Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[Desert Snake]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.

I find this thread fascinating.

 

[Jumi]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.

It was more about disbelieving the same god concepts.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, and the same goes for you. It is impossible to talk about the absolute in a really clear-cut way, because language is intrinsically dualistic. One might be able to say what cannot be said about the absolute: One cannot assign attributes to it, one cannot treat it as a thing.

Yes, and I think somewhere deep back in this thread I went into some length explaining this (I think to someone else). It is impossible to speak of the absolute in any definitive sense because of the fact language is inherently dualistic. Does this mean nothing at all can or should be said? Again, yes and no. No, if you are trying to come to any sort of knowledge of this having no firsthand exposure. No, because language gets into the way. It creates objects of the mind that you then look to or seek to attain, and when you do this it is your own mind you pursue like a dog chasing its own tail. Only in Silence and letting go of seeking you find this. But that does not mean do nothing of course, to be apathetic. Rather it means to seek to go beyond seeking with the mind.

But yes, we can and should speak about it. If you have experienced it, there is plenty that can be said, but not as definitions but rather as expressions or descriptions intended to convey meaning. The words have meaning, like poetry. But the mind seeking an understanding will of course become frustrated by this. "Just tell me what it is! The fact you can't means it's not real!", and the like.

I was visiting a Japanese Zen Garden at a conservatory a few weeks ago when the public could come in to see and experience the beauty of it. Just the mere presence of the space spoke. I could hear its words from everything. There was one visitor there who started talking with an attendant whom I've come to know, and he went on and on and on chattering with her about this and about that, endlessly babbling on about everything and nothing. I sat nearby on a rock looking at the waterfall overhearing not just the stream of words from him, but hearing the neurotic energy flowing like colors pushing out of him, it was if his words were about a release of nervousness, not words of meaning. As he left I talked with her kidding that they should place signs there for the visitors about Garden Ethics, signs that say Silence Please here and there. Then I said something to her that is the reason for me sharing this story. I said, there is nothing wrong with words, as long as they are spoken from Silence.

Words that speak from Silence, though they are sound, though they are dualistic can and do in fact speak of It. They convey what it is in sound, they manifest it, like a mountain manifests God but is itself a mountain. When I stepped into the garden, I could hear that Silence in the rocks, the trees, the breeze, the waterfall. Many could not hear it directly at all so instead filled the space with their own noise. When I hear dualistic words spoken from Silence, I hear something more than what the mind can imagine in its world of words. Plenty can be said, plenty can be spoken, and plenty can be heard. But not to a mind that has not stilled the stream, where the world dissolves and everything becomes clear.

I came across this quote from Sri Aurobindo recently that I think fits in here:

The intellect must consent to pass out of the bounds of a finite logic and accustom itself to the logic of the Infinite. On this condition alone, by this way of seeing and thinking, it ceases to be paradoxical or futile to speak of the ineffable: but if we insist on applying a finite logic to the Infinite, the omnipresent reality will escape us and we shall grasp instead an abstract shadow, a dead form petrified into speech or a hard incisive graph which speaks of the Reality but does not express it. Our way of knowing must be appropriate to that which is to be known

~Sri Aurobindo, Life Divine, pg.293
​

What you have expressed you see in speaking of the absolute is an "abstract shadow", exactly Aurobindo called it. It comes from applying a finite logic to the Infinite, exactly as he said. Words spoken from Silence are not without Truth, even though the words themselves are not Truth in themselves.

You see, I actually agree with you that "the rational mind cannot grasp the absolute". The difference between us is that, where I steadfastly refuse to go beyond that and treat the absolute as existing in any way (because nobody was ever able to show me that it does exist, and because I think there are far too many examples of people falling for their own delusions), you essentially treat it as existing (even if it's not-quite-existing or transcendently-existing, or "a state beyond rationality" etc.).

Like the drip of water on the same stone it eventually wears a groove. To repeat again, to show you the absolute I point you to everything you are already looking at everyday. It's not something other to everything that is. I treat it as existing, because it is everything that exists. But that someone sees or realizes it is the only question. It's really quite simple. It's seeing the world as it is. What is seen and known is beyond what the rational mind in its illusory models of reality create for us. We live inside a constructed reality. It truly fits the Biblical metaphor of the the veil in the temple being rent from top to bottom allowing the sacred space in the temple to be exposed to the world. It is like pulling back a curtain and see what has never been anywhere but fully there at all moments. It is seeing what has never been anything or anywhere else.

This description of this is common throughout the world, throughout the ages, throughout cultures, throughout languages. It is a description that never varies at its heart. It is described as awakening to see what has never been anywhere else. It is described as realizing the entire time we thought we were in the real world, that was all an illusion of the mind. So what you say is our delusion would be seen that way coming from those who have never seen any other reality than that which the mind creates. Nothing exists beyond that, to them. But it is no delusion as we simply now recognize that the world of words and ideas we inhabit is not all there is not what we assume was Reality, being asleep as it were.

You necessarily have to reify it the moment you start thinking about it. If you actually were in a completely realized state, such as they say a buddha might be, I highly doubt you'd be posting stuff on online forums and engaging in debates with people like me.

Why wouldn't someone who has been enlightened talk with people and participate in the world? I think you are rarifying your ideas of what Enlightenment is, making gods out of people. What do you imagine it is? You start glowing and angels lift you to heaven so you can become a figure embroidered on a Tibetan Tonga and are no longer human?

I had a few experiences that I have come to see as unreal in hindsight. So have many, many other people.

On the opposite side of the street what I am describing is described as more real than real, and it frankly something that never leaves or is reinterpreted as a spot of bad cheese and an hallucination or a delusion. How it is understood of course changes over time, but it's rarely ever dismissed as "unreal". Although I suppose some people might if they find it too much to try to integrate and they repress what happened in some way; too much cultural stigma to face, too much emotional uneasiness to confront, etc. Personally, I can't relate to that, nor know anyone myself who I've seen do that, but I do know it can happen. There is something to be said for 'fertile ground' when it comes to peak experiences like these.

Personally, I think pursuing the truth is important. I think that, when we endeavour into spirituality and find the-one-absolute-truth-that-really-holds, whether that be god, "the Absolute", zen, or whatever, the chances of us actually experiencing what we think we experience are so slim as to be practically nonexistent.

I believe in pursuing truth as well. But I think it's important to not worship our ideas of truth as absolute, or believe we can ever hold any idea that in fact is.

By the way, you told me that my experience was invalid, too, remember? Because I didn't come out of my experiences with the same interpretation as you, I had not "put in the work" or somesuch. Why would you reserve the right to doubt my experience, while I don't get to do the same with yours?

Did I? You never spoke of your experiences. Care to share? The only thing you said is you had a "fling" with Buddhism briefly and it turned out in essence to be full of the empty promises you had with Christianity therefore it's nonsense too, or something to that effect. What I would say to that is it seems logical you end up with what you described, under those circumstances. I basically validated your experience would be as expected.

Well and also, I like to think about stuff.

So do I. I just know where the value of it comes in and where it ends. I just don't worship it as the keys to the kingdom.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, I'm just a big fat *******.

I'm not. So you think this is a desirable fruit of your labors?

But then, to be precise I don't even do what you think I do. I don't declare your experience void or invalid. I believe you that there was an experience that changed you life. I just doubt that your interpretation of said experience is useful. I don't think that a life-changing experience necessarily has to be "real".

OK, you don't think a life-changing experience has to be real?? Of course it was real if it changed someone's life. That's a no brainer. But what you are trying to say is that the interpretation of said experience, saying it was their god, or an ET or something is validated and therefore is "factual" is a mistake. I completely agree. So let's be clear together; the experience is real, the interpretation relative. Correct? This is precisely what I have been saying in every post without exception. Any and all interpretations are relative, not absolute. Another drip of water on the stone.

Many religious experiences are life-changing, but since they take place in all kinds of religions, and those religions contradict each other on pretty much everything, almost all interpretations of those experiences must be illusory.

Oh, you are so close to gaining insight into how your own views of reality are now! I'm completely serious. Just take what you said and apply it to your interpretation of your own experiences of just everyday 'ole life. It's all relative. It's all illusory. I agree! You just think it's the religious interpretation that is an illusion, and your thoughts are not. And that, is the Grand Illusion (que up Styx music here)

What the experience of the Absolute does frankly is it results in realizing the illusory nature of all thoughts and ideas and experiences. Hence why your Buddhist friends you had a fling with refer to it as "resting in emptiness". It gives us a break into our Self, away from the parade of characters which play on the stage of illusion. Have you ever heard of Nagarjuna? Do you understand what is meant by Emptiness. Do understand what nonduality is? Nagarjuna would take anything you might say about it and break it down, deconstruct everything to leave you in a place of no longer looking to thoughts and ideas of what the Absolute is. That is not to say "it" is not real, but that it cannot truly be spoken of and "get it", like it finally clicks in your thinking. You say it's not of much use if you can't define it. It's only of no use to the seeking mind looking to hold the world in its thoughts and ideas. But that is again, the grand illusion that it believes this will bring them into Truth. It is the mind seeing itself as God, so to speak.

See what you did there? You went from "it is not necessarily (x)" (which one can say) to "it goes beyond such definitions" (which is probably right at the limit of what you can say about the absolute with any justification) to "it is a state of conscious awareness", which is way, way, WAY beyond. Here, you have declared the absolute to be something relative (a state).

The use of language is full of pitfalls, such as referring to the Absolute with a "the" or an "it", etc, because language is dualist making "it" an object, which is not the reality of it. It has to include the Subject, the one seeing, the one thinking, the one observing, and so forth. Even to speak of ourselves in everyday life does this when I speak of myself to another, or even as I think about myself reflexively. What I am doing it taking a 1st person subject and making it a 3rd person object. The only way to truly know myself, is to be myself, before and beyond all thoughts and ideas about me as an object of observation, self-reflexive or otherwise. And this too is quite close to understanding the nature of the Absolute. It occurs when we let go and fall into that Abyss of unknowing. There is a reason mystics speak of this. There is foundation to it.

So when I was saying it is a state of consciousness awareness, I really mean to say it is realized through a shift in conscious awareness. It can be described as Consciousness itself identified with no object of awareness itself. Complete liberation. Freedom. Ground. Cause. Emptiness. Formless. And so forth.

Remember my lines above? You are talking in dualistic ways. I have no way of knowing whether you also THINK about this in dualistic ways. I'm inclined to do so, because thinking basically seems to work that way, but ultimately I don't know.

Of course I think about it in dualist terms because as you rightly point out language is dualistic. But it is also possible to be aware without trying to put words to things. It's really a matter of how far beyond words you are able to let your conscious awareness go! And then, from that place, when you say words you understand the nature of them as relative, fluid, dynamic, like little crystals refracting the rays of light that shine through them, rather than standing in place of the Absolute as objects of truth in an of themselves. My thoughts are held lightly about this. Don't mistake what I am saying as absolutistic in nature. It is not. Words should be spoken from Silence, and their meaning understood in that. That is hardly always the case though.

By the way, when I started talking about the abstract absolute in my first posting, I was *solely* talking about the *first* concept. *This* is what I claimed to be irrelevant. What you call "the Absolute" is not irrelevant at all; those two are not the same thing.

Can you clarify this? So are you saying what I am saying has a degree of truth and relevance?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.

 

[Ouroboros]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.

When it comes down to it. The atheist says "there is no god", while the pantheist says "everything is God," which is the difference between them, but then, when it comes to what exists, what is reality, what is everything, then they're pretty much in agreement. To an atheist and pantheist the world is the same, only the view of the mystical part of existence and being differs (not "a being" as in a thing, but the verb "to be" in present progressive tense).

 

[vijeno]

Like the drip of water on the same stone it eventually wears a groove.

Well, you're entitled to your delusions.

To repeat again, to show you the absolute I point you to everything you are already looking at everyday. It's not something other to everything that is. I treat it as existing, because it is everything that exists. But that someone sees or realizes it is the only question. It's really quite simple. It's seeing the world as it is. What is seen and known is beyond what the rational mind in its illusory models of reality create for us. We live inside a constructed reality. It truly fits the Biblical metaphor of the the veil in the temple being rent from top to bottom allowing the sacred space in the temple to be exposed to the world. It is like pulling back a curtain and see what has never been anywhere but fully there at all moments. It is seeing what has never been anything or anywhere else.

Yes yes, seeing the world as it is... I know the drill, I read the books, I believed it for a while myself.
a
Here's a pretty simple experiment: Buy a book of optical illusions. Look at them. Can you see through the illusion, I mean on a sensory, not intellectual level, or do your eyes still deceive you? If they do, you're not seeing the world as it is. Simple as that.

I had to think for a while what I find false in the age-old arguments here.

Two things.

a) Yes I know, there are meditative states in which it seems as though all thought has stopped and you really, really see things as they truly are. I have experienced those states. But i cannot not examine them, and when I do, I find that it is extremely unlikely that they actually be what they seem. Because, as above experiment shows, our very eyes deceive us. Our brains do all kinds of weird stuff to their sensory input before our conscious mind even gets a chance at accessing it. Why would all that machinery suddenly switch off, just because some buddhist monk decides to sit still for a while? I find that highly implausible. It's way, way, WAY more realistic to think that - yes, some part of the emotional stuff got shot down, conscious thoughts rest still. And that means, surely, a step or two in the direction towards less attachment, towards more seeing-things-as-they-truly-are. But it's never THIS. And even if it were, you'd have absolutely no way of knowing whether it is, or whether you're just falling for one more illusion. And since thinking one is enlightened, while this is actually not the case, can be extremely dangerous to a person, I'd rather not try it. Rather stay for a little while in my trivial, unenlightened, day-to-day life and work at becoming a better person within the limits of "the relative".

b) "The absolute" as you describe it is the perfect god of the gaps. It is absolutely unfalsifiable, you can't even find anything self-contradictory to disprove it. When I say "but this is illogical", your go-to response will be that I'm arguing from the dualistic standpoint and just need to experience it for myself. When I claim that I have had some experiences, you'll say that they were not enough, or not the right ones. And then you'll just snap back to claiming that the absolute encompasses the relative anyway. You have essentially argued yourself into a nice cosy little padded cell there. And that is simply not a place I will ever go again, or wish for anyone else to be. Yes, it feels good, but even if there is a very minute chance of you being right, in all likelihood it's just a delusion. Sorry pal.

Why wouldn't someone who has been enlightened talk with people and participate in the world?

I highly doubt that they would engage in lengthy debates on the internet, getting all worked up about someone not adhering to their view of "the absolute". I mean, yeah sure, in theory an enlightened being might just look at their own anger "as it is" and not be shaken at all. But let's be real, the chances of this being what's going on here are basically nil.

 

[Willamena]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.

An atheist can have a belief in a god as an image of something that, essentially, doesn't exist or is mistaken for a natural thing.

 

[`mud]

Even Einstein mentioned the 'old one',
some say that roulette was played also, you think.
But there are idols out there, aren't there ?
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

Here's a pretty simple experiment: Buy a book of optical illusions. Look at them. Can you see through the illusion, I mean on a sensory, not intellectual level, or do your eyes still deceive you? If they do, you're not seeing the world as it is. Simple as that.

If you're looking at an illusion and seeing an illusion, your eyes are not deceiving you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, you're entitled to your delusions.

We're all deluded to think that what we see is real. The world is an illusion, and we insist it exists. And what's worse, our mind, consciousness, awareness, thinking ability, are all emergent properties of that very same illusion. And who is experiencing the illusion? We are. The emergent property of the illusion. In other words, we're all deluded.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you're looking at an illusion and seeing an illusion, your eyes are not deceiving you.

Very true. You do see what you do see. There's not that you don't see what you see.

The term "illusion" is funny really. It's become a term like "myth", meaning "something that is not real." But that's not what it really means. It only means that it looks different than what it really is. We do see something, but what we see is not what's actually there. It's something else. So it's real, but just different.

Ultimately, everything we see is an illusion. We see things because light is reflected on objects. Different surfaces reflect differently. If you put two different colors next to each other, the eyes adjust the colors in relation to each other, and we can actually see the colors slightly different. Some people can see four colors. And so on... And also, what we see is how things were just a fraction of a second ago. Not how it is right now. And our minds process the input and won't be aware of what it saw until a 1/4 of a second later, which we perceive and think of as "now" (which it isn't). So really, we're all seeing optical illusions all the time.

 

[vijeno]

OK, you don't think a life-changing experience has to be real?? Of course it was real if it changed someone's life. That's a no brainer.

Not necessarily, no. I mean, we would first have to clarify what it means for an experience to be real. The stereotypical murderer who has a vision of St. Mary - he may or may not actually experience some vision, and he may believe it to be factual at that point. And it might change his life. What if he later thinks that the vision was false? The effect might still be the same. I mean, with all those "supernatural experiences" out there, visions of all kinds of beings, pertaining to all kinds of religions, would it really be feasable to claim that all of them are real in the same way? A drug-induced hallucination might change one's life. Quite often, this change will be for the worse, but with a huge enough number of drug experiences out there, at least a few of them are bound to create an artist or a philanthropist. Dreams might do the same.

Sure, interpretations are always relative to one's ideology. But then again, that doesn't render the experience "absolute". It's just not relative to your thoughts. But it sure is relative to your body, to your brain structure, to all that evolution has done to it etc. I guess it's even relative to a lot of your previous thoughts and actions. Can my cats have spiritual experiences? I don't know, it might be feasable, but there is huge room for doubt here.

 

[vijeno]

If you're looking at an illusion and seeing an illusion, your eyes are not deceiving you.

Yes they are. You look at that book and you see an object that is impossible. In the next step, you add a thought that says, "Ah it's from that book, sure it's just an illusion". But that's already way past what your eyes are doing. If that were not the case, it would be utterly impossible to enjoy a movie.

But if that's too far-fetched as an example, do a little research on what your brain and your eyes do to the image of the world around you. It's pretty... eye-opening, pardon the pun.

 

[Looncall]

We're all deluded to think that what we see is real. The world is an illusion, and we insist it exists. And what's worse, our mind, consciousness, awareness, thinking ability, are all emergent properties of that very same illusion. And who is experiencing the illusion? We are. The emergent property of the illusion. In other words, we're all deluded.

How do you know this?

 

[vijeno]

We do see something, but what we see is not what's actually there. It's something else. So it's real, but just different.

It's a kind of interpretation, really. Just one that runs totally unconsciously. That's actually a good way of saying that any kind of "absolute perspective" is most probably impossible. Your brain serves you a pre-interpreted version of reality, which itself is relative to basically all of your ancestor's genetic setup. In all probability, that is a very useful interpretation skewed towards survival, not accurate reflection of reality.

 

[Ouroboros]

How do you know this?

Here's one piece of information:

Sign in to read: Reconstructing physics: The universe is information - opinion - 21 May 2014 - Control - New Scientist

Other than that, look into the holographic principle, quantum mechanics, and so on.

--edit

Sorry. That's not a good article since you have to have subscription. This one is a bit more easy access: Is Information Fundamental? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

Also, if you read psychology, physics or biology, you will learn that our sensory system is only responding to external information. Just an FYI. I'm actually not saying anything new, strange, or different than what you can extract from current scientific knowledge.

 

[`mud]

'Absolute perspective', the appreciation of realism,
minus the reflection of the cause.
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a kind of interpretation, really. Just one that runs totally unconsciously. That's actually a good way of saying that any kind of "absolute perspective" is most probably impossible. Your brain serves you a pre-interpreted version of reality, which itself is relative to basically all of your ancestor's genetic setup. In all probability, that is a very useful interpretation skewed towards survival, not accurate reflection of reality.

Exactly. It's an interpretation of the world. It's not a real representation of the world. Everything we see, hear, feel, sense, smell are interpretations of how the world is making itself know to our senses. The sensory input isn't perfect. We create an internal idea of the world, based on the sensory inputs.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes yes, seeing the world as it is... I know the drill, I read the books, I believed it for a while myself.

So, a belief is what it was to you then? This is what I have been hearing so far and what I've been responded to as something you tried to believe in as once you did in probably the Christian belief system.

Here's a pretty simple experiment: Buy a book of optical illusions. Look at them. Can you see through the illusion, I mean on a sensory, not intellectual level, or do your eyes still deceive you? If they do, you're not seeing the world as it is. Simple as that.

You're preaching to the choir here. Of course, I've also said that anything anyone believes about reality is an illusion. I've said this multiple times so far. I'd be interested in seeing you respond directly to those points in those posts to address my actual thoughts.

a) Yes I know, there are meditative states in which it seems as though all thought has stopped and you really, really see things as they truly are. I have experienced those states. But i cannot not examine them, and when I do, I find that it is extremely unlikely that they actually be what they seem. Because, as above experiment shows, our very eyes deceive us. Our brains do all kinds of weird stuff to their sensory input before our conscious mind even gets a chance at accessing it.

Excellent. I've been waiting for you to share what your experiences have been so we have an actual point of reference to talk about. I tend to think you are assuming an awful lot of what I am saying, because your responses seem to miss the mark pretty much every time so far. In the contexts you are speaking, you might be surprised what my actual thoughts are. I probably agree with you.

Why would all that machinery suddenly switch off, just because some buddhist monk decides to sit still for a while? I find that highly implausible. It's way, way, WAY more realistic to think that - yes, some part of the emotional stuff got shot down, conscious thoughts rest still. And that means, surely, a step or two in the direction towards less attachment, towards more seeing-things-as-they-truly-are. But it's never THIS.

Of course you know meditation is a whole lot more than just sitting still, but as far as turning of interpretive filters, sure they can be switched off. My god, you do it during an orgasm! Of course what you think about it after the fact is indeed engaging all those filters again, albeight with some added perspective to consider. I've never argued otherwise, and in fact have stated this previously.

And even if it were, you'd have absolutely no way of knowing whether it is, or whether you're just falling for one more illusion.

Nagarjuna made it clear that any ideas we have about it, is an illusion. No news here.

And since thinking one is enlightened, while this is actually not the case, can be extremely dangerous to a person, I'd rather not try it.

That's a good thing then! If it's a layer to your ego, then indeed it can cause you some deep delusions and issues where you are in fact suppressing and avoiding ego issues into a form of escapism, looking for Answers and setting yourself up for a fall when it doesn't happen as you hoped. But does this mean that because it would be delusion for you, or that you've seen others who are deluded, this means all are delusional and Enlightenment is not real? In other words, your experience is everyone's? That of course is not a truly well considered position.

Rather stay for a little while in my trivial, unenlightened, day-to-day life and work at becoming a better person within the limits of "the relative".

Nothing wrong with that. Many should just focus on that, rather than trying to transcend what they haven't mastered yet.

b) "The absolute" as you describe it is the perfect god of the gaps.

No, not as I describe it. As you hear what I'm saying, which time and again does not reflect my thoughts.

It is absolutely unfalsifiable, you can't even find anything self-contradictory to disprove it.

It's not an object of scientific analysis, so Popper's criteria of "falsifiability" doesn't apply (not to mention that criteria itself has limited application anyway even in science). Nor, BTW, is it "faith". I've explained all this previously as well.

When I say "but this is illogical", your go-to response will be that I'm arguing from the dualistic standpoint and just need to experience it for myself.

What's wrong with that? If you have never experienced an orgasm, the only response to tell someone what that is is for them to go experience it themselves. So what?

When I claim that I have had some experiences, you'll say that they were not enough, or not the right ones.

Have I done that?? No, I have not. You have not shared your experiences. The only thing I am drawing off of that I am rightly responding to you is you saying you had a "fling" with it. I am saying what I am hearing would be consistent for someone who "dabbled" in something, as opposed to actually doing the disciplined work required. If you tell me you have spent years on the mat, practices under the guidance of Zen Masters, and then proceed to tell me what sorts of experience you have had and what your thoughts are about it now, that is an entirely different animal than hearing someone say they had a "fling" with it. What do you think any reasonable mind should think hearing someone describe their experience in such a grossly limited and dismissive way? I think my response is reasonable to hearing that. Give me other information, and I'll reconsider.

And then you'll just snap back to claiming that the absolute encompasses the relative anyway. You have essentially argued yourself into a nice cosy little padded cell there.

A padded cell? Why? I am far more responsible, respectful, balanced, clearer, more intelligent, more compassionate, more happy, more healthy, etc, etc, etc. Again, I am simply speaking of descriptions of experience, not making an argument for some "absolute" laying around out there for you to study or "believe in".

And that is simply not a place I will ever go again, or wish for anyone else to be. Yes, it feels good, but even if there is a very minute chance of you being right, in all likelihood it's just a delusion. Sorry pal.

Well, thank you for sharing that you became disillusioned by what you placed your beliefs in. That is what I hear, of course in this. Am I wrong? Again, your experience in this regard for yourself, does not translate into everyone else's experience, or approach to these things. You frankly got what I would expect, having the sorts of expectations before you I am hearing in these comments. Where you are at in your own disillusionment in these things is now being projected onto others as doing the same thing as you. I think that's something for personal consideration.

I highly doubt that they would engage in lengthy debates on the internet, getting all worked up about someone not adhering to their view of "the absolute".

Now, here is where projection really comes out. Who is a saying I am "getting all worked up about someone not adhering to [my] view of the absolute"? I'm not worked up, or "angry" in the least. I discuss this because I enjoy it. I find it good to respond rationally, intelligently, clearly, and with respect to people's, either misinformation, or personal misconceptions spoken as the way of something that I don't accept as valid. I consider it educational to others, plus rewarding personally. I could care less if someone accepted my point of view as "true".

In fact, I would very specifically not want them to "believe it"! I think that would only create the sorts of problems you have experienced "believing in" something, rather than taking what was said, open oneself, and set aside anything I've said and go find their own path to self Realization. Again, what I am expressing are not "definitions", but descriptions of experience. People have to have their own experience and replace all these "beliefs" of theirs with that, rather than just saying it doesn't exist and become cynics in life.

I mean, yeah sure, in theory an enlightened being might just look at their own anger "as it is" and not be shaken at all. But let's be real, the chances of this being what's going on here are basically nil.

I'm finding more and more these days other's projections being put on me. It's a very curious phenomena I've been noticing, not just with you but several others, seeing their own Shadow in me. No, I'm not angry at all. I consider this a welcome exercise in developing my communication skills. I'm happy that you continue to respond.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm finding more and more these days other's projections being put on me. It's a very curious phenomena I've been noticing, not just with you but several others, seeing their own Shadow in me. No, I'm not angry at all. I consider this a welcome exercise in developing my communication skills. I'm happy that you continue to respond.

I think it's part of that with the growing process of communicating instantaneously over Internet, like this forum, has put a strain or challenge to our old self-identification and how we see people around us. It's becoming more obvious how not only we have an illusion of the world around us, or an illusion about ourselves, but we also create illusions about other people. We think we understand them, and we do so by interpreting them from our own experience and internal thoughts. It takes a lot of sharing between two parties to reach a state of understanding, in the sense of putting oneself in the other persons' shoes.