One Woo For Another?

[Antlerman]

There are a lot of shades of Buddhism that go deep into the "woo" area - I read and learn from that material too, but I take what resonates with my sense of reason and leave the rest. Thich Nhat Hanh is one of my favorite teachers/authors. He burns incense as an offering to his ancestors. That's a bit too much woo-woo for me - but that's his version.

But why is that woo? Maybe it would be 'woo' to someone who is stuck in literalistic thinking and doesn't get the underlying meaning and value of it, but not to someone who isn't approaching spiritual practice seeking a rational literalism to everything. This somewhat reminds me a what this Christian in another forum said in saying that chanting mantras was 'mindless babble'. To the Christian mind it is because they are all about asking sky-god for presents. You therefore need to talk to him like a person, and not repeat yourself 'thinking they will be heard for their much speaking', because after all, that makes no sense, does it? It's not logical, reasonable, and rational, is it?

 

Or is it? The purpose of these sorts of practices is not functioning in that space. Chant and mantras is to focus the mind, not beg God for gifts. In the same way, ancestor worship can be a very powerful opening into something within themselves. The practice is a vehicle, a symbolic vehicle, a visualization if you prefer to access something within themselves on a deep, connecting level. The same thing can be said in praying to the gods. To visualize Shiva, the Buddha, or whatever transcendent symbol you wish, the red glow of Ah, the blue glow of Hum, etc, is to help open oneself to the underlying reality that is inside them. Once that is realized, then the gods fall away.

 

I think what I am hearing in you is not quite a graduation from Christian literalism in finding some new home for spiritual development. All the gods are the same thing, and as you realize it in yourself, then you see it in all of them and these questions become moot.

[Rev R]

Since there is always an occasion for a sutta...

 

10. "Come, Kalamas.

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing;

nor upon tradition;

nor upon rumor;

nor upon what is in a scripture;

nor upon surmise;

nor upon an axiom;

nor upon specious reasoning;

nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over;

nor upon another's seeming ability;

nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

 

Kalamas, when you yourselves know:

'These things are good;

these things are not blamable;

these things are praised by the wise;

undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,'

enter on and abide in them.

 

~Kalamas Sutta translated by Soma Thera

 

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Sutta to the Kalamas, the above passage was part of a lengthier response to the following dilemma:

"There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

[Antlerman]

That's really nice. I agree very much. I say that religion, those traditions and practicing them to apprehend what is in us, become form for forms sake. That you look to the beliefs, and practices to accomplish in you which is solely something which comes from within. The value comes as tools for that inner work. They are not magic tools that when you chant this chant, ring this bell, light this candle, pray this prayer, follow this book, wear this robe, shave your head, etc, that these will bring you there.

 

To ask the question, are these practices rational, seems to beg the answer that through reason we can access That. That reasoning is less valid than practicing things like ancestor worship because it moves one out of inner illumination into an objectifying process of analytical thoughts. Then you are looking at mental models, and not the interior space of unformed illumination. At least with symbolic prayers to something 'beyond you' the focus moves away from the self embedded in your thoughts into the experience of what arises from within through that act. It is understanding what arises from within where truth comes.

 

Reason has its place to be sure, but only in understanding that within that deep interior realms these are not literal, but important vehicles as symbolic representation from the subconscious mind to the conscious mind. It is a place of bringing the two into accord and a place of healing, but it is not accessible through the tool of reason. To look at those and dismiss them as 'woo' is in fact not an act of reason at all, but ignorance. It shows a lack of knowledge and understanding, in much the way those who view them as literal magic do.

[Deva]

I find that as an ex-christian of a fundamentalist variety, I tend to over-think, over-analyze (might just be a personality trait) and put a lot of pressure on myself to "find the truth." Although I dropped the Christian dogma, I never lost that idea that there is some actual truth "out there" that once you find it, everything is great. Its not that the outside circumstances would be fantastic, but that all my inner conflicts would be resolved. That would be salvation. My idea of salvation remains, it just isn't the Christian idea of a reconciliation with God. It is an internal process.

 

The Tibetan Buddhism is attractive to me because it helps with this over-analyzing, over-thinking thing that I do. I certainly could do over thinking with Buddhism if I wanted to - I still read and try to understand the basic concepts, but the ceremonies and chanting, the rituals and activities, are not on the intellectual level, and if you try to do it that way it is obvious you don't get it. Participating in these things makes it crystal clear that this is the case.

 

These practices - mantra recitation, chanting sadhanas with the group, ceremonial offerings, etc.. are the "woo" in Buddhism that is being referred to by the OP. I don't see why any and all methods shouldn't be used for spiritual integration and if there is value to the person participating. There is a sense of beauty and all an around good feeling of wishing all sentient beings happiness and ultimate liberation from samsara. I consider it wholly beneficial.

 

Why does every darn thing have to be thought out to death? Especially in the area of spirituality, which is most akin to art and the appreciation of beauty.

[Antlerman]

Add this to my previous post: Ritual, symbol, and form also serve a rational end for group experience. Part of a spiritual expression and experience includes the individual in shared experience with others. The self is informed about itself within that dynamic. And so these transcendent symbols when practiced together with others likewise opens each to something within them. They are therefore rational, and reasonable, and logical, not 'woo'.

[ToonForever]

Take your pick. One woo is as good as another. What I believe makes a difference is how much a person is willing to change themselves for the betterment of humanity, not necessarily what woo one serves or believes in. When a person uses his woo like a weapon against someone who doesn't believe in his woo, then it's time to take that person apart. I didn't trade my woo for another woo. Currently, I am between woos with no intention of wooing a woo to be my woo.

 

LOL, very nice

[DT761138]

I mean, if one believes in spirit and the afterlife, isn't one taking a rather large risk abandoning Christianity for an alternate god or gods or goddesses, as the case may be

 

What is one "risking"? A God or gods that wants to punish people for picking the wrong theology simply does not, cannot exist and be "good" or worthy of worship (unless one is motivated by fear of this deity, in which case I'd argue you'ld have a duty despite your fear, to not worship anything malevolent). So one is not taking a big risk in exploring other religions. Christianity is not the default choice if one rejects western scientific naturalism (which I most certainly do... while being scientificly minded, I don't treat scientific data and theories as dogma).

 

I'm also interested in Buddhism, I practice Pure Land Buddhism nominally, meeting other western oriented folks on the net in a virtual world to listen to Nianfo. But I also have an interest in qi gong, energy healing, and taoism.

[Noggy]

As long as people realize that rituals are just that - rituals. They are not a means to salvation. They are not going to warp you into another dimension. They are not the end-all of a faith. Don't get caught up in the delusion that rituals, no matter how advanced their effects are still all just trivial. If you get caught up in them, you will lose the sight of your ultimate goal. I like the stance that Guru Nanak placed on these actions

[stryper]

I believe there was a study done as to the effects on the brain of meditation and of some praying. The effects on the brain were the same regardless of the method. So the method or ritual is just a tool.

 

Looking at the story of Jesus's life, it seems a good chunk of it was centered around getting people to see just that. The ancient Jewish rituals were not the end. They were a tool. That eventually was monetized like Christianity has been today. Since Jesus challenged that power base, he had to be silenced. Just like with mega churches today.

 

Obviously, we don't know for certain that it happened but taking the story as it stands that could be one general theme. It seems also to be a similar theme to Buddhism, without the fatal consequences. As I only have a cursor knowledge on Buddhism, other could probably talk about it more.

[Rev R]

I practice Pure Land Buddhism nominally,

 

Can you elaborate on what that means?

[Brother Jeff]

There are a lot of shades of Buddhism that go deep into the "woo" area - I read and learn from that material too, but I take what resonates with my sense of reason and leave the rest. Thich Nhat Hanh is one of my favorite teachers/authors. He burns incense as an offering to his ancestors. That's a bit too much woo-woo for me - but that's his version.

But why is that woo? Maybe it would be 'woo' to someone who is stuck in literalistic thinking and doesn't get the underlying meaning and value of it, but not to someone who isn't approaching spiritual practice seeking a rational literalism to everything. This somewhat reminds me a what this Christian in another forum said in saying that chanting mantras was 'mindless babble'. To the Christian mind it is because they are all about asking sky-god for presents. You therefore need to talk to him like a person, and not repeat yourself 'thinking they will be heard for their much speaking', because after all, that makes no sense, does it? It's not logical, reasonable, and rational, is it?

