Super Moderator florduh Posted October 15, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 Antlerman, let me ask this in hopes of clarification. The altered mental state you enjoy through meditation practice is also achievable by other means such as psychedelic drugs, dancing the Dervish, or artificial electrical/magnetic stimulation of the brain. Does the method of altering the state of mind matter if the result is the same? Is an alternate interpretation of the experience as valid as your interpretation? As an aside, I believe I achieved enlightenment when I realized there is no such thing as enlightenment. It's very Zen, if you think about it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Antlerman, let me ask this in hopes of clarification. The altered mental state you enjoy through meditation practice is also achievable by other means such as psychedelic drugs, dancing the Dervish, or artificial electrical/magnetic stimulation of the brain. Does the method of altering the state of mind matter if the result is the same? Is an alternate interpretation of the experience as valid as your interpretation? I welcome your questions. This is what I hope for in these discussions. Yes, there are many techniques to bring one into these spaces. Some are more effective than others. For instance, studies have shown that the use of psychedelic drugs are powerful, but don't go as far as meditative practices. Plus the nature of the experience is typically more primal, more visceral, more primitive. So what the takeaway from their use will be of a different nature. In my own practices, I need to be very open to experimentation, as one practice one day, may not be effective the next. So that right there is rejecting any 'one way' practice. But you ask the question, "Is an alternate interpretation of the experience as valid as your interpretation?" Well, these interpretations are really about your own experience, and it is your own takeaway that is the point of the practice. It's what it says to you that is its truth content. I think what you may be asking here though is that my understanding of what these experiences are, what the nature of them are, is that interpretation, not so much the content of the experience, more valid than someone else's. Is that correct? If so, I would respond saying that these experiences in general are a matter of study, by reading reports and making comparisons, interviews, practice themselves, etc. There are whole areas of research into these, and the insights through them are helpful in understanding their roles and effects. My opinion isn't as 'valid' as those who do the research in that regard, inasmuch as I have a limited scope of exposure. I am not a expert in the field of consciousness studies in this way. I read what they say, and my personal experiences definitely fit what I'm hearing them say. But as far as interpreting my personal experiences again, I welcome others insights into what I choose to share with them, but ultimately they are internal to me, and therefore I own them. Does that answer the question in there somewhere? As an aside, I believe I achieved enlightenment when I realized there is no such thing as enlightenment. It's very Zen, if you think about it. Actually, there is some truth to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So, diving back in... I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, AM, but I don't know any other way to phrase it. Are you just tripping balls like a drug addict, without the drugs? I know how that sounds, but....just trying to follow. You don't believe in an afterlife per se, this experience isn't of an actual "alternate dimension", it is "all in your head"....so, how is it different than just dropping acid and experiencing all these visions, etc that are drug-induced hallucinations? In 100 words or less please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So, diving back in... I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, AM, but I don't know any other way to phrase it. Are you just tripping balls like a drug addict, without the drugs? I know how that sounds, but....just trying to follow. You don't believe in an afterlife per se, this experience isn't of an actual "alternate dimension", it is "all in your head"....so, how is it different than just dropping acid and experiencing all these visions, etc that are drug-induced hallucinations? In 100 words or less please. These are good questions, but how the hell do you expect me to answer in less than 100 words! Short answer, it's not a recreational practice. It's not experience seeking to get high. It serves a purpose, and that is insight and personal development. It's work. It's hard work. It takes discipline, an openness to face painful and frightening aspects of ourselves in order to heal them and move beyond them into Freedom. I described one aspect of it like going through 15 years of deep psychotherapy in five months. The other aspect is about opening you to the depths of who you are and growing into that, which leads to greater intelligence, greater connectedness, centeredness, peacefulness, mindfulness, calmness, compassion, wisdom, insights, intuitions, better relationships to yourself and those around you, better job performance, greater appreciation for being alive, shall I go on? No, I'm limited to 100 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Ok, i think that helps. Seriously. So, if you had to align yourself, would you consider your "understanding" more atheistic, deistic or pantheistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Ok, i think that helps. Seriously. So, if you had to align yourself, would you consider your "understanding" more atheistic, deistic or pantheistic? The closest in regard to "God" I would relate to would be none of the above, but something you didn't mention which is panentheism. Ultimately, I am a nondualist, which means I don't believe God exists, so to speak (but not in the sense your modern atheist says this). This is very complicated to explain, but suffice to say, no categories that others are trying to put me into here are going to work. I like how the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart put this, "I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditional Being is above God and all distinctions". "God beyond God" is another way to put that. I say that God is the Face we put upon the Infinite. At a point, even God dissolves away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ya know, i ALMOST wrote panentheist. Don't know why I didnt? I figured that would probably be the closest. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So, to sum it up, would it be correct to say that you think this universe, this "reality", is God experiencing itself? OR....our individual conciousness' are summed up into a collective concsiousness, and this collective "knowledge/experience/learning" of the universe, the totality of our experiences, is "god" contemplating itself? If that makes sense? edit: not "god" in the typical theist fashion obviously, but more of a generative force kind-of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So, to sum it up, would it be correct to say that you think this universe, this "reality", is God experiencing itself? I could imagine it in many ways. I don't think there is any correct way to view it. I could see saying this, but for me personally, and this is purely just a visualization of something vastly beyond any imagination I may have like this, is that all that is is an expression of enfolding and unfolding. That "Love" creates through emptying itself into the world, which then moves towards it in return, in a virtual infinite display of forms. Each form is an expression of itself, but not itself as in a pantheistic sense. As it moves and evolves, it creates itself from itself, in a dance towards that Light. Collecting, collapses, reinventing, building, destroying, and evolving towards greater and greater reaches towards that Source. As we, an expression of this evolve in higher form, we see more and more clearly that Nature, that Face, through our science, through our self-introspection, through out inner explorations. We come to know ourselves as That, and That knows itself as us. I am That, and That is me. It is that Marriage, I mentioned. That's my view of it at this time, to a point. Ask me tomorrow, I may see it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It's very Zen, if you think about it. If you have to think about it, it's not very Zen. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 Antlerman, I am certain that this is a gross over-simplification, but would you say that the reason that you find meditation so beneficial is that it helps you to feel more connected with all life, more at home in the world, and helps you to grow in compassion? And do you identify God as a totality of everything in physical and other-dimensional existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted October 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 We are God. How come 'they' aren't god Ant? The little starving children or the little ones being raped? I really want a sincere answer....something that makes sense to me!! I just want to understand! How do you assume they aren't? God, in skinny, starving disquise??.... Do you feel compassion towards them as yourself? I sure do..I support the cause of starvation..... What are you seeing within them that stirs that compassion? That they are screaming out in agony for food, water, shelter...for safety that they will never feel..... As it says in that video, that part I love so much, "Love yourself so deeply, that when you see another, you see God". I'm afraid that this is where I have a very hard time.... You see that God within them and see their suffering, and experience that Compassion within yourself more deeply. I do see that Ant....it just dosen't feed their little bodies.... It is through that, that we move to heal the world. It is through good actions that we heal the world.... "Love others as yourself", as an extension of what is within you, as yourself. They are you. Their suffering is your suffering. Ant...I am 20 pounds overweight ??? I have answered your questions. Do you see any of my valid points Antlerman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Antlerman, I am certain that this is a gross over-simplification, but would you say that the reason that you find meditation so beneficial is that it helps you to feel more connected with all life, more at home in the world, and helps you to grow in compassion? Really opening up my soul here, well yes to the above, but it's more than that. It is to reconnect with that Source that ripped into my life 30 years ago and which has been my quest to return to ever since, through many paths, though many areas of necessary growth for me. In that reconnection, so to speak, all this opens up. I don't know how to express this as its so deeply personal for me. It is Life Itself. It is to touch the heart and soul of the Big Bang itself in an infinite movement of infinite power in Grace. That is why I am drawn to meditate now that I've come into it. It is touching that every time. It is having it having that fill you through emptying yourself into it, and it becoming you, and you it. It is knowing yourself, your own True Face. I cannot put this into words. It is drinking from that Source, and becoming that in this world, in yourself. This is what lays beyond religion, and beyond belief. And do you identify God as a totality of everything in physical and other-dimensional existence? See me last couple posts to McDaddy. I address this there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are you guys mocking me? I thought I was being respectful to you. No. No. We're just teasing. Mocking would be to imitate what you say or do, but do it in a sarcastic way. What we did wasn't mocking you. It's was making fun of vegetarianism as if it was a religion. But before that, I did point out that "vegetarianism" isn't so clear-cut. There are different kinds. Some eat fish and still consider themselves vegetarians (of sorts). The "True Vegetarian' is vegan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are you guys mocking me? I thought I was being respectful to you. No. No. We're just teasing. Yes, it to illustrate that these either/or frameworks are not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...."Love" creates through emptying itself into the world, which then moves towards it in return, in a virtual infinite display of forms. Each form is an expression of itself, but not itself as in a pantheistic sense. As it moves and evolves, it creates itself from itself, in a dance towards that Light. Collecting, collapses, reinventing, building, destroying, and evolving towards greater and greater reaches towards that Source. As we, an expression of this evolve in higher form, we see more and more clearly that Nature, that Face, through our science, through our self-introspection, through out inner explorations. We come to know ourselves as That, and That knows itself as us. I am That, and That is me. It is that Marriage, I mentioned. This is what I take from this statement: "Love" is a descriptive symbol for a creator God who sacrifices herself in order for different creatures to emerge in ever-improving forms, the highest of which have come to realize their godhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...."Love" creates through emptying itself into the world, which then moves towards it in return, in a virtual infinite display of forms. Each form is an expression of itself, but not itself as in a pantheistic sense. As it moves and evolves, it creates itself from itself, in a dance towards that Light. Collecting, collapses, reinventing, building, destroying, and evolving towards greater and greater reaches towards that Source. As we, an expression of this evolve in higher form, we see more and more clearly that Nature, that Face, through our science, through our self-introspection, through out inner explorations. We come to know ourselves as That, and That knows itself as us. I am That, and That is me. It is that Marriage, I mentioned. This is what I take from this statement: "Love" is a descriptive symbol for a creator God who sacrifices herself in order for different creatures to emerge in ever-improving forms, the highest of which have come to realize their godhood. Not quite. Love is the active energy of the Divine. As an expression of this, it flows like water from Source, which itself is utter stillness, Emptiness. "God" is the personal Face entering into division, duality, the world of form out of Formlessness. All creation is an expression of this energy, rising to return to Source, to Unity, in an endless, eternal cycle of form and return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It is through good actions that we heal the world... Precisely. Metaphysics, spiritual paradigms, thoughts of "god" and the nature thereof do not feed the hungry nor provide medicine to the sick. Do what you can to ease the suffering of others, but bear in mind that all action is temporary. Food is only temporary solace from hunger. Medicine is only temporary respite from sickness. We cannot end pain, but we can ease it. This is all you need to know about compassionate action. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...."Love" creates through emptying itself into the world, which then moves towards it in return, in a virtual infinite display of forms. Each form is an expression of itself, but not itself as in a pantheistic sense. As it moves and evolves, it creates itself from itself, in a dance towards that Light. Collecting, collapses, reinventing, building, destroying, and evolving towards greater and greater reaches towards that Source. As we, an expression of this evolve in higher form, we see more and more clearly that Nature, that Face, through our science, through our self-introspection, through out inner explorations. We come to know ourselves as That, and That knows itself as us. I am That, and That is me. It is that Marriage, I mentioned. This is what I take from this statement: "Love" is a descriptive symbol for a creator God who sacrifices herself in order for different creatures to emerge in ever-improving forms, the highest of which have come to realize their godhood. Not quite. Love is the active energy of the Divine. As an expression of this, it flows like water from Source, which itself is utter stillness, Emptiness. "God" is the personal Face entering into division, duality, the world of form out of Formlessness. All creation is an expression of this energy, rising to return to Source, to Unity, in an endless, eternal cycle of form and return. So "Love" is a descriptive symbol for God's creative energy? And death is a return to God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So "Love" is a descriptive symbol for God's creative energy? And death is a return to God? a descriptive symbol for energetic expression of the Divine. God is a Divine expression, so to speak. Death? What death? There are many types. Physical death, no. A death of a separate self-sense is to experience Unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are you guys mocking me? I thought I was being respectful to you. No. No. We're just teasing. Yes, it to illustrate that these either/or frameworks are not reality. I'm sorry but I don't see how all your talk about God and the divine is compatible with being somebody who lacks belief that such things exist. It's a real shame about all the dictionaries in the world that don't have the correct meaning for "vegetarian". I will let you have the honor of informing the various publishers of their error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 15, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2012 It's very Zen, if you think about it. If you have to think about it, it's not very Zen. Boom! Y'all caught me being unenlightened! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are you guys mocking me? I thought I was being respectful to you. No. No. We're just teasing. Yes, it to illustrate that these either/or frameworks are not reality. I'm sorry but I don't see how all your talk about God and the divine is compatible with being somebody who lacks belief that such things exist. I lack such beliefs myself. To understand this you'll need to step out of those super-reduced equations you're currently attracted to. If you're not interested, be assured there are those out there that don't think like Richard Dawkins about these things. I see his views on this as well, sophomoric. It's a real shame about all the dictionaries in the world that don't have the correct meaning for "vegetarian". I will let you have the honor of informing the various publishers of their error. Error? Correct meaning? God's Word says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It's very Zen, if you think about it. If you have to think about it, it's not very Zen. Boom! Y'all caught me being unenlightened! Well, I knew that all along.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I lack such beliefs myself. To understand this you'll need to step out of those super-reduced equations you're currently attracted to. If you're not interested, be assured there are those out there that don't think like Richard Dawkins about these things. I see his views on this as well, sophomoric. I've been asking and asking. Since you have added a new concept how about explaining what "super-reduced equations" I currently find attractive. It's a real shame about all the dictionaries in the world that don't have the correct meaning for "vegetarian". I will let you have the honor of informing the various publishers of their error. Error? Correct meaning? God's Word says? I didn't mention God's Word. Hans teased me for being wrong because I went by the dictionary definition. I guess I'm just too stupid to get any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts