Philosophy and other controversial discussions ( religion, God, politics, psychology, astrology etc)
To post on this page, click on COMMENTS under the last comment on the Home page. You must post everything on the home page, later I'll move it to the appropriate page. Don't ask me why, it seems to be the only way.
Introduction
November 29, 2010
Having been surprised to discover a group of intelligent people in the guise of Lloyd's Friends, I have started this site especially for them and others of their ilk, where they are desired to air their views at length and prosecute the noble art of intelligent conversation.
Lloyd, please feel free to post your most controversial and dubious questions here, as you seem to be the most expert question-setter.
While you get around to that, I'd like to pose a relatively light question for comments:
"Is God Love?"
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
The Philosophy of Sam Reifler
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: Gurth's Thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My first post:
I am looking for intelligent conversation.
Somebody starts a topic or asks a question, then hopefully an intelligent conversation ensues, not just a lot of wisecracks.
I haven't read much on this forum, but I saw what looked like a farewell from Richard, and what he said disturbed me as it seemed to make sense. But we'll see.
I am up for answering any serious questions asked of me, including about myself.
I intend to post on other people's threads too.
I am a very unserious person and a lot of what I say must not be taken at face value. You have been warned!
I am interested in Sam Reifler's phrases, which I want to discuss. That will happen. What is your favourite phrase of his?
________________________________
Hello! Welcome to the forum. What sort of conversations do you wish to have?
=================
I am interested to know the opinions of members about "evil". The "problem of evil" is a central problem for many religions. Is it possible to get beyond the problem of evil? I think it is. I have heard people say "there is no evil" and I suspect that enlightenment is the understanding that this is true at the deepest level. Then clearly the problem of "evil" becomes a relatively minor one.
I will endeavour to show (if anyone doubts it) that in his writings Sam Reifler gives clear evidence that he has reached this point of enlightenment.
Or am I preaching to the converted? Your opinions please!
====================
I should give some details to make myself more easily understood.
I am by original nature a skeptic who is inclined, like Krishnamurti, to believe nothing.
Also a scientist who, like Michel Gauquelin, set out to disprove astrology and found startling statistical evidence to prove some of its postulates. I have created my own brand of astrology, just as I have created my own religion, which resolve contradictions to some extent, other than possibly inescapable and necessary contradictions.
Another eccentricity of mine is to place soapies on a pedestal as a serious, valuable art-form.
I am also a 99.997% vegan - which modifies my thinking considerably. Thinking is after all a function of the body.
-----------------------
From there, I can then go on to say that I value your notion of balance highly, Apostrophes, which is natural for me whose natal Mercury is named Balance, because it sits at 21* Libra.
Takino, harmony (and its reverse) are also natural preoccupations of a Libra Mercury. Alice Bailey, who is also my main astrological source, has written on the 7 so-call rays (or modes of being and functioning), one of which (mine!) is "Harmony through disharmony". That, I hope, is why I stir the s--- so often.
Let me end this message with one of my favourite quotes from Sam Reifler's IC. (slightly shortened):
'All beliefs of all men are sequins on the robe of the One and All.'
Last edited by gurthbruins on Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:59 am; edited 1 time in total
______________________ _______________________ ________________
From the thread Science and Magic:
_______________ ___________________________
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:16 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the life of me I can't find much use for the word magic, except in a poetic sense - so I agree with the gourmands. I must search the word in my I Ching, however, in case I have missed anything important.
Here's a quote that seems apropos:
"Where there are miracles, there's not much sense." - Griboyedev.
=================
Ok, I've searched Sam Reifler's IC (IJ) re magic:
1. In hex 6 there is a ref to "magical authorities."
2. In hex 9: "If you are a magician you are caught up in fantasy."
3. Hex 25 recognises magic "metaphors" as a possible means of "attainment".
4. Hex 36 is called the hexagram of the black magician.
My conclusion: everything is magic, just as everything is God.
===============
In what way are we all God?
If one is happy to define God as The One and All, as I do, which amounts to pantheism, then one sees God and the universe as identical. We as parts of the universe are parts of God.
Note that I did not say "we are God". By "everything" I meant the single totality of all things put together and conceived of as a whole.
Note also that I am not referring only to material "things", but all things including concepts, states of consciousness etc, also things about which we know nothing, which latter things are in the huge majority of things.
"And all things seem only one
In the universal sun." - Shelley
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not use the word 'universe'? Is it just a personal preference or is there a difference between 'universe' and 'god'? And what does it mean to be God in this context?
Why not use the word 'universe'? Is it just a personal preference or is there a difference between 'universe' and 'god'? And what does it mean to be God in this context?
It's mainly a matter of usage. 'Universe' is usually used to denote the material part of the universe only, so that word doesn't cut it to denote the more spiritual side of the universe.
I do prefer Sam Reifler's term 'The One and All' to the word 'God'. As that is a bit long, I suggest we use the word Oa, to rhyme with boa.
3. What it means to be God, in any context, is beyond us.
What it means to be part of God would take a book to discuss.
One or two points:
1. As parts of Oa we share in creativity and are not merely passive puppets or slaves of some external will. As I like to say, "God is not somebody else."
2. As we are all parts of God, we owe one another the same consideration we extend to ourselves.
Namaskar
("The Divinity within me perceives and adores the Divinity within you." - wikipedia.
I know people who say "the universe has decided*this that and the other*" and here they are meaning Oa, quite clearly.
It makes little difference to me what you call something, as long as we all understand what is meant.
==========================================
Please take a look at what Zuzuki wrote, a Zen Buddhist:
Quote:
“The Dharmakaya may be compared in one sense to the God of Christianity and in another sense to the Brahman or Paramatman of Vedantism. It is different, however, from the former in that it does not stand transcendentally above the universe, which, according to the Christian view, was created by God, but which is, according to Mahayanism, a manifestation of the Dharmakaya himself. It is also different from Brahman in that it is not absolutely impersonal, nor is it a mere being. The Dharmakaya, on the contrary, is capable of willing and reflecting, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is Karuna (love) and Bodhi (intelligence), and not the mere state of being.
This pantheistic and at the same time entheistic Dharmakaya is working in every sentient being, for sentient beings are nothing but a self-manifestation of the Dharmakaya. Individuals are not isolated existences, as imagined by most people. If isolated, they are nothing, they are so many soap-bubbles which vanish one after another in the vacuity of space. All particular existences acquire their meaning only when they are thought of in their oneness in the Dharmakaya. The veil of Maya, i.e., subjective ignorance may temporally throw an obstacle to our perceiving the universal light of Dharmakaya, in which we are all one. But when our Bodhi or intellect, which is by the way a reflection of the Dharmakaya in the human mind, is so fully enlightened, we no more build the artificial barrier of egoism before our spiritual eye; the distinction between the meum and the teum is obliterated, no dualism throws the nets of entanglement over us; I recognize myself in you and you recognize yourself in me; tat tvam asi. Or, ‘What is here, that is there; what is there, that is here: Who sees duality here, from death to death goes he” (Kathopanishad 4:10).
This state of enlightenment may be called the spiritual expansion of the ego, or, negatively, the ideal annihilation of the ego. A never-drying stream of sympathy and love which is the life of religion will now spontaneously flow out of the fountainhead of Dharmakaya.”
~D. T. Suzuki
==========================
The RW is of course valuable, esoecially for me the commentaries of Confucius, but I find the much shorter SR far more poetic, literary and inspiring. It really portrays SR's personal brand of Zen and Taoism more than anything else, and there is nobody I know of whose opinions and insights better match my own.
That is why I intend to use SR's writings as the text for my own. I am happy just to remind the public and draw their attention to what I like.
I am in perfect agreement with the Suzuki quote, but what I would say is that there are different levels of understanding. On the deepest level there is no evil/good, we are beyond that, in Nietzsche's phrase. But there are other levels in which we still need the dualistic concept of good vs evil.
May I illustrate thus: in a play like Othello say, we have good guys and bad guys, and we are happy when the good guys win the day. Now we are on the level of dualism. But going a bit deeper, we start to realise that without the bad guys there would be no play. We need the bad guys. Thus they can't really be bad.
Going on to the ultimate level of enlightenment, then, all evil disappears and everything is seen as a single perfection. We have reconciled the good and the evil, fused them in a new, single reality.
