Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on July 15, 2017, 07:38:44 AM
-
Hi everyone,
What is God? Watch this video by Sadhguru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcawFyz1-og
Interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
What is God? Watch this video by Sadhguru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcawFyz1-og
Interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
Great speaker, great sense of humour, gentle but profound.
-
Yes...I agree QtC.
-
'Methods of dissolution' could mean anything; it is vague. If it means shutting down the analytical mind in order to experience something transcendental, then that might be good for the moment of transcendence, but we cannot live without the analytical mind. We can have a nice trip but then have to come back to reality and surely there is danger in overdoing it, in becoming convinced that the transcendental experience is the real reality when it is in fact an altered consciousness state induced through practice.
-
'Methods of dissolution' could mean anything; it is vague. If it means shutting down the analytical mind in order to experience something transcendental, then that might be good for the moment of transcendence, but we cannot live without the analytical mind. We can have a nice trip but then have to come back to reality and surely there is danger in overdoing it, in becoming convinced that the transcendental experience is the real reality when it is in fact an altered consciousness state induced through practice.
Methods towards dissolution can vary. It may be that it is the analytical mind which interprets the methods as an 'either/or' .... shutting down for a period .... coming back to its 'reality' .... and perhaps fears its loss of control. If, on the other hand, the method is towards a 'both/and' situation then the inner experience and the outer analysis can work in harmony, then consciousness is not so much an altered state but more an expanded condition.
-
'Methods of dissolution' could mean anything; it is vague. If it means shutting down the analytical mind in order to experience something transcendental, then that might be good for the moment of transcendence, but we cannot live without the analytical mind. We can have a nice trip but then have to come back to reality and surely there is danger in overdoing it, in becoming convinced that the transcendental experience is the real reality when it is in fact an altered consciousness state induced through practice.
Two things, I was interested in his use of the word dissolution which I took to be a kind of dissolving. This did not imply, necessarily, destruction of suspension of everything about a person but could in Christian terms at least be the yielding to God of all of the aspects of one's life to be washed in God's influence. After all there are still sodium and chloride ions in a salt solution. I agree then with your interpretation of this not necessarily being a one way journey.
Secondly isn't the mind when in total analytical mode also in somewhat of an ecstatic state where the self is forgotten about? Is total and irrevocable immersion in that state in fact an altered consciousness state from which we have to return to reality once in a while?
-
Two things, I was interested in his use of the word dissolution which I took to be a kind of dissolving. This did not imply, necessarily, destruction of suspension of everything about a person but could in Christian terms at least be the yielding to God of all of the aspects of one's life to be washed in God's influence. After all there are still sodium and chloride ions in a salt solution. I agree then with your interpretation of this not necessarily being a one way journey.
It's difficult to know what 'Christian terms' are, especially when it come to the term 'God'. I get the impression that most do not see the relationship of God with man as a dissolving of one into the other but more as a joining of one with the other where boundaries are maintained. The word 'religion' which meant 'rebind' seems to suggest this. The mystics appear to suggest 'union', one-ness, at-one-ment, like a rain drop merging with the ocean where the 'self' identity is washed away and the divine prevails.
-
It's difficult to know what 'Christian terms' are, especially when it come to the term 'God'. I get the impression that most do not see the relationship of God with man as a dissolving of one into the other but more as a joining of one with the other where boundaries are maintained. The word 'religion' which meant 'rebind' seems to suggest this. The mystics appear to suggest 'union', one-ness, at-one-ment, like a rain drop merging with the ocean where the 'self' identity is washed away and the divine prevails.
Yes...in fact the whole idea of salvation or liberation or mukti (according to Advaita) is equated to rivers flowing back into the ocean from where they came initially. Of course, there are some schools of Vedanta (Dwaita and Vishistadvaita) which argue for a separate existence.
-
'Methods of dissolution' could mean anything; it is vague. If it means shutting down the analytical mind in order to experience something transcendental, then that might be good for the moment of transcendence, but we cannot live without the analytical mind. We can have a nice trip but then have to come back to reality and surely there is danger in overdoing it, in becoming convinced that the transcendental experience is the real reality when it is in fact an altered consciousness state induced through practice.
These matters can never be crystal clear. Vagueness is both due to the abstract nature of these experiences and also due to our own lack of experience and therefore inability to identify with such experiences.
Leaving aside words such a soul, spirit, God etc.. just take the Unconscious mind for example. I know that you think of the Unconscious as some kind of an appendage or extra fitting to the conscious mind. But considering Freud, Jung and recent scientific findings, the Conscious mind is said to be like a closet in a mansion compared to the Unconscious mind.
Suppose we allow our conscious mind to 'dissolve' into the Unconscious mind, it will not limit us rather it will expand our awareness.
And this is not a transcendental experience. Nothing unnatural or supernatural about it. It is all perfectly natural because the unconscious mind is a normal part of what we are.
-
It's difficult to know what 'Christian terms' are, especially when it come to the term 'God'. I get the impression that most do not see the relationship of God with man as a dissolving of one into the other but more as a joining of one with the other where boundaries are maintained. The word 'religion' which meant 'rebind' seems to suggest this. The mystics appear to suggest 'union', one-ness, at-one-ment, like a rain drop merging with the ocean where the 'self' identity is washed away and the divine prevails.
Only Christian mystics would probably explicitly talk of a dissolving. The idea though of a thorough washing by God is not unknown in standard Christian thinking and is a staple in the hymns. Christianity actually sometimes goes further talking about becoming one and an idea of a solution is not totally incompatible with the idea of being 'in christ' say.
-
.
Leaving aside words such a soul, spirit, God etc.. just take the Unconscious mind for example. I know that you think of the Unconscious as some kind of an appendage or extra fitting to the conscious mind.
I don't think that at all, the opposite would be closer. Conscious mind is a small fraction of unconscious mind, consisting of just those elements currently elevated to the highest attentional state.
.
..But considering Freud, Jung and recent scientific findings, the Conscious mind is said to be like a closet in a mansion compared to the Unconscious mind.
Suppose we allow our conscious mind to 'dissolve' into the Unconscious mind, it will not limit us rather it will expand our awareness.
Conscious mind dissipates every time we go to sleep, I don't think that expands our awareness, quite the opposite. I guess what is being described by 'dissolves' is something entirely different. Maybe it is the ego being dissipated.
-
I don't think that at all, the opposite would be closer. Conscious mind is a small fraction of unconscious mind, consisting of just those elements currently elevated to the highest attentional state.
Conscious mind dissipates every time we go to sleep, I don't think that expands our awareness, quite the opposite. I guess what is being described by 'dissolves' is something entirely different. Maybe it is the ego being dissipated.
Yes.....that's right Its the ego that dissipates and the consciousness shifts upwards.
-
Hi everyone,
What is God? Watch this video by Sadhguru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcawFyz1-og
Interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
Man spends too much time thinking of how a man thinks about God.
God is a Spirit... neither male or female. Man created in Gods image.
Presence and power....
I still fail sometimes to see how man can really believe that a cow is sacred and more important than the well-being of a human? Man tends to reflect God into the creation that to see God as the creator of Creation.
Whilst where we will live will have an affect on what we consciously believe, what we experience has a far greater affect on us,
Not sure Sriram, if that really helps. God has to be an hands on God to be a real God.
-
Man spends too much time thinking of how a man thinks about God.
God is a Spirit... neither male or female. Man created in Gods image.
Presence and power....
I still fail sometimes to see how man can really believe that a cow is sacred and more important than the well-being of a human? Man tends to reflect God into the creation that to see God as the creator of Creation.
Whilst where we will live will have an affect on what we consciously believe, what we experience has a far greater affect on us,
Not sure Sriram, if that really helps. God has to be an hands on God to be a real God.
Your belief, to which you are entitled, but it isn't a fact.
-
Man spends too much time thinking of how a man thinks about God.
God is a Spirit... neither male or female. Man created in Gods image.
Presence and power....
I still fail sometimes to see how man can really believe that a cow is sacred and more important than the well-being of a human? Man tends to reflect God into the creation that to see God as the creator of Creation.
Whilst where we will live will have an affect on what we consciously believe, what we experience has a far greater affect on us,
Not sure Sriram, if that really helps. God has to be an hands on God to be a real God.
The question is...what is God? Is he a anthropomorphic being somewhere out there or is he a part of our basic personality that we need to identify and realize?! That is the question.
-
The question is...what is God? Is he a anthropomorphic being somewhere out there or is he a part of our basic personality that we need to identify and realize?! That is the question.
And one which goddists typically answer in the former case not the latter, since a god 'out there', if you can convince people to take it seriously, can be used to lord it over people and to control them in a way that the latter case cannot.
Also: who says there's a 'need' to do anything of the kind?
-
And one which goddists typically answer in the former case not the latter, since a god 'out there', if you can convince people to take it seriously, can be used to lord it over people and to control them in a way that the latter case cannot.
