HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Enlightenment (was Re: about absolute truth; Krishnamurti)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:41:21 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com> wrote:
: Why don't you go sell water by the riverside!  Ha!

Where's a riverside? Selling is not the point.
It's robbery.
*bow*

  :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.101906.8532@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul9.185030.9988@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>> To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
>> Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
>
>Please define innocent.  If you choose to do so, why do you have the right to
>do so?  What is cold blood?  What if the person committing the act is 
>"insane?" 
>Who judges?
>
>GXKambic
>standard slightly cynical disclaimer

Even if the person is insane, that doesn't justify the act, does it?
Are you saying it is right for insane people to kill people?

-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: tt@wag.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi)
Subject: Transmission of consciousness
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:50:49 GMT

I was asked:

> Your recent posting about Great Yogis being able to
> influence a person geographically far away thru
> consciousness soundid very interesting. Could you write
> me about this process? 
 
This process of influencing people through consciousness is something that 
all of us are capable of doing.  Perhaps there are times when you know 
that something is wrong with your family or friends without talking to 
them.  Maybe there is a feeling or a bad dream.

In my case, I knew when my pet dog, with whom I grew up, was in trouble.  
I called my parents and they told me that my pet was sick.  Wait, is a 
dog sending consciousness across a distance?  Yes, this is consciousness, 
but it is at a personal, emotional level.

The Yogis can transmit at a impersonal, selfless level.  These transmissions
can also be detected, but the system for detection usually is not attuned
to this sort of consciousness.

What does this mean?  Well, the best way to describe this process is with
chakras, or the energy centers of the being.  In Hindu, Buddhist, Tantric
and many other traditions, you will see descriptions of these "energy 
centers."

Each energy center can be considered a transmitter and a receptor.  However,
the degree to which one can transmit or recieve differs, and the degree
to which one is aware of these transmissions differs.

I am not trying to prove or justify chakras, rather use chakras as a 
way to describe some processes that we may experience.

In short, the ones that work on the personal level are at the root, the
gonads, and the solar plexus (stomach).  These deal with emotional and
physical processes.  For example, the bad feeling I got about my dog
worked through the solar plexus region.

People with awareness teach us to become capable in our higher chakras, 
like the heart.  Love and compassion are central aspects of religion 
for many good reasons.

If people are in the process of growing and are in need of help, then
those beings with consciousness can detect you and help you in your
process of growth.  This is the sort of process that I am talking about.


Toshi
tt@wag.caltech.edu
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Looking for the One (was: ...the Self)
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:30:58 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

htoyryla@ntc01.tele.nokia.fi (sorry, I don't have your name) writes:

>Suppose an experience or awareness of all as one. How could we know 
>that it would be about All or One. Wouldn't something just slightly
>above our everyday separatedness be overwhelming enough ?

Why ask me?  How would I know?  <grin>

Some traditions say that even a little experience of One or All would
be quite enough, at least to start.  This is exactly the sort of
experiences students of many traditions report.  In the Buddhist
tradition, if you've read the experiences of those who experience the
first levels of satori (or kensho) then you know of what I speak.
Other traditions have similar experiences.

But until one has such an experience, it's not real.  We can talk
about it until the cows come home and not get anywhere!

>Again, how would a man know ? Perhaps a whole was healed that was within
>the man and not without ?

Some would say that the only thing a person can rely on is his own
experience.  However, eliciting an experience of One or All and
interpreting it is another thing entirely.  That's where the cultural
and religious traditions often enter the picture.

Some would say: If you had the experience, you know.  If not, no
amount of discussion can convey the knowledge.

So where is Self?  It sure seems like I'm here.
-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: OBE newsgroup discussion
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:53:05 GMT

I'd like to alert readers of this newsgroup that discussion is now underway
on the creation of a new newsgroup on out-of-body experiences.  I created an
"alt.oobe" newsgroup last week, before I realized that it would have been
better to have conducted a discussion first.  (There had been a discussion
in alt.dreams in favor of creating a newsgroup, but I kinda jumped the gun.)