 

Or is it? The purpose of these sorts of practices is not functioning in that space. Chant and mantras is to focus the mind, not beg God for gifts. In the same way, ancestor worship can be a very powerful opening into something within themselves. The practice is a vehicle, a symbolic vehicle, a visualization if you prefer to access something within themselves on a deep, connecting level. The same thing can be said in praying to the gods. To visualize Shiva, the Buddha, or whatever transcendent symbol you wish, the red glow of Ah, the blue glow of Hum, etc, is to help open oneself to the underlying reality that is inside them. Once that is realized, then the gods fall away.

 

I think what I am hearing in you is not quite a graduation from Christian literalism in finding some new home for spiritual development. All the gods are the same thing, and as you realize it in yourself, then you see it in all of them and these questions become moot.

 

Yes! And AMEN, Brother!

 

Bless the LARD! I agree with and appreciate everything you said here.

[Deva]

As long as people realize that rituals are just that - rituals. They are not a means to salvation. They are not going to warp you into another dimension. They are not the end-all of a faith. Don't get caught up in the delusion that rituals, no matter how advanced their effects are still all just trivial. If you get caught up in them, you will lose the sight of your ultimate goal. I like the stance that Guru Nanak placed on these actions

 

To an extent I agree with you that they are not the "ultimate goal". However; if you have this kind of view and attitude toward ritual --"just trivial", I personally wouldn't put forth the effort at all. This applies to Stryper's remark as well "just a tool, etc"

 

Here is a quote from Catholic author Flannery O'Connor. Its Christian, but her remarks illustrate my point and I draw your attention to the last line in particular, which I have bolded:

 

"Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the 'most portable' person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, 'Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.' That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."

 

O'Connor obviously didn't think of the eucharist as "only a tool, or "trivial." Neither would any person who entered into the true spirit of the ritual.

 

I never heard of Guru Nanak, so can't comment on that.

 

All that I am pointing out here is that the person really engaged in the ritual will not hold these attitudes of "its trivial" or "just a tool".

 

Are rituals just as pointless as almost all of all the other activities we do? If they are, why do them?

[Rev R]

"Realisation of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living." ~ Guru Nanak founder of Sikhism

[Noggy]

 

I agree, rituals can do important things for a lot of people. And for some people it may be "beyond a tool", and thats fine and dandy. But it is NOT the ritual that you are experiencing, it is something inside of you that the ritual brings forth. You are experiencing yourself, and the ritual is merely a tool.

[Noggy]

 

People do many different rituals, just as someone takes many different paths. Prayer, fasting, meditation, contemplation, archery, whatever. It's all just a different path (or tool) to get you to an experience. This experience you feel when you do the ritual is what you are attached to, not the ritual itself. If the ritual was what you were experiencing, it would work for everyone. What you are experiencing is within.

[DT761138]

Add this to my previous post: Ritual, symbol, and form also serve a rational end for group experience. Part of a spiritual expression and experience includes the individual in shared experience with others. The self is informed about itself within that dynamic.

 

You think maybe this applies as well to... God? I've been exploring atheism recently with a few books and just come to the conclusion that God is too powerful a symbol to just settle for atheism. Yet at the same time, I don't literally believe God exists as something external, out there some place. Monotheism is just too powerful to call nonsense the way many atheists do. The pirit of atheism is far too much at odds with me for me to use that label (so maybe nontheist is a better term?).

[stryper]

Add this to my previous post: Ritual, symbol, and form also serve a rational end for group experience. Part of a spiritual expression and experience includes the individual in shared experience with others. The self is informed about itself within that dynamic.

 

You think maybe this applies as well to... God? I've been exploring atheism recently with a few books and just come to the conclusion that God is too powerful a symbol to just settle for atheism. Yet at the same time, I don't literally believe God exists as something external, out there some place. Monotheism is just too powerful to call nonsense the way many atheists do. The pirit of atheism is far too much at odds with me for me to use that label (so maybe nontheist is a better term?).

 

 

calling yourself an atheist or a nontheist is the difference between 6 and half dozen. It's semantics.

 

As to god being a powerful symbol, the symbols only have the power that you provide to them. The same could be said about the Statue of Zeus. It was a powerful symbol of the Greek pantheon. Actually more powerful then a concept because it physically was there. It no longer exists.

 

Even in life we go through this. Our parents are powerful symbols of protection, disicpline and love when we are younger. As we grow older and become parents ourselves the power of the symbol of parents being the protector, provider, etc fades. For some with particularly brutal childhoods this happens faster. Those that never let go of the symbol have the hardest time when those parents finally pass.

 

Ultimately, the symbol of God was used by Bronze Age nomadic militants to explain the world around them in the best terms they could come up with. An entire civilization dedicated much time and energy into maintaining that symbol. The symbol of a wrathful, protective god was shattered when Babylon conquered Judea, they then transported all the Hebrews to Babylon for approximately 50 years, roughly 2 generations. This is when Judaism transformed into being all about the laws. And God was secondary.

 

The God symbol was shattered and the new symbol took its place.

 

Calling yourself an atheist or a non-theist is meh. The God symbol has already been shattered before. Many gods have been. Ultimately, it depends are you going to put your energy into maintaining a symbol for atheist, theist, non-theist, or just call the whole thing off and think and live freely.

 

It's your choice.

[Antlerman]

Add this to my previous post: Ritual, symbol, and form also serve a rational end for group experience. Part of a spiritual expression and experience includes the individual in shared experience with others. The self is informed about itself within that dynamic.

You think maybe this applies as well to... God?

I believe so.

 

I've been exploring atheism recently with a few books and just come to the conclusion that God is too powerful a symbol to just settle for atheism.

Believe me this is where I came to, but more than that however is that God is the Face we put on spiritual experience, and when then atheist proudly boasts they have disproved God or chides, "Where's your evidence?", they in effect dispute and discount human experiences simply on the basis of the symbol not being a scientific fact, like claims of a Bigfoot being real or something. It simply does not function on that level, but much, much deeper. "There is no God" often is the symbol itself to say, "Spirituality is dangerous because we don't have the authority of science to prove it with. We are better off with reason only!" That is both irrational and a misuse of science and logic.

 

Yet at the same time, I don't literally believe God exists as something external, out there some place.

Not in any dualistic sense. There is no 'out there', and what God exists is in fact an expression of our deepest and highest nature. That exists, and therefore, so does God. This is not God in the traditional theistic sense of "out there". But one in fact can both experience God through "God", or move beyond "God" into God itself.

 

Monotheism is just too powerful to call nonsense the way many atheists do.

Atheism, to be clear Neo-Atheism, is really just saying no to the Christian idea of God as the definition of God. It falsely empowers Christianity as the creators of God, and to disprove that God, seals the deal, case closed - supposedly. It does this with no actual understanding of the religion in any sense outside of its outdated mode of thoughts of relating God to science, history, and culture. If you can disprove those, you've somehow disproved God and its value to humanity.

 

God functions socially and culturally, and to simply swipe God away because after all, we have no proof a real Bigfoot exists, is to cavalierly swipe away all the humanities with it! I agree to counter the claims of those Christians who would have us all go back to past dogmatic rule of religious orthodoxy using such specious arguments as 'there is no morality without God!", but it fails to actually address anything real other than saying God is bullshit - and then for some to arrogantly say all beliefs are bullshit, while they have little better understanding of other religions than the Christian does whom they criticize for their ignorance. The traditional atheists such as Sartre or Camus, would never make such blind proclamations like Dawkins would.

 

The pirit of atheism is far too much at odds with me for me to use that label (so maybe nontheist is a better term?).

This is why I dropped the atheist term, in part. But more than that, in spiritual exploration, God in fact can play a powerful role. I don't see anything illegitimate with it as an aide, a symbol, a visualization to open up ones own inner self to their highest Self, the Divine nature. As we open to that, then in reality we are God, as it were. In this sense, God exists. It is who we are. At such a realization, God no longer exists. There is nothing separate from anything else, but One. No subject, no object.

 

I tried the term non-theist as well, but I prefer nondualist now. That is technically more accurate for me now.

[Yrth]

Believe me this is where I came to, but more than that however is that God is the Face we put on spiritual experience, and when then atheist proudly boasts they have disproved God or chides, "Where's your evidence?", they in effect dispute and discount human experiences simply on the basis of the symbol not being a scientific fact, like claims of a Bigfoot being real or something. It simply does not function on that level, but much, much deeper. "There is no God" often is the symbol itself to say, "Spirituality is dangerous because we don't have the authority of science to prove it with. We are better off with reason only!" That is both irrational and a misuse of science and logic.

 

Yet at the same time, I don't literally believe God exists as something external, out there some place.

Not in any dualistic sense. There is no 'out there', and what God exists is in fact an expression of our deepest and highest nature. That exists, and therefore, so does God. This is not God in the traditional theistic sense of "out there". But one in fact can both experience God through "God", or move beyond "God" into God itself.

