It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mystics. Take my word for it.

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
Why do you bother coming here? I'm sure there's a poor-sport board out there somewhere.

The only thing a mystic knows is that he had a mystical experience. That's it.

And oh yeah, playground insults do not make me wrong.

Do playground insults make you right?

It seems that you don't actually know what the word mystic refers to. A 'mystic' will happily admit that he/she knows nothing.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain



It seems that you don't actually know what the word mystic refers to. A 'mystic' will happily admit that he/she knows nothing.


Would a mystic know what the word actually refers to after happily admitting that he/she knows nothing?

"Knowing nothing" is a contradiction. First, one cannot know nothing until he is deceased. Second, one cannot know that he cannot know, just like one cannot know that he does. "Knowing" is an activity performed by human beings, a human affair and endeavour. If one refuses to know, one refuses to participate. Believing one knows, and denying one knows, is the same thing—arriving at a conclusion, confirming, calculating, deducing, inferring, gathering, judging and valuing—knowing.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
Would a mystic know what the word actually refers to after happily admitting that he/she knows nothing?

Yes. Nothing is no thingness. There are no things, just tendencies.



If one refuses to know, one refuses to participate. Believing one knows, and denying one knows, is the same thing—arriving at a conclusion, confirming, calculating, deducing, inferring, gathering, judging and valuing—knowing.

What do you know? Tell me one thing that you absolutely know for sure - there is just one thing you cannot deny - what is it?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: scratchmane




I've been pondering what you mean by his for the last couple of days, and I must say I am unable to understand what you mean when you say it is a form of superstition. I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me.


Focusing on a set of words, for instance "I am", is just that, focusing on a set of words. The words themselves inflict no change upon anything unless it has supernatural powers. Giving supernatural powers to words is superstition.


Why would words not inflict any changes? Isn't the fact that we are using words here, inflict change upon our consciousness?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: scratchmane




Why would words not inflict any changes? Isn't the fact that we are using words here, inflict change upon our consciousness?


What about this phrase?

Les mots ne peuvent rien y changer.

They are words. It is a sentence. How do they inflict change on your consciousness?

If words could change anything, we'd all be speaking the same language. Instead, it is us that change the words by supplying the meaning. When we hear a set of words we understand we instill it with meaning, and are able to make sense of it. When we hear a set of words we do not understand, we are unable to instill it with meaning and are not able to make sense of it. The words themselves have no power until we give it to them. Focusing on "I am" is giving power to the words, supplying them with a certain meaning, where there is no such thing in the words themselves.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
Focusing on "I am" is giving power to the words, supplying them with a certain meaning, where there is no such thing in the words themselves.

Is it possible for you to see beyond words?
What do you think the words 'I am' mean?

What do you know for certain? Is it possible for you to say that you are not? Can you state that you do not exist?

When one says 'I am' then it is true but what one is can be mistaken for something one is not.
edit on 18-7-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




Is it possible for you to see beyond words?
What do you think the words 'I am' mean?

What do you know for certain? Is it possible for you to say that you are not? Can you state that you do not exist?

When one says 'I am' then it is true but what one is can be mistaken for something one is not.


I am is an incomplete sentence. I am...what? This I know for certain.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
I am is an incomplete sentence. I am...what? This I know for certain.

You are but what you are....... is uncertain. One may label oneself as many things, like a husband or wife, a doctor or a mechanic but prior to any label you are.
The sentence 'I am' is not incomplete - it is just that you 'think' you are some thing.
Prior to any concept you are.
edit on 18-7-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




You are but what you are....... is uncertain. One may label oneself as many things, like a husband or wife, a doctor or a mechanic but prior to any label you are.
The sentence 'I am' is not incomplete - it is just that you 'think' you are some thing.
Prior to any concept you are.


Existence is not a property of an object. Existence, or "am", is a property of concepts. No on does or doesn't do existence. No one does or doesn't do being. I am or I am not are incomplete sentences that describe nothing that isn't already implied in the very existence of the thing saying the phrase.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012



The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.


Then nothing says the phrase, nothing is referred to, and the world is silent.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012



The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.


Then nothing says the phrase, nothing is referred to, and the world is silent.


I am the silence that is incomprehensible
and the idea whose remembrance is frequent.
I am the voice whose sound is manifold
and the word whose appearance is multiple.
I am the utterance of my name.

The Thunder: Perfect Mind



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012



The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.


Then nothing says the phrase, nothing is referred to, and the world is silent.


Indeed, something IS being referred to, and pointed to. A being is either aware of it, or they aren't. It's good for one to scrutinize all religions and spiritualism's. Just speed up the process and throw it ALL in the garbage bin. None of it is needed, so why waste time. Especially if someone is trying to figure out anything about the 'self' or this Universe, none of these philosophies, ideologies or think-ologies are needed.


edit on 20-7-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012




Indeed, something IS being referred to, and pointed to. A being is either aware of it, or they aren't. Knowledge is not necessary to know this, nor is spiritual or religious understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything being spoken in this thread, or on this entire board for that matter.


It is being referred to by you perhaps. Yet what you are referring to is conveniently left out. And why is that? Could it be that you simply do not know what you are referring to? What is necessary to know this is grammar, for which the clause "I am", lacks.
edit on 20-7-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism



It is being referred to by you perhaps. Yet what you are referring to is conveniently left out. And why is that? Could it be that you simply do not know what you are referring to? What is necessary to know this is grammar, for which the clause "I am", lacks.

I added to my post since you're reply. But anyway, 'I Am' only makes sense to people who have re-discovered the fact. What they are referring to, is the living energy of life/consciousness itself, which is ALL inclusive and is EVERYTHING as opposed to the exclusive illusion of an individual self in an individual physical body which is an idea, an illusion most people on Earth still embrace and defend.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

"I am" begins to not make sense on realization of another fact, and is certain only to those who are capable of a clearer understanding not entirely dependent on religious sophistry, namely, that it is meaningless.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012

"I am" begins to not make sense on realization of another fact, and is certain only to those who are capable of a clearer understanding not entirely dependent on religious sophistry, namely, that it is meaningless.


R-editing my post
edit on 20-7-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)


You don't believe in anything. That seems to be pretty fertile ground. Why not skip to the end of all this personal scrutiny of spiritual and religious ideologies and practices and toss all of it in the garbage bin? All of it is complete nonsense and a waste of precious time. No need for religion, beliefs, or philosophy , and most certainly no place for 'belief' to follow.

That's the beauty of 'I Am', it is not tied to anything. Not spirituality, religion, or philosophy or ideology of ANY kind. It is not a belief, but a statement of pure fact. The only fact actually. Either a being is aware of what it's referring to, or they aren't.
edit on 20-7-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012


Yet it's totally shrouded in philosophy.....



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

It is not even a statement.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012


Yet it's totally shrouded in philosophy.....


Unfortunately, yes. And all the philosophies are wrong.




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join