Where have all the possibilities gone??

Protector you are close but no Cuban cigar Straw dogs trampled by human feet does not make them irrelevant. There is a Yin/Yang thing going on here which you have not taken into consideration.

Today is the 4th you have until the 7th and keep this in mind.....

Heaven and Earth last forever.
The reason that Heaven and Earth are able to last forever Is because they do not give birth to themselves.
Therefore, they are always alive.
Hence, the sage puts herself last and is first.
She is outside herself and therefore her self lasts.

Is it not through her selflessness
That she is able to perfect herself?

Let the games begin

To be honest, I didn't even read but one line of that link I posted on the straw dogs. I just remembered them being brought up in a discussion once and I forgot what they were. I am somewhat against Yin/Yang interpretations at this juncture, so I'm not going down that road.

"Today is the 4th you have until the 7th and keep this in mind....."

It might as well be the 7th because I didn't even know there was a time limit.

Heaven and Earth last forever.
The reason that Heaven and Earth are able to last forever Is because they do not give birth to themselves.
Therefore, they are always alive.
Hence, the sage puts herself last and is first.
She is outside herself and therefore her self lasts.

Earth won't last forever and I don't know about Heaven, either. At this point, I'm not even sure I would want to live forever. If only things that don't give birth to themselves are eternal, then God must be dead. That's sad. The sage sounds like a crack addict. She probably wrote some of that stuff as well .

"Is it not through her selflessness
That she is able to perfect herself?"

It is not. I use to be extremely selfless and I got walked all over. My perfection started to come when I stopped laying down for people to step on me. I veto that statement with personal experience. Try again. You have 4 seconds to answer!

"Let the games begin"
Yay! A monster truck rally!

One of the issues of the Tao and Buddhist beliefs in general, is that the body is a conduit for the soul the means in which the soul is able to express itself in this world. Selflessness in this context is more in relation to the negation of the ego. In essence by renouncing the self, to an extent the mind ceases to contemplate the form and substance of the body she is placing herself last and is first. But to withdraw completely from existence and negating her soul/spirit as existing is not the answer.

It�s important to understand how words are defined within the context of those who are defining. As a result take into consideration that to the author Earth and Heaven are living things.

In my Philosophy of Religion class, we've been going over the Ontological Argument. This is my second time going through the subject formally, but we hit some very interesting points.

Incase you don't know, the Ontological argument is where God's existence is proved "a priori" (pure reason) and must exist. We also found that the devil, or anything for that instance, can be "reasoned" into being. Of course, all arguments presuppose that everything eventally leads to God, because the ultimate of all reason of existence leads to God.

I forgot where I was going with this.

Do you have any specific philosophical points of discussion/arguments about God?

About the last note, yes I also believe that Heaven and Earth are alive.

God goes beyond any interpretation man has for him. As well as any definition or conclusion drawn upon reality.

Straw dogs means that the living form be it the human body, the earth (Gia), or the living heavens is merely a conduit to the spirit of any of the above.

God cannot be defined as a thing
And neither can the Tao

There is something that is perfect in its disorder
Which is born before Heaven and Earth.

So silent and desolate! It establishes itself without renewal. Functions universally without lapse.
We can regard it as the Mother of Everything.

I don't know its name.

Hence, when forced to name it, I call it "Tao."
When forced to categorize it, I call it "great."

Greatness entails transcendence.
Transcendence entails going-far.
Going-far entails return.

Hence, Tao is great, Heaven is great, the Earth is great
And the human is also great.

Within our realm there are four greatnesses and the human being is one of them.

Human beings follow the Earth.
Earth follows Heaven
Heaven follows the Tao
The Tao follows the way things are.

Lao Tzu

[Edited on 8-2-2003 by Toltec]

So the Tao follows the way things are.

That sounds like a philosophical debate we were having earlier in my philosophy class. Do they come from God because they are good or are they good because they come from God? That is a question regarding morals and ethics and principles. Does this make our conception of God less than the principles inherant (sp?) in the universe? Is God the primary force or a result of the primary force?

In regards to your "3 words" you asked me about, this site I found rather interesting on the topics:

Good read

Tell me what you think of it.