I'm hoping we can have a few days worth of discussion in alt.oobe and/or
alt.config, and have an informal vote soon (I had suggested the first week of
August).  Please check out the discussion in those newsgroups, and remember to
cross-post your replies to both groups.  (The main subject for discussion is
what to call the new newsgroup.  I'm now leaning toward destroying alt.oobe,
and creating alt.out-of-body in its place, which would likely become more
widely distributed, since system administrators look with greater on news-
groups whose names suggest their content.)

Thanks.
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:17:22 GMT

kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

>Then these people would be by definition not physicists, because physicists are
>intimately connected with the real, physical world.  Try reading Feynman a
>little bit.  This doesn't belong on t.r.na.  If you have any further comments,
>please email.

  while physicists are intimately connected to the real world, every year
there are new fizzix discoveries that further question our ability to 
truly know with any kind of certainty what it is we're dealing with.

  since this thread is god, the universe, and you [creation], i think
this does belong in here.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:00:53 GMT

Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas) writes:

> The way you've described Catholicism, it sounds like polytheism.

I dunno who the 'you' is that you're referring to - your header has not
In-Reply-To field.

> Are there any religions out there who worship one God without resort to
mysti 

Your editor is not putting in line endings and as a result, your overlength
lines are getting lost.

However I know of no religion without a mystic tradition, without a
tradition, or without dogmas. As for "One God", Jews, Christians and Moslems
will all assert that they worship one God. 

The Christian idea of Trinity (not shared by *all* Christians) can look like
polytheism from one view. Almost all Christians will insist that they are
not talking polytheism, but rather multiple facets of a single godhead.

Unlike *real* polytheism, the Christian Trinity does not involve independent
and rival divinities. Instead it is three aspects of the same God.

=doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 19:00:17 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <62928@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Dear Future Astral Astronauts: In my last report of the Astral Convoy
>I made a few slight mistakes. The person called K. should have been J.

you just made another one:

>of E.  Shannon passed out according to the information I got from E. and 

shannon did not "pass out."  shannon fell asleep.  shannon did not drink
enough to pass out.  shannon told you this in public, right here on 
sci.skeptic and shannon would appreciate it if you (and others) would 
pay attention.

>wasn't aware of anything. We don't know whether Shannon is a girl or boy

shannon is not a "girl or boy;"  shannon is a "man or woman," thank you.

>but we don't want to ask because Shannon will think we're trying to cheat.

you obviously don't know what shannon will think because this is incorrect.
shannon did not realize some did not know what sex s/he was and thought it
would be interesting to see if anyone could tell.  that is all.

i don't recall having talked down to you or even about you (surprisingly
enough) as you have to me.  i felt i needed to correct this in public as
you seem to be fond of posting personal correspondence to the net and
so that you won't perpetuate incorrect ideas about me.  funny, this
wasn't the impression i got from you before i entered into this little
adventure in Astro-land.

is there a reason you are nice to me in e-mail and rude in public?

(don't need to sign this one do i?)
From: ed_l1@verifone.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: God/All/Unity/Truth/Language
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:52:16 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

Seems there's a bunch of us here with a common perception which includes
the following:

1. God is all, and all is god.
2. Truth cannot be adequately stated in human language.
3. We are one, like it or not.

If you want to be included in off-line discussions, or if you want to
start up an on-line thread, please send me your address.

-- 
 //=====================================================================\\
|| Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A. Earth ||
|| Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, Earth Native       Ed_L1@VeriFone.Com ||
|| * Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance.  All Rights Reserved. * ||
 \\=====================================================================//
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:45:49 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Arnold E. Nordeng writes:

>Then, (no flame intended), you must hold that God exists and he is not
>a being, or in a state of non-existence.  You must hold that God exists
>and doesn't exist.  They seem pretty mutually exclusive to me. 
>Can you support your reasoning to show how two contradictory statements
>can be affirmed? 

The world is full of paradoxes that don't yield to logic.  If you try
to hold G-d to our human brand of logic I wouldn't be at all surprised
if you encountered paradox.

