tar

Second aside: Watched Obama, Biden and their wifes at a service at the National Cathedral, associated with the inaguaration. Biden looked a little uncomfortable, Obama soaked it all in and enjoyed the sermons and the singing. Take-away? IF there is a commonality between the major religions and their "belief", enough to bring together Jew, Christian and Muslim traditions, in one episode, embraced by a Pragmatic, Intelligent, and Rational President, then hope and inspiration and moving forward with common purpose does not require a fight between spirituality and science, nor require that either camp prove the other wrong.

As an aside: I was recently at a workshop/seminar for sustainable enterprise, held by a group of rational humans at a local university. I was surprised by some "new age" remarks at the beginning, followed by some breathing excercises and a moment of silence for self reflection, to put us all in the "proper" mood, for rational discussion and debate of the issues...creationism vs. evolution, was not on the table, mentioned or implied, but perhaps spirituality was, at least in its role to establish a commonality from which people of diverse interests and opinions could approach the problems.

ydaPs, I could only get the abstract, of the Nature study. But "Analytically", those dot charts in the 10,000 times linked study bothered me. The X and Y axis were not related factors. The Y axis were some selected measures of societal health, like teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted desease, child mortality rates and homocides, all areas where the U.S. is deficient, plotted against religiousty measures. The same X axis could have been plotted against favorable societal health factors and the "U" would have still stood out in the chart. There seemed to be no attempt to actually determine the religiousity of the pregnant desease riden teen, or the dead infant. Or any attempt to subtract the homicides related to drugs from the numbers. (I threw that in myself, as it might skew the numbers and have little to do with religiousity, one way or the other). I would already have assumed there would be an inverse correlation between literal belief in the bible, and belief in evolution. (the Bible tells a different story). So all the X axis are already a given. Therefore according to the logic of study, any Y axis measure at all, would put the US out to the right, and only the choice of Y axis measure would determine whether there was a positive or negative correlation, when charted against the rest of the first world nations studied. Using this logic you could probably show a correlation between creationism and any Y axis measure, where the US would stand out, even probably the things you feel are the best results of analytical thinking. Doesn't mean that we Americans are not fat, stupid, poor, undereducated, underprivledged, oversexed and have drug, gun and drinking problems, but I don't think "Church" is the main problem there. Regards, TAR2 Throw in overmedicated, over exposed to violent sport and movie, TV and game, and still, going to chuch, would not be the problem. Perhaps our rich have too many choices and our poor too few. Still, I see no way to blame spirituality for the ills and trust rationality for the sure cures.

hoggy, Not quite sure that there is an after-life payoff for NOT believing, either. Who do you figure is going to give you the gold star...after you die? And based on what are the standards, that were set before you were born? An after-life is assumed I think, by most. Not their own, per se, but life none-the-less. Just a theory of mine, but to illustrate, how far out, into the future, do you think it is reasonable to assume responsibility? 'Til your kids die? 'Till your clan dies out? 'Till your planet dies? Until the human race has no living representatives? 'Til the Milky Way is left alone in space? 'Til the black hole in the Galaxy's center consumes every peice of matter in the Milky Way? Where exactly to do figure there is a line. where your existence disappears? And what would be the deciding factor, to determine that "the end" had been reached? Who would care, after that? If a thing is to "disappear", it first, I would think would have to be apparent to someone. For it to matter, there should be someone that cares. I suppose the question I am asking you to explore is where do you define the boundries of those enities that you consider, when you consider entities that you include in your feeling of self.? Do you feel no association to the world that will exist after you die? Do you consider life insurance a stupid idea? How about recycling? Or saving the planet's resources from being "used up"? If the "idea" of God is so abhorent to you...why do you believe you might have any claim on the real estate, after your body/brain/heart group "gives up the ghost"? Just asking. Regards, TAR2 Just for fun, consider this. You light a match and hold it in the air in a clearing. Unfortuneatly the clearing is a highway and you are struck by a bus and instantly killed. A bystander witnesses the event and it matters to them. A small plane above sees the matchlight extinquished. A year or so later the event reaches (rather dimly) a planet circling the nearest star. The light of the match continues outward and reaches a planet on the other side of the Milky Way several thousand years later. Most of the universe has not yet witnessed the birth of our Sun. When exactly, universally speaking, did your life cease to exist?

Semjase, Why assume that the universe demands 1 fold symmetry? Perhaps it is 6 fold, that it demands. And IF it is just 1 fold required, then God vs Devil would pose us yet another question. What outside force is keeping the God, and the Devil from annihilating it's self? Seems to me that we have no actual way to "get outside" ourselves. Which brings us to your contention that anything man-made is created by intelligence, therefore intelligence exists, and since science can not describe where this "intelligence" originated, it must have been brought in from the outside, ie. goddidit. Which leaves me with the question, who did God? So, from my point of view, we are sort of stuck with the notion that we are both bound by what the universe is naturally capable of, and responsible for any outcomes therefrom. We cannot logically "step outside" ourselves or belong to "a different" universe. This is the only one we have. If you would suggest that you are in possession of a "different" universe than the one I've got...I would beg to differ. In this light, I would propose that if God, is being itself, it would be rather silly to suggest that you were immune from it. And would answer the OP by saying that I don't believe not believing is an actual possibility. And I say that, as an Atheist. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, yeah, I suppose you are right about the breaking of the Sabbath thing. Will be a bit of Sodom and Gomorrah at half time as well (no doubt). But those tailgate offerings should please the big fella, so it might be alright. And those of us at home will be resting and roasting up a few meat offerings and the aroma of malts and grains and fermented fruit, will no doubt be in the air. The overall effect will send the ole fella to heaven. Regards, TAR2 Bill Angel, Looks to me like the fellow in the picture has hedged his bet and is offering up both noodle and meat. Should have been pleasing, either way God chose to go that day. Regards, TAR2

Mootanman, My mom would put a roast in the oven before we went to church on Sunday in preparation for our Sunday meal, which we would have just after noon. I still recall the "smell" in the house upon our return, as being rather pleasing indeed. I suppose God is my kind of guy. Course the smell of burning human flesh is not so pleasing to me. Hard to figure what God would make of that auroma. Regards, TAR2 Seems the Mayan God for one, sort of appreciated it. Wait, I have it all mixed up, the Mayans worshiped that feather snake, and I think they just cut out the sacrifice's heart and offered the blood or somethiing of the sort, I don't think any roasting was involved. Fortuneately, if I recall correctly the priests, who watched the stars and knew the seasons pretty well, were able to synchronize the ole sacrifices with the coming of the rainy season. This no doubt cemented the efficacy of the ritual in the minds of the people. OK, I think I got the script that would bolster the people's thinking that the power of Faith in God is real and effective. We have the Cain and Abel thiing and we mix in ole David and Goliath. The older brother is slaying the younger, Ravens up 31-17 in the third quarter, Ray Lewis is reinjured and in a "sling" on the sidelines, and the 49s young powerful giant quarterback executes three unanswered drives, putting the powerful 49er team up 38-31 late in the forth. But Ray. though his body is broken and unable to stop the champion with strength of body, exhorts his team, with one handed towel waving, to tie the score, put up a great defensive 3 and out, or turnover and the Raven's win with a field goal in the closing moments. Then of course in the confetti period, Ray does not answer that he is going to Disneyland...he says he is going to church.

Phi for all, Heck, that would make the victor, the murderer, and the bad guy? Complicates the take-a-way. Also brings up something I have always wondered about. Why did God like Able's offering, the meat/fat from the flock, and disregarded Cain's offering, the grain or fruit or whatever, that he had produced by cultivating the land? Is this proof that God was not a Vegan? Perhaps I have missed the point of the story. Or perhaps its an indication that the writers of the Bible, had some bias. It seems unlikely that the creator of the universe would have such human faults. But I suppose that is the underlying theme, or recognition of nonsense, that caused me to start the thread in the first place. Atheists have already recognized the nonsense, and hence are Atheists. Deists have no interest in questioning "God" and won't even attempt a defense, other than perhaps that God works in mysterious ways, and we are not supposed to understand. Personally I see Ray Lewis as a powerful man, both in strength of body and will, and in his ability to inspire others. And at the same time, know that suggesting that God would have any reason to give him strength, to overcome the opposition (consisting not only of injury but of "other" children of God in 49er uniforms) is as devoid of sensibility as suggesting that God is on the side of the parents of the coaches. I suppose as long as we all have a good time watching the story unfold, and many make a living off the event, there is no actual good and evil battle, from which we could expect a Godly winner, and an evil loser. It is, after all, a football game. And the team that half of us will root for will either win or lose. And according to the logic of the Deist, it will go exactly as God plans it to go. Regards, TAR2 Unless of course the outcome of the event is already scripted...by humans...then we would have a different discussion about who might be controlling our lives, and what role "religion" might play in this. But then that consideration would make me a conspiracy theorist, and I am not prepared to go there.

Bill Angel, I wonder where the parents are going to sit for the match. I would suppose they have their choice of luxury boxes. Regards, TAR2

If they lose to the 49ers does that mean Ray Lewis is delusional?

Immortal,<br /><br />Concerning mind body dualism.<br /><br />There are figurative things I believe in. I am open to the general notion that that "my" existence is not completely framed by my birth and eventual death. There is some ownership of, and responsibility for the evolutionary chain that led to me, and the thread that will be carried forward by my relatives, close and distant. Based on empirical evidence...such as the fact that half the instructions for my TAR organism existed soon after my mother was concieved, and 1/4 of my pattern lived in my infant grandmother...and so on in halves...way back to Lucy. Empirically true as well are the carbon based lifeforms that have been constantly enriching the biosphere of the Earth, with molecules required for my existence. I am beholding to these, real, empirically verifiable organisms. They are real, and did live and die on this planet. This planet which is real, and not an illusion.<br /><br />But the evidence also shows that my consciousness is intimately married to my human organism, the body/brain/heart group that is named TAR, has a particular real, but deceased mother and a very real and very alive father. My mother's soul is "with Jesus" because she loved Jesus and lived with Jesus in her heart, and now she resides in my memory and the memories of all that she touched in her life. You can parse the figurative and literal into that statement in various ways, but it can be parsed without demanding that Jesus was the literal son of a literal rule giving, anthropomorphic God. It can be understood as Jesus being a symbol of mankind, in much the same way as half gods in several traditions have human and divine characteristics, and God can be taken as all the history and expanse of "being" that existed prior to, and allowing the emergence of conscious man. This general "being" shows itself to us all. We know it was before our birth, and we know it exists now, and we know it will continue to exist after our death. It is exactly NOT an illusion. It is evidently the case.<br /><br />To consider mind and body separate considerations, under the circumstances is not practical. There is no part of you, no "essence of you" that would have meant anything at all out of the context of reality. You already have full membership to reality. Mind and body are intertwined. Everywhere I go, there I am...and other obvious experiments can be run to prove this to be empirically true.<br /><br />So where is your "proof" that life and consciousness is an "illusion", when everything real suggests the exact opposite? You can not find a single god, or a single adorning jewel, anywhere, or any time in the natural history of the planet we reside on, or anywhere within our telescopic or microscopic view. No recorded pictures, no footprints, no anything. And no evidence of an identifiable "soul" making some natural transition from one "organism" to another. Figuratively sure, but literally? I don't think you have any evidence of this. Why, in the thousands of years that reincarnation has been believed in, has not anybody thought to leave a trail, or marker that they could then show to us, the "next time" they were born?<br /><br />And if this "separate" soul would have an indentity that was transferable from John McCoy in seventh century British Isles to Ming Qi in 12th century Mongolia, would it be the soul of Ming Qi or John McCoy that we would be identifying? And what, (god forbid) if John McCoy would have had Western thoughts and been a far enemy of Ming Qi?<br /><br />On free will. I took a pee a few minutes ago, and I did not require the assistance of the urination god.<br />Nor did I pray for his permission.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I thought you were defending Indian traditions? What is with the Taoism? By a cursury reading of your latest links, it appears that Taoism is more of a metaphor type mindset, where what is true in the macrocosm has its analogies in the microcosm and vice a versa. This would correspond somewhat to reality and we all seem to be able to draw these analogies, and is not completely a different notion than a Mandebrot set, or considering the similarities between a Galaxy and a hurricane. For that matter, not significantly a different kind of notion than a scientist applying a gas formula, to the universe. But the beauracratic nature of the thing requires a kind of projection of the human body upon the society and then again upon the universe. This is not dissimilar to belief in an athropomorphic god and it is important to remember that not all analogies are complete. There is not a requirement that ones analogy be correct or that the map of the United States will mirror the distribution of stars in the sky, or the shape of one of my organs. We humans seem to recognize patterns. We match stuff all the time, for recognition and simplified handling. But it is interesting to me that the Tao stuff you linked spoke of five seasons, and five this and that, fitting various considerations into this five pattern. Why, if this is "true" should my calender work so well with four seasons? It appears we can arbitrarily lock onto a pattern, and then fit the rest of the universe into it...if we wish. This is not allowed while applying the scientific method upon the world. Maybe OK to formulate a theory, but then the next step is to see if it actually matches with what exists. One cannot assume that the patterns of the macrocosm and the patterns of the microcosm will be exact analogs. Such as holding a simple picture of an atom being the "same thing" as a Solar system. So consider the arbitrary aspects of the traditions you cite. The difference in the number and roles of the Gods in the Chinese traditions and the Indian traditions. Does this not tell you something? If these gods were actual, there would not be a difference in the count. Everyone would count the same. As in when two scientists on different sides of the world perform a measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun, there will be a consistency that will suggest that there actually IS a distance between the Earth and the Sun that changes in a regular and predictable fashion. Your 31 gods, and the 3600 or whatever of the Tao plan, do not suggest this same consistency and predictability. The patterns don't match. Where the descrepencies can be found are in our traditions, and in our incomplete analogies, and in our own abstractions. The greater reality on the other hand has a consistency and truthfulness that remains unaffected by any projection we might place upon it. It is more likely that the universe informs us, than that we inform the universe. I would advise you to keep this in mind when you suggest that the secret of the Vedas is where I would be likely to find the truth, if only I was not a far enemy. With such statements you reveal your desire to enforce your plan upon the universe. And it simply just does not work, in that direction, when it comes to Gods and the nature of things. Maybe does in terms of humans being able to create tools and buildings and processes and governments and such, but the reach of our minds and the reach of our arms do not go by the same rules. What we think, need not fit with reality, what we do, absolutely does. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, OK, here's my real concern. This near enemy, far enemy stuff of yours. I can not parse it, within your explainations, as being the kind of objectively valid consideration you make it out to be. If everybody is just a figment of everybody else imagination, there is no real battle going on, between real camps. This appears to me to undermine your thesis again. Either there is a real battle, between real camps and reality is not an illusion, or the illusion is reality, and the battle is not between you and me, but between various alliances of various of your 31 gods who you consider real eminations from Brahman, and I consider figments of your imagination. If I try to follow your logic and consider my soul on some journey, whose destination is Brahman, It gets rather confusing, as to which of the 31 gods, are guiding my passage. Being that all 31 are eminations of Brahman, it would be rather odd to ever think you were not on Brahman's side in the story. You have to be some god's patsy, some god's fool, or some god's ally, because according to you, the real reality is the battle being fought by the divine forces drawing you toward Brahman and those keeping you away. But from my point of view, if this is true, then its all good, because the divisions themselves are eminations from Brahman...and one can easily consider the witnessing of empirical reality a directive from Brahman. Bottom line, if your secrets are true, you do not get to chose the winners and losers, nor do you get to know whether you yourself are winning or losing. From this vantage point, you are in no position to have enemies, near or far. Now where you might have some choices such as who is your enemy and who is your ally, is if you are a non-trancendental human soul, inhabiting a human body, with a human mind, with desires and feelings, able to experience hunger and pain, satisfaction and pleasure. With such a mortal soul, you are in a position to survive or to die, and it would matter greatly to you who was on your side in the matter and who was against you. Now it would make sense to have enemies near and far, and to have people on your side, protecting you and helping to maintain your safety and peace, and helping you to keep your belly full. So which is it Immortal? Are your 31 gods actual entities, or are they figments of your imagination? Do you have any empirical evidence, with which we could write a rule book, as to which of the 31 gods you have allied with, and which of them I have allied with, or are the rules only existing in your mind, and not "out there" for everybody's inspection? Regards, TAR2

This spatio-temporal reality is the only one available. Its the only one we have, its the only one we can sensibly talk about. My dog is "out there" in reality to you. And your toothbrush is "out there" in reality, to me. Any "other" reality you might be referring to is not pertinent to this one. If it does have a bearing on "this" reality, show us where it makes its marks. If it does not have a bearing on "this" reality, then it is not true, not real, not empirically findable or useful. You can not just pronounce that my dog and your toothbrush are simply states of mind. Its silly garbage to suggest such a thing. My dog is real, your toothbrush is real...and abstractions of yours are one level away from, not one level toward reality. I really do think you have promoted your dreams and visions to an undeserved status. And I wish you would stop telling me I need to learn something about the truth, when your insights and secrets point very much in the other direction. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I suppose you actually read the stuff you link? "D'Espagnat's writings on quantum mechanics lay out with great clarity the genuine puzzles that quantum mechanics presents, says Jeffrey Bub of the University of Maryland, College Park. But he's skeptical about finding common ground among notions of reality from art, science, and spirituality. As he puts it, if there's something about the physical world that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, "it doesn't follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry."" Do you take D'Espangnat so cherrypickingly, that you ignore the sound judgement of Jeffrey Bub? Having a "gap" does not imply that it must be filled by cream cheese. And besides D'Espagnat himself is aware that there is a reality that exist, independent of "us". This is in direct opposition to your thesis, that you can predict the future, walk on water, become invisible and soundless, pass through walls and such, should you just concentrate on the task with the right frame of mind. In direct opposition on two axis. One, to imagine you can have superhuman powers over the "outside" world, you must admit first, there IS an outside world, an actual independent reality, for you to exhibit superhuman powers over. And two, to consider that success in "imagining" a change in the actual reality, is accomplishing an actual change, anyplace other than in your imagination, is patent delusion. Regards, TAR2 You really only have two ways to go with this. This "secret of the Vedas". It either fails because it demands that actual reality does not exist, which is clearly a false ascertion. Or it fails because the human mind does not have the superhuman powers over actual reality, that it has over its own internal configuration and delusions. Brings me back to a discussion we were having in some thread or another about the relationship of self hypnosis and mushroom use and the effects on the mind that sitting in a dark silent cave for hours, has with spiritual insights. And the very real fact that if you were to reach nirvana, you would be doing it by yourself, with no instant effect on the rest of reality. There would be 6.5 billion that had NOT reached nirvana with you. Meaning exactly that there is an outside reality that really exists that is what it is, no matter what the mushrooms say about it. I do not need to learn this thing you say I must learn. It is a false thing you would have me submit to. Empirical reality DOES exist independent of us, AND we have a very intricate and representative model of it built into the folds and synapses and connections of our brains. If I were to take a picture of a thing and show it to you, would you argue that the thing exists only in the 1s and 0s inside my digital camera? Or was there indeed the thing I took the picture of? Consider the model of the world I have, and contrast it with the model of the world you have. Both are incomplete and I have images of it you have not seen, and vice a versa. You do not know what my dog looks like, and I do not know where you keep your toothbrush. But my dog is real, and so is your toothbrush. How would you account for this, without the assumption of an external reality, an objectively true world, where both my dog, and your toothbrush, exist?

Me too Moontanman. Me too. Makes no difference if we ever know the geodesic coodinates of the place. As long as we know the place.

Immortal, If the "subject" you are wishing to understand, is the mind of the natives, then traditional beliefs are important. To understand my mind, for instance, you must understand the constitution of the United States, the tenants of the particular Christian Church I attended when I was young, the beliefs and insights of the philosphers I have read, the social conversations that have gone on in the media of the US over the last 50 years, the history and efforts and endeavors of my family and friends, and all such things that give me context and character. If the "subject" is Brahman, God, Allah, the universe, being, consciousness, or the nature of reality, however, a particular "take" on the matter, is not going to be the only take possible. There would be no requirement to know my mind, or the mind of any particular native population, to be aware of "being" itself. That can be understood, by any sentient being, automatically. With no help from the Masters. With no complicated stable of dieties named, with no assumptions of reincarnation, with no manipulations or requirements, or made up "eminations" from supernatural beings. You keep trying to say, that I can not, or do not understand this being thing. But the particular "subject" you are concerned with, is my understanding of YOUR mind. The subject of Brahman, and the subject of your mind are related, but are not the same subject. You can suggest I do not understand the Indian mind. This is probably true. You cannot suggest that I do not understand being. This is self evident. Regards, TAR2 (Bad sentence construction there. Meant, not that I do not understand being, but that as soon as one is, it is rather self evident that being, is indeed the case.) My world is not commanded by Thor, because I am not a Viking. It is not commanded by Zeus, because I am not a Greek. It is not commanded by Brahman, because I am not a Buddist. It is not commanded by RA because I am not Egyptian. It is not commanded by the God of Moses, because I am not a Jew. It is however commanded by its empirical self, the actual empirical history that has led up to the here and now in which I find myself. The actual forces and forms that have created life on Earth, the evolution of humans, the birth of my parents and such, that have relsulted in TAR. There is enough wonder, and magisty, eternalness and expanse to both the external and the internal, for me to believe in, that is empirically true, for me to consider myself a believer. Without the permission of the Viking or the Mayan or the Jewish or the Moslem or the Buddist traditions or the masters of said traditions, being required, for my acceptance into reality. I am, by all accounts, already fully here. And I believe in it. It is true. It is the truth. I am not in search of it. It has already been found, or has already found me, to be the case. Regards, TAR2 So take your advice, as to what I need to do, to "understand" the truth, and park it away somewhere. I don't consider myself needing it. Show me instead, what I have yet to learn, about empirical reality. There alone is where what matters, to me, resides.

mindlessthought, Few years ago, my wife and I put one of our pups, with lung cancer, to sleep. I held and pet her and looked in her eyes as the life drained from her, there on the table. When my wife and I left the building, the bells of the local Catholic Church were ringing. It was no particular time, or any particular day...the bells were for us, and Shady. Several days later a note came from the animal hospital suggesting that Shady was roaming free and happy in beautiful fields, and proposed a scene where we would meet Shady again, some day on a bridge to those fields. I am not Catholic, or even religious...I did however, not reject the notion of being with Shady again in the field. It seemed somehow OK to consider such. So I would not characterise God as a particular being, as much as suggest that God is being, itself. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, "If you want to understand Brahman then first you need to understand about Indian Psychology." Well this is sort of my argument against "the Secret of the Vedas". The statement would work better for me, if it was posed the other way around. To understand Indian Psychology you need to understand Brahman. Certainly thousands of years of insight and discussion and "confronting" of the human condition, can result in a workable "understanding" of the cosmos and our place amongst it. But it would still be a "subjective" opinion. If Brahman is real, then it would not require any special secret, provided by any one individual, or sect, or religion, or species to "understand" Brahman. What is a "construct", or model, or abstraction, or theory, is derived first from the facts. The facts are objectively real, first and before the senses become aware of them. Scientific method tries to establish the facts...from which theories can be drawn. Certainly one can work the other way as well. An architect can "think" of a form, and make it real on paper, and that form can be matched by builders in concrete, plastic, glass and metal. I am aware of the fact, that the "world" I know is extracted from and merely represents the actual world. Analog representations of it, gleened by my senses and recorded in the synapes and structures of my brain...are not the "same" as the actual world. But I know that the actual world must exist, because of the very many similarities between my abstraction of it, and 6 and half billion other current examples of such. Thus the scientific method, which strives to focus on the similarities that one subjective mind, and another, would both agree on, upon mutual inspection of THE FACTS. So if Brahman is a fact. I do not need the secret of the Vedas, to witness such, to be a part of, to understand, or to have a relationship with. Your thesis is thusly soundly defeated. The REAL Brahman is obvious to and accessable to all. I can, and do, know THE SELF as intimately as any human, be she a scientist, or a Westener or a Vedic Master. Everybody knows. The opposite of this truth, would be to say that only you know the truth, and nobody else is doing it correctly. Such thinking is the basis of "the secret of the Vedas", or "'til all the world is for Allah" or "only Jesus holds the key to heaven". All these certainties have the same flaw. If God is real, then there is no one that is not already admitted to the club. To create a club, with special membership requirements, is immediately FALSE. Regards, TAR2 In other words. If I am familiar with a concept, and the concept is of a real thing, why must I know the Indian pronounciation, to understand the concept?

Immortal, Should one have their own understanding of Brahman, or should one assume someone else's understanding? Regards, TAR2 IOW-It may be possible that I know what I am confronted with.

Semjase, Perhaps that is what is at issue here. Who is in control? I have noticed a similarity between the usurption of "Allah's" power by Mohammed, and the association of the Pope with holy power, and the reverence for those that hold "The Secret of the Vedas". For you, "the most intelligent" should be at the rudder. We all subjigate ourselves to the pack leader. Its probably in our genes to do such. It works out, pretty well. Anarchy doesn't usually result in a sustainable situation. I suppose "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." is probably very sound advice. My father was proud of my daughter's acceptance to a Doctorate program at Virginia Tech. He told her she would be only the 4th PhD in the extended family. Made me think of how important it is, to us all, that some have the intellect, the strength of will, and expend the great amount of effort required to study what is known, and apply such, to push "our" knowledge and command of things to the next level. We all eat the fruit from the trees these people husband. Immortal, Would you follow the advice of a PhD? You summed up the Vedic body of knowledge, with an arbitrary chariot metaphor. No doubt these people wish for others to view their detailed understanding of the various barriers we common folk have, between us and an understanding of the "truth", as an indication that we should subjigate ourselves to those blessed few, who know all the tricks of the trade. I'll throw in with the scholars at the universities, first, thank you. PeterJ, I think I, at least once, mentioned that I had a long talk with God when I was 13. (Brahman, Allah, whoever) I understood his predictament, and realized it was my job to forget that I was him, and to be just me. I have undergone various insights and learned various things in the intervening 46 years, but I do not think that my 13 year old insights tell a different story than the Vedic Master's conclusion. Same deal. Only differ in the take away. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, From Wiki: "Meta- (from the Greek preposition μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self", also commonly used in the form μετα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter." I would agree that there is intellect that is "beyond" or "after" or "adjacent to" the physical. We, after all, are intimately entwined with the physical, yet we have intellect. This proves only that abstraction is possible. Not that abstraction must first exist to cause the physical. "Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed..." You have the cart before the horse, and assume that without a big cart prototype in the sky, there would not be carts at all. This appears to be incorrect. Abstractions must come after the thing that is being condensed, and understood. Which brings us directly to "self". Why is this a part of the definition of metaphysical? Because, when you place the cart and the horse in correct position, the combo works. The "mind" you speak of is evidently present in the combo. Present in the physical, present in the math. Self evident. A divine God is therefore an addition to the mix, an abstraction of yours, that is not required by the atheist. The "spirit" that drives the horse can be anything we wish. It can be the whip god, or the oat god, or the muscle god, or the god that lays the road before, or the hoof god that causes there to be friction between the motive of the horse and the road. A mind that is an abstraction of all that is intelligent is defendible. But it need not be a first cause. It cannot be a first cause. Because it is an abstraction of what already exists. The abstraction must come "after" the thing. If one is to consider that reality can not exist without god, then one must also ask how then, can god exist? What is required for abstract mind to pop into existence? It cannot pop. So it must be derived from what already existed, or it must have always been. And if God could have always been, why not just cut out the middleman, and consider that reality always was, in some arrangement or another? Which leaves us with your assumption that a divine god must exist, for reality to exist, as a mere unsubtantiated guess on your part. With no proof, no evidence, no factors pointing directly toward such a thing being required, or even possible. Regards, TAR2 We can arrange the physical to correspond with all sorts of abstractions of ours. But we cannot create or destroy matter or energy themselves. They already exist. The physical embodies already all that we may derive from it. And by my reckoning, the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. If the universe is to be seen as having a mind, then we are an example of it, and not different from it.

