many > innocent souls as he possibly can. Are they really doing it for the > preservation of their way-of-life, for the glory of Allah, or for the > 72 virgins that had been promised them. Oh, sure, it doesn't hurt to > feel good about the belief that you'll be dieing to help improve the > chances of promoting one's preferred way-of-life, and I'm sure it > doesn't hurt to believe that Allah "approves" of one's "holy" action > either, but I suspect the ultimate selling point often tends to be the > fantasy of having been hoodwinked into believing one is going to live > in "paradise" – which includes having sex with willing and obedient > virgins for an eternity - which must be pretty intoxicating stuff for > an individual who's only exposure to the opposite sex (sans immediate > family members) since childhood has most likely been trying to > comprehend the mysteries of what might be behind that damned burqa. > Jeez! Talk about the creation of science fiction! > > My previous comments were obviously meant to have been taken in the > vein of crude sarcasm. However, on a more serious note, it's been my > experience that religious fundamentalists often talk the big talk > about all the good the want to do in the world, how they long to set > things back to the way things should be in the world. And why > shouldn't they think so. It's the best retirement package they can > think of, to do what they personally perceive as God's bidding, all in > order to ensure their safe passage into a the next world where they > can exist in some weird state of static bliss for all of eternity. In > other words, such seemingly altruistic acts are in reality thinly > veiled selfish acts to ensure their own eternal wellbeing. If the > "altruistic" act helps others, great, they don't have a problem with > that, but it's the personal retirement package that really motivates > them to do the right thing. Stay in line, and maybe just possibly you > won't burn in hell for an eternity. > > Meanwhile, many atheists often seem to do "the right thing" while > believing there is no personal retirement package waiting form for > them as a reward for their selfless actions. > > Perhaps to some extent, (as I wildly speculate here) its due to the > fact that old soul atheists like Sir Arthur see the futility of trying > to hang on to their personalities, to ensure its eternal preservation > and all the "fixings" that personality is most likely going to need > (i.e. 72 virgins, etc...). Perhaps old souls like Sir Arthur, in the > end realize it's a futile gesture. Perhaps a better question to ask > ourselves would be: Are we nothing more than just a personality, one > that must be preserved at all costs for all of eternity. Or have we > actually been (from the timeless beginning) the observer and player of > that video game called a "personality." Once that conundrum is > explored in earnest, a lot of issues don't necessarily seem as > important as perhaps they had been when we first started playing this > fascinating personality game. Behaving in a selfless manner becomes > irrelevant simply because there is no "self" that needs preserving > since it's understood that it's really just a fascinating construct > that has been fun to explore in all of its ramifications. One tries to > do "good" things with that personality construct because, quite > simply, it sure feels a hell'of-a-lot better than doing bad things > with it. How ironic that it often seems to take a millennium to > comprehend such a simple concept. > > > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