Also: who says there's a 'need' to do anything of the kind?
Actually, its not as simple as that, Shaker. For the human mind to look inward and identify a part of its own personality as God....is nearly impossible till the person attains a certain level of emotional and intellectual balance. The animal/human mind is primarily outward looking, relying almost entirely on the senses for inputs.
That is why it is necessary to have external gods and deities.....in spite of the fact that many people from ancient times have taught that 'God is within'.
Once a person feels that within him is a more noble and powerful personality....the 'need' to realize it will be felt. Till then it cannot be explained.
-
Actually, its not as simple as that, Shaker. For the human mind to look inward and identify a part of its own personality as God....is nearly impossible till the person attains a certain level of emotional and intellectual balance. The animal/human mind is primarily outward looking, relying almost entirely on the senses for inputs.
That is why it is necessary to have external gods and deities
Necessary for whom?
Once a person feels that within him is a more noble and powerful personality....the 'need' to realize it will be felt. Till then it cannot be explained.
Not by you, evidently.
-
Necessary for whom?
Not by you, evidently.
::) OK...G'night!
-
The question is...what is God? Is he a anthropomorphic being somewhere out there or is he a part of our basic personality that we need to identify and realize?! That is the question.
I think the latter is closer to truth than the former.
The idea of a supreme being existing independently somewhere in isolation makes no sense to me and its blatantly anthropocentric nature with all its focus uniquely on the doings of human beings with scarcely a mention of anything else betrays it as a construction of parochial and narcissistic human mind that conceives with murmur that everything was created with it in mind. That god is a projection of human pyschology and product of human culture is the only viable explanation for theism imo. If humans hadn't evolved, what then of God ?
-
I think the latter is closer to truth than the former.
The idea of a supreme being existing independently somewhere in isolation makes no sense to me and its blatantly anthropocentric nature with all its focus uniquely on the doings of human beings with scarcely a mention of anything else betrays it as a construction of parochial and narcissistic human mind that conceives with murmur that everything was created with it in mind. That god is a projection of human pyschology and product of human culture is the only viable explanation for theism imo. If humans hadn't evolved, what then of God ?
Actually the Truth is probably much more complex than we can imagine. It is true that taking a pantheist view, God or the Universal Being is believed to transform itself into the world.....much the same way that scientists believe that the String transforms itself into the world by vibrating in multiple dimensions (whatever that means).
It is this inner fundamental reality that most mystics seek.
Having said that however, that does not mean that external gods and spiritual beings cannot exit or that they don't have any influence on our world. Whatever transforms itself into the world is one level of Supreme Being but in the created world itself various levels of beings could exist with higher levels of consciousness and with powers to control certain aspects of the universe. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Secondly, your perception appears to be that the inner consciousness is a product of evolution. My view is that the inner consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, which is revealed through evolution, not created by it.
-
Of course it is just possible a god or gods could exist, however if that is the case I very much doubt they are in contact with humans. I think people tend to create their version of god, which suits their take on life.
-
Would YOU if you could see what absolute D-Heads we can be ?!!?!?
-
Of course it is just possible a god or gods could exist,
fair point
however if that is the case I very much doubt they are in contact with humans.
The justifications for this line include, once you accept the possibility, lack of interest by them...How does that square with having created the universe?, size...yes, seemingly, we are too wee...intelligence...which would require god to be somehow ignorant that we have it...or that we are just morally downright not good enough.
Of course I don't see any of the above as a convincing argument for why a big G type god would be avoiding us.
I think people tend to create their version of god, which suits their take on life.
Please develop this idea, have you gone into this deeply? I have to say that I would be far more amenable to hearing you express what you mean by this than listening to the other guys in the Posse.
Actually I recall at a point of divine awareness becoming aware that He was not my ideal God(he didn't suit me at the time.) but since that is what one becomes aware of you can hardly reject on that basis.
-
fair pointThe justifications for this line include, once you accept the possibility, lack of interest by them...How does that square with having created the universe?, size...yes, seemingly, we are too wee...intelligence...which would require god to be somehow ignorant that we have it...or that we are just morally downright not good enough.
Of course I don't see any of the above as a convincing argument for why a big G type god would be avoiding us.Please develop this idea, have you gone into this deeply? I have to say that I would be far more amenable to hearing you express what you mean by this than listening to the other guys in the Posse.
Actually I recall at a point of divine awareness becoming aware that He was not my ideal God(he didn't suit me at the time.) but since that is what one becomes aware of you can hardly reject on that basis.
My point is that if a god exists why aren't be all aware of its existence in a way which can't be denied by anyone? For instance, we can all see the sun, moon and stars, and there is plenty of verifiable evidence they aren't an illusion. So if god is there, but making its existence a matter of faith, it is treating humankind very unfairly, especially if there are dire consequences for unbelief, as some folk believe to be the case.
-
My point is that if a god exists why aren't be all aware of its existence in a way which can't be denied by anyone? For instance, we can all see the sun, moon and stars, and there is plenty of verifiable evidence they aren't an illusion. So if god is there, but making its existence a matter of faith, it is treating humankind very unfairly, especially if there are dire consequences for unbelief, as some folk believe to be the case.
If you see the 'Stress' thread you will realize that non belief in God can itself be hell for many people. Belief and faith is important to manage stress and find peace.
Why the real God does not reveal himself is because the real God is not outside. He is hidden inside you and is waiting to be revealed. The process of revealing the God within is unfortunately a very arduous and time consuming journey.....but ultimately worth it.
-
If you see the 'Stress' thread you will realize that non belief in God can itself be hell for many people.
Who on the aforementioned thread said that? Because I've just read it again and can't see anybody saying that. So why do you think somebody did? Where did this tosh come from?
-
If you see the 'Stress' thread you will realize that non belief in God can itself be hell for many people. Belief and faith is important to manage stress and find peace.
Why the real God does not reveal himself is because the real God is not outside. He is hidden inside you and is waiting to be revealed. The process of revealing the God within is unfortunately a very arduous and time consuming journey.....but ultimately worth it.
Maybe the suggestion to search and change and grow and seek itself puts stress on us. Maybe we can just learn to be happy as we are.
-
Maybe the suggestion to search and change and grow and seek itself puts stress on us. Maybe we can just learn to be happy as we are.
That depends on the person, as I keep saying. Learning to be happy as we are is the goal but our needs and desires will not allow us. To reach the level of mental and emotional maturity to be happy as we are, requires for us to journey around quite a bit.
-
I don't agree with that. Some people will travel around a lot intellectually and emotionally and then find peace, but some people find it already. My dad was a contented atheist, who had never really explored spiritual or religious ideas much. Why would he?
-
I don't agree with that. Some people will travel around a lot intellectually and emotionally and then find peace, but some people find it already. My dad was a contented atheist, who had never really explored spiritual or religious ideas much. Why would he?
As I said, it depends on the person. If your father had peace, he doesn't need any path. As simple as that!
-
My point is that if a god exists why aren't be all aware of its existence in a way which can't be denied by anyone? For instance, we can all see the sun, moon and stars, and there is plenty of verifiable evidence they aren't an illusion. So if god is there, but making its existence a matter of faith, it is treating humankind very unfairly, especially if there are dire consequences for unbelief, as some folk believe to be the case.
That's a fair point although I think we know that people are capable of denying anything and everything and sometimes stuff to themselves.
I think there are sound philosophical reasons for thinking that that which is not derived but is actual would not be subject to material examination and would not be material. We shouldn't be taken aback by things not susceptible to scientific or empirical examination since we can never empirically measure or observe a state before the empirical or go back to before infinity if that is the case.
I don't think there are dire consequences for just not getting God but there probably are for excising or avoiding God but the consequences spring from ourselves and our not wanting to change or to put it another way what brews up internally.
I think that any experience of the revelation of God starts with what have been referred to as Inklings or the metaphorical ''smell of God'' or the numinous. The description that I can most relate to as describing early awareness of something more comes from Evelyn Waugh who describe it as 'The twitch on the thread'.
-
I think there are sound philosophical reasons for thinking that that which is not derived but is actual would not be subject to material examination and would not be material.
Such as? How, in this approach, do you identify that which is 'not material?
We shouldn't be taken aback by things not susceptible to scientific or empirical examination since we can never empirically measure or observe a state before the empirical or go back to before infinity if that is the case.
Presumably then you have access to a non-scientific/non-empirical method capable of in some way identifying these 'things', including those 'before the empirical' and/or 'before infinity' (which sounds like an oxymoron to me).
I don't think there are dire consequences for just not getting God but there probably are for excising or avoiding God but the consequences spring from ourselves and our not wanting to change or to put it another way what brews up internally.
I've read this sentence a few times: I've still no idea what you mean.
I think that any experience of the revelation of God starts with what have been referred to as Inklings or the metaphorical ''smell of God'' or the numinous. The description that I can most relate to as describing early awareness of something more comes from Evelyn Waugh who describe it as 'The twitch on the thread'.
