Perspective

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Parable

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:17 am

Reflex wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:44 am
The elder monk smiled at him and told him “I left the woman at the river’s edge a long way back, why are you still carrying her?”
I left God at the edge of the infinite long way, why are you still carrying the idea of God.

Btw, the core of Buddhism is non-theistic and to carry the baggage of a God would mean sufferings [nett] for the individual[s] and all.

Nick_A
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:37 am

F4
Leaving the cave means becoming consciously able to receive from above and give to below.

That may be what it means to you but it is certainly not what it meant for Plato. You have a habit of mixing your own beliefs in with what others have said, as if they are the ones who have said it. It is a deceptive appeal to authority.
Plato’s cave allegory describes the potential for a human being to inwardly turn towards the light. It is the beginning of conscious awareness of above and below. A person inwardly turning towards the light has the potential to receive human understanding from above and in turn going back into the cave and giving to below. This is basic stuff. If you don’t get it, don’t blame me.
As I have said before, if this is something you believe than have at it, but when you, Nick, shift ground from a belief to an assertion of knowledge, that is problematic. When you advocate a Platonic education based on a belief that for all you know may be wrong, that is problematic.


I am expressing a personal belief based upon my own experiences. It is basic to philosophy. If people can’t discuss beliefs and when beliefs are violently condemned, it isn’t philosophy.

Platonic education requires first the acceptance of the Good as necessary for the creation of philosopher kings and also educating the whole man. Progressive education denies the objective good so its leaders become the result of indoctrination. Secondly progressive education seeks to indoctrinate the head to serve its goals. These are essential differences anyone can become aware of.
Just because I've been made aware of this transition between mechanical animal life and conscious human life is not to say that I've made the transition.

You have been made aware of a claim that you believe to be true. Again that shift from belief to a statement of truth.
I’ve experienced the transition; the limitation of dualism by experiencing the third dimension of thought.

You know nothing of the awakening purpose of philosophy, and yet you assert it as if it is something you know. If you said simply that you believe there is such a purpose I have not problem with that, but when you try to assert your superiority over those who do not buy into it, that is problematic.

Philosophy is the expression of the love of wisdom. By definition wisdom is something we can be attracted to but have access only in potential. It is a quality of consciousness we can awaken to. Is it really a claim of superiority to be aware of something so basic? You seem to believe that the purpose of philosophy is to argue about details.

Many people in these times believe the ultimate form of philosophical expression is cursing out Trump. People can believe what they want but I don’t have to accept it just as no one has to accept philosophy described as the love of wisdom.

Leave Simone to me. This is more like Simone:
“We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.” ~ Simone Weil
Your intelligence apparently has yet to realize the value of admitting the value of what you don’t know for the sake of growing closer to the reality of knowledge. That is why you are content to argue details.

It isn’t right to spoil Reflex’s thread with this. We are totally opposed as is normal for universalism vs secularism which isn't the topic of the thread.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:46 pm
Veritas
Plato wrote that “Man is a being in search of meaning.” How can Man acquire a human perspective which serves this need? Can reason alone satisfy the need for meaning? Does it for you?
Noted your quote is disputed. You need to maintain intellectual integrity where necessary.

Yes, reason can infer from empirical evidences [personal and external] and abstract universal principles therefrom.
That is what Science has been doing.
Therefore humans should be able to infer the meaning of life from the empirical evidences of life.
One principle I can abstract for humans is 'all humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till inevitable mortality.' Can you dispute this?
What IYO creates a conscious human perspective as opposed to a conditioned animal perspective?
DNA wise, a conscious human being is distinctively different from other animals.
Non-humans do not idealize an illusory God to cling on for psychological security. There are so many other distinct differences.
I agree that it is easy to speak of ideals but the process of working towards them is abused in the most harmful ways as it is with the question of God. Man creates a personal God for the sake of acquiring power. It is a distortion which creates the impression that God serves Man rather than Man serving a universal purpose within creation.

It is obvious that the concept of God as the source of creation is abused for pragmatic reasons. This doesn’t deny the connection of Man’s being with higher consciousness but rather proves the dominance of human hypocrisy.
You have to define and prove that 'higher consciousness' that you are claiming.
I presume you are postulating an independent Being that has non-human consciousness, aka God, Absolute, Oneness and the likes.
I have proven such an entity is impossible to be real.
Intellectual reason has its value. One important value often overlooked is that it protects our emotional intelligence from obvious self deception. But when it represses the needs of the heart to feel objective value, it defeats its purpose.
Yes intellectual reason is limited.
What I am proposing is philosophy-proper with its holistic critical thinking and whole load of other thinking tools.
My impression is that your experiences with religion has made you deny the quality of emotional intelligence necessary to satisfy the needs of the heart which are a necessary part of acquiring a human perspective in which the mind, heart, and body work together rather than against each other.
Nah, you are so wrong.
I have stated before, I had done meditation and other 'spiritual' exercises to maintain a holistic self. Though not a Buddhist per se, I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow to extend empathy and compassion to all of humanity and other living things.

Note I asserted you are on a very selfish path to reinforce your own psychological security by clinging on something that cannot be proven at all.
Tell me how can your beliefs benefit humanity in the longer run?

A human perspective is defined by what we do, not what we think. Say for example that a person decides they must lose twenty pounds so decide to go on diet. However the body has been conditioned to like sweets. When a person is in a bad mood they support the body’s desire for sweets but when they see an attractive member of the opposite sex, they remember why they want to diet. What we do in relation to our aim changes both by external and internal circumstances. So in reality we can’t have a human perspective. We are creatures of reaction with the potential for a human perspective which feels and reflects higher values not because we are conditioned to but because it is normal for the human soul or essence.
True, actions are as important than thinking.
Note expressing one's thought and discussion in a philosophy forum is also an action in contributing to society and improvement to oneself.
I asked again what have you done with your philosophical views that can benefit humanity effectively?
Consider these questions of the heart Jacob Needleman refers to in this interview. Do you believe a person could have a human rather than a conditioned animal perspective without having felt such questions and understood them in a way that satisfies the needs of the heart? I don’t think so. These questions refer to soul knowledge and without understanding these deeply human needs as normal and living by them as natural, I cannot see how we can be said to have a human perspective.

https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/blog ... -question/

Jacob Needleman is describing the need for “meaning.” As opposed to factual knowledge. The head reveals facts while the heart or our emotional nature should lead to the experience of meaning. But this ability has been sacrificed for the glorification of egoistic pragmatic gain. As a result a human perspective is only possible for the minority with the need and will to become normal for human being.

It is one thing to think objectively and quite another to feel objectively. How many even know what it means? Yet without both, how can we expect to acquire a human perspective?
Note I have been posting that one must know oneself i.e. 'know thyself' deep inside to the details of the neurons and what is going inside your main 'microprocesser' i.e. the brain and also the genome. This is most one can get to being human and understand oneself as human being.

Getting to know [theory] oneself will enable one to cultivate [action] a more holistic 'heart', actually it is related to the empathy-parts [mirror neurons] of the brain, not exactly the heart per-se.

In your attempt to squeeze me into a shallow and narrow box, you are actually exposing your own ignorance whilst living within a tall silo.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: A Parable

Post by Reflex » Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:17 am

I left God at the edge of the infinite long way, why are you still carrying the idea of God.

Btw, the core of Buddhism is non-theistic and to carry the baggage of a God would mean sufferings [nett] for the individual[s] and all.
:roll: What are the implications of what I said?

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:40 pm

Nick:
A person inwardly turning towards the light has the potential to receive human understanding …
It is not receiving human understanding. It is seeing things as they are. There is a big difference. See book seven of the Republic on the use of mathematics for the intellect to compel the soul toward being. As a simple illustration, when you solve a problem in mathematics you do not receive the answer you see how to solve it.
If people can’t discuss beliefs and when beliefs are violently condemned, it isn’t philosophy.
This is disingenuous. It is not that you are discussing your beliefs, it is that you are asserting them as if they are things you know, as matters of fact and truth.
Philosophy is the expression of the love of wisdom.
Philosophy, as Plato describes it, is the pursuit of wisdom, the pursuit of what is loved but not possessed.
It is a quality of consciousness we can awaken to.
That may be your expression of what you profess to love, but you do not know that wisdom is a quality of consciousness we can awaken to. That is simply what you imagine it to be. That is not the pursuit of wisdom, it is a pursuit of what you imagine wisdom to be. You have created a picture, an image, and mistakenly call it wisdom.
Is it really a claim of superiority to be aware of something so basic?
Once again, the shift from belief to a claim of something known.
You seem to believe that the purpose of philosophy is to argue about details.
One of the purposes of philosophy is to become aware of the errors and illusions we fall into. You are blissfully unaware of your own and become angry when they are pointed out to you.
Leave Simone to me.
Sorry, I didn’t know you two were exclusive, but if she said it she said it.
It isn’t right to spoil Reflex’s thread with this.
In a thread entitled “perspective” nothing could be more appropriate than calling attention to real and imagined perspectives.

