Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: epicure who wrote (19845)	4/26/2005 12:52:55 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) of 28931

He is a bit formalized, Ionesco--it is true. But I think he believes his path. He is definitely steeped in yoga and the ancient beliefs of his culture. As well, he is well educated in American medicine and culture. He made much of the intergalactic space between the photons and atoms of our bodies--and he is correct. He made much of the renewal of our stomach lining, organs, skin, and such on a regular basis--and he is correct. He made much of the transfer of photons and other subatomic particles that MUST be a part of all these replacements between people and creatures, and things with each breath of air--and he is correct. So I have your liver and you get mine! When he speaks of "love" it is not in terms of the selfish sentimentality and need of average people. It is about an intellectual and emotional recognition of the unity of all things throughout the universe. This "unity" is hard to define or to agree on. He obviously considers it as a universal consciousness. He sees the universe as on/off like our computers. He considers the "soul" to be in the "off" where infinite possibilities exist in a non localized potential. This is the realm of the wave or the particle which will be what the observer determines it to be through attention and intention. So the universe flashes in and out of existence continuously...all most. But just as a movie is on/off...so is all existence. We "see" material objects but it is primarily intergalactic space relative to our perceptive shortfalls. Well...I am wandering and I am probably adding my own thoughts and distorting his. He does not appear to say anything truly new. He rests on the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, yoga, modern physics, and certain great poets. As a man he seems humble and good. He seems more sincere in direct presence than on PBS. When he was thanked and such forth he simply said a soft thankyou and exited the stage. I felt good about that. It seemed very real. He is medically trained as an endocrinologist. He is also an expert in Ayurvedic medicine. He is definitely not a foolish man. I think he was frustrated at trying to convey concepts outside of normal perception...knowing that most of the audience would not truly grasp his vision. He was not really an exciting speaker--and yet...I think I would see him again. He was soft and quiet and appealing to the logic of words. There is something in that which appeals to me...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next