Immortal, "Out there, in the numinous?" Perhaps here, in this statement, is the rub. Let us assume that along the lines of Kant's thinking, we, as humans are in possession of the pure conceptions of "time", and of "space". That from this, we might suggest that here and now are two things that TAR and Immortal could agree on. Out there? What could that mean, that is mutual to both our conceptions? Is a thought of mine, "in here" to me, but "out there" to you? I would think so. There is a lot of thinking that goes on during any one moment, here on Earth, and the portion of it, that is "in here" in this TAR brain is miniscule, compared to the whole of human thought currently going on (1 part in 7 or 8 billion or so) and dwarfed again, by the hundreds of thousands of years of human thought that occurred prior our lives. If "in here" in this TAR brain/body/heart group, I was to reach Nirvana, or learn the "Secret of the Vedas", or speak to God and make him a promise...that activity would be "out there" to you. You could view such an event as having some objective characteristics, being as they are occurring outside of your here and now, without your participation, and some subjective charactistics, being as you know the difference between imagination and reality, and would know which parts of my activity you could reproduce for yourself, and experience in your own, here and now. Thusly a clear distinction can be drawn, by any of us, of what ideas and forces, forms and reality, exist "in here" and what of these exists "out there" in the open, in the "greater" reality, in which, and of which, all our separate heres and nows are composed. Moontanman asked you to show us where one can find your 31 gods "out there". We already know where to find them "in here". Regards, TAR2 Does Agni have a "human" soul? Is there a place and time that Agni knows as "here and now"? Is there a place and time where Agni can be found, that corresponds with the conceptions of the other 30 gods? Does this conceptual "greater" world have any "mappings" to this one of ours?

Immortal, Don't know quite how to respond to your recent posts. They were extensive and had multiple links to many different thinkers and such. I did not explore them, and did not know which parts and peices were meant to support your thesis and which were to be taken as evidence against. Bottom line, too many different ideas, each with different background and focus to get a good picture of what you are trying to say. Many of the ideas seem to me to be arguing exactly against the 31 gods being objectively real. That there is "something" which is real, that we are all a part of, is already evident to everybody here. Getting particular about it, in terms of the 31 gods, is your choice and take, and the "ideas" that your 31 gods embody are not at issue here. They, the ideas, can stand on their own, without any "outside" help or magic. Where is the proof that the 31 gods, themselves, exist anywhere, but in your analogy? Regards TAR2 Your underlying argument seems to be...if there is thunder, there must be Thor. I do not think this works out, logically.

Overtone, So what is the fight down to? I called you on stereotyping half the country as being bigots and/or fools and you answer by suggesting that not only is your position the unquestionable truth, but I also must be a bigot and a fool, because I don't agree with your assessment. Let's just leave it, at that. Sorry I offended you. It was foolish of me. Regards, TAR2 P.S. I will read your response to this post, if you see the need to, but I will try very hard not to respond. Far as I am concerned, our positions have been expressed, and we are done.