Nick_A
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:19 pm

F4
A person inwardly turning towards the light has the potential to receive human understanding …
It is not receiving human understanding. It is seeing things as they are. There is a big difference. See book seven of the Republic on the use of mathematics for the intellect to compel the soul toward being. As a simple illustration, when you solve a problem in mathematics you do not receive the answer you see how to solve it.
We can never see things as they are in pure form but when a person turns towards the light they experience the effects of imagination which had them chained. They become capable of conscious understanding proper for human being. Before solving the problem the problem has to be experienced. Without the experience a person is restricted to variations of a conditioned cave perspective.
If people can’t discuss beliefs and when beliefs are violently condemned, it isn’t philosophy.
This is disingenuous. It is not that you are discussing your beliefs, it is that you are asserting them as if they are things you know, as matters of fact and truth.
So what’s the problem. People are cursing out Trump all the time claiming their curses are based on truth. People re cursing out Christianity with the belief their curses are justified. It is acceptable because it is based on secularism.

I’m a chess player. If I believe I have a won position I believe it to be true. If someone shows why my reasoning is false, what is the problem? Yes I believe that what I’ve experienced with the third dimension of thought is genuine and an indication of human conscious potential. If it were proven false and the universe is really a dual reality as opposed to a triune reality I would accept it The real problem is that the ancient awakening ideas are now poison for secularists and any indication that person takes them seriously must be condemned. Certain ideas such as the human condition described in the cave allegory are now intolerable for secular society. Taking them seriously threatens the imagined superiority of secularism which is a no no.
Philosophy is the expression of the love of wisdom.

Philosophy, as Plato describes it, is the pursuit of wisdom, the pursuit of what is loved but not possessed.
It is a quality of consciousness we can awaken to.
That may be your expression of what you profess to love, but you do not know that wisdom is a quality of consciousness we can awaken to. That is simply what you imagine it to be. That is not the pursuit of wisdom, it is a pursuit of what you imagine wisdom to be. You have created a picture, an image, and mistakenly call it wisdom.
If a person feels a love for, and an attraction to wisdom, they are inclined to pursue it.
Is it really a claim of superiority to be aware of something so basic?
Once again, the shift from belief to a claim of something known.
It is known. How can you not know that a person who loves and is attracted to wisdom is inclined to pursue it?
You seem to believe that the purpose of philosophy is to argue about details.
One of the purposes of philosophy is to become aware of the errors and illusions we fall into. You are blissfully unaware of your own and become angry when they are pointed out to you.
When do I become angry? The silliest things were written in the Secular Intolerance thread. Did I become angry? No. I know how secularism emotionally reacts to protect itself. I don’t want to fall into that same pit.

It is you who are unaware of the dangers of fragmentation and any attempt to discuss it would provoke anger from you. All you’ve pointed out is your rejection of the big picture in favor of arguing fragmentation

No one who admires Simone Weil will ever glorify self deception. It is a direct contradiction to do so.

A human perspective is acquired when a person becomes able to receive from above and give to below. Such a person understands their position within a universal perspective. Simone Weil explains what would be necessary for the world to be different. Obviously it will never happen. The Great Beast will never allow such collective conscious awareness. The human perspective will remain a cave perspective and everything will continue as it is. It is my belief. Until someone can logically explain why what Simone writes isn't true I will still believe it to be rational and true. It is just basic human psychology
• The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:27 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:19 pm
A human perspective is acquired when a person becomes able to receive from above and give to below. Such a person understands their position within a universal perspective. Simone Weil explains what would be necessary for the world to be different. Obviously it will never happen. The Great Beast will never allow such collective conscious awareness. The human perspective will remain a cave perspective and everything will continue as it is. It is my belief. Until someone can logically explain why what Simone writes isn't true I will still believe it to be rational and true. It is just basic human psychology
Nick_A, noted you are VERY obsessed with Simone Weil exclusively for you rarely quote other sources. I am with Kant but I do not agree with every of his views and I quote from a wide range of references.
I would suggest you loosen you clinging to Simone and read more widely.

I noted Simone is more well known for her religious matters than the philosophical.
For the 3rd quarter of the twentieth century, she was widely regarded as the most influential person in the world on new work concerning religious and spiritual matters.[66] Her philosophical,[67] social and political thought also became popular, although not to the same degree as her religious work.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil#Philosophy
Simone only started to focus on the religion is the later part of her life.
Note the clue from this research findings;
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
The point is the neurons in the brain start to atrophize from day one at birth and continue to do so throughout one life.
That is the clue on what is happening in the brain of Simone Weil, i.e. the inhibitors that modulate her existential crisis loses strength and it compelled her towards theism or a greater emphasis of it.

This is noted in the following point re Simone focus on the soteriological, i.e. the striving for salvation which is most effective via an all powerful God.
Beauty also served a soteriological function for Weil: "Beauty captivates the flesh in order to obtain permission to pass right to the soul." It constitutes, then, another way in which the divine reality behind the world invades our lives. Where affliction conquers us with brute force, beauty sneaks in and topples the empire of the self from within.
Soteriological matters are driven by very selfish impulses.

How could Simone's selfish & narrow views and focus one's own salvation like that of below be a good example for the rest of humanity.
The punishing work-régime she assumed soon took a heavy toll; in 1943, she was diagnosed with tuberculosis and instructed to rest and eat well. However, she refused special treatment because of her long-standing political idealism and her detachment from material things. Instead, she limited her food intake to what she believed residents of German-occupied France ate.
I believe you have a fantasy of & idolize Simone because your psyche aligns with hers [religious and soteriological] which I have shown above is narrow and shallow.

Nick_A
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:56 am

Veritas
Noted your quote is disputed. You need to maintain intellectual integrity where necessary.
But the quote reflects Plato’s belief so much so that it is frequently posted. In fact there is a book that uses the quote in its title. The question is if you believe Man is a being in search of meaning or just a meaningless automaton which must be indoctrinated to serve the state.

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Statesman- ... 1787375870
Therefore humans should be able to infer the meaning of life from the empirical evidences of life.
One principle I can abstract for humans is 'all humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till inevitable mortality.' Can you dispute this?
Yes. There are times when one person sacrifices their life for another. It is illogical but it happens. Why do people become illogical?
Yes intellectual reason is limited.
What I am proposing is philosophy-proper with its holistic critical thinking and whole load of other thinking tools.
Using all the intellectual tools at your disposal, tell me what love is. What intellectual purpose does it serve? Does the energy of love pervade the universe or just restricted to life on earth? Why should it exist at all when reason is so much more reasonable?
Note I asserted you are on a very selfish path to reinforce your own psychological security by clinging on something that cannot be proven at all.
Tell me how can your beliefs benefit humanity in the longer run?
One thing we can prove is that people crave the experience of meaning. It is often admitted. When people feel dead inside is it really surprising that they turn to drugs?

My beliefs include the acceptance of the experience of human conscience being suppressed in modern society and its absence glorified. The experience of objective conscience can open a person to the experience of human meaning.

You believe a person can experience objective conscience though dualistic reason while I maintain that a person must open to a higher quality of reason which includes emotional intelligence and its source coming from above.

If I can support the awakening efforts in the world which can enable people to acquire a human perspective with the help of energy of grace, I’ll be doing something worthwhile regardless if you consider it selfish.
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:06 am

VA:

I noticed you haven’t talked about the implications of what I said, offer an alternative or give a reason why what was said was wrong.

Don’t feel bad. F4 doesn’t, either; he’s too busy giving philosophy a bad image.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:56 am
Veritas
Noted your quote is disputed. You need to maintain intellectual integrity where necessary.
But the quote reflects Plato’s belief so much so that it is frequently posted. In fact there is a book that uses the quote in its title. The question is if you believe Man is a being in search of meaning or just a meaningless automaton which must be indoctrinated to serve the state.

