From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Paul Harvey's Dream (was: Re: Stop thinking?)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep12.124113.7480@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.124113.7480@ac.dal.ca> 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Or, it means a creation with its own internal mechanism of change. 

Yep, there is one constant, ... change.

>> So from the W. American tradition, coyote and fox created the universe, but
>> they do so everyday and so does the human being, though seemingly oblivious
>> to this fact. 

>The human being may be a creation of the transcendent God, but if the human
>is capable of independently generating action (which the free will 
>position implies) then he or she is a NEW source of creation. Just
>as God is "responsible for sin, but not to _blame_" (S. Adams),
>God would be responsible for creating these new creators, these new
>sources of _ex nihilo_ existents, but NOT responsible for what these
>new "unmoved movers" do. 

Ah, that is good, but this word responsibility, is that not a human
being word, perhaps not very transcendent? Who is it that can be
responsible?

>In other words, humans are independent creators. Like God, only not so
>powerful. (If free will exists, which it doesn't :)

Trust me that it does. You and your kind were freed from slavery, any
clinging to the broken shackles is of your own design and it is you
alone who bears responsibility for voluntary slavery.

>> And, just to tie back into my original statement, creation
>> sustaining and destruction are not transcendent, they are human
>> manifestations of the transcendent which is transcendent, of all.

>I'm not sure if we're discussing implications of orthodox Christian
>doctrine anymore, or not. I suspect that you are taking something of a
>"New Age" angle on Christianity, judging by your terminology. 
>Anyway, I think my argument above still applies.

What is orthodox Christian doctrine and New Age angle, who defines what
these mean? If my religion confuses you, let me clarify. I do not belong
to any religion, I'm a free man, free to study dogma and reach my own
conclusions. I am Homo sapiens sapiens, thinking man, from the mother
continent of Africa, source of all human beings.

>>>And if we can create independently, maybe we can do better than God!
 
>> Hmm, better? That is not transcendent, is it? Who defines what is better?

>Free will AND a notion of non-relative Good together imply that human
>beings can create a better world, better society, if technology gets
>powerful enough, better forms of life - better humans.  If we acknowledge
>that God can be evil (i.e. we do not equate "good" with "God's will")
>then we're off and running...and the only reason left to obey God is
>fear of Hell. 

Obey God? Has He spoken His word to you? My understanding is that there
is one command from God, and that is "do the right thing". What has God
told you?

>>>Maybe we can create a heaven on earth - maybe...maybe <gasp> we...don't...
>>>NEED...God!  
 
>>We are not separated from Heaven by time, only by perception. Heaven is right
>>here, right now, only most don't see it for what it is. Do you see what life 
>>is really worth? Hell is not seeing. 

>I am not unsympathetic to this interpretation of the Gospel message, however,
>I am suspicious of your attempt to combine this with the notion of a
>actual creator God out there somewhere. Sounds like grasping the water snake
>by the tail to me...:)

An actual creator God, and what would that be? And why is it necessary?

>> We have created Hell on Earth due to
>> our failure to see, can we restore Heaven? And NEED God? Tsk, tsk, tsk,
>> (you shoulda used wisk) that is once again not transcendent. Do you expect 
>> God to just quit? Try this mantra: The transcendent is transcendent.

>What do you mean by "transcendent?"  You've lost me, here.

Standard dictionary definition. You see, the problem is, we are human
beings, what we see is what the human being sees, what we say is what
the human being can say. Is this all there is? Is there something, some
class beyond our current ability to understand it? Once we had no idea
of why the moon is reborn on a constant basis, it was transcendent of
human knowledge. Now we know why. But, is there anything else we don't
know why? If there is than that is transcendent, transcendent of human
knowledge. Ever have a thought that you can not put down into writting,
that is transcendent of writting. Now, what is transcendent of all?
Answer that and you've got the true transcendent, the transcendent that
*IS* transcendent. I think you're gonna like that mantra.  :::::B^}

>>> There are OTHER ways to judge good
>>>and bad besides the whims of that stodgy old Yahweh...
>>>..and the only reason to obey Yahweh, now, is FEAR.
 
>> Knowledge of good and bad? Now I ask you, is that transcendent? 

>There's that word again! :)
 
Who is it that has knowledge of good and bad, that needs this knowledge
in order to do the right thing? Surely it can not be the transcendent,
can it?

>Since you use the words "do the right thing," I infer that you HAVE this
>knowledge of good and bad. Otherwise you wouldn't know what "the right thing"
>is.  As to fear and desire, what's the story?

Right, I have knowledge of good and bad, I am an eater of that fruit, I
eat with pride, when I eat I throw my hands up high! I have tasted
forbiden fruit and I tell you, it is good, it is very good. So good that
I shall eat some right now. Hmm, that is good, and all they ask is just
eat one per day, that is if you can eat just one. And fear/desire,
surely you see that they are just two opposites, like life/death. If I
can get beyond fear and desire, than what would that say? How are fear
and desire different, and yet, how are they the same? It is in the union
that you will find the transcendent of your mantra.

>This "way of light:" what exactly is it? Why follow it? 

Ah, it is of course the way of an authentic individual living an
authentic life and doing the right thing. And why follow it? Because
that is my right. I am now a human being, but only for a brief time,
while I am human being I will feed the fire, I will live as the human
being that I am, I will do the right thing, as my knowledge of good and
bad tells be how. 
 
>> Jah! Ras TafarI! Government says don't use the plant, it makes you rebel.
>> Against what? Roma backwards is amor.

>Cryptic...maybe a Kabbalistic message? 

First is of course the words of the prophet, Bob Marley. Second is from
the 12th century of Europe. Saying "roma backwards is amor" then would get
you burned. Amor in the sense of Heloise from the letters of Heloise and
Abelard, and from The Romance of the Rose. Chakra 6, not 2.

>Also - in a truly dualistic system, there is no "in between." 

Not in the Persian dualism of light/dark, they are considered the
originators of this concept, but it may come from India. In this
dualism, what you have is two opponents arguing their case from two
opposite sides, prosecutor and defender. It is the jury who must judge
the answer, weighing the evidence from these two opposite advocates.
Christianity picked this up in their Jesus as Lord of Light and Satan as
Lord of Dark, but they did not understand the intellectual angle,
instead they took the easier to understand angle of one is good and one
is bad and the one who speaks good is the one to listen too. Do you see
this? When one is first learning, it is better to go with what the good guy
says is right, but if one learns, one learns that at some point it is
the student that is the judge and jury of what is good and bad, for the
student. A child first must obey its mother and father, but later must
learn to be a free thinking individual.

>Oh, right. "The transcendent is transcendent..."  Y'all better explain that
>to me so I know what I'm saying.

Ah, a mantra is not for saying only, it must also be understood. Learn
from dogma, but please do not be dogmatic.

>You dreamed about a land of milk and honey, where gas is cheap, and 
>there's hardly any tax on cigarettes. And in this land, there arose 
>a prophet, who proclaimed - "Lo, there is the Christ."  And many did
>believe upon him, although many were skeptical, too.  And the words
>of the scriptures were sweet upon his tongue. Wisdom flowed from him
>like cool water from a fountain in a thirsty land...and all went well
>until someone shouted - 
>"That monk who has any kind of satori goes straight to hell like a flying
>arrow." 
>What is the meaning of this dream?  I could tell you...but why spoil your
>fun? 

I know that, don't you think I know that? :::::B^} Ah satori, but boy
could she dance.

>> Sorry, 
>> justice is justice, why do you think that lady holding the scales is
>> blindfolded?

>She doesn't want to see the atrocites (big and small) committed in her name?

Right, she only weighs the evidence, the scales go up and the scales go
down, better hope that when you're there they are going up. Friends in
high places, brains and a look and a friendly smile might work in
Hollywood, but not with the blindfolded scale lady.

>Freedom is slavery.

Yes, I am a slave to freedom, but let me tell you, that is the only type
of slave to be. Enslaved to the freedom walk and the freedom talk. And
the words of Janis Joplin, another prophet, who said, "Freedom is just
another word for nothing left to lose, nothing. I don't have that type
of absolute freedom, I am enslaved in the being of human, but one day I
will have that freedom. In the mean time, I try to hawk one.

>War is peace.

Peter Tosh:
Everyone crying out for peace, but nobody crying out for justice
Everyone climbing for the top, but no one knows just were is the bottom
Everyone concerned about crime, but tell me, just who are the criminals?
I don't need peace, I need equal rights and justice

>Ignorance is strength.

And conviction, is it not as strong?

>Can it be that this saint has not heard that God is _dead_? 

How can God be dead or alive, if God is transcendent? And of what use is
the word God, if the transcendent is transcendent? I am that I am?

>"There is no body or mind, nor what the mind takes hold of."  

That could be, but only to one who is enlightened. The best have all
been humbled and I am not as enlightened as the best. I will take hold
first, so that I can learn that I am not actually holding anything at
all, or at the most, only a simple rock. By taking hold, I will learn
that there is nothing to hold.

>Disclaimer: I'm wrong.

Oh no! I insist! It is I who is more wrong! It comparison to my
absolute wrongness, you are comparatively right!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc