Thread: A Crossroads

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is the crux of Baha'i. Please tell me how this is not Baha'i?

I can see the similarities, but I am not a "Baha'i" and it's not necessary to give my views a special name to see their validity. So what.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Not sure what psychology of religion you have been reading, but there's certainly a psychology of all religious beliefs as they all stem from human psyche.

No kidding. However, it is not of the psych to realize that you exist, and what you are in truth. In contrast, I'd like to add that ALL BELIEFS stem from the human psyche. Does that matter?

Originally Posted by O'nus

And you're still dodging it - rather than thinking that the core derivation of beliefs is the fact they are all from HUMANS you are ascribing them with a divine spawning pool, and, for some reason, that makes them all true. No?

No, the traditions/teachings I mentioned are founded upon divine revelation; this is how they are related. The Divine is sometimes called "The Truth."

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am asking for reasons to believe in your beliefs and asking you why you feel the need to bring your philosophy into every post of yours of substantial context. (ie. not counting "lols" or "cool").

Oh great. What reasons? Who's reasons? I always have to justify myself, yet you ignore me when I do. Please see "Doubting my Faith" - plenty of information/feedback from me there.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your above response seems more like a reason for why you feel you cannot justify your beliefs or offer a reason for anyone else to believe in them because you have constantly, from the very beginning, utterly failed to respond to my questions or to offer justifications or reasoning, rebuking them as "irrelevancies" or "unnecessary" as the truth is "ineffable". However, you fail to realize that your framing of the "truth" is within logic and finite terms by the very fact that you are describing it and conjured it yourself. It is within the confines of your imagination yet you seem to imagine that it stems from a divine collective energy within us all because it is so intangible, infinite, and immaterial.

In truth, I do not think you have a collective understanding of spirituality but subscribe to one certain one (your own) and do not allow any other criticism or integration of others. You act like an 18 year old who has chosen a set of beliefs that seem to make sense to you but refuse to offer any forms of criticism or challenge and then run in the corner while accusing "you're obnoxious and obviously not interested". Obviously the fundamental crux of your belief is to already believe in it to speak of it or think of it and yet you fail to realize how this is a major flaw.

Please take an extreme reconsideration. Your mentioned perceptions and doubts are but the surface of what I have repeatedly contemplated. Do you know what it takes to dedicate your life to God and aim for what can also be known as "ego-death?" Do you have the slightest hint of what surrendering means? Open your eyes, take a better guess. I am not the person you see me as.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, you have already, several times, said how you must experience it yourself to understand and speak of. However, you speak of it in nearly every post of yours and assert that others do not understand what you mean.

Likewise, talking about the visit to the moon is never going to be like the experience on the moon. Are you just being difficult or what?

Let's analogously say you argue that you doubt you can experience or visit the moon because it is in space. "But why should I believe it is possible to go there?" I have to argue that the means of getting there is radical and requires extraordinary responsibility and trust, of which is uncommon in the average person. The means of reaching the moon is rare, but it has been done and peole have risked their lives for its sake.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You're a pseudo-spiritual hypocrite and you give other subjective enthusiasts a bad name. Learn to have discussions with those that do not agree with you, learn how to offer reasoning, justifications, and support for your thoughts because "personal revelation" will only get YOU somewhere, and no one else. Otherwise, enjoy your beliefs, but don't barf it all over others like divine enlightenment like a prophet.

Stubborn subjectivists are the most impossible to discuss matters worse - try having discussion with a solipsist and you will know what I mean.

Yeah, no thanks for the stereotypes; I think your problem is judgementalism. What the hell is a "subjectivist"? Stop categorizing people and listen to what they have to say at heart, not according to the preciously ascribed label of your prideful choosing.

Originally Posted by really

I can see the similarities, but I am not a "Baha'i" and it's not necessary to give my views a special name to see their validity. So what.

I actually mean little offense by referring to you as a Baha'i - I seriously think you would like the philosophy from what you have said.

No kidding. However, it is not of the psych to realize that you exist, and what you are in truth. In contrast, I'd like to add that ALL BELIEFS stem from the human psyche. Does that matter?

This is where we have a division over the nature of the mind. There is no need to debate this here, it is really the only difference in our paradigms and I humbly stop there. Essentially, I agree with you, really.

No, the traditions/teachings I mentioned are founded upon divine revelation; this is how they are related. The Divine is sometimes called "The Truth."

In regards to the thread, do you feel that "The Truth" is what propagates transcendence of knowledge? By this, I mean, to perpetuate knowledge, there must be more knowing or experiencing "The Truth"?

Oh great. What reasons? Who's reasons? I always have to justify myself, yet you ignore me when I do. Please see "Doubting my Faith" - plenty of information/feedback from me there.

Yes, the point was it is a subjective perceptual issue. Hence, if it is, then you cannot contribute to any conversation because you are stuck in your own relative perception, no?

Please take an extreme reconsideration. Your mentioned perceptions and doubts are but the surface of what I have repeatedly contemplated. Do you know what it takes to dedicate your life to God and aim for what can also be known as "ego-death?" Do you have the slightest hint of what surrendering means? Open your eyes, take a better guess. I am not the person you see me as.

Right..

No one can understand your divine enlightened self..

I obviously have no idea what it is like to be a transcended epoched individual who understands phenomenological mentality.

Anyone who uses "ego-death" is either being condescending or has not read into phenomenology which is what you are reaching for. You would enjoy it, I think. Look up Edmund Husserl. Although he's a bad writer, his philosophy is rather intriguing and of very similar nature to what you are describing.

Also, what is the difference between what you hold yourself to be and the self-actualized person vis-a-vis Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

I doubt there is little.

Likewise, talking about the visit to the moon is never going to be like the experience on the moon. Are you just being difficult or what?

That's the point. You can talk about it all you want, but you hold that you must experience it. However, you then go about the forums and pontificate your knowledge of God..?

Do you see the hypocrisy here..?

Let's analogously say you argue that you doubt you can experience or visit the moon because it is in space. "But why should I believe it is possible to go there?" I have to argue that the means of getting there is radical and requires extraordinary responsibility and trust, of which is uncommon in the average person. The means of reaching the moon is rare, but it has been done and peole have risked their lives for its sake.

You obviously do not understand my intent but would rather paint me someone who's out to prove you wrong and denigrate your beliefs as it gives you reason to defend yourself rather than justify yourself.

This above quote is a severe tangent and deviation which has no relevant purpose to what I hold. I am not out to prove you wrong.

Yeah, no thanks for the stereotypes; I think your problem is judgementalism. What the hell is a "subjectivist"? Stop categorizing people and listen to what they have to say at heart, not according to the preciously ascribed label of your prideful choosing.

Until you can actually contribute in useful manner to those that do not believe in what you believe, you will constantly find yourself on the defense. This is because you hold your philosophy on the grounds of subjectivity alone and yet pontificate it which is an enormous oxymoron. How can you teach subjective experiences? You can't. Those most you can rationalize it is as yourself as a "guide" but this is only applicable to those that are already inclined to your beliefs, not someone who is trying to discuss or challenge your beliefs for the sake of mutual enlightenment.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I actually mean little offense by referring to you as a Baha'i - I seriously think you would like the philosophy from what you have said.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

In regards to the thread, do you feel that "The Truth" is what propagates transcendence of knowledge? By this, I mean, to perpetuate knowledge, there must be more knowing or experiencing "The Truth"?

The Truth is the only real knowledge. It is related to existence and being. It is not academic and it is unrelated to science and reason. Actually, this would mean that the Truth is both transcendent and immanent, yet neither. As I have surely said already, the Truth is non-dualistic.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, the point was it is a subjective perceptual issue. Hence, if it is, then you cannot contribute to any conversation because you are stuck in your own relative perception, no?

No. You have to move on from your shallow rhetoric, as your bias' rest upon mere words.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right..

No one can understand your divine enlightened self..

I obviously have no idea what it is like to be a transcended epoched individual who understands phenomenological mentality.

What?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Anyone who uses "ego-death" is either being condescending or has not read into phenomenology which is what you are reaching for.

Your prejudgements aside, I, using the term "ego-death", am referring to the dissolution of the false self, for the Divine Self upon Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Also, what is the difference between what you hold yourself to be and the self-actualized person vis-a-vis Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

I doubt there is little.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it has nothing to do with Divinity or Truth. Self-actualization is not Self-Realization. Please listen to what I am saying and already have said.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That's the point. You can talk about it all you want, but you hold that you must experience it. However, you then go about the forums and pontificate your knowledge of God..?

Do you see the hypocrisy here..?

There is no hypocrisy. The only hypocrisy is that we are discussing as if we are separate individuals, which is out of our scope of awareness (hence it is not actually hypocrisy). My knowledge of God is more as knowledge about God.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You obviously do not understand my intent but would rather paint me someone who's out to prove you wrong and denigrate your beliefs as it gives you reason to defend yourself rather than justify yourself.

This above quote is a severe tangent and deviation which has no relevant purpose to what I hold. I am not out to prove you wrong.

Obviously you need to be clear. My perception is my perception, there is nobody "painting you" as something, as perception is innocent and relative. If you are not "out to prove me wrong", then what is the point of your "yet you fail to realize" phrases?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Until you can actually contribute in useful manner to those that do not believe in what you believe, you will constantly find yourself on the defense. This is because you hold your philosophy on the grounds of subjectivity alone and yet pontificate it which is an enormous oxymoron.

There is no oxymoron, apart from the fact that the people (such as yourself), argue as if they have power over what they haven't even studied, without realizing their confusion.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How can you teach subjective experiences? You can't.

LOL, nice one. That is not my intent to begin with.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Those most you can rationalize it is as yourself as a "guide" but this is only applicable to those that are already inclined to your beliefs, not someone who is trying to discuss or challenge your beliefs for the sake of mutual enlightenment.

To begin "challenging" them as beliefs already stems from an ignorance or unfamiliarity of the very topic. Demanding reason, demonstration and room for argument obviously mistakes the context as being reasonable, demonstratable and within argument, which of these it is none of. Beyond all these notions, it is in a different realm of purpose. This further renders that I have nothing to defend, for I am representing what already effortlessly exists.

I think this has run its course. I was interested to see what you both had to say for awhile, but I think the cycle of what you are capable of talking about has run around more than once already.

Just to sum things up;

Really, you seem incapable of including the possibility that you might be wrong in your world view. You admit when questioned directly that you are not enlightened and have no special or transcendental knowledge that is not available to the rest of us, and yet you behave as though your interpretation of the available knowledge is the immanent and divine truth that you are so fond of talking about, is the only real knowledge, and that anyone that disagrees with you is just missing it, misunderstanding it, or ignorant of it.

O'nus, you want too much for Really to admit that he doesn't really know what he's talking about; something that very well may never happen. Although I appreciate your contribution to this thread, at the same time you really didn't address the thread at all aside from a few minor allusions to it; but instead just continued an old argument that you have been having with Really for some time now. I have a hard time with this because on the one hand I agree with you and had actually lost interest in responding to Really's constant condescending assertions that I was just "missing it" without really discussing anything at all, but I wish you could have found a way to respond to thread at the same time as calling Really out on his vacuous pontifications.

Now, if no one has anything to say about the actual context of the thread, please just lets stop posting and let it die.

Originally Posted by really

To begin "challenging" them as beliefs already stems from an ignorance or unfamiliarity of the very topic. Demanding reason, demonstration and room for argument obviously mistakes the context as being reasonable, demonstratable and within argument, which of these it is none of. Beyond all these notions, it is in a different realm of purpose. This further renders that I have nothing to defend, for I am representing what already effortlessly exists.

I have to address this directly because it is the crux of your world view, and yet it is grossly inconsistent with the teachings of those you claim share your world view (Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc.). If you have read any of the Nikayas or the rest of the Pali Canon, you would know that Gotama Buddha made it clear that the Dhamma is subtle and hard to grasp, but is firmly based in rational causation and can be known through reasonable contemplation. All of the 'Self-Realized' that you claim to agree with were capable of discussing and arguing rationally with those that disagreed with them or otherwise held contrary views. Jesus often argued with the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders, as well as carefully explained his position to the laity. Gotama Buddha also argued with the Brahmins and rationally explained the dhamma to anyone that asked it of him.

You cannot do this. Therefore we can conclude that you simply do not posess the knowledge that would allow you to explain it, not that any explanation is impossible.

I would also like to point out, since you obviously don't realize, I have read the bible (several times), the bhagavad Gita, much of the upanishads, the laws of Manu, most of the Nikayas and several other portions of the pali canon, as well as more recent Mahayana texts. I have also read most of the Quran, the Principia Discordia (you may not count this one, though I certainly do) and I have done secondary studies of Jainism, Voodoo, Native American Shamanism, Scientology, Mormonism and Raelianism, and also have a basic knowledge of countless other religions. On top of all of that, I have studied several different interpretations of many of these religions, examples being Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Baptists, Pentacostals, and Catholics among other sects of christianity, and Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism, among other sects of Buddhism.

When you are trying to be condescending you make statements like "there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections." Although now that I have made you aware of how much you have under-estimated my knowledge of the subject, you will no doubt claim that studying and reading doesn't really do any good because the Divine Truth can only be known through direct experience, to which I will respond by saying that I meditate daily and feel as though I have reached a level of concentration and a height of contemplation at least well above the average human, if not anywhere near the level of those who have dedicated their life to the practice; which I don't count you among. I have also done all or most of the same drugs as the neo-mystics of this forum whom I'm sure you can name for yourself, although I don't ascribe nearly as much signifigance to those experiences as they do.

I, however, believe in rational thought and a reality that remains universally consistent, which doesn't leave room for the irrational or unreasonable, and believe that the teachings of the prophets and self realized that you mentioned are consistent with this belief. I also leave ample room in my view of the world for the possibility that I am completely wrong, as well as for the vast and quite possibly infinite amount of information of which I am surely ignorant. If you would like to discuss your views and mine from the perspective of respectful peers whose aim is mutual enlightenment then I welcome the opportunity, but if you would like to continue to talk down to everyone else, proclaiming awareness of a divine unspeakable and unfalsifiable truth then please just move on because it will not be welcomed here or in any other discussion that I create or take part in.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have to address this directly because it is the crux of your world view, and yet it is grossly inconsistent with the teachings of those you claim share your world view (Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc.). If you have read any of the Nikayas or the rest of the Pali Canon, you would know that Gotama Buddha made it clear that the Dhamma is subtle and hard to grasp, but is firmly based in rational causation and can be known through reasonable contemplation.

Rational causation is but one aspect of the Divine. Though thanks for mentioning it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

All of the 'Self-Realized' that you claim to agree with were capable of discussing and arguing rationally with those that disagreed with them or otherwise held contrary views. Jesus often argued with the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders, as well as carefully explained his position to the laity. Gotama Buddha also argued with the Brahmins and rationally explained the dhamma to anyone that asked it of him.

And what did they say? I have been in many arguments myself, but I am not claiming to be enlightened.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I would also like to point out, since you obviously don't realize, I have read the bible (several times), the bhagavad Gita, much of the upanishads, the laws of Manu, most of the Nikayas and several other portions of the pali canon, as well as more recent Mahayana texts. I have also read most of the Quran, the Principia Discordia (you may not count this one, though I certainly do) and I have done secondary studies of Jainism, Voodoo, Native American Shamanism, Scientology, Mormonism and Raelianism, and also have a basic knowledge of countless other religions. On top of all of that, I have studied several different interpretations of many of these religions, examples being Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Baptists, Pentacostals, and Catholics among other sects of christianity, and Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism, among other sects of Buddhism.

Wow! That's very impressive. It looks like the religion and religious history is one of your major interests. Nice work.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When you are trying to be condescending you make statements like "there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections."

Well, I take that back. I didn't mean to sound condescending, I simply made the assumption you did not read much, in accordance with your belief in the "sun-worshiping" Christianity. Additionally, your surprise that God might be omnipresent or that this is "new." Don't take it personally, though.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Although now that I have made you aware of how much you have under-estimated my knowledge of the subject, you will no doubt claim that studying and reading doesn't really do any good because the Divine Truth can only be known through direct experience,

Sure, known in Truth by witnessing it. But you can know about it, in conceptual terms to help the intellect understand. That is, the path of non-duality may be of this assistance for the mind, and in its "transcendence". So you are familiar with Advaita?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

to which I will respond by saying that I meditate daily and feel as though I have reached a level of concentration and a height of contemplation at least well above the average human, if not anywhere near the level of those who have dedicated their life to the practice; which I don't count you among.

Good for you. You don't count me among? Who knows?

Meditating, what do you actually "do?" What purpose is yours? As for myself, I seek in the silence and the stillness. "Feeling Reality," as it Is.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you would like to discuss your views and mine from the perspective of respectful peers whose aim is mutual enlightenment then I welcome the opportunity, but if you would like to continue to talk down to everyone else, proclaiming awareness of a divine unspeakable and unfalsifiable truth then please just move on because it will not be welcomed here or in any other discussion that I create or take part in.

I'll make it clear now. I do not "proclaim" awareness of the Divine. If so, where? I believe I merely understand it and intuit it well. (To understand it intellectually is not to know it in the heart, in full awareness.) I'd like to help others understand too, as skeptics are commonly mislead by irrelevancies. Then again, I am also thinking of leaving DV altogether. Perhaps we are better off out without me here entirely.

Originally Posted by really

The Truth is the only real knowledge. It is related to existence and being. It is not academic and it is unrelated to science and reason. Actually, this would mean that the Truth is both transcendent and immanent, yet neither. As I have surely said already, the Truth is non-dualistic.

Your prejudgements aside, I, using the term "ego-death", am referring to the dissolution of the false self, for the Divine Self upon Enlightenment.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it has nothing to do with Divinity or Truth. Self-actualization is not Self-Realization. Please listen to what I am saying and already have said.

There is no hypocrisy. The only hypocrisy is that we are discussing as if we are separate individuals, which is out of our scope of awareness (hence it is not actually hypocrisy). My knowledge of God is more as knowledge about God.

Really

You claim not to be a hypocrite, but look at the above.

You claim that you are not arrogant, but that your knowledge is just that powerful. You are inclined to say, "Think of the truth of what I am saying", but you fail to compare and contrast your beliefs because you hold them to be so ineffable.

Your primary issue here is that you are only bragging about your beliefs. You are not providing any reason. You think this is a ridiculous claim? Look at the above. Do you make any sort of evidential assertion about your thoughts? No. You cannot even compare your self-realization to Maslow's self-actualization. Instead, you take the sophomoric ad hominem approach by simply saying "it's irrelevant". If it is and it keeps coming up, then perhaps you should demonstrate the distinction - if there is one.

I am mostly surprised that you hold yourself to be a "knowing-less" form of a "spiritual friend". You wield a double-edged sword of irrefutable and non-supported beliefs and claim to be open minded while simultaneously refuting all forms of criticism with no valid forms. You can't simply brush something off as "irrelevant" or "nonsense" without any reason when it is born from trying to understanding your beliefs. You must understand that your beliefs are either really complex or really stupid because of the way in which you demonstrate them like the above. I say this because what would you think if I said that I know the divine truth of the world but then refuted any sort of criticism or challenge with no reason at all besides "irrelevant, the truth is all encompassing ineffable"?

There is no oxymoron, apart from the fact that the people (such as yourself), argue as if they have power over what they haven't even studied, without realizing their confusion.

You really are an idiot then to think that that is what my intention is. You think I think I have power over something that I have no understanding or reasons of? I keep saying, I have been given no reason from you to be inclined to your beliefs, no evidence, no support, no justification at all. How can I possibly have power over something that I, not only know nothing of, but holds as much significance to me as someone else's imagination? And I don't mean imaginary friend, I literally mean their imagination. That is how untouchable I feel your beliefs are. I have nothing to work form, nothing to discuss from, nothing to criticise, nothing to challenge, and you hold this to be a primary reason why it is TRUE. Right?!

LOL, nice one. That is not my intent to begin with.

Review your posts, and you will find yourself offering subtle "advice" to others. Nice try though.

To begin "challenging" them as beliefs already stems from an ignorance or unfamiliarity of the very topic. Demanding reason, demonstration and room for argument obviously mistakes the context as being reasonable, demonstratable and within argument, which of these it is none of. Beyond all these notions, it is in a different realm of purpose. This further renders that I have nothing to defend, for I am representing what already effortlessly exists.

No matter how much you hold your truths to be untouchable by reason and demonstration, the fact of the matter is that you are holding them based on reason. You have a reason for holding them as the status you have stated. You must. It is impossible to not have reason. Now this is where you step in and say, "It exists beyond reason" and fail to see my point because I must remind you here that your own hypocrisy and ignorance comes into play. You say it exists outside reason but then say it is a very personal and subjective means... so.. in other words.. there is absolutely no reason to believe in it other than the reason that you personally like the idea of it.

You can desperately try your best to say that the "truth" is an ineffable and infinite substance that is immune to all forms of reason and mindful thinking, but it isn't. The very fact that you are thinking it and conceiving it, the very reason you think it to be outside reason, means it exist within reason.

Want more explanation? Then read some philosophy, real philosophy. For you, I suggest Leibniz or Spinoza. Have you ever read anything outside of your spiritual literature?

~

Please, O'nus or really, make your own thread to continue this argument. It interests me, but it really has nothing to do with the topic I presented at all. I would rather the thread die than continue on so far removed from the original intent.

For Xaqaria, I have essentially simplified my response and will leave it as the last (if it will be off-topic).

O'nus, I see your main problem. Guess what? We've talked about it for God knows how long. I say it is beyond reason because it is prior to belief and it is prior to science and logic. It rests upon the fact that you exist. This seems like a reason in itself, but to say this is just being picky with semantics. Existence is beyond reason. In no linearity can you comprehend it. It is prior to logic; logic is limited to its own domain, primarily the Newtonian (causality).

Remember our discussions on the cogito, or rather, the "I"? This is what the Spirit or Self of Existence is. The beliefs and practices are based on moving toward this Spirit, though awareness and knowledge of which is already is the case ("Nobody is un-enlightened"). The very fact that I do not need to think about it or believe it for it to actually be True, means it is self-evident and beyond my reason and thinking. Otherwise, it is "falsified" by ignorance and mis-perception.

As for justification of Self-Realization vs Self-Actualization, I thought it was obvious. Simply look them up in the dictionary, and you will see they're totally different.

For philosophers, the main ones I have read into and consider important are: Socrates, Descartes and Thomas Aquinas.
____


Hey Xaqaria, can I ask you a sincere question (as I have already):

Are you familiar with Advaita? And what does your meditation consist of (objectives/practice)? For more privacy, try PM if you want.

Thank you very much.

To be back on topic..

Xagaria you seem to be a complicated person. Not in any sort of negative way, some posts you make I totally disagree with(If I am remembering correctly) then others such as this one I'm 100% with you.

I agree, whether outside the influence of the supernatural..

Man is basically being given a choice, grow up or die.

We can only rape and pillage our planet for so long before our consequences come down.

Cause and Effect. Does not go out the window because of simple ignorance of the damage that can be done.

You put much importance in cycles as do I, seems you've connected with some certain pagan elements into your beliefs..

And I'm glad you have such an encompassing view of religion, I thought my knowledge to be quite broad but you seem to have spent a load of time studying.

Avant Garde!

Originally Posted by really

____


Hey Xaqaria, can I ask you a sincere question (as I have already):

Are you familiar with Advaita? And what does your meditation consist of (objectives/practice)? For more privacy, try PM if you want.

Thank you very much.

I am familiar with it, and other monist interpretations, but I don't really see the point. In my world beliefs, it seems self evident that everything is actually part of one larger thing, and I really can't see the usefulness of ending a belief system there. My goal is to understand the mechanics behind phenomena appearing to be separate, and the hierarchy of influence among the separations. Basically, why and how do forms comes to exist, and what are the levels of formation that we are not currently aware of? Stating "all is one" may feel like a good and sound conclusion, but it really accomplishes nothing. We appear separate from each other for a reason. I want to know what that is.

Although I don't think of it in this way necessarily, my meditation practices can be related to buddhist forms. I meditate on removing distracting thoughts, on the 6 sense bases, on mindful breath, and on detached loving kindness for all things. I try to distill my thoughts and detach myself from the distracting cycles of the conscious mind. I would have to say that my goal is to achieve a state of unbiased focused contemplation on a single subject (for instance God, or Forms, or perception, etc) and to gain meaningful and useful insight through the act of contemplation alone.

To stand upon a spiral staircase

Yet stand upon but one step at a time

Only realizing each and every step as its stood upon

Imagine then

Seeing one day

The whole of the staircase in one view

Could the limitations of each one step stood upon ever again contain?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I am familiar with it, and other monist interpretations, but I don't really see the point. In my world beliefs, it seems self evident that everything is actually part of one larger thing, and I really can't see the usefulness of ending a belief system there. My goal is to understand the mechanics behind phenomena appearing to be separate, and the hierarchy of influence among the separations. Basically, why and how do forms comes to exist, and what are the levels of formation that we are not currently aware of? Stating "all is one" may feel like a good and sound conclusion, but it really accomplishes nothing. We appear separate from each other for a reason. I want to know what that is.

Although I don't think of it in this way necessarily, my meditation practices can be related to buddhist forms. I meditate on removing distracting thoughts, on the 6 sense bases, on mindful breath, and on detached loving kindness for all things. I try to distill my thoughts and detach myself from the distracting cycles of the conscious mind. I would have to say that my goal is to achieve a state of unbiased focused contemplation on a single subject (for instance God, or Forms, or perception, etc) and to gain meaningful and useful insight through the act of contemplation alone.

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your interest in the separation, which is related to perception and form. You might also be interested in the nature of the ego and its dualistic structure, as this is the source of the seeming separation.

Originally Posted by really

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your interest in the separation, which is related to perception and form. You might also be interested in the nature of the ego and its dualistic structure, as this is the source of the seeming separation.

Okay, then what is the source of the ego?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Okay, then what is the source of the ego?

The ego is sometimes called the animal brain. It really describes an inherent tendency of human consciousness rather than an actual "thing". The ego or animal brain's source is inherent in evolution; it comes from being animal and needing to survive. It can be grown out of and transcended with radical spiritual dedication.

Though don't mistake this as meaning that we will "grow out of our animal brain," but understand that one's "awareness" will expand beyond it into a different realm of Reality; a greater consciousness. The self of the ego and separation is transcended into the One Self, and while the "animal" still may exist to external observers, it no longer is the real identity to the Self - which is the Absolute, All-encompassing Identity.

I'll respond primarily to the OP, though I have followed O'nus and really butting axioms with some a(/be)musement.

Xaq, while I don't look at things so much in terms of God and worship, I think we agree on the essentials here. I look on the various pantheons and worldviews more as toolsets that need to be refined and advanced every bit as much as our physical technology in order for us to cooperate on a larger scale and expand our sphere of influence. I agree with you that reaching the limits of a worldview's applicability does not negate it any more than relativity negates Newtonian physics; it merely reveals the context within which that worldview is relevant. Monotheism, for instance, supports cooperation on the scale of empire, but frustrates global/specieswide cooperation.

Joseph Campbell called this a mythogenic era, comparing it to the emergence of "world savior" narratives built around Buddha, Mohammed and Christ at the beginning of the Common Era. We're beginning to see the shape of the world in which existing traditions operate, and we're generating sub-narratives to describe a universe that accomodates Eastern views, Western views and the physics and mathematics we share.

Your idea of the earth "testing" us seems a little contrived to me, but we certainly do need a new meaning framework (or frameworks) to move forward, and failing to achieve it may well mean we blast ourselves back to the stone age.

Originally Posted by really

The ego is sometimes called the animal brain. It really describes an inherent tendency of human consciousness rather than an actual "thing". The ego or animal brain's source is inherent in evolution; it comes from being animal and needing to survive. It can be grown out of and transcended with radical spiritual dedication.

Though don't mistake this as meaning that we will "grow out of our animal brain," but understand that one's "awareness" will expand beyond it into a different realm of Reality; a greater consciousness. The self of the ego and separation is transcended into the One Self, and while the "animal" still may exist to external observers, it no longer is the real identity to the Self - which is the Absolute, All-encompassing Identity.

How can evolution or animals exist without form?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your idea of the earth "testing" us seems a little contrived to me, but we certainly do need a new meaning framework (or frameworks) to move forward, and failing to achieve it may well mean we blast ourselves back to the stone age.

It is contrived, but I think only in the sense that I have anthropomorphized it to a degree, because that is the easiest way for us to understand things. I realize that the Earth (or solar system) is not thinking and scheming, coming up with a test for us to prove our worth; that is just the best way to describe it in human terms. I do believe it is a conscious effort of some sort, but how that consciousness works or manifests itself I can't say.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How can evolution or animals exist without form?

First of all, "Form" denotes the material world, the objective, measurable world of linearity and logic. You can define form in some way, it can be symbolized accurately. It is categorized as "form" because it describes that which has form: that which has an actual existence or "actuality." Therefore it is a finite and most likely a physical existence; is transitory in a given state. It can be called the "manifest". Thoughts and perception identify with form.

The formless, on the other hand, is everywhere present and intangible. It is beyond the dimensions of form, so it cannot be measured in space or placed within time. It is timeless and spaceless; Timeless and Omnipresent. The fact that it is indestructible and Absolute means it is also Omnipotent. It holds, without any form, infinite possibility and potential as "potentiality". It can be called the "unmanifest".

Nothing can really exist without form, because form denotes actual existence. The formless "existence" usually is not said to exist or "be," because it is prior to an actual state, without dimension yet infinite in dimension. An animal, or a living creature that needs to survive, needs a form - it requires a body.

"Evolution" is really just a concept that is related to the intelligent growth and adaptation of species in their environment. It needs form for species to evolve, but as itself, it could be said to vaguely reference the magnificent, formless propensities of mother nature.

Originally Posted by really

First of all, "Form" denotes the material world, the objective, measurable world of linearity and logic. You can define form in some way, it can be symbolized accurately. It is categorized as "form" because it describes that which has form: that which has an actual existence or "actuality." Therefore it is a finite and most likely a physical existence; is transitory in a given state. It can be called the "manifest". Thoughts and perception identify with form.

The formless, on the other hand, is everywhere present and intangible. It is beyond the dimensions of form, so it cannot be measured in space or placed within time. It is timeless and spaceless; Timeless and Omnipresent. The fact that it is indestructible and Absolute means it is also Omnipotent. It holds, without any form, infinite possibility and potential as "potentiality". It can be called the "unmanifest".

Nothing can really exist without form, because form denotes actual existence. The formless "existence" usually is not said to exist or "be," because it is prior to an actual state, without dimension yet infinite in dimension. An animal, or a living creature that needs to survive, needs a form - it requires a body.

"Evolution" is really just a concept that is related to the intelligent growth and adaptation of species in their environment. It needs form for species to evolve, but as itself, it could be said to vaguely reference the magnificent, formless propensities of mother nature.

Okay, you didn't really answer my question. You said that form arises from the ego, which is created through the process of evolution and animals 'being' which comes from the existence of form. So essentially you are saying that the ego creates form and form creates the ego. If this is the position you would like to take, the question now becomes, what created the cyclical relationship of form and ego?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Okay, you didn't really answer my question. You said that form arises from the ego, which is created through the process of evolution and animals 'being' which comes from the existence of form.

"Form arises from the ego" - where did I say that? Form exists as a "manifestation" of the unmanifest, formless potentiality.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So essentially you are saying that the ego creates form and form creates the ego.

No, how could you come to that conclusion? It might be more helpful to the both of us if you quote me more specifically with your questions. The mind perceives form, but it does not create it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If this is the position you would like to take, the question now becomes, what created the cyclical relationship of form and ego?

Like I said, "the ego" is a description or tendency of consciousness, and it has animal characteristics. However, all form may only exist through perception - that which the ego primarily confuses with Reality.

Originally Posted by really

"Form arises from the ego" - where did I say that? Form exists as a "manifestation" of the unmanifest, formless potentiality.



No, how could you come to that conclusion? It might be more helpful to the both of us if you quote me more specifically with your questions. The mind perceives form, but it does not create it.

This ^ is answered by this V.

Originally Posted by really

Like I said, "the ego" is a description or tendency of consciousness, and it has animal characteristics. However, all form may only exist through perception - that which the ego primarily confuses with Reality.

And also this V

Originally Posted by really

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your interest in the separation, which is related to perception and form. You might also be interested in the nature of the ego and its dualistic structure, as this is the source of the seeming separation.

Am I misunderstanding you? It seems like you are saying that perception comes from our ego and that form exists through perception. How is that different from the ego creating form?

Originally Posted by really

Nothing can really exist without form, because form denotes actual existence. The formless "existence" usually is not said to exist or "be," because it is prior to an actual state, without dimension yet infinite in dimension. An animal, or a living creature that needs to survive, needs a form - it requires a body.

I have to quote you on this, because I missed it initially but it sort of negates this entire conversation. If the absolute reality doesn't exist, then why are we discussing it? Do we really need to discuss whether or not non-existence exists?

Somehow I feel like you are going to try to use a convoluted twist of language to try to weasel your way out of this so I'm going to stop you before you begin. Everything in reality or Reality exists. If form is necessary for existence, then your formless Absolute Reality is non-existent and not real. You'll have to either change your wording or admit you are pulling this all out of your ass.

The irony is that I actually don't agree with the statement, "Nothing can really exist without form, because form denotes actual existence."

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Am I misunderstanding you? It seems like you are saying that perception comes from our ego and that form exists through perception. How is that different from the ego creating form?

I'm not so sure, and it could be a languaging issue (unless you define "creation"). The ego can also be said to be the mind, if that makes it more clear. I've heard about how the world may subjectively disappear at very high states of awareness (transcend perception), but I don't believe that the ego would literally create form. I guess form is real and only detectable or recognizable within the confines of perception and the mind. I think it is an illusory appearance of the infinite Reality and is only at a low context of awareness, similar to how causality exists but only in a very contracted paradigm of Reality. So, in essence perhaps it does create it, but only in the terms as it is to be perceived.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have to quote you on this, because I missed it initially but it sort of negates this entire conversation. If the absolute reality doesn't exist, then why are we discussing it? Do we really need to discuss whether or not non-existence exists?

I thought that this would be a possible dilemma, but please see the explanation below. The Absolute actually Absolutely and Inevitably exists, don't you think? Without an Absolute, there could be nothing transitory or relative. Nothing would exist, so perhaps existence in its solid definition is the Absolute Reality.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Somehow I feel like you are going to try to use a convoluted twist of language to try to weasel your way out of this so I'm going to stop you before you begin. Everything in reality or Reality exists. If form is necessary for existence, then your formless Absolute Reality is non-existent and not real. You'll have to either change your wording or admit you are pulling this all out of your ass.

The irony is that I actually don't agree with the statement, "Nothing can really exist without form, because form denotes actual existence."

Yes I understand the problem and have been through it myself. I agree, nothing unreal exists. Everything that is Real Exists and is in such a way True, and everything otherwise by definition is non-existent, unreal and will register as false - or rather, fail to register. The problem arose from languaging. I made this diagram a while ago, I hope it helps make the distinction:



So you can see that Form denotes an actual existence, whereas the Formless is a potential existence. The potential existence is outside linearity, it is outside time and space. What is actually formed can be located and placed inside time, so it can be perceived. I hope that makes some more sense.