Post Reply
Page 5 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Death: The Grand Illusion
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 5:41PM #41
Namchuck
Posts: 10,803

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:31AM, BIRK wrote:


  Evidence...  You asked for evidence.   .  Pardon me. But those are Scientists and Mystics telling you that Life is but a Dream and death is a Myth.


No serious scientist would describe life as a "dream" or death as a "myth".


  That everything the eyes perceive is filtered through our personal belief.


This is why the methods of science have been so successful, they transcend such a limitation. Science is both culture and epoch-independant. What beliefs or ideologies, for instance, shine through in models of superconductors? The scientific method is designed to remove bias. On the other hand, mysticism and religion requires it.


  If every brain is a part of this process, then how can we not use this only reliable source of information at least as a stepping stone for a much greater Learning?


I haven't a clue quite what you're getting at here. You'll have to elucidate.


 


   There is no Death because my physical experience is everything I want it to be without regard to how any other physical beings are flowing the energy.


Same response as above. 


  I trust the reflections of my experience when I see them experienced by another physical being.


As I've repeatedly said, protestations from personal experience are no guarantee of truth. Unverifiable personal experience simply doesn't qualify as evidence.


 That is all I have to place my trust.


Which would explain a good deal.


   Being Love is the next step up from recognizing the presence of it.


  That is Manifesting Heaven on Earth in action. Live in the now, but I make the news once in a while, to cheer up those with the preponderance for always looking for the absence of this ever present Love. It is called a Fluff piece, and  It will take you mind off of the war, long enough to tell you about the premier of the networks New Action Drama.


As I've often said, I'm all for love.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 6:22PM #42
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Apr 25, 2011 -- 5:41PM, Namchuck wrote:


No serious scientist would describe life as a "dream" or death as a "myth".





There was a period when no "serious scientist" would accept Relativity.


Your point is?


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 6:27PM #43
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

I realize our resident curmudgeon does not approve of videos but this one talks about the root of the issue we have going here.


Alan Watts - Prickles and Goo


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:02PM #44
Namchuck
Posts: 10,803

Apr 25, 2011 -- 6:22PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 5:41PM, Namchuck wrote:


No serious scientist would describe life as a "dream" or death as a "myth".





There was a period when no "serious scientist" would accept Relativity.


Your point is?


 





Yes, but science is self-correcting and shouldn't "accept" anything until the evidence is favorable enough. This approach has always been immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth than the ideas proposed by religion or mysticism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:03PM #45
Namchuck
Posts: 10,803

Apr 25, 2011 -- 6:27PM, Neomonist wrote:


I realize our resident curmudgeon does not approve of videos but this one talks about the root of the issue we have going here.


Alan Watts - Prickles and Goo


 





It doesn't necessarily address the "root of the issue" at all. It's simply Alan Watts view.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:08PM #46
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:02PM, Namchuck wrote:


Yes, but science is self-correcting and shouldn't "accept" anything until the evidence is favorable enough. This approach has always been immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth than the ideas proposed by religion or mysticism.




Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.


Buddha


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:29PM #47
Namchuck
Posts: 10,803

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:08PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:02PM, Namchuck wrote:


Yes, but science is self-correcting and shouldn't "accept" anything until the evidence is favorable enough. This approach has always been immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth than the ideas proposed by religion or mysticism.




Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.


Buddha


 





Yep, the Buddha was right onto it.


Mind you, what he wasn't into was either religion or mysticism, which probably explains the lucidity of his thought.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:53PM #48
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Yep, the Buddha was right onto it.


Mind you, what he wasn't into was either religion or mysticism, which probably explains the lucidity of his thought.





He wasn't into talking about it.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 7:56PM #49
Namchuck
Posts: 10,803

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:53PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Yep, the Buddha was right onto it.


Mind you, what he wasn't into was either religion or mysticism, which probably explains the lucidity of his thought.





He wasn't into talking about it.


 





Which might just imply that he wasn't interested in it, especially considering that he was primarily concerned with clarity of thought. There is very little of the latter in mysticism.


A buddhist monk once told me that Buddha had referred to mystics as "eel wrigglers", but I haven't been able to confirm that. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:11PM #50
Neomonist
Posts: 2,670

Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:56PM, Namchuck wrote:



He wasn't into talking about it.





Which might just imply that he wasn't interested in it, especially considering that he was primarily concerned with clarity of thought. There is very little of the latter in mysticism.




I submit it is more the case that he realized that words are the map not the territory and that all too many confuse the map for the territory.


Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:56PM, Namchuck wrote:


A buddhist monk once told me that Buddha had referred to mystics as "eel wrigglers", but I haven't been able to confirm that. 





If you get a confirmation or a denial on that, I'd be interesting in knowing.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook