The logicians' God
Using 8 syllogisms
Can explain Itself
Which is the whole point of Haiku God. Problem is, I'm not really practiced in logic. Thus some of the conclusions about Haiku God are probably flawed. So I am appealing to readers to point out the flaws. Help! Together we can redefine God.
e
Jun 29, 2009
Jun 6, 2009
Toleration
It's summer again, my mind is following water. But I did have a chance to hear Obama's speech – quite heartening to hear some truth spoken.
I'm glad he mentioned religious tolerance, but I would have liked to have heard him say that all three religions believe in the same fundamental God: the one mysterious all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving being (Haiku God, no less). The religions just see It through different cultural lenses, believing in different conceptions of the inconceivable. So it seems on the surface that there are irreconcilable differences between the religions. But as Obama pointed out, the three religions all agree on the one basic Rule: Love, as in “Do unto others...”
I think the majority of people intuitively know this, and are therefore tolerant. It is those who have invested their egos in the belief that their religion is the only true one who are the intolerants, causing many of the problems in the region, such as the settlement problem in the West Bank. After all, God gave the Jews the land of Israel (including the West Bank), so of course they have the right to settle there. Well, maybe it's time for the tolerant majority to be intolerant towards intoleration and not allow this one religious belief to doom the Middle East to unending conflict.
e
I'm glad he mentioned religious tolerance, but I would have liked to have heard him say that all three religions believe in the same fundamental God: the one mysterious all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving being (Haiku God, no less). The religions just see It through different cultural lenses, believing in different conceptions of the inconceivable. So it seems on the surface that there are irreconcilable differences between the religions. But as Obama pointed out, the three religions all agree on the one basic Rule: Love, as in “Do unto others...”
I think the majority of people intuitively know this, and are therefore tolerant. It is those who have invested their egos in the belief that their religion is the only true one who are the intolerants, causing many of the problems in the region, such as the settlement problem in the West Bank. After all, God gave the Jews the land of Israel (including the West Bank), so of course they have the right to settle there. Well, maybe it's time for the tolerant majority to be intolerant towards intoleration and not allow this one religious belief to doom the Middle East to unending conflict.
e
May 1, 2009
I (not-I)
Just thinking about the previous post, a question comes up about the difference between I and not-I awareness. As far as I go, I know I am awareness. I am awareness in the I-mode. I'm the subject of awareness, objects are what I am aware of. Now, by definition, I, as individual, cannot be the subject of not-I awareness (awareness as not-I, non-individual). So if I'm not aware, what is? Since there can be no individual subject, what's left? It could only be awareness itself. And what's the object?
From all reports of those who claim to have experienced the state of not-I, the object of not-I awareness is light, inexpressible love/compassion/bliss, void, and being one with all (sounds like Haiku God). Then the question arises, if one, can't we call this one an I? An individual one which encompasses all individuals? consists of all energy/awareness existent which is in effect one great individual unity? The I of “I am who am?” (the who ams being all individuals, including me).
It's getting kind of cloudy. Happy Mayday!
e
From all reports of those who claim to have experienced the state of not-I, the object of not-I awareness is light, inexpressible love/compassion/bliss, void, and being one with all (sounds like Haiku God). Then the question arises, if one, can't we call this one an I? An individual one which encompasses all individuals? consists of all energy/awareness existent which is in effect one great individual unity? The I of “I am who am?” (the who ams being all individuals, including me).
It's getting kind of cloudy. Happy Mayday!
e
Apr 28, 2009
2 views
There seem to be two different views of afterlife.
First is the familiar Western view, which as I understand is to live life as the individual I am and try to do the best I can, basically believing and following what someone else says is the best way, be it book, church, or preacher. And the best way? To practice virtue. Then when I die, if I have practiced enough virtue, I go to heaven, where I (as an individual) experience what is described as the presence, vision, or knowledge of God. Since God is love, the experience for me must be nice indeed. The great thing about this view is that it retains ego (I get to survive!). Comforting feeling for the ego to have.
Whereas in the East (as well as in Haiku God theory), my ego, my nature, is at root nothing more nor less than “God” (as the holy spirit). So the point of life is to discover this original nature (our face before we were born) and then become it. And since this original nature is not-I (unity/love), to discover it I must transcend I, (ego/separateness) and actually become not-I. This would be true heaven indeed. And the way? To practice virtue.
So the big difference is the perceived end of the practice of virtue. In the West, I will survive. In the East, I don't. I drop away. And I can do it today - no need to wait til death. Of course if I did manage to drop away today, what would be left? A saint. And who wants to be a saint? I sure don't. Doesn't seem like it would be much fun. I like being I.
e
First is the familiar Western view, which as I understand is to live life as the individual I am and try to do the best I can, basically believing and following what someone else says is the best way, be it book, church, or preacher. And the best way? To practice virtue. Then when I die, if I have practiced enough virtue, I go to heaven, where I (as an individual) experience what is described as the presence, vision, or knowledge of God. Since God is love, the experience for me must be nice indeed. The great thing about this view is that it retains ego (I get to survive!). Comforting feeling for the ego to have.
Whereas in the East (as well as in Haiku God theory), my ego, my nature, is at root nothing more nor less than “God” (as the holy spirit). So the point of life is to discover this original nature (our face before we were born) and then become it. And since this original nature is not-I (unity/love), to discover it I must transcend I, (ego/separateness) and actually become not-I. This would be true heaven indeed. And the way? To practice virtue.
So the big difference is the perceived end of the practice of virtue. In the West, I will survive. In the East, I don't. I drop away. And I can do it today - no need to wait til death. Of course if I did manage to drop away today, what would be left? A saint. And who wants to be a saint? I sure don't. Doesn't seem like it would be much fun. I like being I.
e
Apr 7, 2009
Forgetting
Ever had the feeling you've forgotten something – something important? And for days, months, years, it's there, nagging. I've have that feeling, and I know what I have forgotten – my face before I was born. I just wonder if I can remember it before I die. Or does it really matter?
e
e
Apr 6, 2009
New Commentary
For any Haiku freaks, a new commentary of 24 verses has been added at the bottom of the page to further obfuscate the theory.
e
e
Mar 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
