Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pascal's Sanga
thickpaper
Veteran
I was listening to this thing called the Law of One the other day, it's pretty worth reading up on I would say. Even assuming it's a hoax (Which is the right thing to assume of any incredible claim that doesn’t involve celebrities) its an interesting tale and the "communion" texts themselves are bonkers reading.
Anyways(1)....
It has this concept of oneness: this idea of a thing that was everything. "What harms one harms all"
Anyways(2)... the thought that struck me was this....
We may have made a mistake on the Buddhist concept of "soullessness". Anataman.
Anataman is often seen as the universal truth that that "is no soul" but as many of us know thats not correct. It doesn’t really say that, rather its saying something like "there are no unconnected parts." Anataman it is true of all things from the quarks in your pijammas to the dreams you had last night.
If it is a part of this universe it is connected to all other parts.
So it doesn’t say anything specific about a "soul", its just that it logically prevents the idea of those soul like things such as eternal discrete entities.
So(1)....
The thought that struck me was this, after I was thinking about this and The Law of One. Anataman's truth doesn't rule out the idea of a Law of One kind of universal soul. Anataman is a ontological truth, but it does not preclude a greater soul of which we are all a part and can transcend from our current level of existence to the next.
Everything can be empty and we are all soul. Maybe there is a fourth camp in the rebirth, not-rebirth and not-interested-in-rebirth camps.
I am likley to renounce and continue renouncing the notion of rebirth (it seems so "me, me me"), however, it seems almost certain that there is might be this plausible spiritual ontology, and if not, what have I got to loose. It's not like I will have lived my life wrongly believing in an ego based bogus immortality fetish.
So count me in, I believe in WeBirth!:P
Namastwe
(*Please respect this posts wish for Right Speech and good spirit. Try not to not speak wrong please - including words more offensive than "bollockface"*)
Anyways(1)....
It has this concept of oneness: this idea of a thing that was everything. "What harms one harms all"
Anyways(2)... the thought that struck me was this....
We may have made a mistake on the Buddhist concept of "soullessness". Anataman.
Anataman is often seen as the universal truth that that "is no soul" but as many of us know thats not correct. It doesn’t really say that, rather its saying something like "there are no unconnected parts." Anataman it is true of all things from the quarks in your pijammas to the dreams you had last night.
If it is a part of this universe it is connected to all other parts.
So it doesn’t say anything specific about a "soul", its just that it logically prevents the idea of those soul like things such as eternal discrete entities.
So(1)....
The thought that struck me was this, after I was thinking about this and The Law of One. Anataman's truth doesn't rule out the idea of a Law of One kind of universal soul. Anataman is a ontological truth, but it does not preclude a greater soul of which we are all a part and can transcend from our current level of existence to the next.
Everything can be empty and we are all soul. Maybe there is a fourth camp in the rebirth, not-rebirth and not-interested-in-rebirth camps.
I am likley to renounce and continue renouncing the notion of rebirth (it seems so "me, me me"), however, it seems almost certain that there is might be this plausible spiritual ontology, and if not, what have I got to loose. It's not like I will have lived my life wrongly believing in an ego based bogus immortality fetish.
So count me in, I believe in WeBirth!:P
Namastwe
(*Please respect this posts wish for Right Speech and good spirit. Try not to not speak wrong please - including words more offensive than "bollockface"*)
0
Comments