[net.religion] Stranger in a Strange Land

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