True perfection cannot exist unless what is perfect is an aspect of all things. Finite existence is imperfect but is as well an aspect of all things.

In order for God to be perfect he must also exist as imperfect. God must therefore be both the primary force and the result, making him all and within all things.

Do they come from God because they are good or are they good because they come from God?

I would say they are good because they come from God in respect to God defining an originator/creator. Which in essence defines the term God. Keep in mind an inperfect thing cannot create perfection.


The link was really good

[Edited on 8-2-2003 by Toltec]

"True perfection cannot exist unless what is perfect is an aspect of all things. Finite existence is imperfect but is as well an aspect of all things."

Yes, I believe this is what you said a few weeks ago and I came up with the "glass of milk" analogy.

"In order for God to be perfect he must also exist as imperfect. God must therefore be both the primary force and the result, making him all and within all things."

I'm not sure if you are right on this one. Here is how I see it. How can you define inperfection? Can you? I could say that a rainy, cloudy day is a perfect day because I'm a farmer and need the rain and love the cooler weather that goes along with it. Now, if you lived in Hawaii, you might think that a sunny day with a cool breeze is a perfect day. Neither are right nor wrong because perfection is defined by opinion. We may use guidelines in our attempts to define our perfections, but we have the freedom to define anything how we choose.


"Keep in mind an inperfect thing cannot create perfection."

Unless it is all in your head. Perfection is often defined in terms of all-encompassing. Or it is defined in terms of the removal of other qualities. e.g. An angel must not do bad things because an angel must be perfect creations. Well, now you would have to define "bad and perfect creation." On the otherhand, let's say that the "spirit" is everywhere, all around us. This spirit is a perfect spirit that guides us. Now you have the quality of the "all encompassing." If the spirit is everywhere, how do you define something that is everywhere in terms of perfection. What are "terms of perfection."

See my point?


"The link was really good."

Thanks, I rather enjoyed it myself. I'll have to look into some of the arts mentioned in it to see about the validity of his statements. Do you know anything about some of those arts mentioned?

This link is related to that other one. I found it while searching for things on the history of Kempo.

kempo.4mg.com...

There are many articles within that link. It will take me days to go through them.

Also, I put William Durbin's book on that list we have going on Amazon.

I should have elaborated in relation to perfection as related to beyond infinity or more. And finite to infinite being related to imperfection (As mentioned in an earlier post in this respect).

In relation to this definition God the creator cannot be created. As to do so portends to a finite being creating one that is more than infinite. When I say "more than infinite," I am presenting the argument of God as not being entirely definable in respect to any thought we are capable of having. We as humans have the capacity to apply (now or in the future). And in that respect any words applicable has meaning, only as guide posts.

All in the world recognize the beautiful as beautiful.
Herein lies ugliness.
All recognize the good as good.
Herein lies evil.

Therefore
Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficulty and ease bring about each other.
Long and short delimit each other.
High and low rest on each other.
Sound and voice harmonize each other.
Front and back follow each other.

Therefore the sage abides in the condition of wu-wei(unattached action).
And carries out the wordless teaching.
Here, the myriad things are made, yet not separated.

Therefore the sage produces without possessing,
Acts without expectations
And accomplishes without abiding in her accomplishments.

It is precisely because she does not abide in them
That they never leave her.

The imperfect is completed.
The crooked is straightened.
The empty is filled.
The old is renewed.
With few there is attainment.
With much there is confusion.
Therefore the sage grasps the one and becomes the model for all.

She does not show herself, and therefore is apparent.
She does not affirm herself, and therefore is acknowledged.
She does not boast and therefore has merit.
She does not strive and is therefore successful.
It is exactly because she does not contend, that nobody can contend with her.

How could the ancient saying, "The imperfect is completed" be regarded as empty talk?

Believe in the complete and return to it.

The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
While naming is the origin of the myriad things.
Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery
Ever desiring, you see the manifestations.
These two are the same--
When they appear they are named differently.

This sameness is the mystery,
Mystery within mystery;

The door to all marvels.

Yes I have heard of these techniques as well as others

What are your thoughts?

I wasn't that impressed by those passages. Some of them seem like disinformation. They are using anti-logic in their statements. Some of them make sense, while others are false claims by design. For the sage to be all of those things, the sage needs to be dead. If death is what we strive for, then I say the sage is full of s**t.

As far as comparisons, such as long and short, they are merely tools of measurement and can be manipulated and compared in a variety of ways. That is no great secret.

How do you see those passages?

All in the world recognize the beautiful as beautiful.
Herein lies ugliness.
All recognize the good as good.
Herein lies evil.

If you see beauty, you compare to that which is not beautiful and therefore create ugliness as well. Yes.
Same for good and evil. The understanding of this leads to that Master Yin-Yang symbol, which has 3 fish instead of 2. I read that in a book and I probably agree with its logic.

Therefore
Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficulty and ease bring about each other.
Long and short delimit each other.
High and low rest on each other.
Sound and voice harmonize each other.
Front and back follow each other.

Non-being produces being? That sounds like a temporal statement, where a baby not born will one day have children. How does "being" produce non-being? Unless they die? I want your thoughts on this one.

Long and short delimit each other? Well delimit is to create a limit or boundary. If you compare to infinity, both long and short are short. If you compare to zero, then both long and short are long. When compared to one another long is long and short is short. What am I missing? High and low are only significant when you have a specific direction you are facing.

Sound and voice are nearly the same. I'm not sure what the sage is getting at on this one. Front and back do follow each other, yes. It just depends which direction you are going and facing and desiring.

"Therefore the sage abides in the condition of wu-wei(unattached action).
And carries out the wordless teaching.
Here, the myriad things are made, yet not separated."

I've never met a teacher who could not speak and still teach. I don't even know what that last line means. I must be missing out on what this one is even trying to stand for.

"Therefore the sage produces without possessing,"

Like the genius answers without thinking.

"Acts without expectations"

Sounds like those who use violence. I'm not sure that I agree with this... unless it is just a matter of confidence.

"And accomplishes without abiding in her accomplishments."

Abide means enduring or continuing. So she achieves and moves on? That sounds fair enough.

"It is precisely because she does not abide in them
That they never leave her."

She does not abuse her accomplishments .... ok. Again, fair enough.

----- round 2 ----- on next note.

"The imperfect is completed."

I don't agree. I have no basis for this being true.

"The crooked is straightened."

This sounds like hyperbolic space in mathematics. I don't see where that leads to any answers. Secondly, I'm mad at hyperbolic space because it made me lose a lot of points on my last test.

"The empty is filled."

Yes, I agree.

"The old is renewed."

Fountain of youth? Eternal life? Knowing you are only as old as you think? What? This has too many possibilities.

"With few there is attainment.
With much there is confusion."

As well as the other way around. What do you think about this one?

"Therefore the sage grasps the one and becomes the model for all.

Is that suppose to be "the One?" If it is, then I agree.

"She does not show herself, and therefore is apparent."

Sounds like the ninja. Or maybe it is that she does not make a scene, so everyone wonders why she is there.

"She does not affirm herself, and therefore is acknowledged."

Wasn't this already said? So the sage has a doctorate in philosophy and doesn't tell anyone... wonderful.

"She does not boast and therefore has merit."

Just keeps saying the same things over and over.

"She does not strive and is therefore successful."

I can't say that I agree with this. Maybe if the statement was she does not overwhelm herself and is therefore free to move forward without stressors. What do you get out of this statement?

"It is exactly because she does not contend, that nobody can contend with her."

I like this one. I completely agree. I hate sparring and I'm just "fair" at it. I can't win or lose if I don't spar and I rather not spar because I learn more by practicing. Plus, I don't have to hold back while practicing.

"How could the ancient saying, "The imperfect is completed" be regarded as empty talk?"

Never heard of it. I believe I regarded it as empty talk at the top of this note. I don't see the logic... too vague and you need definitions for imperfection and complete.

"Believe in the complete and return to it."

I believe in God and would like to return to God, but that would probably require death, which is not the best option I can think of.


------On to part 3 on next note--------

"The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao."

Wow, that just makes me not like Taoism if that line says "I'm full of s**t." The only other option is where it is trying to say, "Make your own path."

"The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

I think that is an old-fashioned myth, where if you name it, it can die. So if it has no name, death will never find it. I don't see a name or category as a limitation (necessarily) and I believe that is what it is inferring to.

"The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
While naming is the origin of the myriad things."

Myriad = 10,000 or a great number. The unknown (aka Tao) is the origin of heaven and earth, while a name is the naming of 10,000 things. Ok, I can follow that... and agree.

"Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery"

That's like calling science, "magic," because you don't understand how it works. Yes, I understand that statement if my example describes what it is suppose to mean.

"Ever desiring, you see the manifestations.

You search for it and find what is causing it... like science. I agree.

"These two are the same--
When they appear they are named differently."

Just like I've already said! I'm smart!

"This sameness is the mystery,
Mystery within mystery;"

I like that line. Sounds good. My voice harmonizes with that line . I know the mystery! I'm awesome!

"The door to all marvels."

I'm not sure what this "door" is. Any ideas?

Well, we can both agree that I'm not a sage, but I do seem to know quite a bit of my stuff.

The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao."

Wow, that just makes me not like Taoism if that line says "I'm full of s**t." The only other option is where it is trying to say, "Make your own path."

One way of interpreting it is in relation to our discussion on straw dogs

the name that can be named is not the eternal name."

I think that is an old-fashioned myth, where if you name it, it can die. So if it has no name, death will never find it. I don't see a name or category as a limitation (necessarily) and I believe that is what it is inferring to.

Consider that by no name what is meant is not in relation to any myth but rather to the idea that it cannot defined in relation to the use of words. An example being the Judaic application of G-d rather than using the word God. Names imply definitions, which can be applied to those names.

"The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
While naming is the origin of the myriad things."

Myriad = 10,000 or a great number. The unknown (aka Tao) is the origin of heaven and earth, while a name is the naming of 10,000 things. Ok, I can follow that... and agree.

Ok

"Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery"

That's like calling science, "magic," because you don't understand how it works. Yes, I understand that statement if my example describes what it is suppose to mean.

Consider that what is refers to is a mental perspective or orientation to a goal.

"Ever desiring, you see the manifestations.

You search for it and find what is causing it... like science. I agree.

Perspective of desire produces an awareness of the Tao, which are not the eternal Tao but rather the manifestation.

"These two are the same--
When they appear they are named differently."

Just like I've already said! I'm smart!

Tao and Eternal Tao

"This sameness is the mystery,
Mystery within mystery;"

I like that line. Sounds good. My voice harmonizes with that line . I know the mystery! I'm awesome!

We all are

"The door to all marvels."

I'm not sure what this "door" is. Any ideas?

Creation

Well, we can both agree that I'm not a sage, but I do seem to know quite a bit of my stuff.

Are you asking or telling  you seem capable of understanding the manifestations, but my impression is that at present the eternal frustrates you?

Non-being produces being? That sounds like a temporal statement, where a baby not born will one day have children. How does "being" produce non-being? Unless they die? I want your thoughts on this one.

Death is not a factor except in relation to it being a part of life nonetheless it is not the goal. In relation to the Tao te Ching from the formless came the form. I can go into the quote, which discusses is but let�s stick with these for now. Again non-being does not mean non-existence it means no being a thing.

Long and short delimit each other? Well delimit is to create a limit or boundary. If you compare to infinity, both long and short are short. If you compare to zero, then both long and short are long. When compared to one another long is long and short is short. What am I missing? High and low are only significant when you have a specific direction you are facing.

These are finite expressions

Sound and voice are nearly the same. I'm not sure what the sage is getting at on this one. Front and back do follow each other, yes. It just depends which direction you are going and facing and desiring.

These are infinite expressions.

"Therefore the sage abides in the condition of wu-wei(unattached action).
And carries out the wordless teaching.
Here, the myriad things are made, yet not separated."



I've never met a teacher who could not speak and still teach. I don't even know what that last line means. I must be missing out on what this one is even trying to stand for.

Poetry is one form as well when discussing emotions; definitions tend to vary greatly between people. You can tell someone the Tao is love for instance. But how do you present that so another can understand how you are defining the term? Often times symbolic gestures more than words can ever define.

"Therefore the sage produces without possessing,"

Like the genius answers without thinking.

No more along the lines of a perspective in relation to how ones sees what one does, for instance rather that
Expecting payment for something done like helping a person on the road whose car has broken down.

"Acts without expectations"

Sounds like those who use violence. I'm not sure that I agree with this... unless it is just a matter of confidence.

Doing the dishes even if your spouse did not ask, she says thank you and you tell her its no problem.
Doing a project at work finding something wrong and even though its not your problem fixing it and not
Expecting anything in return.

"And accomplishes without abiding in her accomplishments."

Abide means enduring or continuing. So she achieves and moves on? That sounds fair enough.

Ok

"It is precisely because she does not abide in them
That they never leave her."

She does not abuse her accomplishments .... ok. Again, fair enough.

OK

On to the last one.....

"The imperfect is completed."

I don't agree. I have no basis for this being true.

This implies the universe is infinite and or that what is in the Universe is as well complete and can be accepted as infinite.

"The crooked is straightened."

This sounds like hyperbolic space in mathematics. I don't see where that leads to any answers. Secondly, I'm mad at hyperbolic space because it made me lose a lot of points on my last test.

Sorry

"The empty is filled."

Yes, I agree.

Ok

"The old is renewed."

Fountain of youth? Eternal life? Knowing you are only as old as you think? What? This has too many possibilities.

Reincarnation is one of them this being fundemental to the Tao.

"With few there is attainment.
With much there is confusion."

As well as the other way around. What do you think about this one?

It�s very true

"Therefore the sage grasps the one and becomes the model for all.

Is that suppose to be "the One?" If it is, then I agree.

The Tao is also a Trinity

"She does not show herself, and therefore is apparent."

Sounds like the ninja. Or maybe it is that she does not make a scene, so everyone wonders why she is there.

Unattached action

"She does not affirm herself, and therefore is acknowledged."

Wasn't this already said? So the sage has a doctorate in philosophy and doesn't tell anyone... wonderful.

"She does not boast and therefore has merit."

Just keeps saying the same things over and over.

Give the guy a break this was written in the sixth century BC

"She does not strive and is therefore successful."

I can't say that I agree with this. Maybe if the statement was she does not overwhelm herself and is therefore free to move forward without stressors. What do you get out of this statement?

I can live with that

"It is exactly because she does not contend, that nobody can contend with her."

I like this one. I completely agree. I hate sparring and I'm just "fair" at it. I can't win or lose if I don't spar and I rather not spar because I learn more by practicing. Plus, I don't have to hold back while practicing.

Very good

"How could the ancient saying, "The imperfect is completed" be regarded as empty talk?"

Never heard of it. I believe I regarded it as empty talk at the top of this note. I don't see the logic... too vague and you need definitions for imperfection and complete.

How about a circle, a snake eating itself, a 4d universe, a torus?

"Believe in the complete and return to it."

I believe in God and would like to return to God, but that would probably require death, which is not the best option I can think of.

God is more, returning to God is not implied here. What is asserted is that we are infinite beings. The author is suggesting that if you have faith in this, with time you will draw the same conclusion.



What are your thoughts?

Reincarnation is one of them this being fundemental to the Tao.

My problem with reincarnation is that is sounds like a religious practice. On the other hand, as we talked about being eternal beings, we will always have chances to "become" certain extentions of either our minds/souls or our creator's "mind" (generically speaking). This would make one assume that we would be "reincarnated" as something else, but not someone else in the future. As in, we will always be our souls, but the experiences will vary. With reincarnation, one would also live in between, a Heaven if you will, and there would be the grounds for exploring the next position your soul will take.

More problems arise when you take into account the fact that we have no recollection or recognition of the "afterlife." This begs the question of whether we were created ex nihilo (from nothing). I, as you probably know, believe we were created from everything... seeing as God never "did not" exist and would fill all "spaces," so there technically are no "spaces" of emptiness. In essence, instead of space being filled with stuff... the stuff is the space and just takes on different shapes. I often wonder if we are an attempt of the universe to understand itself.

Now that I've gotten far enough from the subject, I'll try to resume.

"With few there is attainment.
With much there is confusion."

I'm still not sure what we are "attaining." Destiny, fate, freedom, understanding, ... what? It could be a number of things, none of which I am certain this passage is referring to.

"Give the guy a break this was written in the sixth century BC"

LOL... ok.

"The Tao is also a Trinity"

Care to explain?

"How about a circle, a snake eating itself, a 4d universe, a torus?"

How is a circle imperfect? How does a snake eating itself relate? Don't we live in a 4-d universe? I thought a torus was a bull.

"God is more, returning to God is not implied here. What is asserted is that we are infinite beings. The author is suggesting that if you have faith in this, with time you will draw the same conclusion."

I do have faith in this, but it would seem that the author is trying to get at something else as well. As to what that is, I am not certain.

Sorry that I'm not extremely specific on these last few, but I'm in a hurry and I'm not sure what to make of some of the comments.

The manifestation of the image of the Tao is one, as in one manifestation of one image. Representing a duality, which makes up the one Tao. Reincarnation is the event presented by those who experience it and acknowledge it. In relation to this, more people have reported experiences of NDE than have reported any
Other type of psi/religious experience.

Let�s proceed�

In relation to this earth which in the context of this topic, has been explained as having been related to heaven, it can then understood as an aspect of heaven. For instance, in relation to God having created Heaven and then Earth, as in from heaven did God make earth.

The valley spirit never dies.
It is called "the mysterious female."
The opening of the mysterious female
Is called "the root of Heaven and Earth."
Continuous, seeming to remain.

Use it without exertion.

As an aspect of heaven it is a part which carries results in relation to the War in Heaven (Which is accepted as having being fought by both East and West). To those who accept this, a primary motivator for desiring to reincarnate is to fight the War in Heaven. But in this context the war in heaven simply has not ended, its is being fought on here on earth. And those who chose to reincarnate are the warriors who fight the war in heaven . Heaven being defined as all things besides the Tao and what made it possible.

Primarily I feel that reincarnating is a choice but historically that has not been the one perspective. It has been presented that it is an obligation and or a requirement of development or evolution.

More problems arise when you take into account the fact that we have no recollection or recognition of the "afterlife." This begs the question of whether we were created ex nihilo (from nothing). I, as you probably know, believe we were created from everything... seeing as God never "did not" exist and would fill all "spaces," so there technically are no "spaces" of emptiness. In essence, instead of space being filled with stuff... the stuff is the space and just takes on different shapes. I often wonder if we are an attempt of the universe to understand itself.

You are talking about a quantum computer, a reuslt of how the universe is organized and is potentially evolving with us. Consider a moment as an event that occurs in the here and now but is not restricted. In relation to distance except of course from the point of view of the observer. Everything that happens in the Universe, in a moment, relatable and potentially integral to the function of the whole in respect to an observer.

The Universe is often regarded as finite but unbounded, within its sphere of influence it is infinite but there is an outside. I acknowledge that what we accept, as the Universe is part of something else. As well that the alternate reality implied by a finite Universe, is probably finite as well. So in relation to your thoughts, yes its possible but given what we know of reality today? . I agree that concluding that it is alive does not denote it with inteligence, but if that is true then what is the potential for it being a part of another reality?

One which is as well finite but boundless and from their ad infintum, from the perspective of boundlessness.

What are your thoughts?






[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Toltec]

"In relation to this, more people have reported experiences of NDE than have reported any
Other type of psi/religious experience."

Have any good links on this? I read a book on NDE's not too long ago and it was rather fascinating. I have personally had a "mystical" experience... similar to a religious experience, but technically somewhat different (by definition).

"Let�s proceed�"

Please do.

"In relation to this earth which in the context of this topic, has been explained as having been related to heaven, it can then [be] understood as an aspect of heaven. For instance, in relation to God having created Heaven and then Earth, as in from heaven did God make earth."

That is a big assumption... I rather think of it as God making Heaven and Earth from Himself (the everythingness/Tao) and their relationship is therefore "God."

"The valley spirit never dies."

Tell that do Death Valley .

"It is called "the mysterious female." "

"It" refers to? Valley, spirit, death, something else? I don't know how mysterious female really has anything to do with any of that... please give your views on this.

"The opening of the mysterious female
Is called "the root of Heaven and Earth."
Continuous, seeming to remain."

That sounds kinky. Again, I'm still lost.

"Use it without exertion."

Not a clue... I got left behind at the last exit .