Do you: how nice.
-
That's a fair point although I think we know that people are capable of denying anything and everything and sometimes stuff to themselves.
I think there are sound philosophical reasons for thinking that that which is not derived but is actual would not be subject to material examination and would not be material. We shouldn't be taken aback by things not susceptible to scientific or empirical examination since we can never empirically measure or observe a state before the empirical or go back to before infinity if that is the case.
I don't think there are dire consequences for just not getting God but there probably are for excising or avoiding God but the consequences spring from ourselves and our not wanting to change or to put it another way what brews up internally.
I think that any experience of the revelation of God starts with what have been referred to as Inklings or the metaphorical ''smell of God'' or the numinous. The description that I can most relate to as describing early awareness of something more comes from Evelyn Waugh who describe it as 'The twitch on the thread'.
What a convoluted thought process you have. ::)
-
Why the real God does not reveal himself is because the real God is not outside. He is hidden inside you and is waiting to be revealed. The process of revealing the God within is unfortunately a very arduous and time consuming journey.....but ultimately worth it.
I could read this as saying God is all in the mind, with which I would agree, and that might mark you as half way to being an atheist. Now all that is left for you is to recognise that there is nothing supernatural about human mind, or hedgehog mind, or octopus mind for that matter.
The claim that an arduous journey is necessary to discover some secret of cosmic significance buried within us causes unnecessary angst for people who try to discover this thing and find nothing there, it can leave them feeling rejected and confused or failures.
-
I could read this as saying God is all in the mind, with which I would agree, and that might mark you as half way to being an atheist. Now all that is left for you is to recognise that there is nothing supernatural about human mind, or hedgehog mind, or octopus mind for that matter.
The claim that an arduous journey is necessary to discover some secret of cosmic significance buried within us causes unnecessary angst for people who try to discover this thing and find nothing there, it can leave them feeling rejected and confused or failures.
It could also mean that you are half way to being a theist!!! ;) Think of that! :o
When I say God is not outside it does not translate as 'God is just imaginary'! That is just the way you like to think of it.
I am just talking of our own personality that is not ego driven and which is universal and selfless.
-
The claim that an arduous journey is necessary to discover some secret of cosmic significance buried within us causes unnecessary angst for people who try to discover this thing and find nothing there, it can leave them feeling rejected and confused or failures.
I don't really understand this assumption that there is some vital secret hidden to us that we must discover through a great hero quest, possibly lasting innumerable lifetimes, in order to render our lives in any way meaningful and/or to avoid dreadful post-mortem torment, possibly eternal. From this we also get the assumption that 'spiritual' experiences must be very special and unusual ones and in many traditions only available to those who have endured great hardships on a long and intense spiritual journey. It all seems to be bound up with a rejection of the 'mundane', a deep disappointment with life as it actually is.
-
I don't really understand this assumption that there is some vital secret hidden to us that we must discover through a great hero quest, possibly lasting innumerable lifetimes, in order to render our lives in any way meaningful and/or to avoid dreadful post-mortem torment, possibly eternal. From this we also get the assumption that 'spiritual' experiences must be very special and unusual ones and in many traditions only available to those who have endured great hardships on a long and intense spiritual journey. It all seems to be bound up with a rejection of the 'mundane', a deep disappointment with life as it actually is.
added to which the opportunity to claim privileged knowledge or special status, eg 'Saved' or 'born again' appeals to our narcissistic tendencies and desire for one-upmanship
-
added to which the opportunity to claim privileged knowledge or special status, eg 'Saved' or 'born again' appeals to our narcissistic tendencies and desire for one-upmanship
Religious egotism like any other form of egotism is likely to be viewed as something to be free from. The story of the temptations of Jesus by Satan probably reflects such a conflict.
-
added to which the opportunity to claim privileged knowledge or special status, eg 'Saved' or 'born again' appeals to our narcissistic tendencies and desire for one-upmanship
But not nearly as much as claiming ''No need to be saved''.
What else is new atheism but a celebrity driven narcissism?
-
But not nearly as much as claiming ''No need to be saved''.
Because there's nothing to be saved from, the idea that there is being but a dull delusion of frequently fairly maladapted people.
What else is new atheism but a celebrity driven narcissism?
It's old atheism with an internet connection.
-
Because there's nothing to be saved from,
That's a positive assertion.......please demonstrate.
Why is having the need for salvation more narcissistic than somebody who thinks they don't need it?
Didn't they use to call the latter self righteousness?
-
That's a positive assertion.......please demonstrate.
I don't have to. The positive assertion is on the part of the goddists who think (a) that there is something to be saved from and (b) their fictional character of choice is the one to do the saving. In the absence of evidential back-up, I'm calling bullshit.
Why is having the need for salvation more narcissistic than somebody who thinks they don't need it?
Because this supposed need for salvation is typically bound up in an edifice of combined abjection and towering self-regard with the ever so 'umble supplicant in a direct one-on-one relationship with the creator of the universe.
Narcissism doesn't come more autoerotic than that.
-
I don't have to. The positive assertion is on the part of the goddists
No, it's on the part of the person making a positive assertion.......and you just did.
-
No, it's on the part of the person making a positive assertion.......and you just did.
Let's try that one more time: "The positive assertion is on the part of the goddists who think (a) that there is something to be saved from and (b) their fictional character of choice is the one to do the saving. In the absence of evidential back-up, I'm calling bullshit."
-
Let's try that one more time: "The positive assertion is on the part of the goddists who think (a) that there is something to be saved from and (b) their fictional character of choice is the one to do the saving. In the absence of evidential back-up, I'm calling bullshit."
No Shaker, the positive assertion is the use of the word IS. It doesn't matter if that goes onto an IS NOT the operative word here is the IS and you used it when you said
Because there's nothing to be saved from,
So having positively asserted....Please demonstrate.
-
No Shaker, the positive assertion is the use of the word IS. It doesn't matter if that goes onto an IS NOT the operative word here is the IS and you used it when you said
So having positively asserted....Please demonstrate.
Ah. Playing dumb, I see.
Full marks - I have to say, you do a sterling job of it.
-
Ah. Playing dumb, I see.
Full marks - I have to say, you do a sterling job of it.
Shaker, you've positively asserted that
there's nothing to be saved from
Therefore you have a job to do, jump to it or is it just a misfire again from your assertotron?
-
Shaker, you've positively asserted that
Therefore you have a job to do, jump to it or is it just a misfire again from your assertotron?
I don't have one - the ones who have a license to drive one are those who spout positive assertions about there being something to be saved from, which is BUPA - Bullshit Until Proven Actual.
-
I don't really understand this assumption that there is some vital secret hidden to us that we must discover through a great hero quest, possibly lasting innumerable lifetimes, in order to render our lives in any way meaningful and/or to avoid dreadful post-mortem torment, possibly eternal. From this we also get the assumption that 'spiritual' experiences must be very special and unusual ones and in many traditions only available to those who have endured great hardships on a long and intense spiritual journey. It all seems to be bound up with a rejection of the 'mundane', a deep disappointment with life as it actually is.
LOL! Religious (spiritual) experiences are not special. It is perfectly normal for most people. Billions of people around the world have them and accept them as part of their lives. It is the minority of atheists who think themselves as special and who think that religious people need to explain themselves and provide evidence and go on the defensive and so on.
Why should atheists have to understand anything? Its perfectly alright if you don't.
-
It is the minority of atheists who think themselves as special and who think that religious people need to explain themselves
When people make absurd claims and bald assertions about the nature of reality which fly in the face of all we've patiently laboured over a very, very long period to understand about the universe then they do need to explain themselves.
Why should atheists have to understand anything? Its perfectly alright if you don't.
Some of us prefer knowledge to ignorance.
-
I don't have one - the ones who have a license to drive one are those who spout positive assertions about there being something to be saved from, which is BUPA - Bullshit Until Proven Actual.
Well then why all the asserting Shaker?
In fact you have made another assertion. You have asserted Bullshit. Therefore add that to your list of stuff asserted and not justified.
IN FACT FOLLOWING THE LOGIC OF YOUR ASSERTION YOUR VERY ASSERTION IS BULLSHIT UNTIL PROVEN ACTUAL.
That didn't help you much did it?
-
Well then why all the asserting Shaker?
In fact you have made another assertion. You have asserted Bullshit. Therefore add that to your list of stuff asserted and not justified.
IN FACT FOLLOWING THE LOGIC OF YOUR ASSERTION YOUR VERY ASSERTION IS BULLSHIT UNTIL PROVEN ACTUAL.
That didn't help you much did it?
The person making the claim of a god or soul or anything else, has the burden of proof.
By default, whatever they are suggesting exists does NOT exist.
That is the default position.
-
BRat is right Vlad.
It's all about the burden of proof and who bears it. As I'm sure you know - at least, I hope you would by now - it's the one who makes an assertion who does so. The phrase 'prove it' springs to mind.
So when somebody makes a claim that people are in need of saving (from what?) and that a purportedly supernatural entity is the one to do it, the sceptic need only say: substantiate your assertions with evidence. Until and unless you do so, I am entitled to reject your assertions as just that - empty phrases with nothing to back them up. BUPA is simply the application of the default position.
-
BRat is right Vlad.
It's all about the burden of proof and who bears it.
Yes it's the person who positively asserts....and as has been pointed out......That's you, so jump to it.
In the mean time, Be Rational.....be a good chap and keep me in Bacardi and cokes while were waiting.
-
We can keep trying to explain it to you, Vlad; unfortunately we can't understand it for you.
-
We can keep trying to explain it to you, Vlad; unfortunately we can't understand it for you.
You're dodging your responsibilities. You positively asserted. Now go ahead Justify it.
........can I have some ice with that Be Rational.
-
See #42, #44, #50, #52, #53.
-
The question is...what is God? Is he a anthropomorphic being somewhere out there or is he a part of our basic personality that we need to identify and realize?! That is the question.
I do not believe that to be the case. Our mind cannot create ourselves or the world we live in.
So really the answer to that question is the creation cannot create itself and therefore cannot create their creator.
-
I do not believe that to be the case. Our mind cannot create ourselves or the world we live in.
So really the answer to that question is the creation cannot create itself and therefore cannot create their creator.
Our minds do create the world, in the sense of our experience of the world. Looking at your computer screen now, you are not seeing the actual computer screen, but an inner representation of it created by mind. If there is some music playing in the background, the music you are enjoying is a creation of mind derived from patterns of airborne compression waves. Every feeling you have, every idea you consider, every sensation you feel, all these things are created by mind, sometimes in fairly direct response to external stimuli, sometimes their origin is in the more obscure tangle of inner emotions.
-
I do not believe that to be the case. Our mind cannot create ourselves or the world we live in.
So really the answer to that question is the creation cannot create itself and therefore cannot create their creator.
Sassy,
I understand your point and it makes sense. Fair enough!
But let me explain why the issue of 'God within' becomes important.
1. No one knows what God really is. Different cultures around the world have had their own image and concept of God.
2. As we pray and develop our faith in God (any God), we begin to realize that we are experiencing something that is very close to us and not something from a distant supernatural place.
3. By and by, we realize that the God who we are praying to seems to connect to us from within ourselves. This is something I myself have felt as far back as 45 years ago. I am sure many others have felt so too.
4. Every major spiritual philosophy and religious literature has spoken of the 'God within'. Most prophets and religious leaders have always spoken of Knowing Oneself, regardless of the culture and the deity they prayed to.
5. The doubt naturally arises that if God is an individual being, how can he speak and connect from within every human being? Then we realize that God is not an individual person but a level of Consciousness that is within us.
6. If this higher level of Consciousness is within all humans it must also be within all animals and all other objects. Maybe it is this 'God' that transforms itself into the world.
7. Then why are only some people able to connect to this higher level of consciousness and not everyone? Why is it hidden from most people? This must be because it is covered by lower levels of consciousness.
8. So...all our religious rituals and prayers must be helping us to eliminate these lower levels of consciousness and helping us to connect this higher consciousness.
9. It is also observed that as people eliminate their lower levels of consciousness through prayer, they automatically become less animal like and more loving and tolerant and selfless. They become more empathetic.
10. With more involved experiences and analysis, people arrive at other aspects such as Karma, reincarnation, Liberation and so on.
11. It is then realized that it is about individual development rather than about an external God and helpless humans.
12. Modern ideas such as the String Theory help in reinforcing the idea of a pantheistic philosophy.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sassy,
I understand your point and it makes sense. Fair enough!
But let me explain why the issue of 'God within' becomes important.
1. No one knows what God really is. Different cultures around the world have had their own image and concept of God.
2. As we pray and develop our faith in God (any God), we begin to realize that we are experiencing something that is very close to us and not something from a distant supernatural place.
3. By and by, we realize that the God who we are praying to seems to connect to us from within ourselves. This is something I myself have felt as far back as 45 years ago. I am sure many others have felt so too.
4. Every major spiritual philosophy and religious literature has spoken of the 'God within'. Most prophets and religious leaders have always spoken of Knowing Oneself, regardless of the culture and the deity they prayed to.
5. The doubt naturally arises that if God is an individual being, how can he speak and connect from within every human being? Then we realize that God is not an individual person but a level of Consciousness that is within us.
6. If this higher level of Consciousness is within all humans it must also be within all animals and all other objects. Maybe it is this 'God' that transforms itself into the world.
7. Then why are only some people able to connect to this higher level of consciousness and not everyone? Why is it hidden from most people? This must be because it is covered by lower levels of consciousness.
8. So...all our religious rituals and prayers must be helping us to eliminate these lower levels of consciousness and helping us to connect this higher consciousness.
9. It is also observed that as people eliminate their lower levels of consciousness through prayer, they automatically become less animal like and more loving and tolerant and selfless. They become more empathetic.
10. With more involved experiences and analysis, people arrive at other aspects such as Karma, reincarnation, Liberation and so on.
11. It is then realized that it is about individual development rather than about an external God and helpless humans.
12. Modern ideas such as the String Theory help in reinforcing the idea of a pantheistic philosophy.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Sriram
Sriram, is it your higher level of conciousness that enabled you to understand whatever it is that Sass is going on about this time?
By the way their's as much evidence available for this higher level of conciousness idea inside your head as there is that would support this god idea also inside your head; of course if you can provide verifiable evidence then these ideas would become a part of reality, any chance of that Sriram? No__________I didn't think so.
ippy
-
Sriram, is it your higher level of conciousness that enabled you to understand whatever it is that Sass is going on about this time?
By the way their's as much evidence available for this higher level of conciousness idea inside your head as there is that would support this god idea also inside your head; of course if you can provide verifiable evidence then these ideas would become a part of reality, any chance of that Sriram? No__________I didn't think so.
ippy
:) I think, you know, during all the years I have been on message boards, I have asked those who talk of some *higher* consciousness (or mind) many, many times to please describe, define or in some way explain what they are talking about. Number of actual explanations received? Answer: none!!
-
:) I think, you know, during all the years I have been on message boards, I have asked those who talk of some *higher* consciousness (or mind) many, many times to please describe, define or in some way explain what they are talking about. Number of actual explanations received? Answer: none!!
Yes and the silence says it all to me?
'Higher consciousnes', what a stupid thing to say, I often say similar things too but only when joking.
ippy.
-
Yes and the silence says it all to me?
'Higher consciousnes', what a stupid thing to say, I often say similar things too but only when joking.
ippy.
It's a confusing expression as it gives the impression of superiority. To some it implies climbing above (transcending) the vicissitudes of living and what the mind harbours so that a different perspective is observed, just as you would observe a different perspective of the land by go up in an air balloon. Some see it as clarifying or purifying the consciousness in order to see more clearly, instead of 'seeing through a glass darkly'.
-
Also confusing as the New Agey meaning of consciousness is really rather unrelated to the normal medical meaning of the word, ie that state of alertness which is lost during sleep for instance. Causes confusion when one person is using the word in one sense and the other using it in the other sense; they are really talking about completely different things.
-
Our minds do create the world, in the sense of our experience of the world.
We are straying from the original reasoning of 'what is God'.
Our minds do not create the world by sense of experiences. We behold the world by our senses.
Sight, touch and smell. But even without these things the world would still exist. Try creating something for your senses to experience that has never existed. It is here we see that futility of such an argument that our minds create the world in the sense of experience is impossible.
Looking at your computer screen now, you are not seeing the actual computer screen, but an inner representation of it created by mind.
Again, you are making something that is, as if only existing because we see it.
The way we use something, be it a computer or the screen, it exists because a man created it. But the elements, components and whatever it is made up from comes from that which was created not by man.
The argument is futile because what we sense and we comprehend from our senses are all from that which we did not create.
Even our senses are created.
If there is some music playing in the background, the music you are enjoying is a creation of mind derived from patterns of airborne compression waves.
Whilst deaf people cannot hear that music but it still exists then the mind is not creating anything. It is a ridiculous notion leading to the sublime in that we the created are not the creator of the created. Because everything we have has come from something man never created.
Every feeling you have, every idea you consider, every sensation you feel, all these things are created by mind, sometimes in fairly direct response to external stimuli, sometimes their origin is in the more obscure tangle of inner emotions.
The Mind is created, and the sensations we feel like fear are not created by the mind. Even there we are different our tastes in music, food and everything we use our senses for proves this. Without the individual being able to choose there is nothing the mind can choose alone.
We push ourselves alot. But the original truth does not change. The created cannot create the creator.
-
The created cannot create the creator.
Which is why god is powerless as humans created it!
-
We are straying from the original reasoning of 'what is God'.
Our minds do not create the world by sense of experiences. We behold the world by our senses.
Sight, touch and smell. But even without these things the world would still exist. Try creating something for your senses to experience that has never existed. It is here we see that futility of such an argument that our minds create the world in the sense of experience is impossible.
Again, you are making something that is, as if only existing because we see it.
The way we use something, be it a computer or the screen, it exists because a man created it. But the elements, components and whatever it is made up from comes from that which was created not by man.
The argument is futile because what we sense and we comprehend from our senses are all from that which we did not create.
Even our senses are created.
Whilst deaf people cannot hear that music but it still exists then the mind is not creating anything. It is a ridiculous notion leading to the sublime in that we the created are not the creator of the created. Because everything we have has come from something man never created.
The Mind is created, and the sensations we feel like fear are not created by the mind. Even there we are different our tastes in music, food and everything we use our senses for proves this. Without the individual being able to choose there is nothing the mind can choose alone.
We push ourselves alot. But the original truth does not change. The created cannot create the creator.
I think you didn't quite understand my post. I would not say that nothing exists without mind, for sure, plenty of things existed long before minds evolved to experience them. I was just making the point that our experience of things 'out there' is a fabrication of mind. That is what minds do, they take raw information about the world and construct a rich interpretive fabric of experience from it.
None of this impacts on whether all things were created by a creator, a different matter altogether. To me this seems like a non-starter of a proposition, firstly because there is no evidence to support it, and secondly, because the implication of this logic is an infinite regress of creators required to create creators.
-
It's a confusing expression as it gives the impression of superiority. To some it implies climbing above (transcending) the vicissitudes of living and what the mind harbours so that a different perspective is observed, just as you would observe a different perspective of the land by go up in an air balloon. Some see it as clarifying or purifying the consciousness in order to see more clearly, instead of 'seeing through a glass darkly'.
In short another collection of words in substitution for, bullshit.
ippy
-
Sassy,
I understand your point and it makes sense. Fair enough!
But let me explain why the issue of 'God within' becomes important.
1. No one knows what God really is. Different cultures around the world have had their own image and concept of God.
If, God exists independently of mankind then God knows who God really is.
In the Jewish religion there has been clear expression of the presence of God. Such that we see what they believe and have been taught by their God comes to pass. We have to admit, it isn't just image or culture with the Jewish faith, it is a faith where the words of their God come to fruition.
2. As we pray and develop our faith in God (any God), we begin to realize that we are experiencing something that is very close to us and not something from a distant supernatural place.
Is there such a thing as a distant supernatural place? The Jewish faith has a God who is active and lives with his people. Same with all faiths who believe in the Messiah. A faith does not develop if there is no true God present. That is my personal opinion.
3. By and by, we realize that the God who we are praying to seems to connect to us from within ourselves. This is something I myself have felt as far back as 45 years ago. I am sure many others have felt so too.
Whereas the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob connects through the presence of his Holy Spirit present in man.
I believe we can only know God in our Spirit but the way we know him is clearly by the presence of his Holy Spirit who clearly speaks to man.
4. Every major spiritual philosophy and religious literature has spoken of the 'God within'. Most prophets and religious leaders have always spoken of Knowing Oneself, regardless of the culture and the deity they prayed to.
I believe the truth in the Jewish faith shows man knows his God by knowing his truth and obeying him.
Ourselves are of no use in the greater scheme of things when God is speaking to us. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus, changes people and empowers them giving them greater meaning in life. I am not aware of any other religion which does these things which are past and present.
5. The doubt naturally arises that if God is an individual being, how can he speak and connect from within every human being? Then we realize that God is not an individual person but a level of Consciousness that is within us.
Hocum pocum ... God is not a philosophy, he is not an idea and does not exist within our consciousness.
But the creation of our body and mind can experience God through the channels he has created within us. But most importantly
that channel has to be open to Gods Holy Spirit who joins himself onto our spirit. Whilst every man can connect with God through his Spirit there has to be the Holy Spirit to make the connection.
King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
It has always been that way... And the thing which is most clear in my mind was John the Baptist teaching he baptised with water but Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit. Gods way is always the same in man.
6. If this higher level of Consciousness is within all humans it must also be within all animals and all other objects. Maybe it is this 'God' that transforms itself into the world.
Again, the philosophy of mankind is shown to be lacking. God has made it plain how men can come into his presence.
It does not require our own abilities it is already here and always has been in plain sight for those who believe God.
7. Then why are only some people able to connect to this higher level of consciousness and not everyone? Why is it hidden from most people? This must be because it is covered by lower levels of consciousness.
Consciousness plays no part in knowing God. TRUTH is what plays the major role and we are all capable of finding that truth for ourselves. All men created equal when it comes to knowing God.
8. So...all our religious rituals and prayers must be helping us to eliminate these lower levels of consciousness and helping us to connect this higher consciousness.
Lower or higher levels of consciousness do not bear any part in knowing God.
9. It is also observed that as people eliminate their lower levels of consciousness through prayer, they automatically become less animal like and more loving and tolerant and selfless. They become more empathetic.
In whose reality? The Pharisees took great pride in obeying all the laws but none were right with God. Praying and fasting following all the rituals. Knowing God is about a living relationship. God changes the person from within. He writes his laws on
their hearts.
10. With more involved experiences and analysis, people arrive at other aspects such as Karma, reincarnation, Liberation and so on.
Sriram, we both know you read these things. We both know they came from man and his own philosophy.
God exists independently of everything a man is or can do. Never has God been dependent on anything to do with our own philosophy. At some point in every persons realisation they need to learn God exists independent of man.
11. It is then realized that it is about individual development rather than about an external God and helpless humans.
You have basically used your philosophy to make God man made and none existent outside your own physical senses.
God spoke to Abraham, he spoke to Moses and definitely spoke through Jesus Christ. We do not require philosophy to know God just faith in the Truth God has revealed to us.
12. Modern ideas such as the String Theory help in reinforcing the idea of a pantheistic philosophy.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Sriram
It did not help, it just compounded and compacted the truth that man makes up what he does not know.
God exists outside our senses and does things without our 'permission'.
Truth means knowing acknowledging that God is not limited by our senses in what he can do.
But man can be limited in knowing God by putting too much store on his own senses.
Cheers x
-
:) I think, you know, during all the years I have been on message boards, I have asked those who talk of some *higher* consciousness (or mind) many, many times to please describe, define or in some way explain what they are talking about. Number of actual explanations received? Answer: none!!
Because it isn't a 'higher consciousness'(mind). God exists independently of yours and my senses.
Mankind whom know God have their Spirit and body alive to Gods presence by the presence and power of Gods Holy Spirit.
It cannot be defined in human terms for it is spiritual and by the power of God.
But you could read up on Gods Holy Spirit and the bible itself. It shows from cover to cover that man has always known God by the power and presence of his Holy Spirit.
-
We are straying from the original reasoning of 'what is God'.
Our minds do not create the world by sense of experiences. We behold the world by our senses.
Sight, touch and smell. But even without these things the world would still exist. Try creating something for your senses to experience that has never existed. It is here we see that futility of such an argument that our minds create the world in the sense of experience is impossible.
Again, you are making something that is, as if only existing because we see it.
The way we use something, be it a computer or the screen, it exists because a man created it. But the elements, components and whatever it is made up from comes from that which was created not by man.
The argument is futile because what we sense and we comprehend from our senses are all from that which we did not create.
Even our senses are created.
Whilst deaf people cannot hear that music but it still exists then the mind is not creating anything. It is a ridiculous notion leading to the sublime in that we the created are not the creator of the created. Because everything we have has come from something man never created.
The Mind is created, and the sensations we feel like fear are not created by the mind. Even there we are different our tastes in music, food and everything we use our senses for proves this. Without the individual being able to choose there is nothing the mind can choose alone.
We push ourselves alot. But the original truth does not change. The created cannot create the creator.
That's a lot of words to use Sass, that, say well, nothing.
ippy
-
The created cannot create the creator.
Which is why god is powerless as humans created it!
You are not even able to use the senses your have to understand what is afforded you to understand.
You deny even the truths and refuse to search them out which show Gods power in the world today.
You simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the same things over and over again.
There is no open mind and no real ability to want to, or learn to look for the truth out there in the world.
Your reasoning is not reasoning is just avoidance of anything that is contrary to your own chosen truth, which is not a truth but your choice of disbelief.
-
You are not even able to use the senses your have to understand what is afforded you to understand.
You deny even the truths and refuse to search them out which show Gods power in the world today.
You simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the same things over and over again.
There is no open mind and no real ability to want to, or learn to look for the truth out there in the world.
Your reasoning is not reasoning is just avoidance of anything that is contrary to your own chosen truth, which is not a truth but your choice of disbelief.
It is humans who rule the roost in this world of ours, no god.