 

Monotheism is just too powerful to call nonsense the way many atheists do.

Atheism, to be clear Neo-Atheism, is really just saying no to the Christian idea of God as the definition of God. It falsely empowers Christianity as the creators of God, and to disprove that God, seals the deal, case closed - supposedly. It does this with no actual understanding of the religion in any sense outside of its outdated mode of thoughts of relating God to science, history, and culture. If you can disprove those, you've somehow disproved God and its value to humanity.

 

God functions socially and culturally, and to simply swipe God away because after all, we have no proof a real Bigfoot exists, is to cavalierly swipe away all the humanities with it! I agree to counter the claims of those Christians who would have us all go back to past dogmatic rule of religious orthodoxy using such specious arguments as 'there is no morality without God!", but it fails to actually address anything real other than saying God is bullshit - and then for some to arrogantly say all beliefs are bullshit, while they have little better understanding of other religions than the Christian does whom they criticize for their ignorance. The traditional atheists such as Sartre or Camus, would never make such blind proclamations like Dawkins would.

 

The pirit of atheism is far too much at odds with me for me to use that label (so maybe nontheist is a better term?).

This is why I dropped the atheist term, in part. But more than that, in spiritual exploration, God in fact can play a powerful role. I don't see anything illegitimate with it as an aide, a symbol, a visualization to open up ones own inner self to their highest Self, the Divine nature. As we open to that, then in reality we are God, as it were. In this sense, God exists. It is who we are. At such a realization, God no longer exists. There is nothing separate from anything else, but One. No subject, no object.

 

I tried the term non-theist as well, but I prefer nondualist now. That is technically more accurate for me now.

Our deepest and highest nature? One's own inner self, the Divine nature? What is that? What the hell is that? Phrases like these, ideas like these, incite me. I feel like burning them in a heap and flushing the ashes. I don't understand what you are actually saying and it frustrates me. Does anyone? Writing isn't abstract art...

 

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis. The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

 

There is also a theory here about how different cultures have integrated meaning into their religious beliefs? And that this meaning is transferred to the religion? That's all true, but the thing is that the religion loses its meaning when its outed as false. There's a readjustment period where folks reattach all that integrated meaning elsewhere. All of the leftovers are thrown out when dinners over, and I feel like you're suggesting we start looking in the trash for something to eat. Why would we do that when we just threw it all out? It's garbage.

 

You're just conflating terms and meanings and pretending that you're engaged in some kind of 'Higher Form Of Human Existence.' IMO, say what you mean and mean what you say. You're articulate. You ought to be able to talk about something specific that is invulnerable to competing interpretations. Explain why the Higher Self talk isn't a psychedelic substitute woo.

 

 

*edit: I apologize if I am out of line. I realize there are rules to this particular forum. Maybe I felt labeled as a "literalist" and felt that I had to respond. idk.

[Antlerman]

Our deepest and highest nature? One's own inner self, the Divine nature? What is that? What the hell is that? Phrases like these, ideas like these, incite me. I feel like burning them in a heap and flushing the ashes. I don't understand what you are actually saying and it frustrates me. Does anyone? Writing isn't abstract art...

Thank you. It makes me smile to see it provoked such a response in you.

 

Actually, these terms make perfect sense as expressions of deep internal experience. How do you describe a sunset? How do you describe love? The experience of a "higher" self, is just that - an experience of self. It is called that, because that is its mental impression, its experiential reality. It is a "higher" experience than just your average mundane, rationalistic mind trying to figure crap out and call that reality. It goes beyond rationality into deep internal awareness and experience. It is a real experience. The word are just attempts at describing it.

 

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis. The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

Quite incorrect. Thank you for bringing this up! I have been thinking of starting a topic on just this question, after our resident Christian-blinders apologist Thumbelina first called mediation, "emptying the mind so the devil can fill it with his evil suggestions" (some nonsense to that effect), which betrays a view that mediation is a type of hypnosis. Please allow me to explain for you the difference.

 

I am going to provide a link to an article from a Ph.D in psychology specializing in the study of Consciousness, hypnosis, and various altered states of consciousness. He addresses quite beautifully what you bring up. In short, no, definitely not, hypnosis is demonstrably not what mediation is! This idea you have came from the ignorant minds of Christianity, which scooped up the ignorance of those of British Imperialism when they took over India and saw these quaint little brown-men in these what appeared to be schizoid states (yogic meditation). Being the "superior" conquering force, they immediately assumed an arrogance that they had the superior understanding of this over these mere primitives whom they were dominant over, and falsely called it some sort of self-hypnosis, having no frame of reference in their own experiences in the Christian West.

 

This article does side by side comparisons of Consensus Consciousness (what we call normal 'reality'), Hypnosis, and the two other basic types of mediation: Quieting Mediation (consentrative), and Insight Mediation in all areas of functioning consciousness. You will see how hypnosis is anything but meditation! Mediation fully engages the mind, in higher states of awareness. Please refer to the charts he provides on pages 17, and on 21, 22. Of course I highly suggest you educate yourself by reading the entire presentation. It is good to be informed, rather than speaking out of ignorance. I'm sure you can agree with the value of that.

 

Link to article: http://www.paradigm-...ds/2001HAPA.pdf

 

There is also a theory here about how different cultures have integrated meaning into their religious beliefs? And that this meaning is transferred to the religion? That's all true, but the thing is that the religion loses its meaning when its outed as false.

Only if it is stuck on a mythic-literal mindset. If it's symbolic nature is recognized and transcended, it in fact finds an ultimate fulfillment in actual self-realization and transformation.

 

There's a readjustment period where folks reattach all that integrated meaning elsewhere. All of the leftovers are thrown out when dinners over, and I feel like you're suggesting we start looking in the trash for something to eat. Why would we do that when we just threw it all out? It's garbage.

Why should you throw out your whole plate of food because you hit a piece of grizzle? Why should you throw out the baby along with the dirty bathwater. Why not find the baby in the bathwater and pull it out all clean?

 

You're right about the adjustment period. Right now, we're trying to find that baby. Too many voices claiming they are the new Orthodoxy to replace the Church, no true substance at the end of the day. Just a bunch of shinny empty plates.

 

You're just conflating terms and meanings and pretending that you're engaged in some kind of 'Higher Form Of Human Existence.'

Pretending to whom? To myself? To you? Does this make you feel more secure in your beliefs to imagine I in fact don't realize this depth and substance within myself? I can only tell you, my life is more deeply fullfilled, grounded, centered, aware, alert, peaceful, calm, free from most anxieties, insightful, etc, in ways I have not experienced my whole life. And it is not moments of this, but a permanent transformation through those moments of higher insight grounded back into my daily world. Every moment of every day is different, without effort. Pretending? Wow, no.

 

BTW, they are not conflated terms, they are expressive of that experience. Our language is not constructed around this sort of reality. Language frames how people perceive reality, and if that average-mode perception lacks this, then so do the words. They are at best, metaphorical, symbols of a reality beyond them.

 

IMO, say what you mean and mean what you say. You're articulate.

I am saying what I mean. There simply are not words to express it experientially. Poetry, music, dance, art, expressive forms, they are simply all just the waves formed by the movements of wind.

 

You ought to be able to talk about something specific that is invulnerable to competing interpretations. Explain why the Higher Self talk isn't a psychedelic substitute woo.

Well, read the article first. But that you raise psychedelics, and then stick on the word "woo" to it, shows your ignorance in these areas. I don't use psychedelics, but the purpose of them in religious ritual is in fact for insights, that help break the bonds of conventional perception of reality. That you assume, how you perceive reality is expressive of *real* reality, is in fact an illusion. I can go into scientific depth explaining that without the need for you to experience higher states of consciousness to see it. But to be sure, if you did, what I said would become readily apparent to you that reality is what the sciences have in fact shown us that it is a mediated reality. You appear to be operating off the myth of a pre-given world - that by just examining the world you can know reality in truth. That is a myth.

 

I look forward to being able to go deeper into this with you after you've spent some time with this.

[Rev R]

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis.

Not hypnosis, but if you are familiar with the term "in the zone", you would have a close approximation.

 

 

The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

It's funny since I would assert that the incessant need to have everything spelled out exactly and served on a little silver platter is more indicative of "Christian cultural leftovers".

[DesertBob]

You appear to be operating off the myth of a pre-given world - that by just examining the world you can know reality in truth. That is a myth.

I agree that it isn't possible to know reality in total depth by examining the world, but that may be as much because of our perceptual and intellectual limitations as anything. I am not certain whether there is a pre-given world or not -- you may well be correct about it, but I don't know how you'd KNOW you were correct. Or how anyone could.

 

Besides, if I stub my toe on some object, it hurts just as bad whether or not I believe that object is part of an external, given reality, so it seems like kind of a moot point for practical purposes.

[Antlerman]

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis.

Not hypnosis, but if you are familiar with the term "in the zone", you would have a close approximation.

In the sense that zone is traveling through a worm hole in deep interstellar space, yes.

 

The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

It's funny since I would assert that the incessant need to have everything spelled out exactly and served on a little silver platter is more indicative of "Christian cultural leftovers".

May I say Amen? This is well stated.

 

 

 

You appear to be operating off the myth of a pre-given world - that by just examining the world you can know reality in truth. That is a myth.

I agree that it isn't possible to know reality in total depth by examining the world, but that may be as much because of our perceptual and intellectual limitations as anything. I am not certain whether there is a pre-given world or not -- you may well be correct about it, but I don't know how you'd KNOW you were correct. Or how anyone could.

I think the point is, you are never 'correct' about it since it always a matter of changing perspectives. Imagine it as looking a gem in the light from every different angle. Which is the 'correct' angle?

 

When someone speaks of ultimate Truth, it is frankly no perspectives and all perspectives. Everything you see and understand are forms of truth, not Truth itself.

 

Besides, if I stub my toe on some object, it hurts just as bad whether or not I believe that object is part of an external, given reality, so it seems like kind of a moot point for practical purposes.

It hurts worse if you imagine that object has an ill-intention or indifference when you expect otherwise towards you. Kind of like the enjoyment or dread of living itself.

[DesertBob]

I think the point is, you are never 'correct' about it since it always a matter of changing perspectives. Imagine it as looking a gem in the light from every different angle. Which is the 'correct' angle?

How is this not hand-waving? All I'm saying is that maybe there's a given reality, and maybe there is not, but why make statements one way or the other if, inherently, there is no way to determine in consensus reality whether the statements are true?

Besides, if I stub my toe on some object, it hurts just as bad whether or not I believe that object is part of an external, given reality, so it seems like kind of a moot point for practical purposes.

It hurts worse if you imagine that object has an ill-intention or indifference when you expect otherwise towards you.

Yes, there are ways to layer feelings of persecution or alienation on top of physical pain, but I'm talking about the apparent solidity of physical objects not changing based on whether you think they're all in your head or not. If I have to deal with their reality no matter what, then what's the purpose of determining where the reality arises from? Whether a table leg arises from an external reality or from in between my ears, it's still a table leg and it's still going to hurt my toe.

 

Now if I could make tables disappear with a thought, maybe the distinction would matter.

[Antlerman]

I think the point is, you are never 'correct' about it since it always a matter of changing perspectives. Imagine it as looking a gem in the light from every different angle. Which is the 'correct' angle?

How is this not hand-waving? All I'm saying is that maybe there's a given reality, and maybe there is not, but why make statements one way or the other if, inherently, there is no way to determine in consensus reality whether the statements are true?

Let's be careful. I said a pre-given reality, in the sense we can know it by just some imagined simple observation. That all we need do is just look at it, and what it is will be apparent. I do believe the external world is real and not some figment of mind. But our understanding of it can never be done outside all that goes into how we perceive and imagine the world to be. It is therefore always clouded, no matter how 'exact' we think our sciences are. This is not to dismiss their value, or to say we are utterly without any real maps of the world to work with. We do. But they are not absolute, and to presume one way of looking at the world - in the case of the natural sciences somehow taking the position of authority over other means of perception, is both hubris and naivety.

 

Besides, if I stub my toe on some object, it hurts just as bad whether or not I believe that object is part of an external, given reality, so it seems like kind of a moot point for practical purposes.

It hurts worse if you imagine that object has an ill-intention or indifference when you expect otherwise towards you.

Yes, there are ways to layer feelings of persecution or alienation on top of physical pain, but I'm talking about the apparent solidity of physical objects not changing based on whether you think they're all in your head or not.

And I wasn't suggesting it didn't exist outside your mind. My example was to show how we think about the world affects our experience and understanding of the world in no small measure. In fact 'reality' is a product of both external reality, and mental frameworks through which it all filters into our sense of 'facts'. The understanding and experience of reality is not an isolated affair, not one that originates from the "real" world into the inner space. It's in a mutual exchange of information, being processed through complex feedback mechanisms in our conscious minds. Reality, is a messy affair and those who claim they know what it really is are frankly delusional.