"As an aspect of heaven it is a part which carries results in relation to the War in Heaven (Which is accepted as having being fought by both East and West). To those who accept this, a primary motivator for desiring to reincarnate is to fight the War in Heaven. But in this context the war in heaven simply has not ended, its is being fought on here on earth. And those who chose to reincarnate are the warriors who fight the war in heaven . Heaven being defined as all things besides the Tao and what made it possible."

So I'm at war? Sweeeeet. j/k Who am I fighting again? Myself? My dog? My girlfriend (that I don't have)? Satan? God? gods? The fabric of space itself?

Where's my ammo? Does this game have Godmode? How about cheats? What are the rules? Can I be like Neo in the Matrix? ... that's enough questions for you to ponder. Let me know if you have any answers.

"Primarily I feel that reincarnating is a choice but historically that has not been the one perspective. It has been presented that it is an obligation and or a requirement of development or evolution."

Nah. Maybe it goes along the lines of ultimate freedom. It does beg one question, though... "Why aren't we born with the knowledge of our purpose (of this reincarnation)." I think it is a valid question that probably needs answering.



"You are talking about a quantum computer, a result [sic] of how the universe is organized and is potentially evolving with us."

I am? So I am a cubit? I believe the universe also evolves, yes. I'm not sure if it is a quantum computer, but it is an idea. The fricken Matrix has me again... bastards!

"Consider a moment as an event that occurs in the here and now but is not restricted. In relation to distance except of course from the point of view of the observer. Everything that happens in the Universe, in a moment, relatable and potentially integral to the function of the whole in respect to an observer."

Ok Einstein . I also read this in a book on NDE's.

"The Universe is often regarded as finite but unbounded, within its sphere of influence it is infinite but there is an outside."

Nope, I disagree. I think they've got it all wrong. Their telescopes aren't good enough.. and apparently their brains aren't either.

"I acknowledge that what we accept, as the Universe is part of something else."

Yep.

"As well that the alternate reality implied by a finite Universe, is probably finite as well. So in relation to your thoughts, yes its possible but given what we know of reality today?"

You use the term "we" as if I include myself in that group . "We" is a bunch of scientists that have to study Zoology in order to understand their anterior from their posterior .


"I agree that concluding that it is alive does not denote it with intelligence [sic], but if that is true then what is the potential for it being a part of another reality?"

Probably more so than you would first assume.

Sponge Analogy (the soft ocean creatures):
A sponge would not be considered an intelligent creature, nor would any of the cells inside of it... but a sponge can grow to be over a mile in diameter given the right conditions. Given our views, as intelligent humans, we 'can' know what each part of the sponge (our unintelligent universe) does. The sponge and its cells cannot understand the whole of the sponge (that we know of). "We" (you and I) can see the big picture. We know the sponge (universe) is inside of an ocean. We know what it feeds on and how it functions. We even know what is outside of the sponge (the outside universe). The question becomes, can anything inside of the sponge comprehend the outside of the sponge. We would assume "no." On the contrary, the fact that "we" (you and I) ask these questions may cause us to assume otherwise. The only problem would be that the parts of the sponge (the people of the unintelligent universe) would never fully understand the breadth of what goes on outside of the sponge (universe), nor would they realize that they probably play NO ROLE on this side of the sponge (the outside).

Think on that one for a minute.


P.S. Sorry if I'm a bit sarcastic (the Einstein comment).

This posting was originally meant to question the motives, or anti-motives of God. I've come up with some more questions recently that I was hoping I could get some answers/opinions on.

If God has His own will and can exercise it, then why doesn't He exercise it in order to rid the world of evil? Seriously? Why would someone will literally Godly powers not prevent sin from happening, or wipe out the evil altogether? Why let it go on? Who benefits? The only one who seems to benefit is God.

This forces a few questions. Is God lazy/passive? Does God care? Is God the god of deism? If you eliminate evil, do you eliminate existence?

I'm not sure how to begin to reason through these questions. I use to feel a close relationship to God, but lately I've just kinda "been." God seems like a rubber band... if you actively search for Him, He bounces some "purpose" back your way, but if you don't, then no love/messages/understanding bounces back your way. Is God a force-feedback controller? Have I just lost touch with that aspect of my life? I feel so human .

Help.