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.

 

Religious people: You all tend to have the same reasons for believing...

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Experiences happen.
Experience is passing.
What always remains the same?
The space that allows all things to happen.

The space is what we are.
Find the empty space that is you and you will be fulfilled.
Be the empty vessel that life moves through.

Experience 'this' eternal now.
Forget time.
Remember now.




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


You wrote:
('conscious' still undefined on your part)

This has finally convinced me that i am also wasting my time.
It seems that you do not know what it means to be conscious. It is clear to me now that you have not understood anything that i have written.

Namaste.


This 'final conviction' of yours pops up regularly in your comunnication with me, and usually lasts a day or two.

Concerning the 'holier than you' aspect (as expressed through claims of higher, lower or no consciousness/awareness), I have already on several occasions told you, that I don't join in such comparative or even competitive activities to any greater extent.


There is no way of 'meauring' this, and the only common reference-points would be the rather esoteric sources from various 'mystics' etc, which don't contain anything so specific, that it can be used for such a purpose in the present context.

I can discuss objective claims, abstract or conceptual ideas, doctrines and who-said-what-about-what, but not a graduation of individual consciousness, as in 'spiritual' consciousness.

Consciousness, as a expression of a way of registering/observing the observable part of existence though, can be scrutinized.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


Sorry about the late answer. My internet connection also had a bad time recently.

You wrote:

["Guided imagination? Okay I am a little questionable here. What do you mean by that? Are we guiding our imaginations or is someone/something else?"]

Guided imagination is just an organized way of using 'fantasy', in a more structured form than just ordinary daydreaming. The specific outcomes are almost 100% subjective, but the phenomenon per se would be worth some serious attention. It COULD be a legitimate way of percieving with proper use.

Quote: [" Now if guided imagination is real and/if I am the one guiding it, wouldn't I have seen one by now? And my experience before only happened once. That suggests that it was not guided imagination."]

I have no reason to suspect your experience to be a completely made up fantasy (and it hasn't been my intention to suggest this as conclusive). But as in my own case, where I have reasons to believe, that I was exposed to 'real' stimuli, the interpretation-part can be more fishy to sort out.

The is rather convincing psychological knowledge about the lack of socalled 'gestalts' (recognizable and meaningful patterns), when interpretating unknown sense-stimuli. And used in a religious, semi-religious or existential context, the same stimulus can be interpretated to be Jesus, Buddha or whatever.

Quote: ["I have to disagree with the rational/scientific/logic answers sentence. It seems that quantum physics is having a hard time explaining what is happening in their field of study. With trying to relate it to relativity. Also with the scientist saying how a particle can be in two different places at once does not seem "rational" unless it is trying to describe science."]

Newtonian physics is still the basis and relates very well to the observable mechanics of the universe (cosmos). Any theological or religious speculation will still have to deal with this part, which is very uniform and demonstrable as 'objective'.

Quantum mechanics is still a young science (it didn't get housebroken until mid-20'th century), and will in my estimation not produce conclusions, uniformity or creative permanent paradigm shifts the next 50 years or more. Any speculations based on it are still speculations, and efforts of 'quantum-religion' practically always mumbo-jumbo. These people constructing such 'quantum-religions' hardly know Newtonian physics as it is.

Why religionists etc. just don't stay with calling their religion/spititual ideology/experience 'faith' and accept the subjective character of it, is beyond me.

Instead some missionary types invent a fake-objectivity, by which they want to justify exclusive elitist claims.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You wrote:
Concerning the 'holier than you' aspect (as expressed through claims of higher, lower or no consciousness/awareness), I have already on several occasions told you, that I don't join in such comparative or even competitive activities to any greater extent. End quote.

Just recently you said it was you who uses the term higher consciousness and now you say i use these terms higher, lower or no consciousness/awareness, i'd like you to direct me to a post, any post where i have used the terms higher or lower or no consciousness. You are making claims that are untrue.
How is it possible to not join in to any greater extent?


'This' can not be measured, that is the point. 'This' is 'The Point'. The point at which time ceases to exist. There is only here and now and any measuring has to be done from here to here. 'This' is the only reference point that truly exists. Here and now. Which together make nowhere. A placeless place. But 'this' can be known. 'This' experience.
'This' experience is what is commonly called 'I'.
'I' is the consciousness. 'I' is the one that is awake, conscious.

Everything that is ever going to happen happens here and now in the I-ness that you are.
Because our minds construct time and space we bring into creation the 'solid' objects.
The 'solid' objects are appearing within consciousness as consciousness.

There is only the subject. Like when you dream, there are no solid people or places or things (although there appears to be). On waking the dream vanishes into the thin air it appeared out of. The dream was no more than a mirage, a willow the wisp but the experience was real.
The experience and the experiencer of the dream, are just one 'thing' - the dream.
The dream is the cause and the effect.
You could say the dream is consciousness itself.
edit on 20-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote: ["'This' can not be measured, that is the point."]

How can you possibly write to me (from a former post):

Quote: ["It seems that you do not know what it means to be conscious."]

except in terms of the 'this' mentioned in my first quote from you in this post? Do you have access to any trans-mundane measuring methods, unknown to me, by which you can grade my position on 'consciousness' via some forum posts?

Quote: ["Just recently you said it was you who uses the term higher consciousness"]

I have asked you for clarification etc on the term 'consciousness', 'higher consciousness' or whatever. I'm not indulging in any p...... contest of who is 'best' or in semantic point-scoring confusion.

Especially as I still don't know how to measure it, or your definition of the word 'consciousness'. So even if I should accept your overall premsises, which I don't do presently, as they rather irrationally include 'God', Jesus and 'sin' in the otherwise sensible here-and-now scenario, the only information I get from you is your increasingly apparant missionary efforts.

Quote: ["How is it possible to not join in to any greater extent?"]

The reality-model you present contains so big elements of solipsism, even megalomania, that it's not a basis for communication.

Quote: ["The point at which time ceases to exist. There is only here and now and any measuring has to be done from here to here. 'This' is the only reference point that truly exists. Here and now. Which together make nowhere. A placeless place. But 'this' can be known. 'This' experience."]

We've been through it repeatedly, with variations of the theme of 'observer-created reality', positions of solipsism and an unexplained super-imposition of your (apart from 'sin' etc) partly reasonable hypothesis upon mundane 'reality'/perspective.

YOU have probably not transgressed this mundane reality (neither have I), I e.g. doubt strongly if you can ignore gravity. If you want to present exclusive reality-models, it requires more than the same sermon preached again.

Quote: ["Because our minds construct time and space we bring into creation the 'solid' objects"]

Who are the 'we' possessing 'OUR' minds? Did cosmos start to exist including a special kind of 'minds' being able to observe it (cosmos) into existence?

I can again only repeat my constant question: What, which or who IS this 'mind' necessary for existence?

Quote: ["The 'solid' objects are appearing within consciousness as consciousness."]

Concerning 'consciousness'. The same question as directly above.

Quote: [" There is only the subject. Like when you dream, there are no solid people or places or things (although there appears to be). On waking the dream vanishes into the thin air it appeared out of. The dream was no more than a mirage, a willow the wisp but the experience was real.
The experience and the experiencer of the dream, are just one 'thing' - the dream.
The dream is the cause and the effect.
You could say the dream is consciousness itself."]

I have on general ground no big objections to this. Actually it's similar to my own speculations. My objections are when you start to postulate about components of the 'reality' beyond and how this relates to experienced mundane reality.

To my remembrance practically all your many references to whatever is known 'mundanely' have been flawed or plain incorrect. It would be a good idea to get that in order, before you venture up in the ivory-tower of abstract speculations and present it as 'absolute'.

And also to skip the guruosity.



edit on 20-5-2011 by bogomil because: paragraphing punctuation



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Consciousness can not be measured. This, here, now, that you are experiencing at this instant can it be measured? When you are in deep sleep and it could be said that there is nothingness, can that be measured?
In the dream that all happens in the mind, can that be measured?
Each post i write is about consciousness, i point toward consciousness but it is like pointing to the moon and all you see is my finger.
It is all happening in the mind of god as a thought
Do you notice that i use as little concepts/labels as possible. I try to speak directly, it is you who uses name calling, concepts.
I am pointing toward the moon and you kick me in the shins.
edit on 20-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I do not dictate to you how you should be or how you should think or how you are wrong or how i oppose you?
I only speak about consciousness.
There is no opposition in consciousness.
There are no fragments in the one.

The semantics that you like to argue about all come from you, you use words like "your increasingly apparant missionary efforts", solipsism,
megalomania, mundane 'reality'/perspective, trans-mundane.

You wrote:
To my remembrance practically all your many references to whatever is known 'mundanely' have been flawed or plain incorrect. End quote.

This is no more than your opinion based on the fact that you haven't got a clue what i am talking about.
edit on 20-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


I do not dictate to you how you should be or how you should think or how you are wrong or how i oppose you?
I only speak about consciousness.
There is no opposition in consciousness.
There are no fragments in the one.

The semantics that you like to argue about all come from you, you use words like "your increasingly apparant missionary efforts", solipsism,
megalomania, mundane 'reality'/perspective, trans-mundane.

You wrote:
To my remembrance practically all your many references to whatever is known 'mundanely' have been flawed or plain incorrect. End quote.

This is no more than your opinion based on the fact that you haven't got a clue what i am talking about.
edit on 20-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


To start with the last two paragraphs:

When you refer to something mundane, as you've done on several occasions, I certainly am in a position of understanding and relating to, what you write. E.g. was when you postulated, that sound doesn't exist without your still undefined 'consciousness', and (if my memory serves me), when you demonstrated a complete lack of buddhist doctrines, rather insistingly presenting your wrong version, until I provided sources.

As to YOUR understanding of MY understanding, well.........Feel free.

Highlighted quote: [" I only speak about consciousness."]

Still undefined, as to your specific use of the word.

Quote: ["There is no opposition in consciousness.
There are no fragments in the one."]

Which 'one'? And what 'consciousness'?

To approach your posts on more general lines, the ironic thing is, that your argumentation just as well can lead to ultimate diversified relativity (fragmentation) as to the uniform absolute I guess, you're trying to 'prove'.

The logic conclusion of your version of 'observer-created reality' can also mean, that any observer's observer-created reality IS 'reality' (that's where the solipsism comes in); this means EVERYTHING is 'reality', even when these different realities don't fit together.

So a nightdream is 'real', as 'real' as a day-dream, as 'real' as day-experience, which is as 'real' as a schizophrenic's hallucinations, which is as 'real' as any religion, non-religion or other ideology ever cooked up ........etc.

And to relate all this somewhat to topic, it demonstrates the validity of the thread theme: You guys can arrive to any conclusions, by disregarding rational reasoning and postulating individual superiority.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I will leave you with this,
youtu.be...



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Thanks for the communication. You're not all that bad, as my hard pressure on you sometimes suggest.

PS I seldom follow up sources, unless I'm sure they really add something, which can't be said on the forum. And I don't have equipment to look at videos.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


Sorry about the late answer. My internet connection also had a bad time recently.

You wrote:

["Guided imagination? Okay I am a little questionable here. What do you mean by that? Are we guiding our imaginations or is someone/something else?"]

Guided imagination is just an organized way of using 'fantasy', in a more structured form than just ordinary daydreaming. The specific outcomes are almost 100% subjective, but the phenomenon per se would be worth some serious attention. It COULD be a legitimate way of percieving with proper use.

Quote: [" Now if guided imagination is real and/if I am the one guiding it, wouldn't I have seen one by now? And my experience before only happened once. That suggests that it was not guided imagination."]

I have no reason to suspect your experience to be a completely made up fantasy (and it hasn't been my intention to suggest this as conclusive). But as in my own case, where I have reasons to believe, that I was exposed to 'real' stimuli, the interpretation-part can be more fishy to sort out.

The is rather convincing psychological knowledge about the lack of socalled 'gestalts' (recognizable and meaningful patterns), when interpretating unknown sense-stimuli. And used in a religious, semi-religious or existential context, the same stimulus can be interpretated to be Jesus, Buddha or whatever.

Quote: ["I have to disagree with the rational/scientific/logic answers sentence. It seems that quantum physics is having a hard time explaining what is happening in their field of study. With trying to relate it to relativity. Also with the scientist saying how a particle can be in two different places at once does not seem "rational" unless it is trying to describe science."]

Newtonian physics is still the basis and relates very well to the observable mechanics of the universe (cosmos). Any theological or religious speculation will still have to deal with this part, which is very uniform and demonstrable as 'objective'.

Quantum mechanics is still a young science (it didn't get housebroken until mid-20'th century), and will in my estimation not produce conclusions, uniformity or creative permanent paradigm shifts the next 50 years or more. Any speculations based on it are still speculations, and efforts of 'quantum-religion' practically always mumbo-jumbo. These people constructing such 'quantum-religions' hardly know Newtonian physics as it is.

Why religionists etc. just don't stay with calling their religion/spititual ideology/experience 'faith' and accept the subjective character of it, is beyond me.

Instead some missionary types invent a fake-objectivity, by which they want to justify exclusive elitist claims.




Excellent post again.


So our mind when trying to interpret something that is unknown to it, is using logged data in our brains to make sense of it? Now this is something that does make sense to me to a certain degree.
How does it know what to pick to use for interpretation? Is it random? Or do we have to have an emotional attachment to it? That would be worth study.

What would one do while experiencing said stimuli in order to try and make proper sense of it? I do not have a heat recording gun laying around. lol. I would like to get one though. Maybe something to read electrical/magnetic fields in the general area.


Yes Quantum physics is a young field. Perhaps the LHC will bring it into adulthood sooner than you expect. Newtonian physics and Quantum physics should agree with each other. Unless it is the speed of moving parts that is the key factor. I don't understand the majority of either of them, but I try. It has always fascinated me how everything seems to move in a circular motion though. Maybe everything is in layers and with each layer a different set of laws has to be used to study it. Well enough with my ramblings. You have given me much to think about and for that I thank you.

Conc



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join