US: Donald Trump launches 2024 comeback bid, makes his 'very big announcement'

[Ben Dhyan]

Really, then how did Siddartha conceive of it? How do monks achieve the state?


I didn't say is was a mental state, I said it was a philosophical approach, and if you are correct how do so many understand the Tao. I suggest it's you that has a problem understanding, not others. Your limitations don't apply to others more capable that you.


Gods are a huge set of abstractions that humans conjured in their minds, so you are wrong yet again.


Your posts suggest the contrary. Religions are very much about how humans see themselves.


This is really odd, why do you need a representation in your mind of things that are real? Why not just acknowldge the real?

Are you aware that the word "god" is misleading and carries with it ll sorts of assumptions that are NOT part of reality? Those who are honest refer to all that exists as the "universe".

If anything this discussion should help you REALIZE that the beliefs you adopted from religious lore are not completely revresentative of reality and include alot of imaginary ideas. Why? Because it helps the ego feel secure in a universe where it isn't significant.


Who you are? That is ego at work. Religion only builds an illusion of the self AS a religious person. It doesn't offer any means to understand the essence of who a person is. I suggest it is stripping away of belief that allows a person the freedom to know the self. Religion only suffocates the self with layers of concepts and imagery.

And what is "absolute existence" and how is it better than mere existence? Just more of your Chopra nonsense that you never care to explain?


What transcends the "thinking mind"? Illusions? Self-deception? Confusion? Belief? A person can be confused and fit your description here, and I suggest that fits you very well, but do you realize it?

Religion is about concepts and illusions, and those are thoughts. And if human minds can't conceive of religion then why are people adopting the concepts as if they are true?

Through meditation.

Philosophy implies conceptualization, conceptualization requite thinking, thinking is a mental process, ergo, philosophy involves mental.activity. Meditation otoh is stilling mental activity.

There is a difference between the religious practice and its realization. It may take a lifetime to realize the goal.

The reality represented by the concept of God is not conceptual, though it is true novice theists are no different to atheists and conceptualize.

You misunderstand, when one says "the reality represented by the concept...", it is the real that is being acknowledged, not the conceptualization of it.

I am who I am.

Reality is on the other side of the thoughts about reality. Think of a tree, your thought of the tree is not the tree, it is a conceptualization that represents the tree. The religious journey is meant to transcend the thinking process and not be separated by the duality of a thinker and that thought, the two become one.

 

[F1fan]

Through meditation.

See, this is why we can't take any of your nonsense seriously.

I stated that Nirvana is a mental state. Then you wrote:

Nirvana is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind. -post 349​

Then I responded:

Really, then how did Siddartha conceive of it? How do monks achieve the state? -post 354​

Your answer above is:

Through meditation. ​

So you have no idea what you are talking about. Inconsistent posts.

Philosophy implies conceptualization, conceptualization requite thinking, thinking is a mental process, ergo, philosophy involves mental.activity. Meditation otoh is stilling mental activity.

Irrelevant. Meditation is a practice of quieting the mind's chatter, and it takes practice and discipline.

Nirvana is a mental state where the ego and self is negated. This is something a human mind can understand since it achieves the state. I suggest this is hard for theists to understand since their belief IS about abstractions and an illusory reality. To subdue that is contrary to what theism is all about.

There is a difference between the religious practice and its realization. It may take a lifetime to realize the goal.

The realization to be an atheist is the most worthy goal of religious practice.

The reality represented by the concept of God is not conceptual, though it is true novice theists are no different to atheists and conceptualize.

The word God doesn;t represent any reality. The word exists as a contradiction to reality. It is a word theists use to believe in a false, illusory world that they can't defend to those who question it.

You misunderstand, when one says "the reality represented by the concept...", it is the real that is being acknowledged, not the conceptualization of it.

That depends on the context of a conversaion. If I bring up cats does the other person think of their own cat, a lion, a cartoon, something else? Your use of "god" is useless. There are better, more accurate words. God implies magic, supernatural, and a whole host of other ideas that are NOT part of what we observe around us.

I am who I am.

There's still time to change.

Reality is on the other side of the thoughts about reality. Think of a tree, your thought of the tree is not the tree, it is a conceptualization that represents the tree. The religious journey is meant to transcend the thinking process and not be separated by the duality of a thinker and that thought, the two become one.

You can both look at a tree and think about it, and also be aware the tree is real and outside of your head. You seem to be suggesting people can only do one or the other. And that they are confused about the tree the imagine and the tree they are looking at.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

See, this is why we can't take any of your nonsense seriously.

I stated that Nirvana is a mental state. Then you wrote:

Nirvana is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind. -post 349​

Then I responded:

Really, then how did Siddartha conceive of it? How do monks achieve the state? -post 354​

Your answer above is:

Through meditation. ​

So you have no idea what you are talking about. Inconsistent posts.



Irrelevant. Meditation is a practice of quieting the mind's chatter, and it takes practice and discipline.

Nirvana is a mental state where the ego and self is negated. This is something a human mind can understand since it achieves the state. I suggest this is hard for theists to understand since their belief IS about abstractions and an illusory reality. To subdue that is contrary to what theism is all about.


The realization to be an atheist is the most worthy goal of religious practice.


The word God doesn;t represent any reality. The word exists as a contradiction to reality. It is a word theists use to believe in a false, illusory world that they can't defend to those who question it.


That depends on the context of a conversaion. If I bring up cats does the other person think of their own cat, a lion, a cartoon, something else? Your use of "god" is useless. There are better, more accurate words. God implies magic, supernatural, and a whole host of other ideas that are NOT part of what we observe around us.


There's still time to change.


You can both look at a tree and think about it, and also be aware the tree is real and outside of your head. You seem to be suggesting people can only do one or the other. And that they are confused about the tree the imagine and the tree they are looking at.

You asked how monks achieve the state of Nirvana, I answered through meditation. What do you find wrong?

Meditation has as its purpose the stilling of the mind so there is no thought. No thought means no thinker. No thinker means there is no "I".. No ego means that whatever awareness is now present, it is not a conceptualization When one spends a lot of time in this state of pure awareness frequently, over many decades of practice, a higher Self evolves that is spiritually based as opposed to the body self.

As an atheist, you refuse to acknowledge a higher governing power of existence, I have no problem with your belief, some people believe in unicorns.

I'm saying that all your words are concepts that are meant to represent whatever it is they are meant to represent, I'm saying that concepts will never in all eternity be anything other than symbolic, the real is not the word, the name, the concept, the symbol, etc. To realize that which the concepts are meant to represent, one must achieve that like the monks through meditation, Nirvana.

Btw, it would be helpful is you could break your replies into smaller but more posts. I am not asking that you don't get to cover all that you want, but better to do it in more posts rather than just one. As it is, it is difficult to see the context of my answers to your points.

 

[metis]

God obviously is causeless since there was no beginning.

It's impossible to know this objectively, but it is logical on a possibility basis.

...as Jesus taught, the straight and narrow path to truth is very difficult, and few succeed, the broad path that leads to destruction is easy and most favor it. It is my understanding that the straight path leads to a mind in a state of non-duality realization, while the wide path is the normal human mind state of conceptualizing reality, a state of duality separating the thinker from the object of the thought.

Buddhism 101.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's impossible to know this objectively, but it is logical on a possibility basis.

Buddhism 101.

Fair enough.

"The Father and I are one", you don't get more non-dual than this..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough.

"The Father and I are one", you don't get more non-dual than this..

It could just mean " The Father and I agree". No need for excessive literalism. There is plenty of duality in that interpretation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It could just mean " The Father and I agree". No need for excessive literalism. There is plenty of duality in that interpretation.

God says that He is One, it follows that all creation is the one expression of God, you, myself, everyone is within God. Jesus is only confirming he is not separate from God, most people imagine God is a separate entity.

The mind is in a state of duality when it imagines God to be separate. Jesus is saying he is not separate.

If you sit quietly and listen with all your heart, mind, and soul, do not think but rather see if you can find your mind being 'called'. It is not the other way round, there will never be any success if it is the ego mind trying to make contact with the soul, ever! It only works when the ego mind is quiet that the subtle higher Self makes its presence felt. Its presence is not a thought, it is like a non-verbal calling. That's how it starts, all serious religious folk were called by their higher self, never was it a decision of the ego self, the body self. Once called, it is a process of the ego self becoming a servant of the higher, and eventually there is a dissolving of the duality state of mind, ego self and higher Self, and a sense of oneness emerges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God says that He is One, it follows that all creation is the one expression of God, you, myself, everyone is within God. Jesus is only confirming he is not separate from God, most people imagine God is a separate entity.

The mind is in a state of duality when it imagines God to be separate. Jesus is saying he is not separate.

If you sit quietly and listen with all your heart, mind, and soul, do not think but rather see if you can find your mind being 'called'. It is not the other way round, there will never be any success if it is the ego mind trying to make contact with the soul, ever! It only works when the ego mind is quiet that the subtle higher Self makes its presence felt. Its presence is not a thought, it is like a non-verbal calling. That's how it starts, all serious religious folk were called by their higher self, never was it a decision of the ego self, the body self. Once called, it is a process of the ego self becoming a servant of the higher, and eventually there is a dissolving of the duality state of mind, ego self and higher Self, and a sense of oneness emerges.

Where did he say that? I must have missed that issue of the New York Times. Or did he publish in a peer reviewed journal? Or maybe he held a press conference?

I am just curious as to when and where this took place.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Isaiah 45 6,7.The Lord God is one. I create light, and the darkness, I make the good, and the evil. I the Lord do these things.

So the God represents oneness, from the oneness comes light and dark, good and evil, etc. Does it not remind you of the Tao? From the Tao comes the two, ying and yang, light and dark, from these eventually come infinite things.

What does the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent in Genesis, and why were the first humans told not to partake of it.

You see scripture is not to be taken literally, it is conveying esoteric teaching about creation. The true teaching is not conceptual, it is the reality of existence itself, you will never find it outside yourself, and I'm not talking about your ego body self.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaiah 45 6,7.The Lord God is one. I create light, and the darkness, I make the good, and the evil. I the Lord do these things.

So the God represents oneness, from the oneness comes light and dark, good and evil, etc. Does it not remind you of the Tao? From the Tao comes the two, ying and yang, light and dark, from these eventually come infinite things.

What does the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent in Genesis, and why were the first humans told not to partake of it.

You see scripture is not to be taken literally, it is conveying esoteric teaching about creation. The true teaching is not conceptual, it is the reality of existence itself, you will never find it outside yourself, and I'm not talking about your ego body self.

You appear to be guilty of taking it a bit too literally. Just because a similar phrase is used in varying parts of the Bible does not necessarily mean that the phrases have the same meaning everywhere. And why use the Bible? Why use any particular religious text? How does one know if they are reliable or not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You appear to be guilty of taking it a bit too literally. Just because a similar phrase is used in varying parts of the Bible does not necessarily mean that the phrases have the same meaning everywhere. And why use the Bible? Why use any particular religious text? How does one know if they are reliable or not?

I was called by my higher Self, the true teaching is not conceptual, it is the reality of existence itself, you will never find it outside yourself, and I'm not talking about your ego body self.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was called by my higher Self, the true teaching is not conceptual, it is the reality of existence itself, you will never find it outside yourself, and I'm not talking about your ego body self.

I am sorry, but without evidence it sounds like self delusion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am sorry, but without evidence it sounds like self delusion.

Try this, it may produce the evidence you've been missing. Sit quietly and listen with all your heart, mind, and soul, do not think but rather see if you can find your mind being 'called'. It is not the other way round, there will never be any success if it is the ego mind trying to make contact with the soul, ever! It only works when the ego mind is quiet that the subtle higher Self makes its presence felt. Its presence is not a thought, it is like a non-verbal calling. That's how it starts, all serious religious folk were called by their higher self, never was it a decision of the ego self, the body self. Once called, it is a process of the ego self becoming a servant of the higher, and eventually there is a dissolving of the duality state of mind, ego self and higher Self, and a sense of oneness emerges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try this, it may produce the evidence you've been missing. Sit quietly and listen with all your heart, mind, and soul, do not think but rather see if you can find your mind being 'called'. It is not the other way round, there will never be any success if it is the ego mind trying to make contact with the soul, ever! It only works when the ego mind is quiet that the subtle higher Self makes its presence felt. Its presence is not a thought, it is like a non-verbal calling. That's how it starts, all serious religious folk were called by their higher self, never was it a decision of the ego self, the body self. Once called, it is a process of the ego self becoming a servant of the higher, and eventually there is a dissolving of the duality state of mind, ego self and higher Self, and a sense of oneness emerges.

And if it fails is that a refutation of your God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And if it fails is that a refutation of your God?

No, many are not called, of the many that are called, few are chosen. But I have a good feeling about you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, many are not called, of the many that are called, few are chosen. But I have a good feeling about you.

Why didn't you answer my question. Why should anyone try when you cannot properly answer questions?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why didn't you answer my question. Why should anyone try when you cannot properly answer questions?

Such a position would just mean that person is not called, end of story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such a position would just mean that person is not called, end of story.

So God is evil?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So God is evil?

No, but good and evil are the intrinsic aspects of unity, God is one expressing as two complementary aspects, positive and negative, etc..

Isaiah 45 6,7. The Lord God is one. I create light, and the darkness, I make the good, and the evil. I the Lord do these things.

If you are not called, it is because the ego self does not desire goodness, ie., union with the higher Self, someone has to play the dark part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but good and evil are the intrinsic aspects of unity, God is one expressing as two complementary aspects, positive and negative, etc..

Isaiah 45 6,7. The Lord God is one. I create light, and the darkness, I make the good, and the evil. I the Lord do these things.

If you are not called, it is because the ego self does not desire goodness, ie., union with the higher Self, someone has to play the dark part.

Now that looks like a personal attack. Please defend your last claim with proper evidence.

Don't give me that "If you failed it is your fault" bull****.