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Statesman- ... 1787375870
You linked your point to Plato earlier, and it is only now that you have given a reference in relation to Plato. It would appear that is the writer's interpretation.
Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesman_(dialogue) argues about definition of who is a statesman, not meaning to one's life.
I don't want to go into the details.
My point was it would be more credible to give direct references.
Therefore humans should be able to infer the meaning of life from the empirical evidences of life.
One principle I can abstract for humans is 'all humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till inevitable mortality.' Can you dispute this?
Yes. There are times when one person sacrifices their life for another. It is illogical but it happens. Why do people become illogical?
I was stating the main principles. Re Normal Distribution there will be extreme exceptions at the 1-2% percentile.
Yes intellectual reason is limited.
What I am proposing is philosophy-proper with its holistic critical thinking and whole load of other thinking tools.
Using all the intellectual tools at your disposal, tell me what love is. What intellectual purpose does it serve? Does the energy of love pervade the universe or just restricted to life on earth? Why should it exist at all when reason is so much more reasonable?
Answers:

'Love' is fundamentally an emotion expressed in many forms.
Neuro-scientists can explain what 'love' is from the neuroscience perspective and where the love emotion is represented in the brain.
By cauterizing that specific part [learned from brain damage patients] the person will not be able to express any behaviors that is related to 'love'.

How Love Works -The Chemistry of Love
https://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm

In biology and chemistry love is related to oxytocin
What is the link between love and oxytocin?
It [oxytocin] is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone," because levels of oxytocin increase during hugging and orgasm. It may also have benefits as a treatment for a number of conditions, including depression, anxiety, and intestinal problems.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/275795.php
Don't waste your time questioning me. I am well prepared to counter any of your questions.
Note I asserted you are on a very selfish path to reinforce your own psychological security by clinging on something that cannot be proven at all.
Tell me how can your beliefs benefit humanity in the longer run?
One thing we can prove is that people crave the experience of meaning. It is often admitted. When people feel dead inside is it really surprising that they turn to drugs?

My beliefs include the acceptance of the experience of human conscience being suppressed in modern society and its absence glorified. The experience of objective conscience can open a person to the experience of human meaning.

You believe a person can experience objective conscience though dualistic reason while I maintain that a person must open to a higher quality of reason which includes emotional intelligence and its source coming from above.

If I can support the awakening efforts in the world which can enable people to acquire a human perspective with the help of energy of grace, I’ll be doing something worthwhile regardless if you consider it selfish.
The point is, say you are put in a newly discovered planet of 7 billion human liked aliens and you influence the whole population with the idea of God.
Because they are human liked, it is likely 20% [conservatively] of them are born with an active evil tendency and SOME will commit terrible evil and violent acts when triggered by evil laden verses from some holy texts.
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil
As I had written in the earlier posts, Simone Weil in her older years was one of those who were naturally inclined towards God driven by her soteriological impulses due to the natural atrophy of her neurons. Her works were driven by her internal selfish impulses to soothe her own existential crisis.
Why so many agree with her latter work is because they are all driven strongly by the soteriological impulses for salvation.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:07 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:06 am
VA:
I noticed you haven’t talked about the implications of what I said, offer an alternative or give a reason why what was said was wrong.
You rely upon a parable from Buddhism without understanding [the relevant perspective] its essential message which is a counter to your existing belief in theism [panentheism].

The essential of that parable is; one of the causes of suffering is attachment [Upādāna ] leading to clinging [tanha] and subsequently sufferings [dukkha]. The wiser monk engaged with the reality and concepts where necessary and detached when & where not relevant. The younger monk still clung to the concept after its necessity [as is this example] is over and thus vulnerable to sufferings. This is due to ignorance [avidya].

The central theme of non-theistic Buddhism is advocating the getting rid of ignorance so as to understand the non-attachments to illusory ideas generated by the mind. As in your case, it is attachment to the idea of an illusory God and generating all sort of sufferings to yourself and others, i.e. you are very disturbed [from the one liner retorts] when others critique your securedly clung theism and related beliefs.
In the extreme your associate theists will feel very unsecure and even kill if their theistic beliefs are threatened.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Perspective

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:20 am

Buddhism teaches us that craving is the cause of all suffering and that can be philosophical as well as physical
This is why I do not do belief and also why I do not treat facts dogmatically but just accept them as being true
The older I get the less need I have to crave anything and when I am dead I will have no need for craving at all

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:07 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:06 am
VA:
I noticed you haven’t talked about the implications of what I said, offer an alternative or give a reason why what was said was wrong.
You rely upon a parable from Buddhism without understanding [the relevant perspective] its essential message which is a counter to your existing belief in theism [panentheism].

The essential of that parable is; one of the causes of suffering is attachment [Upādāna ] leading to clinging [tanha] and subsequently sufferings [dukkha]. The wiser monk engaged with the reality and concepts where necessary and detached when & where not relevant. The younger monk still clung to the concept after its necessity [as is this example] is over and thus vulnerable to sufferings. This is due to ignorance [avidya].

The central theme of non-theistic Buddhism is advocating the getting rid of ignorance so as to understand the non-attachments to illusory ideas generated by the mind. As in your case, it is attachment to the idea of an illusory God and generating all sort of sufferings to yourself and others, i.e. you are very disturbed [from the one liner retorts] when others critique your securedly clung theism and related beliefs.
In the extreme your associate theists will feel very unsecure and even kill if their theistic beliefs are threatened.
I was talking about the implications of convergence, you nitwit. I.e.:
God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. In him, every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge in simple unity, a divine simplicity. By logical extension, our truest and innermost self is a God-seed.

As flaky as this sounds, real or imagined, it is not an unreasonable perspective given the ambiguity of modern physics. It's not a lot different than Lawrence Krauss' idea of something from nothing or multiverse theory, the main difference being that it correlates better with the totality of my experience.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:35 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:07 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:06 am
VA:
I noticed you haven’t talked about the implications of what I said, offer an alternative or give a reason why what was said was wrong.
You rely upon a parable from Buddhism without understanding [the relevant perspective] its essential message which is a counter to your existing belief in theism [panentheism].

The essential of that parable is; one of the causes of suffering is attachment [Upādāna ] leading to clinging [tanha] and subsequently sufferings [dukkha]. The wiser monk engaged with the reality and concepts where necessary and detached when & where not relevant. The younger monk still clung to the concept after its necessity [as is this example] is over and thus vulnerable to sufferings. This is due to ignorance [avidya].

The central theme of non-theistic Buddhism is advocating the getting rid of ignorance so as to understand the non-attachments to illusory ideas generated by the mind. As in your case, it is attachment to the idea of an illusory God and generating all sort of sufferings to yourself and others, i.e. you are very disturbed [from the one liner retorts] when others critique your securedly clung theism and related beliefs.
In the extreme your associate theists will feel very unsecure and even kill if their theistic beliefs are threatened.
I was talking about the implications of convergence, you nitwit. I.e.:
God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. In him, every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge in simple unity, a divine simplicity. By logical extension, our truest and innermost self is a God-seed.

As flaky as this sounds, real or imagined, it is not an unreasonable perspective given the ambiguity of modern physics. It's not a lot different than Lawrence Krauss' idea of something from nothing or multiverse theory, the main difference being that it correlates better with the totality of my experience.
Therefore you have used the wrong parable which is not intended for 'convergence', stupid!

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:35 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:07 am

You rely upon a parable from Buddhism without understanding [the relevant perspective] its essential message which is a counter to your existing belief in theism [panentheism].

The essential of that parable is; one of the causes of suffering is attachment [Upādāna ] leading to clinging [tanha] and subsequently sufferings [dukkha]. The wiser monk engaged with the reality and concepts where necessary and detached when & where not relevant. The younger monk still clung to the concept after its necessity [as is this example] is over and thus vulnerable to sufferings. This is due to ignorance [avidya].

The central theme of non-theistic Buddhism is advocating the getting rid of ignorance so as to understand the non-attachments to illusory ideas generated by the mind. As in your case, it is attachment to the idea of an illusory God and generating all sort of sufferings to yourself and others, i.e. you are very disturbed [from the one liner retorts] when others critique your securedly clung theism and related beliefs.
In the extreme your associate theists will feel very unsecure and even kill if their theistic beliefs are threatened.
I was talking about the implications of convergence, you nitwit. I.e.:
God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. In him, every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge in simple unity, a divine simplicity. By logical extension, our truest and innermost self is a God-seed.

As flaky as this sounds, real or imagined, it is not an unreasonable perspective given the ambiguity of modern physics. It's not a lot different than Lawrence Krauss' idea of something from nothing or multiverse theory, the main difference being that it correlates better with the totality of my experience.
Therefore you have used the wrong parable which is not intended for 'convergence', stupid!
I gather, then, you only want to pontificate. (FYI, the parable about the monks was for the benefit of F4 and Nick.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests