Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

A 'realisation' without objective evidence is nothing but a belief.

You are just exposing your abject ignorance concerning the mind state of pure awareness. If it involved the personal mind it would not be pure.
And btw, Sam Harris is new age, but fine if that's your level.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are just exposing your abject ignorance concerning the mind state of pure awareness.

You talk about ignorance of something but have provided no reason at all to think that that something is anything that is objectively real. Until and unless you can, you have nothing but a blind faith belief about a subjective experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You talk about ignorance of something but have provided no reason at all to think that that something is anything that is objectively real. Until and unless you can, you have nothing but a blind faith belief about a subjective experience.

I'm not a new ager, I'm not selling anything. You want to do new age, go for it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not a new ager, I'm not selling anything. You want to do new age, go for it.

I really don't know where you get the idea that I'm 'new age'. I'm just promoting rationality. Unless you have objective evidence for something (or sound logic) then it's just a belief. If we accepted everything that everybody said they'd 'realised' then we'd have to believe endless contradictory things at the same time.

This isn't difficult.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I really don't know where you get the idea that I'm 'new age'. I'm just promoting rationality. Unless you have objective evidence for something (or sound logic) then it's just a belief. If we accepted everything that everybody said they'd 'realised' then we'd have to believe endless contradictory things at the same time.

This isn't difficult.

I thought you may be a Sam Harris new ager fan, fair enough if you say you are not. I understand that atheists are materialist, your world view is so very limited wrt the 'religious'. like a tree is to a forest. You want evidence at the tree level for the forest, not possible son.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand that atheists are materialist...

Then you don't understand. I am not a 'materialist' in any sort of philosophical sense.

...your world view is so very limited wrt the 'religious'.

You ignored the point. If we start to accept things for which there is no evidence or sound logic, just because people claim they are true, then we'd having to accept them all (to be consistent), and end up with endless contradictory beliefs. All religious views can't be true because many of them contradict each other.

like a tree is to a forest.

An analogy is pretty useless unless it is related to an actual argument. You seem to be using this instead of an argument.

You want evidence at the tree level for the forest, not possible son.

Love the attempt to patronise . All I'm asking for is some objective reason to take whatever it is you think the 'forest' represents at all seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

You are an atheist, that puts the whole forest outside your belief for starters, how narrow is that, a belief in one tree, and no knowledge of the forest in which it exists.

Understanding and belief are different things. You claim a forest, but we actually only see one tree. And then you deny the forests others have found, not even acknowledging the other trees.

We understand your claims. We simply don't believe they are true. The evidence points in a very different direction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and triggered by the concept of 'forest' apparently, may you find peace in the 'forest' my son.

The only one that is "triggered" is you. Corrections of your errors appears to trigger you. Demanding that you support your claims appears to trigger you. Making claims and running away from your burden of proof makes your behavior here appear to be more than a little trollish.

Do you know who acts this way? People that know that they are wrong but can't admit it. It looks as if you know that you are wrong but you are bound and determined not to admit it.

 

[Polymath257]

My goodness, he's really triggered, try some yoga, or still mind mediation is even better, it will put you in touch with the forest.

Yoga and meditation are wonderful ways to center oneself and to get some inner tranquility.

But they don't yield truth, only self inspection.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you don't understand. I am not a 'materialist' in any sort of philosophical sense.



You ignored the point. If we start to accept things for which there is no evidence or sound logic, just because people claim they are true, then we'd having to accept them all (to be consistent), and end up with endless contradictory beliefs. All religious views can't be true because many of them contradict each other.



An analogy is pretty useless unless it is related to an actual argument. You seem to be using this instead of an argument.



Love the attempt to patronise . All I'm asking for is some objective reason to take whatever it is you think the 'forest' represents at all seriously.

Spiritual reality is not material, you want spiritual, aint never going to happen without the sacrifice of ego self.

 

[Polymath257]

Beliefs in themselves mean little, it is realization that is the all.

I completely disagree. Beliefs and realization mean little until they are tested and verified.

Many people have 'realizations' that turn out to be wrong. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of 'realizations' are wrong.

Until *any* idea is tested and verified through attempts to prove it *wrong*, there is nothing.

Testing is all.

If you do not want to do some efficacious religious practice, who cares, it is your life. But realization of truth is not just a subjective experience, it is a selfless experience, ie. no ego-self is present. Definitely can never be objectively observed or subjectively experienced by a personal self.

Yes, I know the spiel. But, 'efficaious religious practice' tends to lead to contradictory views. Which means the vast majority of such practices are, in fact, useless except as psychological crutches.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Understanding and belief are different things. You claim a forest, but we actually only see one tree. And then you deny the forests others have found, not even acknowledging the other trees.

We understand your claims. We simply don't believe they are true. The evidence points in a very different direction.

True, I am the tree, but there is more to me than the personal self. And you too realize that if you were to sacrifice your ego self.

 

[Polymath257]

Spiritual reality is not material, you want spiritual, aint never going to happen without the sacrifice of ego self.

Show on thing that does not supervene on the physical.

It seems to me that ego is more of an issue when someone holds to a belief that is contradicted by evidence, in spite of a description that fits the evidence better, and doesn't seem to want to learn any new ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

True, I am the tree, but there is more to me than the personal self. And you too realize that if you were to sacrifice your ego self.

And I would say that the 'realization' you had of this is simply self-delusion. You *think* you are without thoughts or concepts, but in reality you are simply seeing yourself within your own skull. it is, in a sense, the ultimate ego trip.

As for there being more than the 'personal self', I am not sure exactly what you mean. It *sounds* like it means something, but when I poke at it a bit, it evaporates into nothingness.

 

[ratiocinator]

Spiritual reality is not material...

Did somebody say it was? The problem here is whether 'spiritual reality' is actually anything at all.

...you want spiritual, aint never going to happen without the sacrifice of ego self.

Okay, so what? You still haven't given me any objective reason to take your claims seriously...

 

[Polymath257]

You are just exposing your abject ignorance concerning the mind state of pure awareness. If it involved the personal mind it would not be pure.
And btw, Sam Harris is new age, but fine if that's your level.

I find that ironic. I would say your ideas here are far closer to my image of 'new age'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I completely disagree. Beliefs and realization mean little until they are tested and verified.

Many people have 'realizations' that turn out to be wrong. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of 'realizations' are wrong.

Until *any* idea is tested and verified through attempts to prove it *wrong*, there is nothing.

Testing is all.


Yes, I know the spiel. But, 'efficaious religious practice' tends to lead to contradictory views. Which means the vast majority of such practices are, in fact, useless except as psychological crutches.

I am sorry, but for all your intelligence, you do not understand that there is more to reality than the stuff you study. The source of you is the universe, you do not understand that when the concept of realization is used in the context of enlightenment, it implies the union of personal self with the source. Of the two, personal self and universal Self, only one is enduring, guess which?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The only one that is "triggered" is you. Corrections of your errors appears to trigger you. Demanding that you support your claims appears to trigger you. Making claims and running away from your burden of proof makes your behavior here appear to be more than a little trollish.

Do you know who acts this way? People that know that they are wrong but can't admit it. It looks as if you know that you are wrong but you are bound and determined not to admit it.

Word salad!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yoga and meditation are wonderful ways to center oneself and to get some inner tranquility.

But they don't yield truth, only self inspection.

That is the new age marketing, true yoga and meditation requires the sacrifice of self, it is not for the tranquility of self.

 

[ratiocinator]

...the concept of realization is used in the context of enlightenment, it implies the union of personal self with the source. Of the two, personal self and universal Self, only one is enduring, guess which?

Argument by assertion fallacy.