-
I think you didn't quite understand my post. I would not say that nothing exists without mind, for sure, plenty of things existed long before minds evolved to experience them. I was just making the point that our experience of things 'out there' is a fabrication of mind. That is what minds do, they take raw information about the world and construct a rich interpretive fabric of experience from it.
None of this impacts on whether all things were created by a creator, a different matter altogether. To me this seems like a non-starter of a proposition, firstly because there is no evidence to support it, and secondly, because the implication of this logic is an infinite regress of creators required to create creators.
Historically, this is fascinating stuff. For one thing, it led to those currents of idealism, exemplified by Bishop Berkeley, who argue that there is only mind, or as some say, Mind. In BB's case, this also aligned with theism, since this great Mind is a bit like God. However, I struggle to see how this is a Christian view, since surely Christians accept that there is matter without mind? Well, OK, God creates matter, I guess.
It can also be seen in Eastern religions. There are Buddhists who argue that there is no world, and most radical of all, that there is no I nor world, although here they often mean 'separate I' and 'separate world'. But of course, not theistic.
I suppose the way out of the idealist trap is in part historical - since the universe existed before we experienced it - and also, inference, it's reasonable to suppose that when I'm out, the house still exists. This is supposed to be the basis of peek-a-boo games with kids - thrown the toy out of the pram, where is it? Ah, it's there again. I play that one with my wife, with a bottle of whisky, where is it? Did I imagine it?
-
"Whatever power I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas actually perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will. When in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves to my view; and so likewise as to the hearing and other senses; the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them."
Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.
It's that 'therefore' that's dodgy, isn't it? Even if it's not my will that creates experience, that doesn't imply that 'some other Will' does it.
-
"Whatever power I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas actually perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will. When in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves to my view; and so likewise as to the hearing and other senses; the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them."
Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.
It's that 'therefore' that's dodgy, isn't it? Even if it's not my will that creates experience, that doesn't imply that 'some other Will' does it.
Yes, a non sequitur; BB had the misfortune to be born long before Blue and Shaker were around, no doubt they would have slapped him down for entertaining logic fallacies ;)
-
Yes, a non sequitur; BB had the misfortune to be born long before Blue and Shaker were around, no doubt they would have slapped him down for entertaining logic fallacies ;)
... like a ginger stepchild, old fruit ;)
-
Yes, a non sequitur; BB had the misfortune to be born long before Blue and Shaker were around, no doubt they would have slapped him down for entertaining logic fallacies ;)
I doubt BB would have alighted on a backwater like religionethics and Blue and Shaker wouldn't dare go on a website the type of which BB would have frequented.
-
You are not even able to use the senses your have to understand what is afforded you to understand.
You deny even the truths and refuse to search them out which show Gods power in the world today.
You simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the same things over and over again.
There is no open mind and no real ability to want to, or learn to look for the truth out there in the world.
Your reasoning is not reasoning is just avoidance of anything that is contrary to your own chosen truth, which is not a truth but your choice of disbelief.
Sass, it all comes down to you haven't got a shred of evidence that this god you keep going on about even exists, so really until you can substantiate the existence of this god idea you have inside your head, well what's the point of keep going on about it?
ippy
-
Sass, it all comes down to you haven't got a shred of evidence that this god you keep going on about even exists, so really until you can substantiate the existence of this god idea you have inside your head, well what's the point of keep going on about it?
ippy
Since the origin or nature of the universe is not known, the latter due to the fact that we do not know the context.in which the universe finds itself in if any.
God therefore is as good a hypothetical cause of origin or context.
Which I guess brings us round to an argument used here called unknown unknown which in the hands of certain folks is just a way of trying to get back to "not god".
Anytime it has been used a known unknown is in fact what is being talked about not an unknown unknown.
-
In short another collection of words in substitution for, bullshit.
ippy
Bullshit is in the eyes of the beholder.
-
Bullshit is in the eyes of the beholder.
And sometimes on their shoe as well.
-
Since the origin or nature of the universe is not known, the latter due to the fact that we do not know the context.in which the universe finds itself in if any.
God therefore is as good a hypothetical cause of origin or context.
Which I guess brings us round to an argument used here called unknown unknown which in the hands of certain folks is just a way of trying to get back to "not god".
Anytime it has been used a known unknown is in fact what is being talked about not an unknown unknown.
You're right about the origin of the universe so until there is some kind of evidenced based explanation no one knows and nor is it an excuse to make up silly superstitious stories about it that have no evidential base.
ippy
-
Bullshit is in the eyes of the beholder.
It seems to me you're living in a very strange world ekim, if you think that original post of yours I'm referring to, was anything more than bullshit.
ippy
-
People who have a problem with words like 'Higher' or 'Superior' are typically adolescent in their mindset.....too full of themselves.
-
People who have a problem with words like 'Higher' or 'Superior' are typically adolescent in their mindset.....too full of themselves.
More likely it is smug people that like to use such terms, and they are the ones that are too full of themselves. Also higher or superior are usually judgement values rather than something objective. Many people make the mistake of saying for instance, that humans are more highly evolved - whereas evolution itself has no values or directions and species evolve according to population and environmental niche dynamics rather than some narrow human idea of what is 'superior'. This is a case of the smugness of humans, there is nothing objective about it.
-
People who have a problem with words like 'Higher' or 'Superior' are typically adolescent in their mindset.....too full of themselves.
... says the amateur (emphasis very much on the amateur) psychologist hawking his wretched blog all over the forum with his pronouncements on what people require.
Not full of himself in any way at all there. No sirree.
-
More likely it is smug people that like to use such terms, and they are the ones that are too full of themselves. Also higher or superior are usually judgement values rather than something objective. Many people make the mistake of saying for instance, that humans are more highly evolved - whereas evolution itself has no values or directions and species evolve according to population and environmental niche dynamics rather than some narrow human idea of what is 'superior'. This is a case of the smugness of humans, there is nothing objective about it.
What is smug about people wanting to develop themselves and become more universal, wise, loving and selfless?!!
And Shaker........ ::) ::)
-
What is smug about people wanting to develop themselves and become more universal, wise, loving and selfless?!!
The smugness comes from those who think they already have these qualities (they call themselves "mature") telling others (who they call "adolescent") what they require.
-
People who have a problem with words like 'Higher' or 'Superior' are typically adolescent in their mindset.....too full of themselves.
That is silly statement. It is more often the people who think they are in their god's gang who are full of themselves, and consider they are superior to unbelievers.
I had plenty of that on another forum, which I have just left. I was accused of having a child's mindset by some Christian posters because of my take on religion.
-
It seems to me you're living in a very strange world ekim, if you think that original post of yours I'm referring to, was anything more than bullshit.
ippy
Ignoring the ad hominem, those who endeavour to consciously transcend as indicated in my original post would probably say that they live in the same world as everybody else but try not to allow that world to live in them.
-
What is smug about people wanting to develop themselves and become more universal, wise, loving and selfless?!!
You know someone that's doing that?
-
Ignoring the ad hominem, those who endeavour to consciously transcend as indicated in my original post would probably say that they live in the same world as everybody else but try not to allow that world to live in them.
Be my guest ekim, transcend away to your hearts content.
ippy
-
Be my guest ekim, transcend away to your hearts content.
ippy
Transcend is another one of those words which tends to get flung in here and there without an appropriate or relevant definition!
-
Transcend is another one of those words which tends to get flung in here and there without an appropriate or relevant definition!
Yes Susan, it's a bit like the special letters they put on cars, they don't really mean much, X, is a favourite, SRI, GXL, GT, AMG, not forgetting 'Super'; the manufacturers put these magic letters on to the various models especially the go faster cars, but if it sells them, good-oh, it keeps people employed.
Likewise to the above, 'Transcend', doesn't mean much but it sells.
ippy
-
That is silly statement. It is more often the people who think they are in their god's gang who are full of themselves, and consider they are superior to unbelievers.
I had plenty of that on another forum, which I have just left. I was accused of having a child's mindset by some Christian posters because of my take on religion.
People that think they're superior to you and I Floo? Well I never.
ippy
-
Transcend is another one of those words which tends to get flung in here and there without an appropriate or relevant definition!
I believe the word 'transcend' has a Latin origin which meant 'to climb across'. It suggests a barrier or threshold which one has to pass beyond e.g. the mental forms and forces of the psyche, which are sometimes symbolised by water ... crossing a river, walking on the water. Transcendence is sometimes associated with another word of symbolic meaning - ecstasy - from Greek origin - standing outside of oneself.
-
I believe the word 'transcend' has a Latin origin which meant 'to climb across'. It suggests a barrier or threshold which one has to pass beyond e.g. the mental forms and forces of the psyche, which are sometimes symbolised by water ... crossing a river, walking on the water. Transcendence is sometimes associated with another word of symbolic meaning - ecstasy - from Greek origin - standing outside of oneself.
Also associated with spilling out a load of old__________
ippy
-
I believe the word 'transcend' has a Latin origin which meant 'to climb across'. It suggests a barrier or threshold which one has to pass beyond e.g. the mental forms and forces of the psyche, which are sometimes symbolised by water ... crossing a river, walking on the water. Transcendence is sometimes associated with another word of symbolic meaning - ecstasy - from Greek origin - standing outside of oneself.
I too have looked up the etymology of the word, but that doesn't stop people using it whenever they think it will give the context some special significance.
The word psyche is another one that is used to imply some special meaning, whereas it is another word meaning soul, spirit, etc etc so lacks rational back-up.
-
I too have looked up the etymology of the word, but that doesn't stop people using it whenever they think it will give the context some special significance.
The word psyche is another one that is used to imply some special meaning, whereas it is another word meaning soul, spirit, etc etc so lacks rational back-up.
People are always using words in an exaggerated way to give context some special significance. We are forever hearing words like fantastic, unbelievable, out of this world, mind blowing, stunning. They are just ways of attempting to express and give life to an inexpressible inner experience. A rational explanation usually just deadens the expression and doesn't convey the experience.
I assume that those involved with psychology and psychiatry are attempting to provide rational backup to 'psyche'. I suspect that 'soul' and 'spirit' are analogical words used to express an inner sense of 'other than material'. The former is of Germanic origin and associated with life and the latter of Latin origin associated with air and breath, also associated with life.
-
I think we all have moments of ecstasy and transcendence. Aren't they just a normal part of living?
-
I think we all have moments of ecstasy and transcendence. Aren't they just a normal part of living?
They have been to me - all too rarely, unfortunately. So it goes.
Things get scratchy when you try to define the word though: whether what's transcended is normal, everyday, humdrum, push-your-trolley-around-Morrisons experience (which is one dictionary definition, and one with which I have no quarrel) or material existence, time and space, which is another but the point where I make my excuses and leave.
I feel a thread of its own coming on ::)
-
I think we all have moments of ecstasy and transcendence. Aren't they just a normal part of living?
Yes and I think that the idea behind many, so called, spiritual practices is to expand those moments into a life long blissful or joyous state so that it is expressed into living rather than trying to extract it out of living through the satisfaction of desires.
-
Yes and I think that the idea behind many, so called, spiritual practices is to expand those moments into a life long blissful or joyous state so that it is expressed into living rather than trying to extract it out of living through the satisfaction of desires.
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
-
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
Absolutely. Buddhism both has a temptation here but also the clearest sight of the temptation - holding that attachment/craving is the root of suffering while recognising that attachment/craving to being rid of attachment/craving is attachment/craving too.
It's all very paradoxical and koan-like. Experienced meditators will tell you that the absolutely euphoric and blissful highs that meditation sometimes throws up - been there, done that - can be the worst possible thing for certain people because, entirely naturally and perfectly reasonably, they like it and want it to happen again and so pursue the euphoria (which rarely comes again, or at any rate not for a long time) rather than practising sitting for its own sake. It's wholly understandably a trap that many fall into, and something you have to be on your guard against.
-
Yes and I think that the idea behind many, so called, spiritual practices is to expand those moments into a life long blissful or joyous state so that it is expressed into living rather than trying to extract it out of living through the satisfaction of desires.
That depends on what those desires are.
-
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
And one I find mildly worrying, tbh.
-
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
That is lazy thinking. 'Desire for spirituality is desire too, so let me continue with my desire for mundane things'!!!
Desires are what make us act and do things. We can never live without desires. They are the motivations. The mind works only with desires.
However, like with everything else, desires also have a gradation. Desire to kill someone is not the same as a desire to save someone. Desire for spiritual development is not the same as desire for a hedonistic lifestyle.
-
Desire for spiritual development is not the same as desire for a hedonistic lifestyle.
Are they the mature ones versus the adolescent ones, respectively?
-
Is it 'mature' not to want hedonism because you don't have the energy for it any more?
-
Are they the mature ones versus the adolescent ones, respectively?
No...they are two different kinds of classifications.
Evil, cruelty, hedonism, contentment, selflessness, sacrifice, love etc. are to do with ones stage of spiritual development and the basic personality that drives the person. Maturity, adolescent and child behavior depend on ones cultural and social background.
-
Is it 'mature' not to want hedonism because you don't have the energy for it any more?
Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, sort of thing? :D
-
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
I have a reply for that question but can't post it as I keep getting a Forbidden message. The words I have used are pretty innocuous. Perhaps whoever is running this site can put up a list of forbidden words.
-
I have a reply for that question but can't post it as I keep getting a Forbidden message. The words I have used are pretty innocuous. Perhaps whoever is running this site can put up a list of forbidden words.
It's the hosting software filter. When I was a mod we tried figuring out the forbidden words by trial and error. It doesn't like names of medication, certain kinds of sexual relationships or references to gambling, but only some.
-
Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, sort of thing? :D
Pretty much. :D
-
Desire for spiritual bliss is just another kind of desire, isn't it?
Yes. An idea behind some practices is that joy/bliss/ ananda is the underlying natural state which has become veiled from consciousness by the contents of the mind e.g. thoughts, concepts, stored emotions. The practices assist in either removing the veil, which is what revelation meant, or transcending (climbing across) the minds contents. The process may use desire to initiate it, which is sometimes described as using a thorn to remove a thorn. Once established, fulfilment replaces desire and both thorns are thrown.
The way I read Rhiannon's post was that she was talking about those occasions when events precipitate glimpses of that state and we try to recreate the event. This is like throwing a stone into a pond covered by pondweed and its depths are revealed only to be covered over again and so we keep throwing stones. Whereas the view is that we are the pond and the superficial pondweed has little relevance to its depths and the byproduct of that realisation is bliss.
-
It's the hosting software filter. When I was a mod we tried figuring out the forbidden words by trial and error. It doesn't like names of medication, certain kinds of sexual relationships or references to gambling, but only some.
I've found the offending expression ...... I'll spell it differently ...... "P-u-t t-h-a-t W-a-y
-
Pretty much. :D
Not got there yet :D
-
Not got there yet :D
I don't intend to either.
-
Yes. An idea behind some practices is that joy/bliss/ ananda is the underlying natural state which has become veiled from consciousness by the contents of the mind e.g. thoughts, concepts, stored emotions. The practices assist in either removing the veil, which is what revelation meant, or transcending (climbing across) the minds contents. The process may use desire to initiate it, which is sometimes described as using a thorn to remove a thorn. Once established, fulfilment replaces desire and both thorns are thrown.
The way I read Rhiannon's post was that she was talking about those occasions when events precipitate glimpses of that state and we try to recreate the event. This is like throwing a stone into a pond covered by pondweed and its depths are revealed only to be covered over again and so we keep throwing stones. Whereas the view is that we are the pond and the superficial pondweed has little relevance to its depths and the byproduct of that realisation is bliss.
Thanks for this, ekim, and for your persistence in getting it published (spellchecker wants to call you skim, btw!)
I'm pretty familiar with these theories. I really wanted to hear what you thought about it all, though I should have made that clearer. Personal experiences are always so much more interesting than abstract ideas.
-
What I meant by my post is that there are events in everyday life that give me feelings of ecstasy and transcendence. I guess the most obvious ones are to do with love and sex.
-
What I meant by my post is that there are events in everyday life that give me feelings of ecstasy and transcendence. I guess the most obvious ones are to do with love and sex.
Oh I say.
-
I think we have a tendency to overcomplicate things.
-
We're human, and have far bigger brains than we require for the immediate needs of daily survival. 'Twas ever thus.
-
You know what it's like when you love someone - anyone, child, friend, lover - and find yourself doing something you didn't know that you could because they need you to or because you care. How is that not transcendent?
-
Thanks for this, ekim, and for your persistence in getting it published (spellchecker wants to call you skim, btw!)
I'm pretty familiar with these theories. I really wanted to hear what you thought about it all, though I should have made that clearer. Personal experiences are always so much more interesting than abstract ideas.
This is skim speaking! My thoughts about it all could take a long time, perhaps could be more specific with your question.
-
This is skim speaking! My thoughts about it all could take a long time, perhaps could be more specific with your question.
My apologies. Your posts are always well informed but seldom betray anything of ekim, which always slightly disappoints me. Perhaps I'm just nosey but I can't help thinking that you have an interesting story to tell. However, now that you ask for a specific question I find myself floundering a bit. I suppose I was just curious about what you thought of the spiritual views and practices you mention in your own posts. Have you perhaps applied these to your own life and if so, how did that go for you? Often in these threads the discussion can revolve around a detached assessment of rather abstract beliefs, which always seems quite sterile to me. The value of these practices must stand or fall according to whether they actually do what they claim and how relevant they are to the lives of ordinary people.
We were originally discussing the role of desire on the spiritual path and contrasting what might be called 'mundane' desires with the 'higher' desire for enduring ecstatic or transcendent states, which according to certain traditions reflect the underlying, undefiled nature of the mind (perhaps associated with God or liberation). Later you commented that pursuing desire as a spiritual practice might lead to a state in which fulfilment replaces desire altogether. If I have to frame a specific question it would be ‘can you see any problems with this spiritual approach and its goal?’
-
Interesting stuff, Bramble. I recall going over this again and again in Zen, where the paradox of goals presents itself. That is, that if you have enlightenment as a goal, you have a massive barrier right then and there. In fact, you could say that the idea of enlightenment is itself a barrier. But a barrier to what, I hear you cry. As I used to say to my best pal, who was a Sufi, what does it mean to try? Both of us would collapse in giggles at that, the laughter is really about not trying any more. I don't have to get it right.
It is interesting to look at it in terms of life trajectories. When I encountered Zen about 40 years ago, I was like a puppy with two tails, and ran around trying to convince everyone that they should be like me! I can laugh at that now. This is a kind of messianic phase, which hopefully wears off.
But advancing years have an interesting effect on all this. Partly I became less interested - it didn't seem to matter whether I was enlightened or not. Or nothing seemed to matter, in a good kind of way. It's hard to describe this. The idea of transcendence seems absurd to me now, but I would not condemn anyone who desires it.
-
My apologies. Your posts are always well informed but seldom betray anything of ekim, which always slightly disappoints me. Perhaps I'm just nosey but I can't help thinking that you have an interesting story to tell. However, now that you ask for a specific question I find myself floundering a bit. I suppose I was just curious about what you thought of the spiritual views and practices you mention in your own posts. Have you perhaps applied these to your own life and if so, how did that go for you? Often in these threads the discussion can revolve around a detached assessment of rather abstract beliefs, which always seems quite sterile to me. The value of these practices must stand or fall according to whether they actually do what they claim and how relevant they are to the lives of ordinary people.
We were originally discussing the role of desire on the spiritual path and contrasting what might be called 'mundane' desires with the 'higher' desire for enduring ecstatic or transcendent states, which according to certain traditions reflect the underlying, undefiled nature of the mind (perhaps associated with God or liberation). Later you commented that pursuing desire as a spiritual practice might lead to a state in which fulfilment replaces desire altogether. If I have to frame a specific question it would be ‘can you see any problems with this spiritual approach and its goal?’
Yes, I think you are right about the sterile nature of assessing abstract beliefs, but I suppose on an Internet discussion site this is all that can be hoped for, just a little mental entertainment of questioning beliefs etc. However, discussion can sometimes stimulate a curiosity into exploring the practical aspects to see whether they are beneficial and this is where the difficulty arises because the exploration is usually inwards. It becomes personal and the language used to communicate any findings tends to be analogical rather than logical and can confuse rather than clarify. Wigginhall mentioned 'enlightenment' being a barrier, which is true because the mind will latch on to the term which implies 'light' and create a desired objective. The mind becomes the barrier. Many 'spiritual' methods revolve around promoting inner stillness, which is not the same as inner deadness, but more like inner aliveness. You can often see this in small children before they have become programmed. Unless you become as a small child again etc. It is this blissful aliveness which fills you full (fulfilment) to the extent that the pursuit of the cycles of desire/satisfaction starts to wane. Do I see any problems? Yes, if it became widespread, consumerism and probably society would collapse. This is possibly why those with such a common purpose form their own communities, until they become persecuted or inner corruption takes place. I hope I have answered your question.
-
I hope I have answered your question.
You’ve answered my question in your own way, ekim. I can’t ask for any more. :(
-
Interesting stuff, Bramble. I recall going over this again and again in Zen, where the paradox of goals presents itself. That is, that if you have enlightenment as a goal, you have a massive barrier right then and there. In fact, you could say that the idea of enlightenment is itself a barrier. But a barrier to what, I hear you cry. As I used to say to my best pal, who was a Sufi, what does it mean to try? Both of us would collapse in giggles at that, the laughter is really about not trying any more. I don't have to get it right.
It is interesting to look at it in terms of life trajectories. When I encountered Zen about 40 years ago, I was like a puppy with two tails, and ran around trying to convince everyone that they should be like me! I can laugh at that now. This is a kind of messianic phase, which hopefully wears off.
But advancing years have an interesting effect on all this. Partly I became less interested - it didn't seem to matter whether I was enlightened or not. Or nothing seemed to matter, in a good kind of way. It's hard to describe this. The idea of transcendence seems absurd to me now, but I would not condemn anyone who desires it.
That's been pretty much my experience too, wigs. You put it better than I could.
-
I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something. Maybe it is because I see no division between spirituality and living. And maybe it is because I'm a pantheist that I find the transcendent and the ecstatic in things that might be regarded as everyday, even 'lower', 'base' or 'animalistic' in some way. I'm with Campbell and also the existentialists when they say that life has no meaning except what we bring to the party. As Campbell says, it is pointless to be asking the question when you are the answer.
-
That'll do for me :)
-
Yes, I think you are right about the sterile nature of assessing abstract beliefs, but I suppose on an Internet discussion site this is all that can be hoped for, just a little mental entertainment of questioning beliefs etc. However, discussion can sometimes stimulate a curiosity into exploring the practical aspects to see whether they are beneficial and this is where the difficulty arises because the exploration is usually inwards. It becomes personal and the language used to communicate any findings tends to be analogical rather than logical and can confuse rather than clarify. Wigginhall mentioned 'enlightenment' being a barrier, which is true because the mind will latch on to the term which implies 'light' and create a desired objective. The mind becomes the barrier. Many 'spiritual' methods revolve around promoting inner stillness, which is not the same as inner deadness, but more like inner aliveness. You can often see this in small children before they have become programmed. Unless you become as a small child again etc. It is this blissful aliveness which fills you full (fulfilment) to the extent that the pursuit of the cycles of desire/satisfaction starts to wane. Do I see any problems? Yes, if it became widespread, consumerism and probably society would collapse. This is possibly why those with such a common purpose form their own communities, until they become persecuted or inner corruption takes place. I hope I have answered your question.
Another wonderful comment from you, ekim (often thought I'd like a compilation of 'ekim comments').
I much prefer to be still than to meditate at all deeply. Once you go further and further into yourself something is lost, and this is when something else can replace that which is lost.. not good. But we need go no further than to be still, with surrender, and yes, thereby find aliveness.. right there.. need look, seek no further.
Yes, this is why, as adults, we need to de-programme. I look at my grandchildren and see aliveness in their eyes and at the same time an innocence that I know and dread one day will be gone. So hard for them to remain innocent for long in our Babylonian society. They too must crawl their way out of the matrix of this world at some point.
Interesting though, once you find peace within all desires cease, anyway.
-
I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something.
Just wondering what made you think that.
-
I don't know if my thoughts on this come over as twee or something. Maybe it is because I see no division between spirituality and living. And maybe it is because I'm a pantheist that I find the transcendent and the ecstatic in things that might be regarded as everyday, even 'lower', 'base' or 'animalistic' in some way. I'm with Campbell and also the existentialists when they say that life has no meaning except what we bring to the party. As Campbell says, it is pointless to be asking the question when you are the answer.
I don't think the mystics (for want of a better word) would argue too much with what you say about Campbell's view but they would probably focus on the 'you' which is the 'answer' and the 'we' as the source of what is 'brought to the party' and the party could be any aspect of everyday living. They too would not see a division but the 'source' would not be dependant upon 'things'.
-
Just wondering what made you think that.
I think it's because I don't do the 'higher' mystical stuff, but equally I'm told that my definition of 'spirituality' is so loose as to be meaningless. So maybe when I talk about love being transcendent it does sound twee. I don't know.
-
So maybe when I talk about love being transcendent it does sound twee.
I think that it is reasonable. There are said to be two basic ways to transcend the contents of the mind. One is meditative and the other is devotional, which you could say leads to being in that state called love. Whatever works for you, is the way for you. Both have their challenges.
-
I think that it is reasonable. There are said to be two basic ways to transcend the contents of the mind. One is meditative and the other is devotional, which you could say leads to being in that state called love. Whatever works for you, is the way for you. Both have their challenges.
If meditational equals being mindful then there are many acts of love that fall into that category. I'm not sure that I even know how to approach the notion of 'devotion'.
-
If meditational equals being mindful then there are many acts of love that fall into that category. I'm not sure that I even know how to approach the notion of 'devotion'.
I expect that there are many views as to what 'meditational' means, just as there are many meditation methods. From the mystical point of view 'love' is a state of being that you are either in or not, and the ideal is to be in it without interruption and the acts from that state are indiscriminate e.g. 'like the sun which shines on all no matter whether good or bad'. Devotion, I believe, is intended to lead to that state. Unfortunately it can often lead to devotion to imaginary gods or their earthly representatives or it can become selective and possessive.