Figaro Books Message Boards & Forum

It is currently Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:29 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
I must admit that I do admire the way your mind works - you were given a good vehicle for your life on earth!

Thank you. I attribute my analytical ways to my upbringing.

1. We are not merely the physical body or physical brain with its myriad perceptions and ideas 2. the material world is not Ultimate Reality. And when I speak of Truth, with a captial "T": I am referring to those two Truths.

That may be true. However, that is also the biggest reason behind my skeptical nature on the subject of the truth of our existence according to mystics of religion. They hold those Truths to be evident of mankind, but, their teachings often contradict these Truths in every way. In most major religions, you have a reward system in place. Act good, and get rewarded with happiness in the afterlife. However, act bad, and you receive punishment. The punishment varies from religion to religion, and, as with Buddhism, the punishment isn't always as severe or extreme as the Christian concept of Hell. But herein lies the major conflict of the first Truth when compared to the teachings of religion and its Mystics -

If we are not our thoughts and emotions, how is it fair to judge our souls in the afterlife according to the actions of our vessel??

The second Truth is also not without contradiction. The major conflict here is -

If this reality is not true reality and everyone can agree that there is some other reality or existence beyond this, then why are there so many variations, from religion to religion, as to what this "True reality" is? If our material reality is not true reality, then what is? For Buddhists, their idea of a "True reality" beyond our world is vastly different than that of the Christian perception.


Last edited by Anubis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
In the QM model, transposed to our experience, every moment we are taking a "measurement," in or from which I and my world of experience arise. QM, as a model, simply says that things, properties, space, time, experience, arise with the measurements. It does not say we create reality. In spiritual science, the appearance of forms, objects, sense of I, etc. are not as real as the field of observation, the background intelligence. the measurement and measuring and thing presupposes the background reality. Because it is not a thing, it is not nothing. it is more real than things: it is isness itself. We can say that all things are relativizations of that background reality, or we can say that no thing is really able to capture it.

I'm sort of lost here, Avery. Could you perhaps clarify this??


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
But Max Plank made a very astute comment: to say that everything is relative, or changing, presupposes something that is not changing, something not relative. If we look without bias, or get quiet, we find something in us which has not changed since we can remember

Hmm.... I would be tempted to say the ego is unchanging in us. However, my acceptance of that is shaky because the ego is consistently changing its needs and desires. The ego has remained unchanged in the sense of what it is, selfishness. But what the ego wants is continually changing. And with shifting desires comes shifting behavior. So, not even the behavior of the ego remains steady, just the idea.

Hmm.... Even the idea of the soul is in continual evolution, growing, learning, through us. Just to be clear, though, I do not believe in a soul, but given the question and the context of the discussion, not even the soul falls into the category of unchanging events. In fact, I don't think anything does.


Last edited by Anubis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
Our Lady also told the visionaries that God exists - and it does not matter what humans call Him (or, I suppose, what humans do not call Him); human definitions do not alter God. Therefore we should not argue about our definitions of Him, but rather live in Peace.

Well, I would agree with that. I agree on grounds that might not exactly coincide with those of a specific religious belief, but I do agree that we should not argue over the definition of God.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Posts: 535
Location: Ithaca, NY
Our Lady also told the visionaries that God exists - and it does not matter what humans call Him (or, I suppose, what humans do not call Him); human definitions do not alter God. Therefore we should not argue about our definitions of Him, but rather live in Peace.

Well, I would agree with that. I agree on grounds that might not exactly coincide with those of a specific religious belief, but I do agree that we should not argue over the definition of God.

Well I am sure that the Madonna, the Mother of God, will be happy that you agree with Her!

I am only here for a few minutes, I have other tasks to accomplish. But I see your comments and questions are probing ones, as usual dear Anubis - and I will return to continue this fine discussion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:54 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Hector NY
Hello Anubis:

[b]1. We are not merely the physical body or physical brain with its myriad perceptions and ideas 2. the material world is not Ultimate Reality. And when I speak of Truth, with a captial "T": I am referring to those two Truths.[/b]

YOU WROTE:
That may be true. However, that is also the biggest reason behind my skeptical nature on the subject of the truth of our existence according to mystics of religion. They hold those Truths to be evident of mankind, but, their teachings often contradict these Truths in every way. In most major religions, you have a reward system in place. Act good, and get rewarded with happiness in the afterlife. However, act bad, and you receive punishment. The punishment varies from religion to religion, and, as with Buddhism, the punishment isn't always as severe or extreme as the Christian concept of Hell. But herein lies the major conflict of the first Truth when compared to the teachings of religion and its Mystics -

If we are not our thoughts and emotions, how is it fair to judge our souls in the afterlife according to the actions of our vessel??

The second Truth is also not without contradiction. The major conflict here is -

If this reality is not true reality and everyone can agree that there is some other reality or existence beyond this, then why are there so many variations, from religion to religion, as to what this "True reality" is? If our material reality is not true reality, then what is? For Buddhists, their idea of a "True reality" beyond our world is vastly different than that of the Christian perception.[/quote]

***

Words about reality point to the reality. If we treat the inspired words on the level of logic only, we miss the inspiration that comes between the words. sages must speak in words, while their direct experience is beyond. That reality is vast and ineffable. Words point us. If you want to really be satisfied, it is ok to debate and refute, consider and discuss. but in the end, you must explore for yourself.

Inspired direct teachings of sages is one thing, what human religious isms make of them is another. Go to the source, not to the collective views.

we are not (only) our personal stream of thoughts etc, but as long as we think we are we will suffer: not because of arbitrary punishment, or in some imagined hereafter, but as an orderly result of the mistaken identity.

As to the question about appearance and reality: all descriptions, logic of a or not a, really apply only to the appearances. As applied to the reality itself, the words are pointers. That ultimate reality has many ways of appraoch, which may give the appearance of contradictoriness, but really are due to the inability of any perspective on reality to deliver it as it is. This does not make it a non-existence, or fabrication, but a beyond description as an object, fact or thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:54 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Hector NY
[quote="Anubis"][b]But Max Plank made a very astute comment: to say that everything is relative, or changing, presupposes something that is not changing, something not relative. If we look without bias, or get quiet, we find something in us which has not changed since we can remember[/b]

YOU WROTE:
Hmm.... I would be tempted to say the ego is unchanging in us. However, my acceptance of that is shaky because the ego is consistently changing its needs and desires. The ego has remained unchanged in the sense of what it is, selfishness. But what the ego wants is continually changing. And with shifting desires comes shifting behavior. So, not even the behavior of the ego remains steady, just the idea.

Hmm.... Even the idea of the soul is in continual evolution, growing, learning, through us. Just to be clear, though, I do not believe in a soul, but given the question and the context of the discussion, not even the soul falls into the category of unchanging events. In fact, I don't think anything does.[/quote]


NOthing about the ego remains unchanging: but fact of ego, fact of sense of I, points to something which is not changing. You can get a sense of it by remembering back through your life, and notice that you always have and had a sense that this is You, your experience, even though the contents changed. ANtoher way to it is to see that: all experience, memories sensations, thought of future, etc. always occurs in the present: contents change but the sense of awareness does not. But the real problem is that we are usually thinking of reality as object, as something to be examined the way we can examine all other contents. That which makes us aware of all content cannot be known in the same way as the content.

To say you are not a person, does not mean there is no person. it means that this person is not what the I really means: person can go on fine, it just isn't the I.....

Avery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:54 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Hector NY
[quote="Anubis"][b]In the QM model, transposed to our experience, every moment we are taking a "measurement," in or from which I and my world of experience arise. QM, as a model, simply says that things, properties, space, time, experience, arise with the measurements. It does not say we create reality. In spiritual science, the appearance of forms, objects, sense of I, etc. are not as real as the field of observation, the background intelligence. the measurement and measuring and thing presupposes the background reality. Because it is not a thing, it is not nothing. it is more real than things: it is isness itself. We can say that all things are relativizations of that background reality, or we can say that no thing is really able to capture it.[/b]

YOU WROTE:
I'm sort of lost here, Avery. Could you perhaps clarify this??[/quote]

Well, yes, in a way the arisal of experience each moment, out of the vast mystery, is a mystery. QM simply provides a good thought model: prior to measuring, there is a field of possibilities, not a thing. when you take a measurement of the sub=atomic superposed field of possibilities, then you find properties, determined things. Before that: no. But in a way,the state before determined measurement is more real than the measured property: even though it cannot be known directly by the measuring.

In a similar way, every moment, all of our experience is the way the kind of mind/body organism we have transforms the kind of being/possibilities this vast unknown reality is.

We could say that the mind/body organism is transforming that experience, and that it is transformed by that experience.

The contents of the experience, all of the details which occur each moment, are an appearance but the ever presence of the background/essence means experience has a sense of reality. the essence cannot be made into a content, but is the source and essence of the experience. We could think of electricity, only an analogy, that is transformed into heat, light, motion by wire, bulb, motor. The electicity is the essence, but you don't expeirence it per se without the transforming apparatus.

Now in the actual example, experience, consciousness is like electricity and the apparatus is the organism: body/mind/ego--The difference between this experience and the electricity example is that the mind/body apparatus is itself in essence no thing other than the transformed consciousness:

it has reached a point in our conversation, Anubis, where I have to make some choices. If you are sincere about wanting to discuss and understand, I am happy to continue indefinitely. but the email mode is impersonal, I don't really know you or your intent, or background. If it is just to have an intellectual fencing match, that too could be enjoyable, but I do not have the energy and time....

much peace and light.

avery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
Hi, Avery!!

If you want to really be satisfied, it is ok to debate and refute, consider and discuss. but in the end, you must explore for yourself.

This is exactly the difficulty I'm having with this discussion. Not just between you and I, but with Figaro as well. What exactly is it that I would expect to explore?? If I did attempt to experience this for myself, what on Earth (or not on Earth, I suppose) would I be seeing? Where would I be? There are so many ideas, philosophies, concepts, beliefs as to what it is that I would be experiencing, that I liken it to getting ten different sets of directions for a road trip, and some of the directions don't even lead to the same place. That is the fuel driving my side of the discussion. How can we be absolutely certain that there is anything beyond this world when all of the other worlds we have imagined thus far directly conflict from one to the next?? If there is one "Ultimate Reality" beyond our world, one would think that Mystics from all walks of life and of all kinds of faith would experience the same exact thing when they delve into this mystical realm. But this is the farthest thing from the truth.

Unless you are saying that we create our own reality in this realm, then I might agree. But, then gain, I'm also inclined to say that that is also a false reality because it exists only because we imagine it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
That ultimate reality has many ways of appraoch, which may give the appearance of contradictoriness, but really are due to the inability of any perspective on reality to deliver it as it is. This does not make it a non-existence, or fabrication, but a beyond description as an object, fact or thing.

And for you, that is true. But for me, the fact that this alternate reality cannot be described, is a dismissal of its tangibility. The only thing we have to describe this world to us are the words of men. And the word of man is often distorted and untrustworthy. The only "language" I have found thus far to be absolutely truthful and impossible to deny is that of mathematics. Mathematics can define and describe nearly every single thing in our known universe, with the exception of a select category of things. I guess it is just the fact that this alternate reality is supposedly beyond definition that leads me to believe the way I do. To say something is beyond definition is to say that it does not exist. Everything has to be definitive, that is what allows us to interact with it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
we are not (only) our personal stream of thoughts etc, but as long as we think we are we will suffer: not because of arbitrary punishment, or in some imagined hereafter, but as an orderly result of the mistaken identity.

Hmm.... I don't know if even accepting the idea of the soul as our being would save us from suffering. As morbid as this may sound, suffering is a key factor in growth. Suffering allows us to know pain, of all kinds, in order that we may better learn how to cope with it and learn from it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
it has reached a point in our conversation, Anubis, where I have to make some choices. If you are sincere about wanting to discuss and understand, I am happy to continue indefinitely. but the email mode is impersonal, I don't really know you or your intent, or background. If it is just to have an intellectual fencing match, that too could be enjoyable, but I do not have the energy and time....

It is sort of both. I am willing to discuss, I don't know that I will ever understand, but with the discussion comes the intellectual debate. I don't think that part can be avoided, unless I cease to offer counter points and instead take on the role of "student" and listen to what you have to say while simultaneously asking questions. I can assure you that I have no intent to make things miserable for you, nor do I wish to intentionally miss the point of your posts in order to continue a discussion that could otherwise be closed. I am in this discussion for the discussion and the possibility of gaining a little deeper understanding of the subject matter. However, I feel that, given my firm beliefs on this subject, I am obligated to tell you that if you feel you do not have the energy to invest into a lengthy intellectual debate over this subject, then it is probably best that you do not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Posts: 535
Location: Ithaca, NY
This is exactly the difficulty I'm having with this discussion. Not just between you and I, but with Figaro as well. What exactly is it that I would expect to explore?? If I did attempt to experience this for myself, what on Earth (or not on Earth, I suppose) would I be seeing? Where would I be?

Good afternoon Anubis and Avery! What fine posts ... I only have a few moments, but I wanted to say:

All will come clear to you Anubis, in your first meditation.

I agree with Avery and I think he said it very well: the mystical experiences cannot be put into words. What you would be seeing or where you would be, what there is to explore - will all be shown to you, even in that first meditation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Posts: 535
Location: Ithaca, NY
Good morning, Anubis! If there is one "Ultimate Reality" beyond our world, one would think that Mystics from all walks of life and of all kinds of faith would experience the same exact thing when they delve into this mystical realm. There are many levels of mystical experience - and many levels of mystics. The true Mystics do all experience the same thing, when they reach the highest level of Attainment ... But they do not find a world of forms there. They find one Aspect of Ultimate Reality, i.e. their own True Being - what I would call the soul - and true Consciousness, or what I would call the Divine, or God.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Posts: 62
Location: NY
The true Mystics do all experience the same thing, when they reach the highest level of Attainment

But we cannot know that for sure because, coincidentally enough, the "highest level of attainment" can only be reached in the afterlife. I find it interesting that the afterlife is the only avenue to this level of attainment. It is a very clever way of making the words of Mystics unable to be debunked as the only ones who will know for certain "what is out there" are those who are no longer in this world.

I don't mean to come off as over cynical, but this is how I view it.


Last edited by Anubis on Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group