Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10322re "Voice of Deity," John, Whoever, and ...

Expand Messages
  • Mauri
    Jan 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      John wrote: <<Jaynes in his work postulated a time when
      Mankind's Brain had different constructive characteristics
      comparative to today's circumstance, he pointed to the
      Wernicke portion of the brain and the Corpus Collasum
      involving the Anterior Commissure. He looks for a basis
      for the ancient presencing of the voice of Deity heard by
      man as reported in many cultures. A subsequent change in
      the physical organization materially changed the auditory
      receptive ability of individuals is his theory. It is an
      original investigation which he supports in part by
      illustrative means taken from monuments of the ancient
      past. >>

      John, "Voice of Deity" reminds me of an experience my
      father had, in his teens. He was skiing alone in the woods
      when he was suddenly overwhelmed by bright light that,
      apparenly, somewhow communicated to him about the
      meaning of life and life-values. He later thought that God
      had spoken to him, and the experience seems to have
      affected him to the extent that he went on to give lectures
      in church basements about what he had learned. Before
      that experience, he seems to have been a fairly average
      person (not that I really know), with no particularly
      spiritual interests. Some years later he became involved in
      ww2, became disillusioned and, as far as I know, resumed
      a more-average life after the war.

      So I'm wondering if you, John, or somebody out there
      might care to comment about what that kind of experience
      might've been about? Maybe somebody has had, or might
      know of, a similar experience? I have no memories of my
      father and don't have any other clues that might go toward
      some kind of explanation. I can only speculate about how
      a Theosophist, UFOlogist, psychiatrist, etc, might interpret
      that kind of experience.

      A line of thought comes to mind: seeing as the human
      race, today, is (seems?) not particularly knowledgable, in
      general, about the Bigger Picture of Reality, I wonder if
      there are, say, "karmic factors" that might, (and do?), pop
      up from time to time as "the unexplained." That is, I might
      be going on a limb here (he he) by speculating that, in
      spite of what might seem like impressive, modern
      scientific advances, (not to mention generally held aspects
      of Theosophic views/traditions), that we humans, in
      general, might still be in the dark about a few things.
      While there may be much mainstream usefulness in a
      worldview that assigns much importance to "explaining,"
      "proving," "realizing," etc, what about the the karmic
      effects that such mainstreaming might create
      ("individually/collectively") within this
      dualistic/multiplistic environment of "ordinary reality"...

      For example, would much effort "to explain" tend to
      karmically create, at some point, (in some life?), aspects of
      "the unexplained" and "the mystical," and the like, as per
      one's collective/individualistic participation/belief in a
      worldview that has, or is generally effected/affected by
      way of an essential dependence, in a sense (as I see it), on
      multiplistic opposites (or karma/maya) ...

      In other words, I suspect that there are many "mystical
      experiences" and "unknowns" that might (do?) represent
      karma, or at least exoteric, versionalized "aspects of
      reality." And while those "versions/aspects" (or models,
      theories, worldviews, Theosophies, etc) may have much
      significance/usefulness and may contain much truth and
      reality within one's worldview, I suspect that there are
      those Theosophists, "mystics" and people who also see, or
      "tend to see," the maya or mayavic aspects in such things,
      and as a result might tend to shy away from multiplistic
      opposites, or generally held worldviews, in keeping with
      their "sense of relevance," say, re enlightenment ...


      PS I wonder if the "more serious students" might be
      somewhat better off by not defining enlightenment much
      at all in any kind of "too exoteric terms" (well, come to
      think of it, who does, eh? :-), seeing as exoterics are (aren't
      they?) exoterics, after all; so maybe if one at least puts
      some quotes on that word, and maybe if one doesn't
      oversimplify about its meaning, then ... Not that we don't
      all tend to have our way of defining about
      "oversimplification," so ... well ... ^:-) ...