Jews assert that G-d created time and space.  The concept of existence
is intimately bound with our ideas of time and space.  G-d is not
restricted to time and space so how can you even discuss G-d's
existence?  The very concept doesn't apply.


-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 04:41:12 GMT

moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:

> One of the key points made in the book (and Buddhism in general) is
> that self is an illusion and that Descartes' conclusion is erroneous.
> Anyone who posits that they exist as an independent entity might enjoy
> the challenge of reading this book.

Let's be fair to Descartes. He wrote "Cognito ergo sum". I think therefore I
am. Ok, he was worrying the issue of doubt at the time. He was looking for
something that could be called 'certain knowledge', and doubting every
proposition that was being made about certainty. He observed what anyone can
observe while doubting every proposition. The presence of doubt is there.
Ok, so, you can be pretty sure of doubt. No matter how much you doubt that
you are doubting, you are still doubting. Doubting is one kind of thinking.

This is then posited as proof of existence, something of which one can be
sure - the more sure the more you doubt!

Whether or not thinking or doubting is 'illusory' it is, nevertheless,
'extant'. To prove this to yourself, you need only doubt it.

Descartes said nothing about 'independent entity'.

Now are the Bhuddists arguing that Descartes didn't exist? Or that they
don't exist? Or that doubt doesn't exist? Or that the presence of doubt does
not require (and therefore rather prove) existence?

But really - does anyone actually doubt that s/he exists?

Descartes' little attempt to find a starting point to 'certainty' strikes me
as rather silly, and missing the point. All he really manages to do, to my
mind, is demonstrate that the only things one can really be completely
certain of are trivial and unimportant. Again, who needs to prove to himself
that he exists? Does not doubting one's own existence suggest a bit of
mental imbalance?

Of course most of the Cartesian philosophy of the last 300 years strikes me
as just as silly and irrelevant to what's really meaningful in human life.

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3416 alt.alien.visitors:4674 sci.skeptic:13056
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 06:15:39 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62477@cup.portal.com> <1992Jul20.233307.21535@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
  <62557@cup.portal.com>

Dear Dan: Your pretty cotton picking funny. Sounds like your having
a good laugh out of all of this.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: jeffjc@cs.mcgill.ca (Jeffrey CHANCE)
Subject: Re: HIGHER SELF
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:46:24 GMT

Questor Lau wrote:
>I think it is interesting that while I hear a lot of people mentioning
>merging with the Higher Self or a Higher Purpose, or more Enlightened
>beings... I never hear anything like re-experiencing what it means to be
>in ego or to see the world only through the physical body and for a
>while forget that we are searching for this something "Higher...." 
>
>When was the last time you sat and felt the wind as just a whoosh; when
>you splashed water on your face and felt it as cold as wet, instead of
>as cleansing and washing your body; when did you last look at a person
>not to see their inside as beautiful but looked at just their outside
>and truly admired it, not envied it, just admired...

I agree with you that there is beauty and happiness to be
experienced with the everyday things that we do. But
let us not forget that the degree of appreciation of _any_
experience lies in the consciousness of the individual.

>
>Just some thoughts... 
>-Q

Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------------
|    Jeff Chance                       | That to which you   |
|    Dept. of Chemistry                | give your attention |
|    McGill University, Montreal       | becomes stronger in |
|    MAIL: jeffjc@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca | your life.          |
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Hatton: CIA or ET?
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:07:15 GMT

Does anyone out here have any information regarding George Green? There are
a growing number of people (myself included) who are beginning to feel that
Green is actively working with the CIA to produce disinformation regarding
UFOs and ETs. A good mystery always did stir up my circulation! :^)

Does anyone have any info on this guy?  Whatever you've got, please Email
to lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com

Thank You
Len


Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: jennyb@triton.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann)
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:37:35 GMT
Organization: Diplomacy 'R' Us

In article <1992Jul29.185219.29352@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> timpson@acetek.enet.dec.com () writes:
>
>>   Come on guys! Give the guy a break. I know John and he's a really
>>   nice man. If you don'l like his posts then skip them. But geeze
>>   why so hostile? Freedom of speech is for everyone not just the
>>   people you agree with!
>
>>                                  Denise
>
>	It's not a question of freedom of speach it's the quality/quantity
>	of John messages.  It is rediculous and should be tempered.
>
He made the top 25 posters by number of articles list.  That's for the
whole net, folks.  He outdid Mutlu.

