HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Enlightenment (was Re: about absolute truth; Krishnamurti)
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:22:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: aix01.amdm=zt_
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com> wrote:
: Do you think that what Krishnamurti describes (the feeling of
: one-ness) is "enlightenment?"
It is commonly called so, but it is also warned not to cling to a particular
state; e.g. D.T.Suzuki points out that it had to be understood as a plural
noun. Note that this is just a description of his first enlightenment, not
all there is to it. It's just labeling, anyway.

: Do you think that state reflects the true nature of what is?
[ Is there a "true" and a "false" nature? Can/need it be reflected? ]

It's clearly not the "highest level" (if one wants to compare "states"; please
don't infer and ranking from these words). If you are interested to read about
more, you may like the book "The Ending of Time", a series of dicussions between
Jiddu Krishnamurti and the physicist David Bohm. Topics range from common human
problems (like lack of love, aging of the brain) to cosmology (or whatever one
wants to call it). There K speaks of the "ground of being", and that there is
absolutely nothing beyond that. Bohm suspects that "the ground" is actually
speaking, and K admits it.
Does that answer your question?

: Why would one strive to achieve this state?
Don't know why one would strive for this or that, or about reasons.
One just does what one does, clearly.

(the answer isn't meant to be silly, either)

P.S. I'm not trying to convince anybody of this or that, and don't find much
worth in arguing whether this teacher or that teacher is right or wrong.
Contents of teachings can be useful to some extent, but then what matters is
actual life, not speculations about it, yes?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3492 alt.alien.visitors:4802 sci.skeptic:13215
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 07:59:35 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

---to create this link with all of you in a stronger more personal way.
  We are offering you this opportunity ot create a happening on Earth
of a magnitude that will change the destiny of man away from that of 
materialism and aggression and propel him into his next step of evolution
in an easy way.  This can be accomplihsed, my brothers and sisters of 
Earth, with the interlinking energies of the higher frequencies, the 
interstellar commands, and collective mankind. Man's continued
insensitivity to the way he treats his fellow man and Mother Earth has
the potential to create a cataclysm of a magnitude that can literally 
shift the poles of Earth and eliminated life as you know it.
  We wish to offer this helping hand to you, our brothers and sisters--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth (repost)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:47:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


  I messed up the last paragraph the first attempt. So here's another
try.


In article <1992Jul30.231732.10770@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>Dear friend, I'm only saying that if each instrument tuned to a different
>frequency, the resultant music is a badly tuned dissonant sound.  It has
>nothing to do with music styles.  Whatever the style, if the instruments
>aren't properly tuned, the music is dissonent.  Perhaps you misunderstand
>what I was saying.  I used this as an allegory of why it seems reasonable
>that there would be an absolute truth.

  Given within your allergory is the suggestion of a perfectly tuned 
instrument as the picture of ideal truth. 

  Personally, I for one could live with this concept with out much of a 
problem at all.

  But I want to point out that it is very hard for people to catch the 
instrument itself at play. We seem to be easly destracted by the infinite
variety of perfectly pitched harmonics that flow through and within
the very foundation of life. All of which originate from our agreed
upon picture of a perfectly tuned instrument.

  What's wonderful, at least to me, is that occasionally, during those
times of peek religious experience, we sometimes are able to look past 
those outer harmonics and get a glimpse of the shadow of the instrument
itself at play.

  What is also very wonderful, at least to me, is that that experience
is NOT restricted to ONLY one true way in just the same way that the
appreciation of the perfectly pitch harmonics that the instrument
is putting out is there for ALL, and I do mean "ALL", to bask in. 


  *Special Note: I'm going to be away on vacation for all of next week.
So, if you respond to this, please email me a copy. Our mail server
keeps articles for only 3 days. And I'm planning on being away a bit
longer than that. Thanks.



	

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

	David Hatcher



Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
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: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:06:14 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62477@cup.portal.com> <1992Jul20.233307.21535@hobbes.kzoo.edu>

Part 2. We plan to cooperate in establishing this link in a technological,
pragmmatic, Twentieth-Century working relationship.  One way this 
cooperation between dimensions can become a reality is for Earthman in the
majority, to invite us to land openly on your planet. To interfere in 
the affairs of Man without an invitaion is in violation of interplanetary
law. We feel that physical evidence of our existence can pivot the 
balance of mankind into RIGHT THINKING AND RIGHT ACTION. This unity can
then bring about a vibration high enough so that Mother Earth can progress
forward into the next stage of Her evolution. We have begun to establish
a networking community of cooperation among light workers across the globe
of Earth.  End of Part 2. John Winston.
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:36:22 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com> wrote:
: 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.
Better yet, look directly within and find out what this so-called "I" is
or isn't. Put aside all concepts, be they from any religion, from psychology
or convictions from previous experiences. That's all baggage.
Just look silently.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3554 alt.alien.visitors:4902 sci.skeptic:13337
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:27:08 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <cass8806.108@elan.glassboro.edu> <l6u3buINN9fc@news.bbn.com>
  <62695@cup.portal.com> <62709@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Jul27.204837.20643@acuson.com> <62986@cup.portal.com>

Dear Everybody: I was asked by Debra where the ruins of the 30,000 year
old city is? It extends from Point Conception to Escondito from North
to South and from the Channel Islands to the mountains north of Malibu.
I was taken 10 miles up the coast from Malibu, up a road that sounded 
like the word Decker, over to split rock park, up an old Army road,
past a abandoned Boy Scout camp, past some old water tanks and there you
are. It seems I'm still in Kumar's dreams and everybody and his dog seems
to be on this astral convoy.  Oh yes I look a lot better (and everybody
else does too) in the spiritual or astral body. So long till tonight
because 1100 PM wednesday is take off time again.
John Winston.
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:27:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Doug Thompson writes:

>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 should be fun!)  Who is the "you" to which you refer?  Is there
anything unchanging that you can point to that might be called "you?"

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

Who (what) is doing the doubting?

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

Have you read Mr. Casteneda's series of books about the nature of
reality from a sorceror's perspective?  They might present you with
some alternatives.  Some Zen books might start you off too.

>Descartes said nothing about 'independent entity'.

No?  In his very short declaration he twice referred to an "I."  Didn't
Descartes mean an independent entity called Descartes?

>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?

Maybe you should ask the Buddhists.  My impression is that they'd say
that if you start from the assumption that each of us is an
independent existence, you've already missed the boat.

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

Do the dead exist?  Do ideas?  Does "geometry" exist?  How about
beliefs?  If I imagine an animal with feathers that lives on the moon
and eats Hershey chocolate bars, does it exist?

>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?

Hardly.  It speaks to the foundations of philosophy.  I think that
authors of the book that I mentioned would say that the perspective
from which Descartes proceeded assured his erring.  I don't completely
agree but it is thought provoking.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Birth, rebirth and near death experiences
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul24.095046.9225@qiclab.scn.rain.com> wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) writes:

A fairly interesting account of a Japanese television program on birth
memories, related to rebirth and near death experiences. The moderator
comments:

>[This just squeaked in under the fence, follow-ups along the lines of
> this post need to go elsewhere. -aaron]

There is no need to be so zealous selecting what is appropriate here.
The issue of rebirth is relevant to many eastern religions. Critical
examination of evidence is a strong part of the Buddhist tradition,
and maybe others. In general the field of eastern religion and philosophy
(the distinction being mostly western) is broad. There are a lot of
different traditions and angles on those traditions. Not everything will
be of interest to everyone. The volume of s.r.e. isn't so high that readers
can do some filtering of their own. I find all the Nichiren stuff offensive
but you won't hear me calling for censorship. As long as the proselytizing
Christians are held at bay and there is any connection to eastern thought
please let this be a free forum. I'd even like to see tangents tolerated
up to a point.

Bill Mayne
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:18:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Marc Wachowitz writes:

>- If for some times you aren't aware of your arm, does it then cease to be 
>  part of you?

If I am never aware of my arm then indeed it does cease to be part of
me.  Arm!  Where are you!

If we were one, would I ever be unaware of Marc?

>- Oneness doesn't mean absence of structure and differences, but no strictly
>  separate entities; just like you can reasonably speak of different waves, 
>  but all are one process, the movement of the ocean
>  (all this according to my current understanding - remember I don't claim
>  omniscience or something like that; you introduced the idea of 
>  a teacher :-)

I take this as saying that we can be different and distinct in form
and character but still part of a whole.  This is a weaker One that
allows for self, even ego.

>- There exist several reports of sharing thoughts/feelings of "others"; once
>  Krishnamurti said he'd purposely avoid doing that, just as one wouldn't
>  read other's private letters.

In the Jewish tradition we also have similar reports.  I don't know if
this is a manifestation of no-self (one-ness) or of personal
cleverness.

>: Separate ego is illusion but separate body isn't?  Hand isn't foot?
>I'd propose first to investigate the nature of this ego, and not to worry 
>so much about metaphysical claims and all that stuff.

Ego, body, all the same, no?

>: If memory reflects continuity, what does "unchanging" matter?
>: Everything is in constant change, yet there is continuity in memory.
>: Separate threads of continuity implies distinct self, no?
>What does then follow from direct access to "other's" memories?

That perhaps there are no distinct selves who remember unique personal
histories.  That perhaps there is a One who sees through all eyes,
experiences all experiences, remembers all, binds all to One.  For
whom there is no life or death, no past, present, or future.

>: >3) Memory and thinking only consists of pictures of something, and doesn't
>: >   provide evidence for the existence of some entity.
>: My memory pictures are different than yours and both of ours are
>: different from George Bush's.
>The memory pictures when sleeping are different from those when awake, so are
>there two persons?

Many more than two, each for the most part unaware of the others.
Have you read Mr. Gurdjieff?

>: Who (what) remembers you?  Who remembers me?  Are they one?  Are you
>: sure?
>Oh, want to be sure of results before making experiments? :-)

Oh, make lots of experiments.  And cook breakfast and wash the dishes
too. :-}

>: 	If someone has taught you even one single letter, that person
>: 	is your teacher.  -- paraphrased from Mishnah Avot
>Okay, then let's drop the restriction to words/letters and see all as teacher.

Sounds good to me.


-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:07:33 GMT

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

>Stephen Buckley writes:


>>  if you are correct in you understanding of rock and car, it is logically
>>inconsistent to say god may exist, yet not be a being.  can you show
>>me how it isn't illogical?

>"Being" implies an existence in the realm of time.  By definition, G-d
>is time's creator and therefore not bound by it, so the appellation
>"Being" doesn't apply.  Therefore G-d is not a "being."

>How's that?

well, it makes sense, but it makes me wonder if the conclusion isn't moot
and irrelevant.  if being is dependent on time and god's above time thus
god isn't a being, is god still relevant if he isn't a being like temporally
bound beings?
>-- 
>---

>Len Moskowitz
>moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
>moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3470 alt.alien.visitors:4759 sci.skeptic:13163
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 06:18:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <cass8806.108@elan.glassboro.edu> <l6u3buINN9fc@news.bbn.com>
  <62695@cup.portal.com>

Dear Fellow Earthlings: Here it is Friday morning 0607 and things look
pretty good.  If  it's God's will and if the creek doesn't rise 
I hope to go down to Southern Calif. and go on a tour of  the ruins
of a 30,000 year old city.
In case we ever accomplish something with all of this astral projection
project and other things be sure and don't think it's something that
I did or figured out myself.  It's like the western song, I've got 
friends in low places, except just the opposite.
John Winston.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3522 alt.alien.visitors:4862 sci.skeptic:13284
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:49:59 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jun15.000927.14468@uwm.edu> <1992Jun15.143917.16445@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
  <1992Jun16.014515.24059@uwm.edu>

