where do man's natural or attained abilities come from? And how would you define "genius"?
Well, I think you've provided the answer right there. By saying "attained abilities", it is a confirmation that mans abilities come from within himself, from his ability to understand the world around him. As for defining genius, I would say that it is genius when a person exhibits an innate ability to comprehend, retain, re-iterate, and sometimes answer, otherwise complex situations that appear to be beyond a typical scope of understanding.
PB Quote on Mentalism taken from Wisdoms website
Moderator: figaro
You say that you are not spiritual - and yet you obviously know right from wrong, and have entered a long discussion with someone who sees angels and other Divine Beings almost daily.
Do I have to be spiritually inclined to know right from wrong? Or to debate the existence of such spirituality with someone?
How exactly would you define "spiritual"?
My definition is simple, really. To me, anything spiritual is something that is thought to exist on a different plain of existence compared to humans. Things like ghosts, gods, the soul, all are spiritual things.
You also do not admit to a "Higher Self" and yet seem to make a distinction within man of his higher capabilities vs his lower passions.
That's just a basic evolutionary concept. Primitive vs. advanced, really. Man's reliance on instinct in the past to help him survive was a primitive way of doing things. But since then, we have realized the higher stage of our being by nurturing our mental capacity to the point where we've repressed instinct as our prime motivator and replaced it with logic and reason.
How then do you define "Higher Self", that you would reject the concept?
I seem to be a bit stumped by this question. Could you perhaps re-phrase it?? I get the first part, but the second part is throwing me.
Do I have to be spiritually inclined to know right from wrong? Or to debate the existence of such spirituality with someone?
How exactly would you define "spiritual"?
My definition is simple, really. To me, anything spiritual is something that is thought to exist on a different plain of existence compared to humans. Things like ghosts, gods, the soul, all are spiritual things.
You also do not admit to a "Higher Self" and yet seem to make a distinction within man of his higher capabilities vs his lower passions.
That's just a basic evolutionary concept. Primitive vs. advanced, really. Man's reliance on instinct in the past to help him survive was a primitive way of doing things. But since then, we have realized the higher stage of our being by nurturing our mental capacity to the point where we've repressed instinct as our prime motivator and replaced it with logic and reason.
How then do you define "Higher Self", that you would reject the concept?
I seem to be a bit stumped by this question. Could you perhaps re-phrase it?? I get the first part, but the second part is throwing me.
Spirituality vs ... ?
Good morning! Nice to have you back. I don't know if establishing moral guidelines or laws is the same as spiritual growth. Well, it certainly sounds like spiritual growth to me ...
Nor do I think beings outside of humans have a developed understanding of spirituality in the way humans do. Perhaps not in the same way as we do - some non-humans are way ahead of us. My cat Nell, for example ...
Nor do I think beings outside of humans have a developed understanding of spirituality in the way humans do. Perhaps not in the same way as we do - some non-humans are way ahead of us. My cat Nell, for example ...
Working together
Working together implies love and compassion
Not always. Working together often implies the recognition of a common ground between interested parties, and little more. Two people can work together to fulfill a worth wile cause just as easily as two people can work together to achieve a less than savory goal. Yes, not always. But working together often does imply love and compassion. My, you ARE pessimistic at times ...
Not always. Working together often implies the recognition of a common ground between interested parties, and little more. Two people can work together to fulfill a worth wile cause just as easily as two people can work together to achieve a less than savory goal. Yes, not always. But working together often does imply love and compassion. My, you ARE pessimistic at times ...
the saints
I'm sorry, but all of this, well, parts of it, sound bizzare. No being that I know of can cause floods to recede, otherwise, things would be much different for flood disaster victims. Some people claim to be able to talk to animals, I don't understand that, but to each their own.
I'm sorry, but these saints do sound like legends. If any being can perform any of the above mentioned actions, then they are most likely not of this world. Just because you have never consciously met a saint does not mean they do not exist. I suggest you read Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi - I would be happy to discuss it with you. I would also suggest you read about St. Martin de Porres, Padre Pio, St. Francis - to name a few. I can assure you they all were in this world, walked this earth. We are all meant to be saints.
I'm sorry, but these saints do sound like legends. If any being can perform any of the above mentioned actions, then they are most likely not of this world. Just because you have never consciously met a saint does not mean they do not exist. I suggest you read Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi - I would be happy to discuss it with you. I would also suggest you read about St. Martin de Porres, Padre Pio, St. Francis - to name a few. I can assure you they all were in this world, walked this earth. We are all meant to be saints.
Pure Consciousness/soul
That Pure Consciousness contained within It the potential of all individual, personal thoughts. And I would say that our emotions arise from our thoughts. But if our Pure Consciousness is the root of all thought, and our emotions rise from those thoughts, then doesn't that make us our emotions and thoughts?? You lost me - could you explain, say this with different words? My interperetation of the "Pure Consciouness" is the soul. So, using that interperetation, if the soul is the source of our thoughts, and emotions arise from those thoughts, then wouldn't that make us our thoughts and emotions?? Being that they would be the definition of who we are. I find it interesting that you equate Pure Consciousness with the soul. The Buddhists, for example, do not; the Buddhists do not believe in a soul. Instead they believe in what they term "the mind of clear light", which is the part of us that reincarnates, the part of us that is beyond the physical body. However: I still am not seeing your logic. If the soul - or Pure Consciousness - is the Source of all our individual thoughts and emotions - then that would be our true Self. Our individual thoughts and perceptions and the emotions that then arise, would be only the ego, or our personality. Isn't the Source of something the truth of reality? The true reality? Perhaps "Higher Self" would be better. I am getting a better sense of where you are standing (I think): and I am not entirely convinced that our positions are that different. I need to read your other entries first ...
definition of self
My interpretation of the "Pure Consciouness" is the soul. So, using that interpretation, if the soul is the source of our thoughts, and emotions arise from those thoughts, then wouldn't that make us our thoughts and emotions?? Being that they would be the definition of who we are. Your last sentence: Being that they would be the definition of who we are. Yes, it could be the definition of who we are, in the conventional sense. But why limit ourselves to such a small part of who we truly are? Hmm ... Do you believe that we all have greater potential than who we are in the moment? That the Idea of Man, or the Potential of Man - as a race - is greater than what we have yet achieved?
You say that you are not spiritual - and yet you obviously know right from wrong, and have entered a long discussion with someone who sees angels and other Divine Beings almost daily.
Do I have to be spiritually inclined to know right from wrong? Or to debate the existence of such spirituality with someone? I would say that if you know right from wrong and respect right from wrong - yes, you are a spiritual person.
How exactly would you define "spiritual"?
My definition is simple, really. To me, anything spiritual is something that is thought to exist on a different plain of existence compared to humans. Things like ghosts, gods, the soul, all are spiritual things. We have different definitions.
Do I have to be spiritually inclined to know right from wrong? Or to debate the existence of such spirituality with someone? I would say that if you know right from wrong and respect right from wrong - yes, you are a spiritual person.
How exactly would you define "spiritual"?
My definition is simple, really. To me, anything spiritual is something that is thought to exist on a different plain of existence compared to humans. Things like ghosts, gods, the soul, all are spiritual things. We have different definitions.
Spirituality
To me, anything spiritual is something that is thought to exist on a different plain of existence compared to humans. For me, spirituality is not, does not exist on a different plane of existence. If it were on a different plane of existence - what value would it have for us?
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
Last edited by figaro on Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reminder?
Unfortunately I have other tasks and it is very late here. So I must stop for now. Please remind me to address the posts I missed tonight, your points are interesting ones. Thank you for this discussion, Arubis.
My, you ARE pessimistic at times ...
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic, I do try to maintain an upbeat demeanor. However, I would say that I have a different understanding of things in the world. Even though I try to remain upbeat, even in the face of todays world, I do not negate the obvious fact that humans, more often than not, band together to destroy more so than they do to create. Yes, humanity has created much since our dawn on the evolutionary scale, however, we have destroyed just as much as well. Humanity, I have discovered, functions a bit like a virus (this is where the reason behind why I chose my signature comes into play.). A virus, more often than not, destroys life (which is subsequently, its inhabited environment) to feed itself so that it may survive. Humans have done similar things. We've driven species to extinction, polluted entire continents or bodies of water, and have poisoned our very source of life, the air we breathe. The only thing separating humans from a virus is our complexity as living things. Granted, a virus can (under controlled circumstances) have positive effects on its environment, and we have had positive effects on our environment as well. Unfortunately, the voracious nature of a virus leads it to destroy more than create, therefore negating any positive impact it may have on its surroundings.
I don't think I'm pessimistic. I just have a different outlook on things. Of course, I'm also a student of science, so naturally, my outlook will appear pessimistic, when in reality, it's only based upon observations of the natural world.
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic, I do try to maintain an upbeat demeanor. However, I would say that I have a different understanding of things in the world. Even though I try to remain upbeat, even in the face of todays world, I do not negate the obvious fact that humans, more often than not, band together to destroy more so than they do to create. Yes, humanity has created much since our dawn on the evolutionary scale, however, we have destroyed just as much as well. Humanity, I have discovered, functions a bit like a virus (this is where the reason behind why I chose my signature comes into play.). A virus, more often than not, destroys life (which is subsequently, its inhabited environment) to feed itself so that it may survive. Humans have done similar things. We've driven species to extinction, polluted entire continents or bodies of water, and have poisoned our very source of life, the air we breathe. The only thing separating humans from a virus is our complexity as living things. Granted, a virus can (under controlled circumstances) have positive effects on its environment, and we have had positive effects on our environment as well. Unfortunately, the voracious nature of a virus leads it to destroy more than create, therefore negating any positive impact it may have on its surroundings.
I don't think I'm pessimistic. I just have a different outlook on things. Of course, I'm also a student of science, so naturally, my outlook will appear pessimistic, when in reality, it's only based upon observations of the natural world.
Last edited by Anubis on Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
For me, spirituality is not, does not exist on a different plane of existence. If it were on a different plane of existence - what value would it have for us?
This is precisely the point I'm trying to make about my views on spirituality. As it stands, a vast majority of spiritual beliefs exist in such a way that the things being believed in, whether they be deities, a soul or angels, exist on a plain of existence that supersedes the mortal realm. Your question is a valid one - exactly what value do these things have to us?? The answer is, only what we assign.
This is precisely the point I'm trying to make about my views on spirituality. As it stands, a vast majority of spiritual beliefs exist in such a way that the things being believed in, whether they be deities, a soul or angels, exist on a plain of existence that supersedes the mortal realm. Your question is a valid one - exactly what value do these things have to us?? The answer is, only what we assign.
Do you believe that we all have greater potential than who we are in the moment? That the Idea of Man, or the Potential of Man - as a race - is greater than what we have yet achieved?
Absolutely.
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
I see why you are trying to bring it back to consciousness. But, whenever we discuss consciousness, I find it difficult to work past the idea that man has consciously created all of the things we are discussing. The soul, divine beings, spirituality, we've created all of that with our conscious mind.
Absolutely.
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
I see why you are trying to bring it back to consciousness. But, whenever we discuss consciousness, I find it difficult to work past the idea that man has consciously created all of the things we are discussing. The soul, divine beings, spirituality, we've created all of that with our conscious mind.