1a2bcio8

haha, my bad and my apologies

To the extent that I am using religious language, in the first instance, I'm unsure how this is important against the idea I am putting forward? In the second, as the discussion is centred around religion, this is somewhat inescapable. In fact, I was mentioning the different names, from different religions, to show that they refered to the same realisation, despite superficial differences in name. They are all synonyms. It adds an important argument for the perennial philosophy when we see that regardless of time/place/culture, certain things can be realized in response to what it means to be a human that exists. I'm also not relying on religious language in the sense that my discussion has some founding in personal experience, in the fact that I have touched on some mystical experience and know the potential for perceptual shifts/realisations. This is a very important part of my argument. Unlike the conception of God we find most people subscribing to, this conception allows for you to actually test it... I would say that interpretation is all too essential a thing to consider in this context when the initial inerpretation, operating as a foundation to a religion, defines how everybody consequently responds to the respective religion. This is evident with the discussion we see here which takes as the foundation, god as an entity and not an abstraction for a perception. Kind've a one but infinite is perhaps a better term. Personally I prefer my own coinage, afinite - not within any kind of finite terms. Essentially this is a realisation of the fundamental existence that pervades everything (which isn't actually things in this sense). The groundless ground (Brahman (God)) as the hindu's might say. And yes, I am suggesting that the current concept of god which people are using is a misconception. God is not a thing, god is a type of perception about the fundamental nature of existence. Again, not really as "one entity" but this is closer than many entities - it's 'somewhat' further away from dualism. Infinite (but not meaning lots of) or afinite realisation is the consequence of dropping dualistic perception. To begin with, these are not beliefs. These are actual experiences/perceptions/realisations. Beliefs are concepts and although initially we must deal with concepts to indicate these experiences/perceptions/realisations, ultimately we must go beyond them. When we drop dualism, we no longer believe anything because conception requires dualism. Thus, in this state, belief is not an option. Although I would not describe them in terms of usefulness I would say that they represent, in terms of the core issues of being human, the most important kind of realisation. Dualism is the basis greed, hate, fear, etc. As long as there is the other, we will desire that other, will fear that other and so. Once we realise the sameness of of everything or in actual fact the delusion of fundamental difference of everything, we have no need to desire the other, to fear the other other, or hate the other. Why would I fear that which I am? This is when we feel peace and love, which is a natural and undivided consequence of such a realisation. All the 'issues' and 'problems' of being human prior to this point are no more. Death is no longer an issue when we realise we always have been and always will be. Existence is just a shifting sameness of which we all are. Well, that's quite cynical and to be fair, I expect that often, and to varying degrees, this does happen with religion. People, like with every other social system, have often used religion to thier own advantage and I'm in no way out to defend all of it. What I will defend is that I think it arises from certain people having certain realisations and their being fundmental issues with being human/existing which those realisations help with. You can either sit on your concepts, juggle them round, speculate, etc. or you can actually try to confirm what I'm saying with direct experience. Although to be fair this path does take a lot of hard work and commitment, which is not for everyone. Yeah definitely. We are always trying to explain things, filling in the blanks with what seems sensible to us at a given time. No doubt we are all doing something similar at present that will be just as laughable to those in the future. Previously in the "magical" era of human existence, we used to draw our prey being hunted with the belief that the image would then bear true in the real hunt. In essence, there was a belief that the two were deeply connected. We certainly might be able to describe religion in terms of evolutionary functionalism but I think you're risking falling into the trap that you recognised in your previous statement. Especially with the consideration of religion as I describe it, in it's core sense, relating to the fundmantal perceptions/realisations. It's all to easy to just reduce and slot religion into a means of survival arising through genetic mutation as a convenience for describing it. It's quite easy to come up with ideas of how something has an evolutionary function but it's certainly not scientific to do so and so doesn't really come with the support of science. I'm unsure if this is a general statement or one directed at me? I'm certainly not trying to get anyone to read the bible. I'm only offering an alternate way of thinking about religion and perhaps most importantly, but that which I doubt anyone will probably do, the offering of a means to find out for yourself. Although even I hold some reservation to the experiences and ideas I have. But we all have to work on likelidhood otherwise life would be unmanagable. I shall finish by saying that the arrogance contained in your describing people as losers suggests another kind of certainty like those who believe in God (as an entity) are criticsed for. At the end of the day, experential evidence for God or no God is about the same. Atheism = just another belief. Modesty might be a worthy approach.

None taken My interest in such matters doesn't define me anyhow. I lack seriousness and am very in touch with my inner child edit: just saw your amendment and don't worry I'm on my way out now but I'll try and talk about it again in different terms but to be honest i'm unsure as to how differntly I can place it. My understanding about it has taken several years and I'm still very confused

Respect to your words, beigemaster. To me, at least, you make a great deal of sense. You also enthuse me to comment Please bare with me on this one. The ideas can be quite complex if you're not used to them but I urge you to give them a go if you really want what I strongly believe is the most sensible concept of religion and God. And in actual fact, one that is realisable if the correct means are taken on board. I have to admit that despite holding onto some reservation (a choice for avoiding dogmatism/blindness), I do mostly subscribe to the perennial philosophy that I previously put forward. It makes reading some of the discussion/argument here slightly frustrating because I perceive it to be based on a fundamental misconception. An analogy for this might be people arguing over the independence of an object and that object's colour - "The colour Red created the world!", "No he didn't!". They are clearly the same 'thing' - their difference is a value abstraction; something which we create as a means of dealing with reality. Have you ever seen colours independent of objects? Or has anyone ever seen a football and it's (sphere) shape separate? I doubt anybody has Yet, the language we use to talk about the object and it's colour can almost suggest two separate 'things'. Language can lead to misconception (or even misperception) in this way. If we take the properties of the language too literally (if we forget their sometimes abstract values), we risk distorting our view of a situation. I feel that people are mostly arguing about god as though he is a colour indepedent of an object or a sphere independent of it's football. Although this means I'm mostly unsurprised at the way the discussion/argument goes on that basis. When somebody engages in one of the various practices we find in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, Christian Mysticism and so on, they begin to perceive reality in different ways. Sometimes these differences in perception are to such an extent that they are given different labels. Although rather than perceptions they are usually called realisations. One reason for this is to distinguish them from working something out (constructing an idea or model of reality). Another reason is because these perceptions are felt to be (usually) closer aproximations to the nature of reality. An apt "realisation" or perception for me to discuss is that which is called "emptiness" ("samadhi" in Buddhism and "gezucken" to Meister Eckhart in Christian Mysticism). Within this realisation or perception, the process of dividing the world up into parts (dualism) falls away and the perceiver is left with a 'oneness'. They or that which they experience is no longer separate but the same as them. Unfortunately words really don't do justice to this realisation. They mostly confuse matters although they make, at the very least, a rudimentry indication of what's going on. The point is that this realisation isn't even a "oneness" because to have one, we must have another and that requires dualism, which as I said, we have gotten rid of*. To perhaps put it a bit better, the breaking of the world into bits has gone and because there aren't any bits, there can't be one bit - the bit that we might otherwise call the whole perception or realisation. So, when we say "oneness" we don't mean anything that there is one of. Instead, we have an abstraction (or abstract word) to indicate a type of numberless realisation. However, and here is the crux, misunderstanding the absence of dualism (of no bits in our perception) can lead us to imagine that there is an entity of some sort - some kind of "one" or "oneness". But there isn't. This is where I think the great misconception has occured within religion and those whom oppose it. God is simply another type of realisation albeit the highest form. But because to pretty much everyone, this realisation isn't instantlly attainable (it is with practice and commitment), they naturally place the realisation in terms they understand and which the language most potentially suggests - an entity of some sort. In Hinduism, "God" (or Brahman) is the highest form of realisation. We also see "God" realisation refered to in Buddhism, Occultism, Sufism, etc. God is also clearly the highest form in Christianity, except unfortunately he's the sphere who's incorrectly been divided from the football. He's no longer a realisation but an entity. What is great about this concept if that you can actually find out for yourself what it discusses. The metaphysical conception of god as residing separately to our existence is difficult to deal with - atheist or theist alike. This approach allows through practice, the realisations that are refered to, to be attained. I challenge anybody to give chance to an idea of God that is novel to them but mostly I dare anyone to try finding this stuff out, first hand, for themselves *To have one, we must also have another because each gives the possibilty of the other. This is always dependent on that, much in the same way each side of a coin is dependent on the other side. They cannot exist without each other.

Interestingly, that's closer the original meaning of faith that the one that is typically used today - ie. a somewhat blind subscription to an idea. Originally, faith was supposed to mean an attitude that life was a worthy and meaningful event, within itself and regardless of anything additional (god as a separate entity).

I think that every moment is evidence of existence, but the justification of an individual existence (the "I am") evidenced by an arbitrary expression (the thinking act) of existence is slightly tenuous. Although of course, we are the ones who construct what "I am" means. If we define thinking as a criteria for individuated being, then, thinking = being. That means, "I think, therefore I am" is not a statement that has realised anything profound about reality but instead has just stated the terms of what we choose to mean by the statement, "I am".

I don't really have much to say (or that I haven't said before) other than to reitterate that I think most Christians actually misunderstand their main man, Mr Jesus. I think Jesus was a mystic who had certain realisations about the nature of existence. Unfortunately, not all realisations and especially those of the mystical variety, can be conveyed in words all that well. Mythology is one of the better means of attempting to do so. In other words the bible is, to a certain extent, a form of mythology trying to indicate the types of realisation one can have, that makes ones life better and more in tune with the suchness of existence. People have taken the stories too literally and completely missed the point. Or to place it into a Zen vernacular, they've mistaken the finger that points to the moon for the moon itself. Most Christians are staring at a finger when Jesus wanted to make them see the more rewarding moon. What's interesting is that most religions can be found to share core themes (the moon), once we get past the cultural influences that shape elements of the superficial aspects (the finger). Once we begin to study different religions we can see this. I would indicate to anyone with an interest in this to turn to the perennial philosophy. I reserve the right to be completely wrong though.

Although I find it very unlikely, yes I am open to that idea. As am I open to the idea that you're an alien who's come to earth because you enjoy giving people anal probes. You just never know The point is, regardless of the evidence against or lack of evidence, being as limited as we are (who really knows what the f**k is going on?) our intelligence can best flourish when we don't rigidly subscribe to ideas. Many things that have been considered common sense have later been found or thought to be otherwise. Every generation laughs at the stupidity of the generations that came before them, only to get laughed at themselves. None of us really know if there's a god out there. I've certainly never seen any evidence as substantial as the earth being round, regarding either stance. Thinking we do and possessing this or that fact doesn't amount to possesing a definitive knowledge. Consider the size of yourself and then the rest of the universe. Can you play football with the sun? This isn't to say we should fall to the ground in confusion as to how impossible existence is to completely comprehend. Certainly we must choose the idea that seems most likely to us. But at the same time I find it a worthy thing to actually be able to fully look at another idea/other evidence with a potential willingness for adoption of that which we previously opposed. Of course, I often fail at this

Yeah, Im sketching out with my post. I've had to edit it about 10 times. I killed off a lot of brain cells in recent months But yeah, by analogy, in our environment, the more organised something is, the more capable it is at making something else orgnaised. I'm mostly subscribed to the idea of existence (as a whole) as an organised intelligence. Basically, the way in which it is organised, much like a brain, leads to 'intelligent' behaviour. We don't need a separate creator. We have to accept this type of 'intelligence' as a different form to standard intelligence though - a homonym. Reading this back it's a poor articulation but will have to do given my current brain state They are when people stop accepting alternative ideas, evidence or reasoning. I am open to either there being a Christian, Islamic, Jewish god, etc. etc. or there being no God or even some yet unknown alternative. Most people fix themselves to one or the other and don't really take the time to analyse against their point of view, only for it. This is a kind of intellectual blindness.

I'm not sure that filling in the missing link really kills off the concept of creationism which, as I understand it in its most fundamental sense, espouses an explanation for the orgnisation of our environment as having some intelligent intent behind it - not neccesarily a specific god or figure however. In fact, evolution can have at its base, an intelligent design that acts creatively to construct variation according to the interactions of parts of the environment with other parts (i.e. life with water, land, sky, temperature, etc.) but which seems random to us. Personally, I find the idea of such a well organised/organising universe occuring on a random foundation as more outlandish than occuring with some 'intelligent' intent. And anyway, so much of what we call random simply relates to complicated matters that we can't comprehend. In the same way a book is unintelligable to a dog, same with other factors of existence for humans. If we could comprehend everything, would anything be random? Also, does the fact that life seems to be getting increasingly more complex and organised suggest something of 'intelligence'? The situation with atheism these days seems to be just as reactionary, dogmatic and blind as that of the religion which inspired it. We need to be able to question every stance. And despite what many people think, science doesn't actually argue against religion. Almost completey do they occupy their own arenas. When they cross over and make statements about each other, this is often an overstepping of the mark.

It does conjure up some random (mutant like) imagery.

'tis a fair point, but like a fish in water, most people miss it because of how common or pervading it is. Imagine if the convention was to lop ear lobes off? "A Jewish baby's circumcision marks his entrance into the covenant with God." No doubt such a situation arose from some random belief which is continued simply out of tradition or habit, such as most of life. Are they trying to suggest that god is more up for being your friend if you don't have foreskin? I wonder if circumcision relates to the want of reducing physical sexual sensation and thus desire which leaves more room to turn oneself toward god? I wonder what sort of world we'd live in if everyone was asexual? Aside from obvious problems that is.

Apart from the loss of all those enjoyable nerve endings and the additional flesh which increases the stimulation of a women's vagina. Also, I can't imagine what masturbation is like without a foreskin? Do you have to use lube or something? But yeah, not the end of the world but as a preference, I definitely like my foreskin.

I'm game for this as I've finally getting back in the state of mind where I can edit. Got loads of footage from travelling around as well. My only issue is the deadline which is quite close. I have other editing stuff I have to attend to prior to this. Sounds like a plan though, Mr Luke. Good thinking.

http://www.answers.com/Balderdash

Grandad!

On that point, I'm a pragmatic. If a delusion is the best means of somebody finding happiness then I'm all for it providing it doesn't cause problems for others. I remember a program on radio 4 a while back where they were discussing approaches to dimentia and other mental heatlth issues. A common practice has been to always make sure the patient is informed of reality (what's really going on) even if this is distressing to them. But surely it's better that somebody is allowed to continue to believe it's 1950 and that they're five years old than it is for them to become distressed simply on the principle that we 'should' know that really there are sixty-four and it's 2009. Different means for different people. We can't all have the same ideal I'm afraid. Happiness and contentment, and what gets us closest given who we are, is what matters at the end of the day.

Certainly it gets affected by human conception, but there is a system of belief, typically eastern, that believes god can be realised in the absence of conception (and thus language). I subscribe to an "atheism in the name of god" so basically to talk of god can only miss god. Ultimately I'm still an agnostic because I don't have a clue what the f**k is going on. Placed into an idea, for lack of a better form of communicating it, god is existence in its infinite (I prefer afinite) totality. Existence as a prerequisite for humans 'being', cannot be a human construct. Basically, if god came before we did, or if we are god, in the sense of everything is god, then we can realise god without god being a construct. It's only when we try to personify god that we turn god into a construct.

Spider Lads on the money. Beauty is a human experience following on from a human perception of some 'thing', be it sound, sight, touch, etc. To think that beauty exists independent of a perceiver/reactor is a common misconception that arises from the grammatical structure of our language which suggests certain reactions/experiences exist in the thing you perceive. The statement, "the tree is beautiful" suggests that the tree possesses the quality of beauty but in actual fact, beauty is what we feel of the tree. It would make more sense, in terms of the reality of the situation, to say, "i feel beauty of the tree". Charlie you pessimist, haha. Worth? Awe I think! The potential of a god having created our universe doesn't have to be considered only in Christian terms. There may be a god/gods that nobody has a name for that played a role. But then there may not be. These aren't things that people should really be able to say with much confidence.

I went to Thorpe Park last week and that was awesome. So I would suggest a theme park. She may even grab hold of you whilst screaming.

"Alio Die" is without doubt the most spiritual/mystical sounds I've ever heard. I've had some fairly profound experiences related to this as I use it for meditation and yoga. I especially recommend "Mei Jyu", "Asparas" and "Expaning Horizon". "Steven Roach" is also very good. "Helios" "Alpha Wave Movement" is space music, a bit cheesey, but I like it. "Amelia Cuni" who did Asaparas with Alio Die, has some decent stuff of her own. "Biosphere". "Higher Intelligence Agency" "Deep Space Network". "Eluvium". "Global Communication", most especially the album "76 14". "Harold Budd" does some decent ambient.

I suspect I might be able to manage that. Sounds like you're well into your riding at the moment jon

I reckon I'm down for this as I've got a Bristol party to attend on the 4th, although that means some sketchy riding.