science and religion [r hunter]

[raconsel@...]

--- in asc2k@y..., r hunter <hunter13rj@y...> wrote:
> there is no separation between god and
> science. there is no separation between god and
> anything. so how could researching all these
> scientific facts and workings of the universe be a
> waste of time? if god truly is everything that is
> encompassed in our world reality conciousness what
> ever label you put on it. is not the study of science,
> universal myteries, scriptures, for answers to life,
> seeking answers thru god?
> the vail of illusion is that all is seperate. all that
> is seperate is one. adonai

hello adonai,

these appear to be good and valid questions, and of all the responses so far i
feel attracted to address yours most, so let me try to do that.

1. "there is no separation between god and science. there is no separation
between god and anything."

well, if there is no separation between god and anything else, then why do we
not all experience holy ecstasy, which we have been repeatedly assured by all
the illumined teachers is the nature of god and so also the nature of truth?

it seems to me that there must be separation from that reality of god at least
in one's own mind, otherwise we would all be experiencing the bliss of the
saints and there would be no war, evil, hatred, pain and suffering on earth.

so you may be correct that there is no separation between science and god (true,
holy science that is), but maybe the separation, and therefore the problem,
arises due to a person's attachment to scientific facts; their clinging and
therefore selfish use of them. scientists like to know best, don't they, and
they often like to be teachers, too!

yet the kind of science that the intellect can know about and become attached to
as the 'proof' of things, cannot be the true divine science because the
intellect of man cannot know god. god, or truth, is beyond the intellect of man.
nothing great can happen to us if we depend upon our intellect because all that
is great is beyond the intellect. this was the essence of my point made to david
about the need to give up his very limited intellectual attachments to
'scientific proof' if he wants to be free of bondage and to ascend. and this is
why i thought i might be bothering him, too, because i am challenging him to
kill his illusion-maker: the intellect, and just have faith and so know
god/truth directly from the place beyond the intellect which requires not proof,
scientific or otherwise.

it is a simple and earnest challenge, yet most people in their attachments to
what they 'think' they know (and their fear of that which they do not know) do
not pick up the gauntlet in the right way, but instead perceive such a challenge
(which is actually an opportunity and therefore grace) as a kind of criticism or
an invitation to fight.

there are some responses to my messages sent recently that clearly demonstrate
how the writers are lost in egotism, albeit scientific egotism, and so are not
yet on the path of intelligent and truly (holy) scientific enquiry at all. this
can be recognized by the discerning person by way of the writers' choice to
defend their own cherished beliefs, to separate themselves from the
challenge/opportunity instead of rising to the challenge and enquiring together
in a spirit of "okay, maybe i have got it wrong, for i am not enlightened yet,
so let's take an objective, intelligent look at what is being said". this is the
lot of the ego-self that seeks to preserve itself by not letting go of all
intellectual illusions, including the scientific ones. we must let go of the
raft in order to actually get off on the other shore. until we do that, and so
just love, have faith in and so trust god, we are not going to ascend.

do you see what i am saying, adonai?


2. so how could researching all these scientific facts and workings of the
universe be a waste of time?

those who use the intellect alone to research into reality will always die
unfulfilled and disappointed for the reasons already discussed above. the tao
that can be known by the intellect is not the tao. such research is actually an
intellectual (and so extremely limited) enquiry into what is not true, not real.
while the intellect can know all about the truth, it can only actually
experience what is not true. if we would enquire into what is true and real, and
so come to really know the truth, then we must utilise a higher faculty than the
intellectual mind. hence the need to let go of the raft completely, which in
this case is intellectual scientific understanding.

no intellectual scientist ever reached the goal of enlightenment or ascension.
only the 'holy scientists' (saints and spiritual masters) managed that, and they
all assured us that the mind, the intellect, is the illusion-maker. therefore we
can infer that the unholy (ignorant) use of the intellect is actually a
distraction from the path of god-realization, and so is karma-producing. i think
this is why the buddha prescribed meditation or 'fasting of the intellectual
apparatus', in order to stop thinking and so cease producing more illusions.

maybe steve knows more about this.

3. if god truly is everything that is encompassed in our world reality
conciousness what ever label you put on it, is not the study of science,
universal myteries, scriptures, for answers to life,
seeking answers thru god?

no, it is seeking answers through the limited intellect which can never provide
or find the answer.

countless spiritual aspirants have failed to find the summum bonum, the
philosopher's stone, the jewel in the lotus, by this method of mental study.
their academic monuments, left to posterity, testify to a kind of intellectual
understanding that is worthy of respect in a sense, yet which is not illumined,
not enlightened, and which so often actually becomes an impediment to spiritual
progress due to attachment to ideas and concepts, which are only very poor
symbols of reality at best. once the symbol has been understood, why hang on to
it? philosophy and unholy (meaning intellectual) science is but an academic sea
in which many people drown and so become lost for the harvest.

4. the vail of illusion is that all is seperate. all that is seperate is one.

well this is a nice idea and one that so many people today speak of, but who
among us here on this list has actually realized the reality of this supposed
oneness, and so who is spiritually qualified to speak of it with any conviction?
and if we have not realized the oneness of truth ourselves are we any better in
our bold pronouncements than the fundamentalist christians or jehovah's
witnesses who knock at our door and try to sell us god by quoting from the
bible?


my essential point is that there are too many chiefs in this world and not
enough indians; too many empty frogs croaking in the night and not enough
humility and faith. but it is probable that the indians are closer to ascension
than the chiefs, because the meek shall inherit the earth.

ron

[Jeremy Weiland]

gonna try and bring in the ra perspective here.

> well, if there is no separation between god and
> anything else, then why do we not all experience
> holy ecstasy, which we have been repeatedly assured
> by all the illumined teachers is the nature of god
> and so also the nature of truth?

because we *want* to be separate from god... or at
least want to propagate the illusion of separation in
our minds.

> it seems to me that there must be separation from
> that reality of god at least in one's own mind,
> otherwise we would all be experiencing the bliss of
> the saints and there would be no war, evil, hatred,
> pain and suffering on earth.

exactly. but the separation is an illusion - it is
not the reality. if it were, our eventual return to
oneness with god might not be certain. but the
reality is that there is *only* unity - and therefore
separation is neccessarily an illusion.

> so you may be correct that there is no separation
> between science and god (true, holy science that
> is), but maybe the separation, and therefore the
> problem, arises due to a person's attachment to
> scientific facts; their clinging and therefore
> selfish use of them. scientists like to know best,
> don't they, and they often like to be teachers, too!

well, science is the study of the physical world.
you're going to have to have some scientific facts in
order to make any conclusions about things. i mean,
you could make intuitive conclusions about everything,
but they'd be so subjective as to do the rest of us
little good.

the purpose of science is not to gain "enlightenment",
it's to explain the phenomena of the physical world,
and you have to explain that phenomena in physical
terms - hence, scientific "facts". not that the facts
are neccessarily constant and fixed, but the concept
of facts, laws, rules are neccessary if our purpose is
to study the universe as it is.

> yet the kind of science that the intellect can know
> about and become attached to as the 'proof' of
> things, cannot be the true divine science because
> the intellect of man cannot know god. god, or truth,
> is beyond the intellect of man. nothing great can
> happen to us if we depend upon our intellect because
> all that is great is beyond the intellect.

nothing great can happen to us if we use the
intellect? doesn't that seem like a slightly
unbalanced comment? ra says that some people have
more developed or dominant intellects than others, and
grow in primarily intellectual ways, where as others
grow more emotionally, etc. but one way is not
ultimately better than another (unless you're trying
to sell us some self-help course).

> this was
> the essence of my point made to david about the need
> to give up his very limited intellectual attachments
> to 'scientific proof' if he wants to be free of
> bondage and to ascend.

i'm sure he appreciates your advice, but it's not
really where the asc2k philosophy is at right now. we
embrace the pursuit of science, philosophy, and
spirituality as different parts of a whole, but there
is a place for "facts" in science. otherwise, you
can't make any generalizations about things to other
people. maybe the scientific perspective is not
important to you, but that doesn't mean it's not
valuable.

> and this is why i thought i
> might be bothering him, too, because i am
> challenging him to kill his illusion-maker: the
> intellect, and just have faith and so know god/truth
> directly from the place beyond the intellect which
> requires not proof, scientific or otherwise.

i'd say a scientist who does dream readings is about
as open to going beyond the intellect as you can
possibly get. this does not mean that the intellect
does not have its place in science.

> it is a simple and earnest challenge, yet most
> people in their attachments to what they 'think'
> they know (and their fear of that which they do not
> know) do not pick up the gauntlet in the right way,
> but instead perceive such a challenge (which is
> actually an opportunity and therefore grace) as a
> kind of criticism or an invitation to fight.

not to accept your invitation, but the same could be
said of you. how do *you* know what you know? :-)

> there are some responses to my messages sent
> recently that clearly demonstrate how the writers
> are lost in egotism, albeit scientific egotism, and
> so are not yet on the path of intelligent and truly
> (holy) scientific enquiry at all.

with all due respect, ron, you need to respect other
people's paths. the last thing we need on this list
is somebody shaking their finger at everybody else.
we're here because we believe in the work that david
is doing and want to learn more. if you're not here
for that reason, then you don't belong here. sorry to
come across so harsh, but we don't need any more
prosyletizing or "revealed teachings".

> this can be
> recognized by the discerning person by way of the
> writers' choice to defend their own cherished
> beliefs, to separate themselves from the
> challenge/opportunity instead of rising to the
> challenge and enquiring together in a spirit of
> "okay, maybe i have got it wrong, for i am not
> enlightened yet, so let's take an objective,
> intelligent look at what is being said".

but when you give your own means of knowing things for
certain the benefit of the doubt, while not giving
others like david the benefit of the doubt, you come
across as biased, which is why people don't take you
seriously. how come what *you* know is true, while
what others know might be wrong? it doesn't add up,
and it sounds like hollow criticism.

> this is the
> lot of the ego-self that seeks to preserve itself by
> not letting go of all intellectual illusions,
> including the scientific ones. we must let go of the
> raft in order to actually get off on the other
> shore. until we do that, and so just love, have
> faith in and so trust god, we are not going to
> ascend.

... according to ron. :-)

> do you see what i am saying, adonai?

uh, adonai is not his name, it's a salutation...

i'm not going to address the rest of this huge email,
because it keeps saying the same thing over and over.
look ron, if you don't believe in the work being done
here, it's not your place to try to debunk it. you
may have a different path than us - so you go on
yours, and we'll go on ours. but to come here and try
to change the focus of the group is really not desired
by anybody. and i'm sorry i have to come across like
this, but you're way out of line and somebody had to
say it.

later,

jeremy

__________________________________________________
terrorist attacks on u.s. - how can you help?
donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/us/emergency_information/

[r hunter]

ron, thanks for the response to my post.

it seems i have been a little lax in gettings my
views across.. i am in agreement with you that pure
intellectual pursuits is not the answer to
enlightenment. however to say that one who studies
purely intellectual pursuits will or cannot ascend i
belive simply is not true. egotistical attachments to
intellect is definately a stubling stone. is that not
all we seem to be doing here. using our intellect to
try to come to some sort of and understanding on the
best path towards ascension.


[well, if there is no separation between god and
> anything else, then why do we not all experience
> holy ecstasy, which we have been repeatedly assured
> by all the illumined teachers is the nature of god
> and so also the nature of truth?]


> the seperation that is created is created by the
vail which was presented to us in this incarnation
here on this planet as a means of being able to lose
yourself in order to obtain universal knowledge by
introspection. ie (enlightenment) exmpl. its like
putting on a bindfold so you can perfect the use of
semll taste sound touch. so yo can learn to see
without the eyes. the understanding (enlightenment)
comes when you realize that it is this (seperation)
that is illusory. and you maitain enlightenment when
you are counciously able to see this serperation for
what it is ( illusion) hence bringing forth the
connection, or "rememberance" with god. at this point
we are once again attune with the love,"energy",
"universal vibrational light" "holy ectasy"


[the
> problem, arises due to a person's attachment to
> scientific facts; their clinging and therefore
> selfish use of them. scientists like to know best,
> don't they, and they often like to be teachers, too]



here we are talking about a means to and ends. there
are as many paths to enlightenment as there are stars
in the sky. to beleive that there is only one path
shows spritual imaturity and naiveness. ( i am not
speaking of your self here)
true there are some who are attached to many
scientific facts as well as those who are attached to
teaching of many who claimed to have the anserwers the
sure path to being saved, to "enlightement" to "
ascension" to " heaven" and those who are attached to
material gain, my point is there are many who have
attachments to many things. which in turn can cause
"selfish use of them" but how does one persons
attachment from an issue take away its usefullness of
understanding, as a step towards "enlighemment"?
if only one person gains one little sliver of
understanding from it. it is all worth it. there is
something that i always have to remind myself " just
because something maybe clear and cut and dry to me,
what comes easy to us does not always come easy to
others. in turn what seems unclear and uncertain can
be perfectly clear to others." so just because we find
know use in a certain matters doesnt mean that others
do not. and to call it wrong or incorrect is ego..

[nothing great can
> happen to us if we depend upon our intellect because
> all that is great is beyond the intellect. this was
> the essence of my point made to david about the need
> to give up his very limited intellectual attachments
> to 'scientific proof' if he wants to be free of
> bondage and to ascend. ]

the need for david to use intellect or"attachments to
scientific proof" is also a means to and end. david
himself does not need scientfic proof. or to use his
intellect. he does this for the benifit of providing
a catlyst for those who cannot see past the vail, to
break the barriers in there intellect to hopefully
awaken the aspect of self who asks the questions on
the meaning and purpose of life. i am in full
agreement that you may have no use for this
information or its intent. but to take an
intellectual approach and say that david has to give
up this "attachment" is very shortcoming.

[the intellect of man cannot know god. ] if this is
true then how can you state that david needs to give
up this scientific attachment and exspect to have any
validity to what you said , for this statement to be
true you would have to be using a means other than
your intellect to bring across your points here. so
how can you know that these scientific attachments are
are a waste of time> unless you yourself are a
"fully enlightend being"

it is a simple and earnest challenge, yet most
> people in their attachments to what they 'think'
> they know (and their fear of that which they do not
> know) do not pick up the gauntlet in the right way


how does it serve you to write such things?
you perceive inaction as a fear. because one does not
accept your challenge. truth - you dont have to know
anything knowing is of the intellect. you have to be
something . what ever that is.

so let's take an objective,
> intelligent look at what is being said". this is the
> lot of the ego-self that seeks to preserve itself by
> not letting go of all intellectual illusions,
> including the scientific ones. we must let go of the
> raft in order to actually get off on the other
> shore. until we do that, and so just love, have
> faith in and so trust god, we are not going to
> ascend.

we do not ascend in thought .we ascend in action. to
just let go and trust in god. you will be a person
who walks around trusting in god to do all the work
for you. " it is gods plan right?"

therefore we can
> infer that the unholy (ignorant) use of the
> intellect is actually a distraction from the path of
> god-realization, and so is karma-producing. i think
> this is why the buddha prescribed meditation or
> 'fasting of the intellectual apparatus', in order to
> stop thinking and so cease producing more illusions


( the use of the intellect as a path toward
enlightenment is still a path) simply because we are
not aware of an individual who has become enlightend
by intellectual pursuits does not make the path less
valid. and the basis that all of your points here
stand on is " the assumption that david and others are
teaching using the intelltual mind" this information
has come in much the same manner as it has come thru
other prophets and saints and enlightend masters.

your inability to grasp its potential usefullness does
not take away from its use to others. that being said
let me be clear, it is refreshing to see someone who
has a clear understanding of there path. as not many
do. you can and will be an asset to many who are on
a path similar to yours. as we are all on the same
journey, we are not all on the same boat. :)

i respect you abilty to be what you believe> as many
find this to be a daunting task.

we are all very limited in our knowledge of life. but
to try to put our perspective out above others is self
limiting. as i may not concure with your points or
beliefs does not mean i hold them less valid.

peace be with you.

p.s. dont get mad at all the cheifs :)

just find the cheif of your tribe.





--- raconsel@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=v_hz7oc7zhwalksmo-382ka6wrj-enpv80xnkpq1impxs16lyucmz4en59tmusku1am2lml6brzge6 8bqg) wrote:
> --- in asc2k@y..., r hunter <hunter13rj@y...> wrote:
> > there is no separation between god and
> > science. there is no separation between god and
> > anything. so how could researching all these
> > scientific facts and workings of the universe be a
> > waste of time? if god truly is everything that is
> > encompassed in our world reality conciousness what
> > ever label you put on it. is not the study of
> science,
> > universal myteries, scriptures, for answers to
> life,
> > seeking answers thru god?
> > the vail of illusion is that all is seperate. all
> that
> > is seperate is one. adonai
>
> hello adonai,
>
> these appear to be good and valid questions, and of
> all the responses so far i feel attracted to address
> yours most, so let me try to do that.
>
> 1. "there is no separation between god and science.
> there is no separation between god and anything."
>
> well, if there is no separation between god and
> anything else, then why do we not all experience
> holy ecstasy, which we have been repeatedly assured
> by all the illumined teachers is the nature of god
> and so also the nature of truth?
>
> it seems to me that there must be separation from
> that reality of god at least in one's own mind,
> otherwise we would all be experiencing the bliss of
> the saints and there would be no war, evil, hatred,
> pain and suffering on earth.
>
> so you may be correct that there is no separation
> between science and god (true, holy science that
> is), but maybe the separation, and therefore the
> problem, arises due to a person's attachment to
> scientific facts; their clinging and therefore
> selfish use of them. scientists like to know best,
> don't they, and they often like to be teachers, too!
>
> yet the kind of science that the intellect can know
> about and become attached to as the 'proof' of
> things, cannot be the true divine science because
> the intellect of man cannot know god. god, or truth,
> is beyond the intellect of man. nothing great can
> happen to us if we depend upon our intellect because
> all that is great is beyond the intellect. this was
> the essence of my point made to david about the need
> to give up his very limited intellectual attachments
> to 'scientific proof' if he wants to be free of
> bondage and to ascend. and this is why i thought i
> might be bothering him, too, because i am
> challenging him to kill his illusion-maker: the
> intellect, and just have faith and so know god/truth
> directly from the place beyond the intellect which
> requires not proof, scientific or otherwise.
>
> it is a simple and earnest challenge, yet most
> people in their attachments to what they 'think'
> they know (and their fear of that which they do not
> know) do not pick up the gauntlet in the right way,
> but instead perceive such a challenge (which is
> actually an opportunity and therefore grace) as a
> kind of criticism or an invitation to fight.
>
> there are some responses to my messages sent
> recently that clearly demonstrate how the writers
> are lost in egotism, albeit scientific egotism, and
> so are not yet on the path of intelligent and truly
> (holy) scientific enquiry at all. this can be
> recognized by the discerning person by way of the
> writers' choice to defend their own cherished
> beliefs, to separate themselves from the
> challenge/opportunity instead of rising to the
> challenge and enquiring together in a spirit of
> "okay, maybe i have got it wrong, for i am not
> enlightened yet, so let's take an objective,
> intelligent look at what is being said". this is the
> lot of the ego-self that seeks to preserve itself by
> not letting go of all intellectual illusions,
> including the scientific ones. we must let go of the
> raft in order to actually get off on the other
> shore. until we do that, and so just love, have
> faith in and so trust god, we are not going to
> ascend.
>
> do you see what i am saying, adonai?
>
>
> 2. so how could researching all these scientific
> facts and workings of the universe be a waste of
> time?
>
> those who use the intellect alone to research into
> reality will always die unfulfilled and disappointed
> for the reasons already discussed above. the tao
> that can be known by the intellect is not the tao.
> such research is actually an intellectual (and so
> extremely limited) enquiry into what is not true,
> not real. while the intellect can know all about the
> truth, it can only actually experience what is not
> true. if we would enquire into what is true and
> real, and so come to really know the truth, then we
> must utilise a higher faculty than the intellectual
> mind. hence the need to let go of the raft
> completely, which in this case is intellectual
> scientific understanding.
>
> no intellectual scientist ever reached the goal of
> enlightenment or ascension. only the 'holy
> scientists' (saints and spiritual masters) managed
> that, and they all assured us that the mind, the
> intellect, is the illusion-maker. therefore we can
> infer that the unholy (ignorant) use of the
> intellect is actually a distraction from the path of
> god-realization, and so is karma-producing. i think
> this is why the buddha prescribed meditation or
> 'fasting of the intellectual apparatus', in order to
> stop thinking and so cease producing more illusions.
>
>
> maybe steve knows more about this.
>
> 3. if god truly is everything that is encompassed in
> our world reality conciousness what ever label you
> put on it, is not the study of science, universal
> myteries, scriptures, for answers to life,
> seeking answers thru god?
>
> no, it is seeking answers through the limited
> intellect which can never provide or find the
> answer.
>
> countless spiritual aspirants have failed to find
> the summum bonum, the philosopher's stone, the jewel
> in the lotus, by this method of mental study. their
> academic monuments, left to posterity, testify to a
> kind of intellectual understanding that is worthy of
> respect in a sense, yet which is not illumined, not
> enlightened, and which so often actually becomes an
> impediment to spiritual progress due to attachment
> to ideas and concepts, which are only very poor
> symbols of reality at best. once the symbol has been
> understood, why hang on to it? philosophy and unholy
> (meaning intellectual) science is but an academic
> sea in which many people drown and so become lost
> for the harvest.
>
> 4. the vail of illusion is that all is seperate.
> all that is seperate is one.
>
> well this is a nice idea and one that so many people
> today speak of, but who among us here on this list
> has actually realized the reality of this supposed
> oneness, and so who is spiritually qualified to
> speak of it with any conviction? and if we have not
> realized the oneness of truth ourselves are we any
> better in our bold pronouncements than the
> fundamentalist christians or jehovah's witnesses who
> knock at our door and try to sell us god by quoting
> from the bible?
>
>
> my essential point is that there are too many chiefs
> in this world and not enough indians; too many empty
> frogs croaking in the night and not enough humility
> and faith. but it is probable that the indians are
> closer to ascension than the chiefs, because the
> meek shall inherit the earth.
>
> ron
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
terrorist attacks on u.s. - how can you help?
donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/us/emergency_information/