Namaste Chiron!
Excellent response, and more than I had hoped to receive from you after the previous one sentence replies. 
I agree with most of what you said, and I know why I do. But I wanted to hear you elaborate on why you feel as you do. I really liked the Pan-Scriptural quotes in support of your views, too! Very cool! 
Thanks for the reply! 
Hari OM!
Doc
Namaste VIL:
Iâm a bit disappointed in your reply. 
Only more assumptionsâŚbut still no answers to my questions, or any substantial replies supporting your views! 
Hari OM!
Doc
chiron wrote:
âEither way, there is no such thing as a murder of an innocent. Just as there is no such thing as punishment without a crime. If you see someone being murdered, how do you know they are innocent?â. . .
You would know they are innocent if you are at one with godâs will.
If there were no such thing as murder of an innocent, then all murder must be good.
and chiron wrote:
âUntil you surrender your ego and are in complete unity with God you only have an illusion of freewill. Only your true Self has freewill, not this human form which is bound by time and space.â
If that were true, then our only purpose for being here is to get out of here, and no action we take could possibly be right, and so our only correct path is to withdraw from humanity and think about god until we die?
So how can all that happens here be Godâs will if there is no purpose for anyone to take any action while in human form?
That theory sounds to me more like NONE of this is Godâs will!
Actually, there IS a LOT we can do here that is Godâs will. Thatâs why we are here, to find god, and connect with his will. If it were not possible in our human bodies, then there would be no purpose for us being here together. We could connect with God by ourselves without any contact with other people.
This is your original response to my post [Please show me where there are questions raised, since all I see is a post of your opinion - based on others experiences]:
Here is where I stated that I was basing my finding on my experience. I will bold for easy viewing:
Hence, the reason I asked if you experienced Satori, since some of your posts are very condescending in nature, lack relevance of experience, but are chock full of absolutes based on other peopleâs teachings/findings.
VIL
Good point! 
What then do you feel is a workable, alternative spiritual view to Chironâs ideas? Why do you feel that your alternative perspective would be spiritually more âin tuneâ with a serious Sadhana? And how would you implement it to be more focused âon targetâ and in harmony with a grounded spiritual discipline? Thanks! 
Hari OM!
Doc
Your post made me think of this quote, Chiron:
Just thought Iâd throw this one in, because I love it. [Although, itâs not in line with topic]:
VIL
Namaste VIL:
This is the subject of my initial reply to you. Namely, that you ASSUME the need of a âgradual processâ, ASSUME that âknowledge doesnât suddenly infuse the individual with insightâ, and ASSUME that interpretation of âa series of phenomenonâ, et al, will be required for personal reception of Holy Wisdom and Divine Revelation. All of these assumptions are apparently based on the summarily false, foundation assumption that everyoneâs experience on the Spiritual Path will of necessity have to duplicate your own. This view leads, of course, to your final assumption, that I âlack relevant experienceâ, since I disagree with you!
I make references to the known experiences of others because they provide very relevant proof that your assertions do not hold true for ALL Spiritual Seekers, my original point, as you claim! 
My personal opinion or state of spiritual attainment is irrelevant to the issue of whether there can indeed be a âSudden Enlightenmentâ or a âFlash of Revelationâ for any given individual whom God chooses to so Bless with same!
Hari OM!
Doc
The ban on controversial political discussions wasnât decided by me of course, rather by Yogani, but I do happen to think the ban is a good idea. These would be my reasons for the ban: because politics is so darn distracting. Because the forum would degenerate into excessive political discussions.
Okay, Doc, I think our discussions have gotten to the point where theyâre unproductive and we could go on forever picking apart every syntax nuisance, assumed word meaning, poster motive, etc.; but what would that solve? And you know what they say when we âASS.U.ME.â⌠[Ass - You - Me].
I think weâve made asses out of ourselves long enough.
We can thank God for that little pearl of Wisdom and Iâm sure you would agree that it would be preferable to eventually ride atop of that donkey[ego].
VIL
Agreed regarding the controversy of politcal issues.
However, you seem to be missing the point raised by using the examples of such hideous atrocities. The focal point in referring to these ungodly acts was not to debate the âpoliticsâ surrounding these events, or the reasons given as justification by those who perpetrated them.
Instead, they were referenced in order to question whether or not even the extreme examples of such unholy crimes against humanity can rightly be viewed as supportive of Chironâs view that âAll is Godâs WillââŚwithout exception. 
The subsequent elaboration of his perspective on this issue has since made this a somewhat moot point. We ARE NOT discussing politics hereâŚat least insofar as I am concernedâŚbut rather how to resolve the moral, ethical, and spiritual dilemmas which confront all serious Spiritual Aspirants everywhere who are striving to see Godâs Presence in everything!
Hari OM!
Doc
However, you seem to be missing the point raised by using the examples of such hideous atrocities. âŚWe ARE NOT discussing politics hereâŚat least insofar as I am concernedâŚ
I actually got that point⌠it is true that you are not discussing politics here. I am just pointing out the risks in the examples you chose⌠It was a politics alert⌠a cautionâŚ
Doc wrote: âWhat then do you feel is a workable, alternative spiritual view to Chironâs ideas [âit is all godâs willâ]? Why do you feel that your alternative perspective would be spiritually more âin tuneâ with a serious Sadhana? And how would you implement it to be more focused âon targetâ and in harmony with a grounded spiritual discipline?â
I believe we are all here to
- find god within ourselves,
- act in tune with his will, and
- learn to get along with each other.
It is more âin tuneâ because it requires us each to have personal responsibility for our acts, which is more pro-active than believing everything is godâs will.
Itâs very simple to implement: meditate twice a day; be devoted all day long; do everything âfor godâ instead of âfor yourselfâ.
It doesnât really require what may at first appear as âchanging your whole lifeâ. All it requires is looking at life differently.
Namaste VIL:
No need to feel that anyone here is making an ass of themselves. 
Modification and control of mental activities is a key part of a productive Sadhana, is it not? The observation and analysis of thought patterns in ourselves and others, as expressed through open discussion and debate, can contribute to a greater awareness of how our thoughts determine our words, and how our words reflect our thoughts. And this leads to a deeper understanding of selfâŚor greater Self-Realization.
So donât worryâŚbe happy! Itâs all good!
Hari OM!
Doc
Namaste E:
Great reply and great advice for us all! Thanks for addressing my questions.
Hari OM!
Doc
Namaste David:
Understood on this end, too. Thanks for the clarification and the caution.
Hari OM!
Doc
Hi All:
It has been said that âMan is God playing the fool.â
That covers a multitude of sins, doesnât it? While offering great hopeâŚ
So the order of the day (and every day) is purification and opening, because we are all emerging channels of the infinite, however impure we might seem in the moment, or at any time in the past. We are symbols of the divine, and much more â we are the reality itself, however limited the expression is or has been.
Put another way: âIf God is omnipresent, in what is God not present?â This is conceptual, of course. All concepts of God are human inventions.
Reality is what it is, and we can find out through direct experience by going within. That is where the rubber meets the road. All the rest is, well, you know â yak yak yakâŚ
The guru is in you.
Totally agreed, Yogani! Divine Attributes always have and always will manifest as the Ultimate Reality of GodâŚSat-Chit-Anadam Brahman. I am often amazed that anyone would doubt this Eternal Truth, or believe otherwise!
Nonetheless, does the Omni-Presence of God necessarily mean that Godâs Will is being manifested in every situation or circumstance? Even when unholy and ungodly acts are committed?
If we answer this questionâŚâYes. All is Godâs WillââŚthen the negative intentions and negative energy of undeniably evil acts would appear to be completely incongruous with the positive attributes generally accepted as symbols of the DivineâŚsuch as unconditional love, mercy, empathy, beauty, compassion, and so forth. Such an untenable hypothesis is difficult to justify and nearly impossible to rationally defend.
Conversely, if we answer âNoâ to this question, then whose will is being manifested in ungodly acts? If not Godâs Will, it must be manâs will. This is how many religious theologians and spiritual philosophers concluded that humanity apparently possesses âFree Willâ. This view concedes that God is Eternally and Universally Present Everywhere, but not always the willful designer and perpetrator of that which happens.
If this is in fact true, it simply implies that the âFree Willâ of humanityâŚthe ability to consciouslly choose what we think, feel, say, and doâŚis a Gift from God which can be potentially manifested either as a Great Blessing or a Great Curse depending on the choices made.
Can truly positive thoughts and intentions really manifest a negative outcome? Can truly negative thoughts and intention really manifest as something positive?
Hari OM!
Doc
Hi Doc,
I share basically the same view as you state above.
It can still be Godâs will in the sense that God allows it to happen. If God has given free will to his sons and daughters, they are free to play in a corner of the room (having limited consciousness and power) to learn from their own mistakes. It doesnât have to be Godâs will that they play bad games in the sense that he intends them to do it, and they will not become free to be able to use his whole house or all his tools (unlimited consciousness and power = enlightenment) until they learn to play in harmony with his divine attributes.
If you look at the evolution of the universe, and as part of this, the evolution of consciousness in mankind and compare it to the simplicity of a growing flower.
The flower could be a rose bud for instance and as it receives the light it expands and unravels and grows. One can imagine the friction and growing pains involved as the bud grows and unwinds itself to full bloom.
In the same way the growing pains and suffering of mankind can be seen as the learning ground out of which we evolve. Some call it evil, some lack of awareness, some growing pains, some ignorance.
My own voew is that in every instant of this evolution, it is a perfect instant. Everything is perfect just as it is. In the next instant in space time this is also perfect, although slightly different. As this perfect unfoldment occurs we can learn to be in the present moment and out of the space time, past/present trap that allows us to hold onto the pain and act out of it.
Some people call âbeingâ or present moment awareness, surrendering to the will of God.
In the end itâs all about surrender. My problem with some interpretations of God is that it can set up polarities within a person and system of discovery. We can get polarities such as good and evil, right and wrong, superior and inferior etc etc. Whereas in âbeingâ there is non of that - just âbeingâ. Everything is perfect.
Louis
I havenât much time today, and I canât do full justice to this discussion, whether the ideas of other people here, or my own, in the time I have. What I will do is throw out some food for thought, without even coming close to tying up the loose ends. Ready for something controversial?
I see thinking, and willing, as well as feeling, as bodily functions (and I donât believe God has bodily functions). That might sound odd at first glance, very odd, maybe. In fact, it is one of those things that might sound crazy at first and then become more and more solid as you investigate it further.
Start with thinking. Thinking a bodily function? What is the process that we call thinking? We gather finite information and process it. We do this because we are animals, who have only finite knowledge. Thinking is a sorting process of finite information, done by animals with finite information. Itâs a time-based process â there is a BEFORE, when the information is gathered (which is a moving from less information to more), a DURING, in which the sorting is done, and an AFTER, when the thinking is over but the conclusions may be taking root.
I see thinking is to knowledge something like digestion is to food â as a bodily function of a finite animal.
Would something of infinite knowledge think? I donât think so â look at the defining characteristics of thinking. No, no more than a being of infinite energy would digest food. And as I see thinking and willing and feeling as bodily functions, I donât think the formless bodyless absolute itself does them in any meaningful sense.
If it jars on you, let it digest a while.
Is there a kind of thinking that god does that is merely not finite in this way? Well, maybe, but if so, maybe it shouldnât be labelled thinking at all. Because it would be so unlike the thinking we know, that our concept of it is hardly accurate.
Thatâs thinking. You can do something similar with will.
Food for thought.