I'm not too sure that "God" created these human bodies we all have. Here's why:

i]reply to post by AfterInfinity

Have you ever heard of sensory deprivation tanks? I'm sure you have. You are suspended in fluid in such a manner that all of your senses are cut off. You are alive, but you see nothing, hear nothing, feel nothing. Experimental subjects in such conditions began to imagine entire worlds, complete with sensation. In their imaginary worlds, they experienced everything they could with their bodies - but without their bodies.

A man blind his whole life doesn't dream in images. A man deaf his whole life doesn't dream with sound. What does that tell you?

To build any world in a dream, one must first have experienced the world. Because someone loses their senses for a moment doesn't mean anything. They are still in their body, and when they imagine worlds, they are referring back to what constitutes a world, one that their body has experienced.

Can you imagine a color you haven't seen? Can you imagine a smell you've never smelled? Can you imagine a feeling you've never had?

reply to post by Exv8densez

Yes one has to wonder what kind of omniscient, omnipotent God creates such failure? Or are we just a slave spieces of merely superior beings?

Just one out of my laundry list of burning questions - should I ever get the chance to confirm the existence of, and confront, such an entity. For placing such importance on freedom, we don't seem to care much about humanitarian policies in the afterlife. Especially considering that we are apparently trading a hundred years of freedom and human rights for an eternity in a dictatorship.

But again, that's just one gaping plot hole. If you ever find an answer, hit me up, would you?

reply to post by bb23108

If we accept that the Divine exists, why do we then assume almost automatically that God is Creator?

I'm with you on this. The way I experience God, is as an Infinite, Omni-Present Consciousness, that Me-as-Observer/Awareness, is inherently linked to like a drop of water falling into an ocean.

That Infinite Consciousness, already Is, Being, Not Needing anything, Ultimate Contentment. I think when the One, became Many, or perhaps when there was an Illusion placed into the One to create Division/Separation, is when Individual Units ended up in some states with Powers to bring on creation. The Demiurge theory comes to mind.

I appreciate your insight in this matter, dominicus - it once again points to the flaws in assuming God as Creator, the one who created the body-mind, is in charge of all conditions, etc., etc. I actually wanted to start a thread asking if anyone could even prove they are the body-mind, but your topic here seems to allow for that consideration too.

No Prob friend. That's the point of this thread. Question everything.

I don't assume our body-minds are temples, although they certainly should be cared for with proper diet, exercise, etc. But I am not saying this because I care about great health as an end result. Rather, I find that the depth of Divine Communion, being/feeling, love, and heart-intelligence is more readily available if the body-mind is not physically toxic.

Agreed. Brings to mind Buddha's middle path. He was trying to unveil Enlightenment through hard core austerities and fasting. But the body got too weak. When he began to eat more, that gave the body enough strength to continue on.

Are these body-minds a prison? Only if we solely identify with them, which of course we tend to. I have never heard a convincing argument proving that anyone is simply the body-mind. But this assumption seems to just be accepted without question! And from there, many of us then assume God exists as Creator of all of this, etc., etc.

Its a belief system. The Ego/mind which believes that it Is, also believes that it is the Body/Mind.

Interestingly, the Observer in you can be aware that the ego/mind creates this belief system, which begs the question: Who then, or rather what, is this Observer? Food for thought. Thanks for dropping by

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

A man blind his whole life doesn't dream in images. A man deaf his whole life doesn't dream with sound. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the deaf and blind dream in languages we haven't yet invented.

To build any world in a dream, one must first have experienced the world. Because someone loses their senses for a moment doesn't mean anything. They are still in their body, and when they imagine worlds, they are referring back to what constitutes a world, one that their body has experienced.

One need not experience to imagine. They need only think of it.

Can you imagine a color you haven't seen? Can you imagine a smell you've never smelled? Can you imagine a feeling you've never had?

Why can't Windows 8 operate on a 1995 Macintosh?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
To build any world in a dream, one must first have experienced the world.

Perhaps, but that is to be discovered for oneself whether the dream world is only patterned after this physical world.

And what about deep sleep in which no objects arise? Is science absolutely certain that the "place" of deep sleep is of the physical body-mind? Doesn't it say something that we are still awareness even in deep sleep although no objects appear? Again, one has to discover this.

Only persisting in a scientific-materialistic standpoint is generally assuming a limit relative to such discovery. Science is great as a method of discovery in many areas of this gross physical world, but it really is not the best basis for deeper discoveries that are still beyond the realm of science.

So speaking in general, why burden oneself with the limits of science and materialism when it comes to matters science cannot account for, when one can perhaps directly discover the truth of one's reality? Of course, I am not saying to not be intelligent and discriminating when it comes to these beyond-the-body-mind matters - but only to participate fully and openly in one's own discovery of who one is, what is consciousness, are you the body-mind only, etc.

reply to post by dominicus


Clue!

Animals do not spend inordinate amounts of energy, hypnotising themselves into the degredation of their 'shells'.

They are (on the whole) devoid of 'personality module' and do not entertain these thoughts-become-reality.

What you may have missed in the transition memories, was the 'contract' you made with your personal overseers, and yourself to get to the point (in this lifetime) to be in a position to even question this...
That you (and others) question it is part of your remembering (or not)...

A99

reply to post by AfterInfinity

One need not experience to imagine. They need only think of it.

No rational argument? You're smarter than that AfterInfinity. You're going to have to disprove many great philosophers before pushing that age-old agenda.

Can you imagine a smell that you've never smelled before? Describe it to me.

reply to post by bb23108

Why burden oneself with the limits of science and materialism when it comes to matters science cannot account for, when one can perhaps directly discover the truth of one's reality?

So must I believe what others order me to believe? Why burden oneself with fabricated imaginings and then burden others by passing it off as truth? That is a purely religious motivation, one which takes us further from clarity and understanding.

I am not pushing materialism or "science" here. I'm not subscribing to any authorities here. I am arguing my views, developed through my reasoning, logic and experience. If any ideology is similar to mine, it's not because I have adopted it.

Don't worry, I have gripes with science and materialsim too; but Instead of questioning my beliefs, perhaps refute one of my arguments?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
So must I believe what others order me to believe? Why burden oneself with fabricated imaginings and then burden others by passing it off as truth? That is a purely religious motivation, one which takes us further from clarity and understanding.

No of course not - we should not blindly believe anything. Only after reaching real conclusions should we allow such conclusions to inform our lives.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I am not pushing materialism or "science" here. I'm not subscribing to any authorities here. I am arguing my views, developed through my reasoning, logic and experience. If any ideology is similar to mine, it's not because I have adopted it.

That is admirable enough, but reasoning, logic, and experience may also have limits that only reinforce a body-based reality rather than discovering what is reality altogether. Here is a simple example: Can reasoning, logic, and/or experience actually know exactly what the room you are in right now appears like in reality?

Can the limited point-of-view mind know exactly what the room looks like in reality - much less what the room actually is? You can describe it in many many ways, looking at it from many many different points of view, but this would not actually tell you what the room ACTUALLY looks like.

The mind is a limited point-of-view machine that only gives us partial pictures of everything it observes. So how can it be trusted in terms of what Reality is - when it cannot even know what a room ACTUALLY looks like?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Don't worry, I have gripes with science and materialsim too; but Instead of questioning my beliefs, perhaps refute one of my arguments?

I am not questioning your beliefs - I just am questioning the method of science and materialism for considering spiritual matters. Regarding your argument about the dream world that I quoted earlier, it was just a statement that you believe based on some science, I presume? I don't know for sure, but I didn't see any proof to it.

How about proving that you are the body-mind? It is commonly assumed, but is there absolute concrete proof that this is true?

reply to post by bb23108

Regarding your argument about the dream world that I quoted earlier, it was just a statement that you believe based on some science, I presume?

It's the idea that we are born with a blank slate, and that everything we know and acquire in regards to knowledge is derived through experience. For instance I can think of a unicorn because I know what horses and horns look like. I can infer what a unicorn would look like because I have experienced everything that makes up a unicorn.

This is the theory of philosopher John Locke, solidified and expounded upon by David Hume.

Read these if you get a chance:
An essay concerning human understanding
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Give them a shot. They are convincing arguments.

How about proving that you are the body-mind? It is commonly assumed, but is there absolute concrete proof that this is true?

Personally, I don't believe there is a "mind". The proof is that there is no mind; there has never appeared a mind anywhere from which we can validate its existence in the entire human history. To me, a "body" is a lifeless corpse. Body and mind are abstractions of the human organism. I think there is enough proof to believe that we are these organisms, merely because there is nothing that shows that we aren't.

It is fathomable that we can be separate from the body, yes, but it is also fathomable that there is a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter. Sometimes our speculation and the way we doubt ourselves can take us too far, hence the OP. What worries me is that it leads to philosophies that seek to repudiate the body, to glorify that which doesn't exist in favour of that which does.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

It's the idea that we are born with a blank slate, and that everything we know and acquire in regards to knowledge is derived through experience.

We are not born with a 'bank slate.' We are born with the ability to learn from our environments (necessarily for survival in whatever environment it happens to be), but with temperaments and talents and ways of learning that vary.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

No rational argument? You're smarter than that AfterInfinity. You're going to have to disprove many great philosophers before pushing that age-old agenda. Can you imagine a smell that you've never smelled before? Describe it to me.

Everyone who ever invented the first ever invention, is someone who has thought of something that has never been thought.

I actually have Synesthesia, and when I hear some classical or ambient drone pieces, I see landscapes and colors that I have never seen in really life, or have ever dreamed of, or have ever imagined.

A man blind his whole life doesn't dream in images. A man deaf his whole life doesn't dream with sound. What does that tell you?

Deaf people read lips, or feel vibrations produced by instruments and are then able to translate it their own way.

To build any world in a dream, one must first have experienced the world. Because someone loses their senses for a moment doesn't mean anything. They are still in their body, and when they imagine worlds, they are referring back to what constitutes a world, one that their body has experienced.

That's absurd and limits dreams and the power of thought/imagination.

I've thought of various things, written movie scripts, some short fiction, and various other ideas that I have never found anywhere else on this planet nor have I had any experience with myself. Do I have to first experience a 4 dimensional goofy acting monkey conductor who blows lollipops out of his hind end every time he farts before I can properly imagine him? No.

Can you imagine a color you haven't seen?

Yes the color of Infinity mixed with a tad of humor with the tips frosted a bright shade of tomorrow.

Can you imagine a smell you've never smelled?

Yes, for example, I've never smelled the walls in holocaust jew-killing ovens and gas chambers. Though I have smelled death, gas, ovens, and a variety of chemicals, so I can imagine what its like to smell the walls there and how brutal it had to have been to be killed that way in the hands of a psychotic dictator.

Can you imagine a feeling you've never had?

Yes. My mother is still alive, well, and going strong. She hasn't died yet. I can imagine how I will feel when she dies because I have lost other family members, though of everyone, I am closest to my mother. We are like spiritual friends more than mother and son. Most def I can imagine what it will be like when she passes.

So must I believe what others order me to believe?

No. You have free will. It took me 3+ years to see that what certain philosophies say are true. If I confined myself that its B.S., I would remain in doubt

Why burden oneself with fabricated imaginings and then burden others by passing it off as truth?

Who's to say I am imagining having the ability for me as consciousness to be non-local, leave the body, and remember pre-existing? When I consider I once believed the way you did and all of that changed when I was invited to see for myself if what others have said is true. Have you considered you might be burdening yourself with fabricated imaginings?

That is a purely religious motivation, one which takes us further from clarity and understanding.

Is direct experience of something considered "religious motivation"? If so, then I can extend by that logic, that all direct experience is "religious motivation."

If I leave as a blueprint to enlightenment the following recipe: Unknow everything you have ever learned, unknow all belief systems, all ideas, all thoughts, all science, even unknow yourself, unknow the body, unknow all senses, and unknow the unknowing itself, and sit "As That" .......what will eventually be revealed prior to all knowing and unknowing, will be the direct Enlightened Absolute Truth. ....... where's the religion in that?

I am not pushing materialism or "science" here. I'm not subscribing to any authorities here. I am arguing my views, developed through my reasoning, logic and experience. If any ideology is similar to mine, it's not because I have adopted it.

Do you know intuition? To know a good song, to know a work of art, to know Love, to know a beautiful day, the present Moment, deep sleep, .....none of those are reason or logic, and some things you have yet to experience.

Your "views, developed through "reasoning, logic and experiences" create a custom Bias bubble. Yet existence, the moment, life, the Observer, Awareness, all happen prior to reason, logic, and the perception of experiencing.

reply to post by dominicus

If God made these bodies, why not make them with all those improvements that scientists now have access to, from the very Get-go?

The Apocryphon of John gives a logical explaination for this... Technically we were made by an imperfect God according to gnostic scripture...

Things hidden in Silence

reply to post by wildtimes

We are not born with a 'bank slate.' We are born with the ability to learn from our environments (necessarily for survival in whatever environment it happens to be), but with temperaments and talents and ways of learning that vary.

It's in regards to ideas and concepts only. Not abilities.

reply to post by dominicus


I guess there is a difference between "imagining" and "experiencing in actuality". But if your comprehension is so deeply influenced by your imagination and not the actuality of existence, then how do you differentiate between what is truth and what you feel to be truth?

Wow. You talk of God and completely ignore what God said about the beginning if you have ever read a Bible.
Man was perfect and man stuffed it up. It was not Gods design according to the Bible.
Have you ignored the perfect created man before the fall for a reason or was it just plain ignorance that got you there?

A serious question dude. I almost defies belief for you to talk about God and not know the beginning according to the book that talks about the beginning according to God.

A child with a Bible would have corrected you just from recorded information in a book. How did you miss it? .

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Personally, I don't believe there is a "mind". The proof is that there is no mind; there has never appeared a mind anywhere from which we can validate its existence in the entire human history. To me, a "body" is a lifeless corpse. Body and mind are abstractions of the human organism.

I definitely think it makes more sense to look at the whole of the body-mind as unified, rather than as body over against mind. So I normally use the term "body-mind". But what you are saying is you don't believe in "mind" and that the "body" is a corpse - and somehow these abstracted elements are actually the product of a live organism to you? That actually seems like just a lot of word manipulation without really saying much.

So let me ask you then if the "human organism" can actually know what the room I mentioned above actually looks like?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I think there is enough proof to believe that we are these organisms, merely because there is nothing that shows that we aren't.

That is not enough proof as far as I am concerned. We are basing our entire framework for existence on this assumption so it is of utmost importance to not just assume it is true. (I am not saying we should not refer to one another as though we are not these body-minds because that would get real confusing socially speaking, etc.) But to only reinforce this presumption that we are the body-mind to oneself and to one another is quite another matter - because it is a most fundamental presumption and needs to be questioned deeply .

So I cannot just casually assume I am the body-mind. For instance, on a daily basis I enter deep sleep, beyond all waking and dreaming objects and imagery, and yet there is still awareness or consciousness. Consciousness is not dependent on objects existing in deep sleep. Of course the scientist will negate this argument with claims that awareness or consciousness is a product of the body-mind complex - but is that actually true? When someone is declared medically dead, why can the person's psyche still be sensed for a while? Why can one be drawn out of body-mind identification into formless, indivisible, Divine Love-Bliss-Consciousness/Reality?

There are many instances of such evidence that awareness or consciousness exists prior to the body-mind, including the report of many many spiritual adepts. Of course, all of this is for the person to discover, not to just simply believe. So personally I cannot just assume I am the body-mind for many many self-evident reasons.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
What worries me is that it leads to philosophies that seek to repudiate the body, to glorify that which doesn't exist in favour of that which does.

Yes, I agree that Reality necessarily includes the body-mind, and I would not be interested in a view of Reality that did not account for at least the apparent appearance of the body-mind.

However, this world is a very gross manifestation where everyone we love dies. This is no paradise nor is it to be shunned - but it is possible to recognize that consciousness simply witnesses and is prior to all arising. We are consciousness already - we can notice this now. No matter what state we are in, there is consciousness prior to attention, prior to all experience, prior to all body-mind states - and yet paradoxically, consciousness is not separate from anything arising.

This recognition in this life actually opens up the body-mind to the indivisible conscious light of Reality, and allows for a much deeper embrace and participation in life too. But of course this is not something to believe, but to simply deeply recognize in any given moment.

It is first necessary to simply release the inherited belief that we are the body-mind and in that depthful openness to allow the truth of Reality to be revealed.

Originally posted by Exv8densez
Great refreshing thread!

S+F!

I guess the physical and mental deterioration of the human condiction(which also makes evolution bs) has become so unbearably blatant in these days that it begs the question. Yes one has to wonder what kind of omniscient, omnipotent God creates such failure? Or are we just a slave spieces of merely superior beings?



Standing ovation for this post!
reply to post by bb23108

 

Once again. Blatant stupidity to accuse God of making inferior bodies when the book quoting him tells the story that any idiot could read and understand.... that mans body was made perfect and man ruined it by disobedience.

Why do idiots quote God and yet not read what he had written about himself??

Yes, man is becoming more stupid in these modern days. ATS reveals that perfectly.

reply to post by dominicus

Your "views, developed through "reasoning, logic and experiences" create a custom Bias bubble. Yet existence, the moment, life, the Observer, Awareness, all happen prior to reason, logic, and the perception of experiencing.

And this doesn't apply to you, dominicus? Are you not in your own bias bubble?

Every word you use to describe these non-entities point at the same thing—yourself. That's the fact of the matter.

One cannot take themselves out of their own context, even when they are dreaming, even when they are imagining, even when they think they are floating around as 'pure consciousness' prior to existence.

Mind travel is easy. Sleeping can do it, drugs can do it, physical exertion and training can do it, and plain old imagination can do it. There's nothing fundamental about it. But nonetheless the prerequisite is always being alive and existing; only then can one have these experiences. One must first exist before he can remember pre-existing.

Saying the body is a prison is the deepest blasphemy in my opinion. It's scorning oneself. Besides, anyone can make anything of their own context. If one wishes to call his context a prison, when it is easily changeable, then he deserves his shackles.

But what is my opinion but unimaginative, cold and biased lie?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by dominicus

 

I guess there is a difference between "imagining" and "experiencing in actuality". But if your comprehension is so deeply influenced by your imagination and not the actuality of existence, then how do you differentiate between what is truth and what you feel to be truth?

There exists a Living truth that is prior to "imagining" and "experiencing in actuality". Prior to "comprehension". One can merge with it. There are various ways "there", various blueprints, various methods. The one I posted about Unknowing everything for this Absolute to reveal itself, is just one way of the "various ways". Regardless anything I say about it, is not "It," yet "It" exists regardless.


reply to post by pacifier2012

Wow. You talk of God and completely ignore what God said about the beginning if you have ever read a Bible. Man was perfect and man stuffed it up. It was not Gods design according to the Bible.

Is that fair then, that I have to be born into imperfection, because of the fault of someone who stuffed it up long time ago?

Have you ignored the perfect created man before the fall for a reason or was it just plain ignorance that got you there?

I do not only go by the Genesis take, considering we have the older Epic of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elis stories, arguably predecessors ...as well as the creation stories of all the various cultures in the world. To just go by Genesis is to create Bias. Again I revert to why we should all have to suffer because Adam/Eve messed up?

A serious question dude. I almost defies belief for you to talk about God and not know the beginning according to the book that talks about the beginning according to God. A child with a Bible would have corrected you just from recorded information in a book. How did you miss it? .

Nothing missed friend. I assure you I comprehend the OT, although I fully question all of it, including all the various perspectives. My post and questioning still stands because I don't see God as a OT style control freak who causes the flood while regretting the creation of humans, ordering moses to kill vasts armies, the men's children, and taking the women for themselves.

IF God didn't want Adam/Eve to eat the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and Good and Evil, he wouldn't have created the Tree in the first place, or would have known the moment when they would be tempted to eat from it, and prevented it.

Once again. Blatant stupidity to accuse God of making inferior bodies when the book quoting him tells the story that any idiot could read and understand.... that mans body was made perfect and man ruined it by disobedience.

Not all books about God have this take.

Why do idiots quote God and yet not read what he had written about himself?? Yes, man is becoming more stupid in these modern days. ATS reveals that perfectly.

It seems you suffer from something you are not aware of, the fact that many Christian/Catholic/Fundy types exchange their old egotistical ways, for a new "holier than though I'm-right-and-everybody-else-is-wrong spiritually justified egotistical ways."

It seems the idiocy and stupidity is revealed all the same in your own accusations, when interestingly enough, until you arrived here, this thread was going very civilized and interesting.