Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

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?

You make claims, but provide no evidence to back them up. So why should I believe them?

I *understand* what you say. I just don't believe it. I am very familiar with the concept of a 'universal self' and such. I just find those ideas to be wrong.

So, like all religions, you claim that some aspect of self is enduring, but fail to actually demonstrate that aspect actually exists. you make grand claims, but deliver only trinkets.

As I have said, I once went through a mystical phase similar to what you seem to believe. I eventually realized I was simply talking to myself and that looking *outward* leads to more wisdom than looking *inward*.

But, if you are happy at your stage, go for it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

It seems you are unable to conceive of a mind that does not do belief, you judge according to your own limited reality.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Funny how almost everyone that says this seems to have ego issues.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems you are unable to conceive of a mind that does not do belief, you judge according to your own limited reality.

No, I can *conceive* of such. I just don't *believe* in such. I find the concept easy to conceive. But I also find it to be silly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

That is what you think, that is your jailer, your limited ego self.

 

[Polymath257]

Word salad!

It looks like you don't understand what 'word salad' means. What SZ wrote was clear in its meaning and unambiguous.

 

[Polymath257]

That is what you think, that is your jailer, your limited ego self.

So you claim. But, like most of your claims, it is unsupported and lacking in any real evidence.

You can make claims all you want, but to be believed, you have to give evidence and test your ideas.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Argument by assertion fallacy.

No assertion, it is you wanting evidence, it is you engaging me, you don't have to.

 

[ratiocinator]

It seems you are unable to conceive of a mind that does not do belief...

Everybody does belief. The point is that some beliefs are based on what is rational and supported by evidence and some not.

...you judge according to your own limited reality.

You keep on asserting that people are being limited by not 'seeing' or 'realising' what you do, but you've provided exactly zero reasons for anybody to take your claims seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a vast gap between understanding an idea and believing that idea. I *understand* the TLT and SSU. I find that they have been contradicted by the evidence.

I *understand* about the concepts of universal self and how we are all part of a greater consciousness. I just find those ideas to be wrong. I have even believed them in the past (at least, I told myself that I did).

 

[Polymath257]

No assertion, it is you wanting evidence, it is you engaging me, you don't have to.

Yes, evidence comes before belief. A realization is only valuable if it can be tested and verified. Otherwise, it is just like any other unsupported idea.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You make claims, but provide no evidence to back them up. So why should I believe them?

I *understand* what you say. I just don't believe it. I am very familiar with the concept of a 'universal self' and such. I just find those ideas to be wrong.

So, like all religions, you claim that some aspect of self is enduring, but fail to actually demonstrate that aspect actually exists. you make grand claims, but deliver only trinkets.

As I have said, I once went through a mystical phase similar to what you seem to believe. I eventually realized I was simply talking to myself and that looking *outward* leads to more wisdom than looking *inward*.

But, if you are happy at your stage, go for it.

The materialist deals in matter, objective evidence is for those who are fearful to explore and find out directly what the concept of spirit actually is.

 

[ratiocinator]

No assertion, it is you wanting evidence, it is you engaging me, you don't have to.

If you make a claim and provide no supporting evidence or reasoning, that is a bare assertion.

 

[Polymath257]

The materialist deals in matter, objective evidence is for those who are fearful to explore and find out directly what the concept of spirit actually is.

I have explored and found a useless wasteland of self-delusion. All fun and 'gee whiz', but little substance.

Objective evidence is precisely what should be required for any belief. To do otherwise is to fall off the path of wisdom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Funny how almost everyone that says this seems to have ego issues.

You are judging based on yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

You are judging based on yourself.

I am evaluating based on the evidence I have collected. As are you.

And, again, all you need to do to change minds is actually provide evidence as opposed to unsupported assertions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I can *conceive* of such. I just don't *believe* in such. I find the concept easy to conceive. But I also find it to be silly.

It is ok for you to find it silly.

 

[ratiocinator]

...objective evidence is for those who are fearful to explore and find out directly what the concept of spirit actually is.

Objective evidence is for those who are interested in the truth and want to avoid self-delusion. You may think you've experienced some sort of 'spiritual' reality, but you can't possibly know that you aren't fooling yourself without something objective to confirm it.

The world is full of people who claim to know spiritual truths. At least most of them are wrong because they contradict each other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you claim. But, like most of your claims, it is unsupported and lacking in any real evidence.

You can make claims all you want, but to be believed, you have to give evidence and test your ideas.

You are saying I am making claims, but I am only responding to your claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everybody does belief. The point is that some beliefs are based on what is rational and supported by evidence and some not.



You keep on asserting that people are being limited by not 'seeing' or 'realising' what you do, but you've provided exactly zero reasons for anybody to take your claims seriously.

No, you are judging based on your own limited reality.