Hi,Walker wrote:Hello.NielsBohr wrote:Well,Walker wrote:Some folks steer clear of belief, saying it’s a filter that influences perception of reality.
Some say different.
“What you are is a belief; if you let one belief go, you must replace it with another; otherwise, you will drop dead. I am telling you, a clinical death will occur. It is not the near death experience of those ‘near death’ scoundrels.”
- U.G. Krishnamurti
What do you think about belief?
I would say that - first of all - a filter does not ""influence" perception of reality", as a filter has no influence: it only diminishes what you get.
Some get angry, because they think that "belief" = "belief in God" = "belief in church" = anything else.
But in any work as well as in any task, the man wait for a result, what is a belief. To say - for some - that the belief is a filter is absurd, because in best case, they did not experience it, so prove their own belief,
and if they are part of those, they begin to tell us they have a belief and that it biases their view.
Do you think the following is belief, and is your thinking about the following based on what U.G. says is the life-need to believe, or is it based in something else?
*
Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.
Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.
Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.
Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.
UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.
Thank you for your answer.
On what was based my reasoning? -On my own thoughts. Actually, I do not really care of "U. G.", since he is making vers particular and isolated truths. I did not really read him in your first message.
In your next sentences of him, I stopped after sentence 2.
I do not really know why the hell, were I about to consider that "only the physical exists". To be more precise, he could tell us that only matter existed, or to be even more precise, that only mass existed (as to say that electrical charge should be derived from mass (without pretending that such, Miles Mathis is near to show us that electrical charge were as a mass "derivative")). But U. G. won't tell us that there is only mass, since physics became the same as a church, (where Newton and Einstein are the popes, Franklin something between these popes and a priest, and Nature was supposed to be their God... (until some events to come rather probably))), which would argue against him that electrical charge exists, too, whenever they did not wholly understood it, (what these physicists will shut in a hurry under silence).
His conclusion is somewhat credible, but here again, I do not know at all why the necessity should yield to the so-called physicality. All seem to be based on "only the physical exists", but the use of "physics" in place of "Nature" or mass, and turned into an adjective to make it sweeter, only shows to us the "U. G." is not sure at all of himself; so... why should we?