tmh@ihldt.UUCP (12/05/83)
I have given serious thought to this and it does in fact fit in with my beliefs as to the nature of the Universe. I feel that I am a conscious manifestation of God (as is every other living thing). I don't believe that God is either anthromorphic or sentient. I do believe that God is alive, omnipresent and all powerful (since I equate power with God). It has been a long time since I have read Stranger in a Strange land, but it seems to me to be mostly a condemnation, by Heinlein, of organized religion. There is the concept of Groking which is a nice and workable human interface and hedonism in religion (which is about all that would make me join one again). The most interesting thing I find about SiaSL is its close relation (in terms of expressing Heilein's thoughts about the Universe) to two other of Heinlein's books: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (political) and Starship Trooper (military). Each of the books has a character that seems to be Heinlein himself running around and the central character in each book ends up dead without having fulfilled the task he set out to do. The Science Fiction book which I feel comes closest expressing my own beliefs on the interface between God and man is the ending of Childhood's End. (Most of the book (as it pertains to God) is outside what I believe (esp. the fact that God can manifest himself, can communicate with living beings, and is destructive), but the joining of the children's souls with God describes my feeling as to what happens at death and I envision a similar event at the creation of life.) Cognito ergo sum, Tom Harris ihnp4!ihldt!tmh
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/06/83)
The full quote, as I remember it, is "Thou art God and I am God and all that groks is God." It's just your basic universalism, an idea MUCH older than Robert A. Heinlein. Back in junior high I was a real Heinlein devotee. "Stranger in a Strange Land" (like most of Heinlein's books) is full of an abundance of ideas which I found fascinating back then: "water brotherhood", a sort of all-encompassing group marriage; a no-punches-pulled criticism of organized religion; nominalism and the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis; and of course Heinlein's image of the rational macho individualist taking on the whole world and winning. At the time I really believed most of this stuff (a friend of mine and I even became water brothers and fully intended to grow up, recruit some girls, and live out our lives like Heinlein's characters). As I grew older, though, I discovered that it doesn't all work quite like Heinlein says, however persuasive he may appear to be on his own turf. Some of his ideas have stuck with me and I've turned around 180 degrees with respect to others. All in all I'm glad I went through that phase, as it certainly made me think about an awful lot of things at an age when I really needed it. Now, however, my overall impression of Heinlein is that he's a bit of a fascist, has one of the biggest heads around, and can't write about people worth a damn. As for universalism, let me say first that I am an atheist with occasional agnostic tendencies; nevertheless, universalism in some of its manifestations appeals to me a lot. It's a nice myth, at least, and certainly corresponds more closely with my idea of morality than the judeo-christian myths do. The notion that all humans, even all sentient beings, are really part of a single whole and that this whole is the God that makes sense of the universe lends more worth to individual dignity than some fearsome Jehovah or even than a loving God who sacrifices Himself to redeem us miserable sinners. One moral implication seen by some in universalism is that if I hurt you, I'm really hurting myself at the same time; under this formula, "love thy neighbor" and "love thyself" reduce to the same thing. Taken in the proper light, that's a religious metaphor that can appeal even to a horrid "secular humanist" like me. As I say, Heinlein didn't invent universalism. Its roots go back at least to the beginnings of hinduism and buddhism (although not all hindus and buddhists see the moral implications in it that I outlined above!) and it has also flourished before on American soil. If I remember, I'll post an Emerson poem on the subject some time soon. ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (12/07/83)
BRAHMA If the red slayer think he slays, Or if the slain think he is slain, They know not well the subtle ways I keep, and pass, and turn again. Far or forgotten to me is near; Shadow and sunlight are the same; The vanished gods to me appear; And one to me are shame and fame. They reckon ill who leave me out; When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt, And I the hymn the Brahmin sings. The strong gods pine for my abode, And pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of the good! Find me, and turn thy back on heaven. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
djhawley@watmath.UUCP (David John Hawley) (12/12/83)
It's been a long time since I've read SIASL, so I'm not sure if I understand what Heinlein was pushing. However, if it matches up with eastern pantheistic monism (everything is one), then I have a great distaste for it. ********* (SOMEWHAT) FLAME ON ********* My understanding of this category of "religions" (better, "world-views"), from reading and from discussions with a friend who is so inclined (Sufi), is that they are fundamentally anti-rational (not just arational) and anti-moral. With regard to the latter adjective, I mean a disagreement with the concepts of right-and-wrong, together with a confusion about goals. What does "hurt" mean, when what we experience is largely illusion ? And helping someone towards the ultimate goal of realization of union with the non-sentient, amoral, apersonal infinite is not what a Western mind would conceive as "helping". I am deliberately looking at this from a Western world-view (or at least what I think is a W w-v). That is not to say, of course, that proponents of this world-view are amoral or arational necessarily. People are sometimes wiser than their beliefs. ****** FLAME OFF ****** I would like some further explanation of some of the "unobvious" implications (like morality) from someone who knows more about the Eastern modes of thought. Someone who is still willing to explain and discuss, even if (s)he doubts the utility thereof. Sorry if this is a bit abrasive, but it really gets my goat when someone paints what I consider naively glowing pictures of "universalism". I really am interested in knowing more, even if I don't agree. Curiosity? David (correct me if I'm wrong) Hawley
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (12/16/83)
#R:ihldt:-212700:fortune:21900002:000:1305 fortune!rpw3 Dec 16 02:12:00 1983 Just some misc. notes: - Buddhism and Hinduism are different. The first is non-theistic, while the second is very definitely theistic. (Zen is buddhist, TM is Hindu) - For the non-theist, the goal is not merging with the All, or whatever, but simply to wake up from self-delusion and confusion. That this is difficult is obvious. That it is possible at all is perhaps the main tenet of buddhist faith, which asserts that everyone has that possibility. - The Four Noble Truths of buddhism are, loosely speaking: 1. Truth of Suffering - life is a hassle: it hurts like hell, it won't stand still, and it never seems quite real 2. Truth of the Cause - suffering comes from continually trying to avoid it with all kinds of strategies (that don't work) 3. Truth of the Goal - it is possible to quit struggling, relax, and wake up 4. Truth of the Path - there is actually a practical way to do it For a concise, simple outline of the buddhist path (as taught by the Kagyu Lineage of Tibet), see Osel Tendzin's "Buddha in the Palm of Your Hand" (Shambala, 1982, ISBN 0-87773-223-X or 0-394-70889-X) Rob Warnock UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3 DDD: (415)595-8444 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065