Since you know him, Denise, why don't you teach him the difference between
email and posts, and what he is doing to piss people off?  Can you explain
to him that these "Dear Dan" type messages are being copied not just to
"Dan", but to tens of thousands of people, who have to pay in one way or
another for it?  

This is assuming he doesn't know it already, and is not *trying* to look
clueless.

Jenny
-- 
The future will be better tomorrow.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:24:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <2324@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>In <62580@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>    Dear Dan: Your pretty cotton picking funny. Sounds like your having
>    a good laugh out of all of this.
>
>I hope we all are.
>-- 
>/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
> |__/__/_/     Being a BALD HERO is almost as FESTIVE as a TATTOOED
> |warren@      KNOCKWURST.
>/ nysernet.org 

Oh yes we are!  Maybe we can get john to make his post more than one screen
long!

And BTW:

JOHN!

USE YOUR GODDAM

EEEEEEEE         M       M        A        IIIIIII  L           !
 E               MM     MM       A A          I     L           !
  E              M M   M M      A   A         I     L           !
   EEEE  ======= M  M M  M     A     A        I     L           !
  E              M   M   M    AAAAAAAAA       I     L           !
 E               M       M   A         A      I     L           !
EEEEEEEE         M       M  A           A  IIIIIII  LLLLLLL     o
      

... for your personal messages!
From: ed_l1@verifone.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth -> Paradox
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:42:51 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

In article <1992Jul21.104136.4349@verifone.com>, ed_l1@verifone.com writes:
>
> There _are_ no absolutes!  Absolutely!!!
> 
> ;^)

Apologies: I forgot the attribution of the above.  It is from the
_Book_of_Universal_TRUTH_Through_Paradox_, by Ed L'Esperance, 1995 PH

 //=====================================================================\\
|| Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A. Earth ||
|| Ed_L1@VeriFone.Com  * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, New Age Guru,   ||
|| Farmer, Genius, Earth Native, etc.      >*<    Wage Peace: Cooperate  ||
|| Most Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance. All Rights Reserved  ||
 \\=====================================================================//
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:24:03 GMT
Organization: Bam Boom, straight to the moon
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Marc Wachowitz) writes:

>Some say the words "before big-bang" are completely meaningless, since time is
>not "outside" the universe - the question is like asking what is "outside of
>absolutely all".

I remember when I was little, I asked my father (a theoretical
physicist), "if the universe is expanding at the speed of light
at the edges, what is outside the edges?

He replied that it didn't matter since it could not
be measured.

Perhaps, the scientific perspective is but one, and
that the "religious" (however you define that for yourself)
is another.

D.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3493 alt.alien.visitors:4803 sci.skeptic:13216
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 08:07:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

---of Earth, by offering to land openly on your Earth by invitaion and
sharing the knowledge we have gained with you. Then you too may live and 
BE IN LOVE, PEACE, HARMONY AND BROTHERHOOD together with all of Creation, 
linked to us and beyond to the Creator God.
  I am Astar, your star brother of the planet Venus working with Earth
to assist in Her transformation into the higher frequencies of understanding
known as the higher dimensions, or the GOLDEN AGE of Man. So be it Adonai,
adonai, adonai. Messager, Jean Peterson.
John Winston.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:59:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul29.131413.4404@tronsbox.xei.com> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>You might try the Noachides.  They worship the One but don't have much
>in the way of dogma, tradition, or mysticism.


  Could you help me with this please? I'm having a very hard time 
understanding how a spiritual tradition can develop and not have
either dogma, tradition, or mysticism. With out these things as 
the common glue to bring people together under a common tradition,
I get the feeling that the tradition would just fade away into 
nothingness over time. 




	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher