Do you believe in souls?

GB, I don't have certain knowledged either way. I'm just saying that on the basis of my experience and intuition we do not have past and future lives, but I feel more confident that we ARE all lives, and everything else. One CAN see, if one makes the effort, that we are all that we experience, but we cannot see our past and future lives. Although, who knows, maybe Shirley McClaine is right. I have doubts about the tantric (Tibetan) emphasis on re-incarnation. I think we misinterpret their position on that. But that's another matter.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Goldbarz, I don't know what connection you are making--to a previous statement of mine? Gold Barz
You ask:
"JLNobody so will there be future lives for false-selves."

If by "false-selves" we mean the illusion of a self traveling in time that is constantly being reborn moment to moment, then yes. Time is time, whether we project two seconds or two hundred years. In order to understand the illusion of self in time, one has to transcend it and step out of it, out of time. Many people misinterpret this as a heaven where "all will be understood," but you don't have to literally die to step out of time. Don't ask me how it happens, but it does. That's the reason for the Zen koan, to drive one out of one's mind into a transcendent state of mind.

The point is that this illusion of self or ego—Gold Barz' false-self—is a function or a condition of the intellect, and intellect is not going to be able to see its own illusion no matter how hard it tries; that's breaking its own self-imposed taboo, and that's akin to suicide from the ego's point of view.

That's what Alan Watt's book is about, "The Book: On the Taboo against knowing who you are." It's not a taboo imposed on individuals by society; it's a built-in taboo or a condition of the intellect as ego, but it can be broken. The taboo is so strong that breaking it feels like death, but it's only the death of the ego illusion. Remember the Doors' song? "Break on Through to the Other Side." Morrison was talking about the "other side" of ego illusion.

0 Replies

all i really want to know is if there is really rebirth....? or after this life there is no more life to live?

0 Replies

GB, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
All I want to know is my true nature. Fortunately, I can, at least in principle, see that now.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

You asked how I knew the information I gave Goldbars. I told you the source of my knowledge. If you didn't care, then why ask?

I asked you how you were able to state with such certainty that there are no souls.

You HAVE NOT told me the source of that supposed knowledge.

You have made some nebulous statements about being "awakened"...and I have asked you specifically what in the "awakening" informed you that there are no souls....and I have asked you several times how you know for certain that this "awakening" is not simply self delusion.

You have NOT responded to any of that...and in fact, made a rather pompous declaration that you could explain it to someone entertaining your defense in a doctoral dissertation...and inferred that we peons here in A2K are not intellectually up to the challenge your explanation would require.

I'll ask you again:

How do you know there are no souls?

If this "knowledge" is derived from your "awakening"...please explain what happened in the "awakening" that specifically said to you, "Oh, by the way...there are no souls."

If the "awakening" did have that specific construct...please explain how you KNOW for certain that the "experience" is not simply self delusion?

Quote:

You are the one who began talking about knowing as a degree, or level of belief.

I defy you to find any substantiation for this anywhere in the over 5000 postings I have made here...or in the over 20,000 postings I made over in Abuzz.

Don't create strawmen.

Quote:

When people have had a "personal revelation", they are not guessing.

So says you...but you are wrong. That simply cannot be stated categorically.

Almost all people having "personal revelations" cannot honestly answer the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself.

And if the cannot...the so-called "personal revelation" itself...is a guess....and anything derived from it is a guess also.

Quote:

Their belief that the experience is valid and real is, to them, a matter of knowing.

Blather!!!!!

Quote:

They can not prove it in any objective way to anyone else.

They cannot even "prove" it to themselves...because it is pure guesswork unless they can deal with the question about the reliability of the supposed experience.

Quote:

You believe/guess accounts of those experiences is "baloney".

I don't do this "believing" crap...and I will thank you to stop pretending that I am. I am guessing that these experiences are self delusion...and that is based on the fact that I have dealt with hundreds of people who claim to know the nature of the Ultimate REALITY based on these personal revelation experiences...and the revelations are all over the place...often 180 degrees out of phase with others.

Quote:

If a person has not had a "personal revelation", or "Awakening Experience" then, of course, they can only believe, or disbelieve, in it.

Only if one has a closed mind, Asherman. Otherwise the person can simply say: "How do you know you are not being self deluded?" And if that cannot be answered reasonably...dismiss the idea of accepting the supposed experience.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Frank:

I agree that you are not a wise ass. And after rereading my post - I was confused.

So let's try again.

Part of your knowledge that you cannot know about God comes from logic. It is logically possible and it seems to make sence to you.

Let's try to be exact in this discussion to avoid misunderstandings.

I have never said that one cannot know about God. (Check this out if you want...but I can tell you that I have on dozens of occasions explained to everyone that I am NOT claiming knowledge of God is not possible. My guess, however, is that such knowledge does not currently exist. I am unwilling, in fact, to make a guess about why that is...which, of course, could be because there are no gods...or because even if there is a GOD...that GOD simply does not want humans to know for certain that it exists.

If a God truly exists...and if that God wanted humans to KNOW It exists...I can think of no reason why it could not make absolute certain knowledge of Its existence know.

So for you to suggest that I know we cannot know about a God...is incorrect.

Quote:

The evidence for this knowledge comes from experience - or rather a lack thereof. When I asked before whether there was a criterion that you could entertain that would allow you to see an experience as religious - you stated that there was not. Thus as you experience things now - you never look to God as an explaining force. Thus, if you had a 'miraculous' recovery from cancer - you would state it was a rapid remission and never look to God as experience.

Because of what I said above...none of this applies.

Quote:

Thus, you are having experiences - and are basing your agnosticism on these experiences. This is not a certainty - you would have to allow that you might be wrong - and you are basing your religious beliefs on experience - something you will not allow believers to do.

This is illogical reasoning on your part...and if you consider what I said up above...you will see that my agnostic take on REALITY is intact.

Quote:

I am stating that I believe that you are violating your own rules and are internally incoherent.

If you understand what I said up above...I think you will see that you are totally incorrect here.

Quote:

So the real crux of this - and I am very excited to hear what you have to say - is how your 'knowledge' that there is not a knowable God - is not experience based.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT GOD...SHOULD A GOD EXISTS...IS UNKNOWABLE. In fact, I have commented on this point in dozens upon dozens of threads.

Hope you understand it now.

0 Replies

JLN, When I say "return," I'm only referring to the fact that we exist in another state. Whether that state is biologically viable in the future is another matter.

0 Replies

Gold Barz

Quote:

all i really want to know is if there is really rebirth....? or after this life there is no more life to live?

This cannot be proved (or disproved I guess) scientifically, but say if death is like sleep, the last strong thought we sleep with becomes the first thought of the next day. And as long as there is such a thought and mind stuff, there will be the next day or life to live it out.

The very word Moksha [ Mo - me/my/mine + Asksha - axed/ended] embeds the idea of beheading of the smallness in you. As long as that is not done, the smallness persists beyond one death. The word Nirvana too [ Nerva - pschychosomatic manifestion + Na - no more ] suggest the nature of escaping bodily bondage.

Either way it is suggested that until the perception of I, me and mine (Mr. Smith of matrix movies) is done with, there is some form of rebirth according to Hindu/Buddhist doctrine.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Almost all people having "personal revelations" cannot honestly answer the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself.

And if the cannot...the so-called "personal revelation" itself...is a guess....and anything derived from it is a guess also.

How do you know you're not deluding yourself?

[and it's a catch 22 if the delusion and the self are one and the same, something Asherman, JLNobody, coluber2001, others, and myself have been saying all along]

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Almost all people having "personal revelations" cannot honestly answer the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself.

And if the cannot...the so-called "personal revelation" itself...is a guess....and anything derived from it is a guess also.
How do you know you're not deluding yourself?

[and it's a catch 22 if the delusion and the self are one and the same, something Asherman, JLNobody, coluber2001, others, and myself have been saying all along]

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that because I say "I know that 2+2=4 or I know my name on my birth certificate reads: Frank Apisa...

...that I must accept your assertions that you know the answers to Ultimate Questions about REALITY...

...then by all means do so.

Normally I say: You may be deluding yourself.

In your case I will make an exception.

You most assuredly are deluding yourself.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that because I say "I know that 2+2=4 or I know my name on my birth certificate reads: Frank Apisa...

...that I must accept your assertions that you know the answers to Ultimate Questions about REALITY...

...then by all means do so.

Normally I say: You may be deluding yourself.

In your case I will make an exception.

You most assuredly are deluding yourself.

joefromchicago would challenge these claims of knowing of yours, I would.................hope.

Even Frank Apisa would challenge these claims of knowing of yours, I would.................hope..... Smile

:wink:

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Even joefromchicago would challenge these claims of knowing of yours, I would.................hope.

Indeed I would. Frank's defense amounts to little more than an ipse dixit: he knows what he knows because he knows it. That's hardly satisfactory.

I would simply add that this problem isn't limited to Frank: after all, some people say that they know things simply because they are blatantly obvious. I see no significant distinction between the two positions.

0 Replies

I must say, Frank: you are in good form today.
Nevertheless, your epistemological rules do not apply (a lack of "goodness of fit") with the issues discussed by Ash, Tywvel, Coluber, myself and others. I think/recognize/intuit that there is a system of private or, what you would call, "subjective" rules of evidence that does not comply with the public or, what you would call, "objective" system of rules of evidence that you are applying. This is not a critique of your position; it is simply a relativistic acknowledgment of the paradigmatic "deep" difference between the public/logical and the private/intuitive frames of reference presented here. There is no way on earth that you can shake our perception, nor is there any way for us to shake your conviction. But, then, there is no need to do so. Neither camp is trying to proseltyze the other, and neither side contends that the other is evil and should be destroyed. I just hope that neither side feels the other is somehow inferior.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

... neither side contends that the other is evil and should be destroyed.

Speak for yourself.

0 Replies

I should add that the public/empirical/logical paradigm is essential and proper for the pursuit of answers to most scientific questions about the material world and the private/intuitive paradigm is essential for the attainment of mystical liberation. That's why the first takes place in "laboratories" or their equivalents and the latter in a quiet place.

0 Replies

O.K., Joe. Watch it or I'll wish something evil upon you. Laughing

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
... neither side contends that the other is evil and should be destroyed.

Speak for yourself.

Yes, we (humans) kill and slaughter each other driven by beliefs, nothing new there/here.

0 Replies

JLN, Didn't know you had witch leanings. LOL

0 Replies

JLNobody

"I should add that the public/empirical/logical paradigm is essential and proper for the pursuit of answers to most scientific questions about the material world and the private/intuitive paradigm is essential for the attainment of mystical liberation. That's why the first takes place in "laboratories" or their equivalents and the latter in a quiet place."

There's only one laboratory JLNobody.

0 Replies

Twyvel. "There's only one laboratory JLNobody." ????????

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know