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.
J. lived in Penn. USA rather than Hawaii. E. forgot to go on the journey
but his higher self took off on time and did make contact with J.  I 
don't know what J. looks like but I think I got a picture in my mind 
of E.  Shannon passed out according to the information I got from E. and 
wasn't aware of anything. We don't know whether Shannon is a girl or boy
but we don't want to ask because Shannon will think we're trying to cheat.
Kumar turned out to be in the USA rather than Germany but he never could
get his mind altogether. So we have a little room for improvement. We have
a person from England named Linda that wants in on some of this action. JW
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:43:33 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Marc Wachowitz writes:

>There are memories and concepts, no doubt.

The ones "I" have are not the ones "You" have so where is oneness?

When Mr. Krishnamurti felt at one, did he share my memories?  If we
are one, please ask him now!  [Mr. Krishnamurti died a few years
back.]

>Three points about this:
>1) The question is about some "separate self", and the focus in on the ego/I/
>   psyche/mind/soul/whatever-you-call-it, not just about the body (hardly 
>   anyone doubt's our arms and legs are somehow different); though this 
>   shouldn't be seen as implying a separation of mind/matter.

Separate ego is illusion but separate body isn't?  Hand isn't foot?
Where is oneness?

>2) What do we mean by identity? Some specific unchanging entity that exists, 
>   or do we also assign identity to the form of a wave, to use a common 
>   metaphor?

If memory reflects continuity, what does "unchanging" matter?
Everything is in constant change, yet there is continuity in memory.
Separate threads of continuity implies distinct self, no?

>3) Memory and thinking only consists of pictures of something, and doesn't
>   provide evidence for the existence of some entity.
>Comments?

My memory pictures are different than yours and both of ours are
different from George Bush's.  We have different experiences in the
selfless now that we remember later as distinct self.  If so, where is
oneness?

Who (what) remembers you?  Who remembers me?  Are they one?  Are you
sure?

>: The wood must get cut, the water carried, and the children fed.  We
>: remember ourselves.  Isn't there a self?
>
>It rains. What is "it"?

Could just as accurately say "Rains."  Could say "remembers" but
you and I have different memories so where is oneness?

	If someone has taught you even one single letter, that person
	is your teacher.  -- paraphrased from Mishnah Avot

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 11:17:34 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@panix.com> wrote:
: >Btw, a good book about those "splits" is "No Boundary" by Ken Wilber; he
: >argues that the various therapies, from ordinary psychology over psyche/soma
: >until "spritual" practice, just address different kinds of
: >"pseudo-separations" of the spectrum of consciousness,
: >thus healing the whole.
: >Though someone remarked that the whole doesn't need healing.
: >Don't know.
: 
: Do you have any personal experience that leads you to conclude that
: Wilber might be right?
I wouldn't call it "conclude", but one might call it a "hints for a reasonable
assumption". Don't worry about it.

: Has Wilber related any experiences of this sort?
So-called "mystic" experiences you mean? Yes, quite a few chapters are about
this (and if I remember right he has practical experience with Zen and
Tibetan Buddhism).

: The model is just a model until we confirm it for ourselves.
Agreed; it's all just talking about more-or-less pointing fingers.
Let's not cling to them.

: >Is this meant as allusion to "I AM THAT I AM", the "Tao" or ... ? :-)
: How would "I" know? :^}
When there's no "I", the question becomes meaningless :-)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:35:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul28.193500.939@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:

>And these folk want to be enlightened?  I have concluded rational 
>thinking is an impediment to newage enlightenment.

  If you don't dig it, than it is just as well that you do not join it.
But, that does not make it wrong, nor does it make you right.




	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher