Thursday, 23 June 2016

The Company Of The One

I am inadequate and incompetent but have been accepted into the Company of the One. Every conscious organism is in the Company but does not necessarily realize it. All that the One requires of us is consciousness of It. We fulfill this role at every conscious moment. However, future goals distract attention from a present role. Some goals are necessary for practical purposes. Others are imagined by the illusory separate self. The only real self is the One. We are the instruments of Its self-consciousness, naturally selected for organismic sensitivity to immediate environments but now capable of dispassionate contemplation of the One and All. Fortuna determines which potential organisms are born and thus initiates them into the Company.

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Ways To Oneness With The Eternal

Religion is oneness with the eternal.
Theism is personification of the eternal.
There are many personifications -
- and other conceptions.

Some Ways To Oneness
devotion to Krishna
belief that Jesus saves
prayer, alms, fasting, pilgrimage
asceticism
meditation and precepts

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

This is It

Walking into town: sun, blue sky, life, activity, consciousness. The One is. This is It.

Various problems remain to be resolved but meanwhile enjoy It - if possible.

Monday, 30 May 2016

The One And The Lord

Because of the immemorial traditions of my ancestors, I spontaneously address the One as "Lord."

Although every self-conscious individual is unique, each became self-conscious only through social interaction. Thought is internalized speech. Guilt is internalized shame. Even a hermit reflects a social context. One hermit is Christian, another is Hindu, whereas a human child brought up by animals is an animal without any ability to reflect on, identify with, reinterpret or reject a tradition.

Having internalized speech, we address not only fellow human beings but also nature, the heavens and the transcendent. However, philosophy and science depersonify nature. Thus, I know that the Sun is not a conscious being. Nevertheless, I feel grateful and meditate on the light of the god Savitri in the morning.

Saturday, 14 May 2016

A Peculiar Question

Organisms interact with their environments.
Animal interactions include sensations.
Human thought refines and transcends animal consciousness.
Thus, thought is one kind of organism-environment interaction.

Therefore, thought should end when an organism does.
We should not remain conscious on another plane after death -
- unless organically generated consciousness either becomes disembodied or is reproduced in another medium.
But why should it be?

An empirical question can be answered positively or negatively in specifiable conditions.
Example: whether there will be an eclipse at noon tomorrow.
An operationally meaningless question cannot be answered.
Example: whether the universe was created a moment ago with false records and memories.

The question of survival after death will be answered positively if there is survival.
However, it will not be answered if there is no survival.
Therefore, the survival question is intermediate between empirical and meaningless.
Thus, it has a peculiar logical status.

Spiritualists claim to communicate with the dead.
Some Buddhists claim experience of postmortem mental states.
Such claims partly reflect inherited beliefs.
However, as experiential claims, they should be investigated.

Is the survival question meaningful?
If so, is there enough evidence to answer it?
It is inadequate to say: "We will know when we die."
If there is no survival, then we will not know.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

A Christian And A Mithraist II

See here.

There is a further issue here. Maximus contemptuously dismisses Gratillonius as "pagan," thus categorizing him alongside worshipers of the Olympian pantheon. Probably Maximus would not have liked it if the boot had been on the other foot: a Mithraist establishment classifying Christians as pagans? Or would Maximus have been a Mithraist if that had been the established religion?

A minimal requirement for mutual respect and understanding is that we describe others in terms acceptable to them:

Muslims should not be called "Mohammadans";
Catholics should not be called "idolators";
social democrats should not be called "communists" (these terms were synonymous but both have changed their meaning).

Are some Catholic practices idolatrous? It is important that we listen to Catholics and understand why they do not accept that description. On the basis of understanding, we might convert to Catholicism or continue to accept some other world-view. How much avoidable ill will is caused by wilful misunderstandings?

Monday, 25 April 2016

A Christian And A Mithraist

Poul and Karen Anderson, The King Of Ys: Roma Mater (London, 1989), p. 23.

Maximus: You are pagan.
Gratillonius: Sir, I do not worship Jupiter, if that's what you mean.
Maximus: But Mithras. Which is forbidden. For your soul's good, understand. You'll burn forever after you die, unless you take the Faith.

Maximus goes on to describe unChristian belief as "obstinate," as if belief were a choice. We still have these problems with many Christians:

(i) belief in the damnation of unbelievers;

(ii) an inability to discuss belief with unbelievers except on the assumption that the belief is true which, of course, an unbeliever does not accept!

(i) Belief becomes the self-referential subject matter of belief: "I believe that it is necessary to believe..." And the motive can be entirely selfish: if you do not believe, then you are damned.

(ii) Three men, A, B and C, are surrounded by an impenetrable fog. A thinks that they are at point X on the map whereas B doubts this and C is convinced that, wherever else they may be, they are not at X. If there were a D, then he might think that they were at point Y; E might think that the map is inaccurate etc. But let's just stay with A, B and C. Instead of first settling the issue of their location, A merely says, "Because we are at X, we must proceed north from here." When he is reminded that he has not yet persuaded either B or C that they are at X, he looks at them without apparent comprehension and then merely repeats, "If we proceed south from X, then we fall into a pit..." Eventually, B and C must strike out on their own.