How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

Whether or not anyone argues about the meaning of "emotional" experiences does not change the undeniable fact that none of them constitute reliable evidence for the existence of a supernatural or spiritual element in the cosmos. Neither do any subjective statements of yours or of anyone else's provide evidence for "psychic or spiritual dimension."

You can have an experience of the timeless realm of pure consciousness or Presence. It is an experience of that which is eternal and unchanging. What I think you are confused about is that when there is no thought or object of experience, you are thinking that there must be nothing present, a gap of time equivalent to unconsciousness.

However, the interesting thing is that there is a gap in time in which there is a fullness or aliveness. Also, what happens as you leave the transcendent realm and thinking resumes, there is tremendous wave of bliss and a sense of freedom and unboundedness. It is as if the fullness of the unbounded realm "spills over" slightly into the realm of object consciousness. As this experience is repeated over time, more of that bliss, freedom, and inner silence begins to infuse your ordinary waking consciousness. There is a shift in awareness. You begin to identify with that transcendent consciousness, the inner silence. All activity is experienced as taking place against a backdrop of silence, pure awareness, Presence.

By the way Bubba, you also suffer from another trait in common with the wild-eyed religionist. You assume that because i do not now buy any of the spiritual dog and pony show, that i must have never had any experience of "spirituality." That is false. In common with nearly all "non-believers," i was raised in a religious environment. When i became an adult, i abandoned organized religion. As time passed, i abandoned the notions of theism and spirituality altogether.

THere is a charming, childishly naive character to the assertions of anyone who assumes that if someone had any experience of spirituality or religion, they would believe just as that person does.

IFeelFree wrote:

You can have an experience of the timeless realm of pure consciousness or Presence. It is an experience of that which is eternal and unchanging. What I think you are confused about is that when there is no thought or object of experience, you are thinking that there must be nothing present, a gap of time equivalent to unconsciousness.

You are thinking that there is a pinnacle experience (available to a pinnacle species), and you characterize the object of this experience as being not an object. This, for me, is the present focus of our conversation. You are cynical about science; I guess it is right that you are cynical about logic, too.

Quote:

However, the interesting thing is that there is a gap in time in which there is a fullness or aliveness. Also, what happens as you leave the transcendent realm and thinking resumes, there is tremendous wave of bliss and a sense of freedom and unboundedness. It is as if the fullness of the unbounded realm "spills over" slightly into the realm of object consciousness. As this experience is repeated over time, more of that bliss, freedom, and inner silence begins to infuse your ordinary waking consciousness. There is a shift in awareness. You begin to identify with that transcendent consciousness, the inner silence. All activity is experienced as taking place against a backdrop of silence, pure awareness, Presence.

You are changing the subject without answering my point--with what looks to be taken straight from a Tolle book. You don't seem to be trying very hard.

The distinction between the experience of transcendental consciousness, or "no thought" vs object consciousness and the idea that pure consciousness "spills over" into object consciousness reflects my exposure to the teachings of. . .

IFeelFree wrote:

The distinction between the experience of transcendental consciousness, or "no thought" vs object consciousness and the idea that pure consciousness "spills over" into object consciousness reflects my exposure to the teachings of. . .

I highlight a flaw in your reasoning, and you reply by claiming that this is ancient knowledge (appeal to tradition) and that it is supported by supposedly qualified others (appeal to authority). I make no objection to your use popular terminology; my point was just that you seemed disinterested in explaining your personal reasons, your "own experiences and...interpretations".

It continues to be a false analogy to compare your touchy-feely reports about the significance of your experiences in meditation to the issues of a scientific study of the physics of the cosmos.

My primary motive in posting at this site has been to share experiences and insights with other practitioners, if possible.

I have also attempted to point out the limitations of a dissociated, analytical way of acquiring knowledge. Logical patterns and linear thinking may provide knowledge about the universe, but they are ultimately patterns in the mind, not the universe itself. The universe itself is an "inconceivable realm of space-time paradoxes" (to quote one of my teachers). While scientific knowledge seeks to remedy the ordinary ignorance of how the universe works, to really understand the universe ultimately requires transcending the patterns of thinking in a state of unity and unqualified awareness. Even developments in modern physics, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory, and cosmology, point to the paradoxical nature of reality -- EPR paradox and non-locality, the quantum mechanical vacuum as a field of infinite energy, etc. Most people are unaware of the crisis of modern physics -- our most sophisticated understanding of matter and energy, quantum field theory, contains numerous ad hoc inputs and predicts infinite energy, and therefore infinite mass for elementary particles. (It is made to work by simply subtracting off an infinite amount of energy from the calculated quantities.) In addition, field theory has reached an impasse, causing many physicists to abandon it for string theory. However, many physicists are now criticizing and abandoning string theory due to its metaphorical reasoning and inability to produce any testable predictions, leaving fundamental physics in a state of crisis. My point in this digression on physics is to suggest that there are limits to scientific reductionism.

Many people are increasingly looking toward more holistic ways of thinking, even within the scientific community (chaos theory and complexity theory, physicist David Bohm's non-local hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics, alternative medicine, ecology, etc.) The transformation of consciousness is an holistic way of knowing that complements the empirical method.

As to your objection that I characterize pure consciousness as not being an object, that is precisely the point. Only when there is consciousness without an object, i.e., awareness without thought, can consciousness become aware of its own nature -- unbounded, formless, unchanging, unconditioned, timeless.

To my knowledge, Bohm's ideas (even his later ideas) never broke with logic. If I'm wrong maybe you can give me a link or something.

IFF wrote:

As to your objection that I characterize pure consciousness as not being an object, that is precisely the point. Only when there is consciousness without an object, i.e., awareness without thought, can consciousness become aware of its own nature -- unbounded, formless, unchanging, unconditioned, timeless.

echi wrote:

You are correct, grammatically. Your point is?

IFF wrote:

echi wrote:

You are correct, grammatically. Your point is?

Am I correct? Or am I only grammatically correct? I'm not sure there's any difference.

echi wrote:

IFF wrote:

echi wrote:

You are correct, grammatically. Your point is?

Am I correct? Or am I only grammatically correct? I'm not sure there's any difference.

You are grammatically correct. What is your point?

You have been objectifying what is (according to you) a non-object.

You have been relying on a conceptualization to represent what is (according to you) beyond conceptualization.

I've been using language to express as best I can what can only be known by direct experience.

IFF wrote:

I've been using language to express as best I can what can only be known by direct experience.

Yes, because language cannot express the in-expressible.