PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Do you verify what he says?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can't have perfect knowledge through science
- Thread starter I-Ching
- Start date
This isn't how all learning works, but I'll grant you that in the physical world, it is. If seeking outer guru, book with Word, etc., learning will come through physical senses.
I do have question though for anyone who is using word senses from scientific materialist perspective. Is the set commonly referred to as "senses" inclusive of something more than the 5 senses?
I do not ask this out of ignorance, but more for clarification.
We also are invoking before, during and after this process of reasoning, a framework of Trust (arguably faith). Regardless of the idea, Trust is right there working with (even overseeing) our rationalizations and inferences.
Maybe our sense of identifying source is mistaken (i.e. believed to be outside of me, rather than in me, where it would be most logical).
And if the guru is not human you've got bigger problems on your hands.
Well the inner Guru is not human.
Reason is not human.
Trust is not human.
Life is not human.
Love is not human.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
IOW, this is how things work in the world we actually inhabit.
We have more senses besides just taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing. For instance: balance, proprioception (the sense of the orientation of your limbs, basically), temperature. There are probably others I'm forgetting, but there are a bunch... and I'm not talking about any hypothetical things like ESP.
You can also be, um, inright lied to.
As I believe I-Ching will attest to, physical senses are perpetuating a rather convincing lie. And this isn't based on something outside of you. It is a lie that, when corrected won't change the physical world as you see it through the body's eyes. Well, at least not initially (say in first few hours).
This is ultimately why I believe (perhaps even contrary to I-Ching) that inner Guru is 'place to be' - place to find Trust, use Reason, experience Life. From outward-in perspective, you won't be vegetable sitting in room, with dazed look on your physical face, but instead vibrant, attuned, in touch, overcoming perceived problem in way that strikes you in the moment as 'perfectly natural' rather than, "whoa whoa whoa nelly, we need to stand back and define 15 billion things in this current predicament, then we need to set up 18 methods, 7 of which we will test first, and then we will reach conclusions which will tackle the problem that we were looking at 17 years ago when we started this analysis."
Projected by the mind
I've already given you the examples and science has shown that what we see a reflection of what really is. We know this but it doesn't stop us from continuing to observe. Science does not care if non-material exists we just have no reason to believe it exists unless it is observed. Further when we gather more information we find that what was thought to be spiritual is explainable in our realm of the material world.
I've shown that science substantiates what we percieve. We know a ton about how our eyes and the eyes of other animals see differently. Why do I need faith that I'm typing on this computer? I'm not even an atheist so whatever deception you think I have is hardly relevant. I've looked into these things you know.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Apparently in some cases, this seems to be true.
The bias you speak of is going by what we can observe. If we could observe this immaterial realm you speak of there would be no problem. I'm of the belief that this spiritualness you speak of IS completly natural and observable otherwise it wouldn't exist at all.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
...I don't understand. Something is being delivered to my head, even if it's not what I think it is.
Okay, so there is like 23 physical senses (for humans). I didn't actually count, but suffice it to say it is more than 5, and I wonder if anyone reading this could name the ones Wikipedia has listed without referencing anything but memory? Perhaps, but strikes me as equivalent to stuff I've read in book of Urantia (aka is overly jargon laden).
Anyways, yeah, it is possible to utilize Reason, Trust, Logic and Love without incorporating any of these senses. In fact, I believe it is done by all reading, more than some may care to admit. Physical senses are like outer gurus who will witness precisely to what the mind is thinking, in a psuedo, or imaginary way.
Better bust out the tin foil hat.
In the imaginary world we actually inhabit, yes.
Think of night dreams where you 'actually' are inhabiting that world. Gravity magically works there.
You came kinda close to naming all 23 material senses. Nice job!
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Trust and Love certainly can't be. There wouldn't be any target.
Provide links if you actually believe this. I observe you have not.
It has not shown this, and you are yet to substantiate this. Well you or anyone. Clearly, we do not physically see "things" as they are now.
Right back to where we started. Observed with what?
Even the physical, when understood properly, is not physical or is non-material. When 'observed' in another method, it is arguably non material, but I am saying with use of Reason, when understood properly the physical is 'non-material,' though that takes a rather huge shift in perception, and one I'll let inner Guru sort out for all who care to go deeper.
Not even close, but you keep believing that if it works for you. I wish you well.
With what? "Proof is in the pudding" logic. Yeah, that didn't quite work for me. Sorry.
Seeing in the physical sense is based on faith / trust. Once that is accepted, say as axiom, the extenuating proofs will potentially not be seen as resting on faith. Akin to accepting God exists. Pretend like that is accepted, rather than doubted / questioned. If God guides you do "go to that physical store, and buy some peanuts and cracker jack." Well the many subprocesses that are between "God spoke" and "now I am eating peanuts and cracker jack" will be within the framework, seen as reasonable, not just faith based. Though ultimately it rests on faith, and if paying acute attention, there is faith (more like wonder) in each sub-process.
I'm with you here.
Stop, for just a moment, and don't use (only) physical senses, and "natural order" will perhaps open up for you. There is nothing urging you, initially, to stop seeing physical. So, really, this is just about how honest are you being with own integrity of science? Are you going with bias of scientific materialism? If yes, so be it, and just be honest about that. I utilize scientific materialism at times. Given the faith behind it, I find it useful for when I'm taking breaks in verifying Divine messages / teachings. Yet, there is science that is not psuedo (unless you are looking through rose colored glasses of SM), and that is science / neutral, that can observe within. Beyond physical senses. Completely natural.
The ironic thing is, I do fully believe that all reading this, all detractors from my position in this online discourse, do this 'going within' already. Perhaps not in a formal way (a la meditation, contemplation), but it is I would say not possible to utilize Reason and not go within. For me, it is not like "going within" is some sacred experience where external noise / distractions must be shut off, candles lit, crystals and scarves set out, and the great 'om' is being chanted. It can be that. It can be that and be wonderful. For me, in the scientific way I understand natural order, it need not be anything more than honest awareness of using Reason, Trust, etc. and 'there you are' within.
Yes.
Again, think of night dreams to try and make sense of the experience as mental process.