Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still playing word game about subjective.

It is still personal opinions or personal beliefs, regardless if you experience it or not.

Opinions and beliefs are dualistic, they are objective, there is a mind that opines or believes such and such.
A subjective experience is not an objective experience, the mind is one with the experience.

Has your mind ever been stunned by say, the awesome beauty of a sunrise, during that moment, there is no duality of the mind, no awareness present of a seer of the sunrise and the seeing of the sunrise, there is just subjective seeing. When the subjective experience is over, the mind reverts to duality, it remembers the sight of the beautiful sunrise, this is now an objective view of the sunrise, you now may have an opinion of the sunrise, you believe it was a beautiful sunrise.

Religious practice and discipline allows one to stay in the subjective state regardless of what is being perceived, without judgement, without opinions, without beliefs, ever! Staying in the timeless here and now is difficult, but reality is just that, it is not personal opinion or belief about reality, divorced from the real thing by the mind's conceptualization that is meant to represent the real thing, but actual reality itself in real time.

You presently live in a reality divorced from actual reality by your mind's conceptualization of it, duality is your reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still playing word game about subjective.

It is still personal opinions or personal beliefs, regardless if you experience it or not.

Oh and gnostic, I am somewhat surprised that you are having trouble understanding what I'm trying to convey, the Chinese were on the case from the days of Confucius, Taoism and Chan/Zen.

You should be familiar with the finger pointing to the moon meme, and its meaning?..
.
"When a wise man points at the moon the foolish man examines the finger" ― Confucius

The finger represents conceptual explanation of reality, the moon represents actual reality.

Or in the purely religious context...the finger represents the conceptual teaching to realize enlightenment, the moon represents enlightenment.

I keep saying, the real is forever on the other side of the concept of the real.

The teaching is dualistic, the goal is unity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ball is not in my court, if you want to know the truth of God, you must do the religious practice, there is no other way, it is a subjective state of existence.

So how is that different or distinguishable from self-deception?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Opinions and beliefs are dualistic, they are objective, there is a mind that opines or believes such and such.
A subjective experience is not an objective experience, the mind is one with the experience.

Has your mind ever been stunned by say, the awesome beauty of a sunrise, during that moment, there is no duality of the mind, no awareness present of a seer of the sunrise and the seeing of the sunrise, there is just subjective seeing. When the subjective experience is over, the mind reverts to duality, it remembers the sight of the beautiful sunrise, this is now an objective view of the sunrise, you now may have an opinion of the sunrise, you believe it was a beautiful sunrise.

Religious practice and discipline allows one to stay in the subjective state regardless of what is being perceived, without judgement, without opinions, without beliefs, ever! Staying in the timeless here and now is difficult, but reality is just that, it is not personal opinion or belief about reality, divorced from the real thing by the mind's conceptualization that is meant to represent the real thing, but actual reality itself in real time.

You presently live in a reality divorced from actual reality by your mind's conceptualization of it, duality is your reality.

More word salad

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I do understand, and you are correct, if one has not perceived a dragon, they can't know one. Perhaps you are getting it?

The dragon was a hallucination.
The dude having the hallucination doesn't know he's having a hallucination.
Yet he perceives a dragon. But there is no dragon.

There is only the dude and deception.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So how is that different or distinguishable from self-deception?

How could doing religious practice be self deception any more than any other practice, athletics, gymnastics, etc., be self deception?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

More word salad

Profound reply.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The dragon was a hallucination.
The dude having the hallucination doesn't know he's having a hallucination.
Yet he perceives a dragon. But there is no dragon.

There is only the dude and deception.

Another profound comment, remarkable insight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Another profound comment, remarkable insight.

Another failure to recognize how the things you say are indistinguishable from self-deception and imagination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How could doing religious practice be self deception any more than any other practice, athletics, gymnastics, etc., be self deception?

Athletics and gymnastics doesn't involve believing things on faith - which is to say, on no evidence.

So that's a false analogy.

I can only repeat my question.
How is what you said distinguishable from self-deception / imagination?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Athletics and gymnastics doesn't involve believing things on faith - which is to say, on no evidence.

So that's a false analogy.

I can only repeat my question.
How is what you said distinguishable from self-deception / imagination?

For there to be self-deception, there must be an ego-self, all atheists have an ego-self and thus are susceptible to self-deception, eg. looks, cleverness, strength, etc.. All religious novices, just like all atheists, also have ego-self at the beginning of their spiritual path and thus are susceptible to self-deception, eg., in addition to those of the atheist, add enlightened, holy, kind, forgiving, etc.. The difference is that while all practicing atheists retain their ego-self throughout their life and thus their susceptibility to self-deception, some religious folk may successfully transcend their ego-mind during their life of difficult spiritual practice and are thus are much less susceptible to self deception. Still your point is an important one, the transcending of the ego-self is the most difficult thing a human being can realize.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For there to be self-deception, there must be an ego-self, all atheists have an ego-self and thus are susceptible to self-deception, eg. looks, cleverness, strength, etc.. All religious novices, just like all atheists, also have ego-self at the beginning of their spiritual path and thus are susceptible to self-deception, eg., in addition to those of the atheist, add enlightened, holy, kind, forgiving, etc.. The difference is that while all practicing atheists retain their ego-self throughout their life and thus their susceptibility to self-deception, some religious folk may successfully transcend their ego-mind during their life of difficult spiritual practice and are thus are much less susceptible to self deception. Still your point is an important one, the transcending of the ego-self is the most difficult thing a human being can realize.

You used a lot of words in an attempt to not actually answer the question.
If you don't want to, or can't, answer the question... then just say so.


To reply to your word salad: the question is not about who is and isn't susceptible to self deception. FYI: we all are, it's a human thing.

The question is how do we tell the difference?

For me, I tell the difference based on actual independently verifiable evidence. But the stuff you are talking about requires faith instead of evidence. So without evidence, how do you distinguish a belief from imagination?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You used a lot of words in an attempt to not actually answer the question.
If you don't want to, or can't, answer the question... then just say so.


To reply to your word salad: the question is not about who is and isn't susceptible to self deception. FYI: we all are, it's a human thing.

The question is how do we tell the difference?

For me, I tell the difference based on actual independently verifiable evidence. But the stuff you are talking about requires faith instead of evidence. So without evidence, how do you distinguish a belief from imagination?

You are deceived, the stuff I am talking about does not need faith, it is free for all and sundry.

For those who have no desire to know their full potential in the greater scheme of things, I wish them the best in this life. For those who suspect there is more to their existence than they presently are aware of, I would talk to them about the things I am talking about. The evidence you seek regarding the last word in reality is for you to discover, but only walk that path if there is a sincere desire to do so, it is up to each soul as to what they want out of their life.

Oh only if it were so easy as for some divine personage to do miracles for you so you have the evidence you ask for, talk about self deception, who do you think you are, it ain't going to happen, wake up to yourself!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are deceived, the stuff I am talking about does not need faith, it is free for all and sundry.

If that were the case, you could just give me evidence.
But instead, you require me to "just believe".

For those who have no desire to know their full potential in the greater scheme of things, I wish them the best in this life. For those who suspect there is more to their existence than they presently are aware of, I would talk to them about the things I am talking about. The evidence you seek regarding the last word in reality is for you to discover, but only walk that path if there is a sincere desire to do so, it is up to each soul as to what they want out of their life.

See? You're doing it again.
You're trying to dress it up a in a suit with a classy briefcase, but really all you are saying is "just believe it and then you'll believe it".

This sentence gives it away clearly:

"For those who suspect there is more to their existence than they presently are aware of, I would talk to them about the things I am talking about"

You seem to be saying that you'll only be able to convince those who don't mind using "faith".
You are referring to things of existence that "we are not aware of". How are you aware of them? Where is your evidence for those things? Why can't you just give me that evidence?

Could it perhaps be because no such evidence exists?
Because faith is required?

Oh only if it were so easy as for some divine personage to do miracles for you so you have the evidence you ask for, talk about self deception, who do you think you are, it ain't going to happen, wake up to yourself!

Who do you think YOU are that my pet dragon will just "reveal" himself to you so that you have the evidence? Who do you think you are? It ain't going to happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmmm, religious practice is not about belief, and of course religious experience is different from worldly experience, one is of a spiritual nature and the other is of the material nature.

It's not though. That's my point.
People just declare it so, because they don't have any good evidence.

So it is simple logic, an atheist will not be capable of having the subjective experience of spiritual bliss unless they cease their mind's thought processes. Do you understand?

There is nothing logical about ceasing "their minds thought processes."
That's the opposite of logic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not an atheist, what an atheist considers rational is a mental path that leads to the waste of the soul's potential to discover what and who they really are in the context of all existence.

What an atheist considers rational is the same thing everybody else considers rational. There is no rationality for you and rationality for me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You would say that as an atheist for to accept what I'm saying as truth would be an admission of error. The reason imho why atheists tend to want to challenge the teaching about God is that at a deeper level, their soul is hoping that they may see the light and return to the path that leads to immortality.

And hey, perhaps that's why I'm here, to keep your feet held to the flame.

I'm not saying that as an atheist. I'm saying it as a person who wishes to think rationally and wants to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.

If you want to "keep my feet to the flame" I'll need to see some evidence for your claims about souls and such.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If that were the case, you could just give me evidence.
But instead, you require me to "just believe".

See? You're doing it again.
You're trying to dress it up a in a suit with a classy briefcase, but really all you are saying is "just believe it and then you'll believe it".

This sentence gives it away clearly:

"For those who suspect there is more to their existence than they presently are aware of, I would talk to them about the things I am talking about"

You seem to be saying that you'll only be able to convince those who don't mind using "faith".
You are referring to things of existence that "we are not aware of". How are you aware of them? Where is your evidence for those things? Why can't you just give me that evidence?

Could it perhaps be because no such evidence exists?
Because faith is required?

Who do you think YOU are that my pet dragon will just "reveal" himself to you so that you have the evidence? Who do you think you are? It ain't going to happen.

Seriously, it doesn't matter to me whether one believes in God or doesn't believe in God, in both cases the error exists of the ego mind imagining belief is actually real. It's not, it is merely a mental representation of the real.

To correct the error of belief, mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon, one must realize the reality that the belief represents.

To reiterate, saying what I'm saying is not meant to convince anyone to believe it is true, I am saying beliefs are the problem. If you don't understand this, any number of explanations, books, evidence, etc., will be of no avail to you, if you understand, any explanation is one too many.

And fwiw, we have been over this so many times, so perhaps it is time for the recognition of the 'no avail' moment, besides which, we have strayed somewhat from the OP's NDE topic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not though. That's my point.
People just declare it so, because they don't have any good evidence.

There is nothing logical about ceasing "their minds thought processes."
That's the opposite of logic.

The evidence is in the understanding realized when the mind is free from thought, it is not a belief that can be explained. There is no intention to influence anyone to seek this understanding, the world is perfect as it is, always..

So it is illogical for your mind's thought processes to cease when you sleep. how do you prevent it?
So it is illogical for anyone to practice Dhyan, Chan, Zen, meditation?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What an atheist considers rational is the same thing everybody else considers rational. There is no rationality for you and rationality for me.

As an atheist, you consider still mind meditation illogical, hence irrational, whereas most people would see it as a rational thing, you see the difference?