Then again, maybe we just do not know what is going on here.
What can an ant know about the cosmos?
The amount of REALITY hidden from us may be greater than the amount of the cosmos hidden from an ant.
Nothing wrong with speculation...but the belief systems that pretend to tell us what REALITY is...pervert speculation because of their pretentions.
This universe may be an illusion...and it may be a quantum particle in a larger universe which itself is merely a quantum particle in an even larger universe.
The Christian god may exist...and everything and everyone may owe existence to that god exactly as preached in the Vatican.
I certainly do not know which it is...and I do not see sufficient evidence to point me in any particular direction on Ultimate REALITY questions.
I'm happy there are scientists trying to unravel such mysteries as they can. Their speculations make sense...and have value. Most of the guesses of the "believers"...whether they be engaged in theistic belief or atheistic belief or one of those Eastern philosophic beliefs...are without value...and indeed, often are a net negative for the issue.
The real mystery of life is: Why do humans have so much trouble with the concept: "I do not know...and the evidence is not sufficient for reasonable guesses?
Terry wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:I have had people from several different disciplines tell me they have had awakenings (re-births; personal revelations; divine revelations; etc)...and I can tell you that the revelations they have supposedly had are so different one from the other...that all of them SHOULD logically be held in extreme skepticism.
Your supposed Awakening Experience is no different...at least, in my opinion.
It seems that there is a common biological basis for these types of experiences, but those who have them prefer to believe that they have been granted a privileged view of Reality.
I seem to have recovered my skepticism since the waffle revelation. Alas, that sense of certainty was only a temporary aberration.
Can I get my membership card back?
"Yes, yes....a thousand times yes," he said, with arms spread wide to welcome her back. And in the back of his mind...he knew she had never been gone.
:wink:
twyvel wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:twyvel wrote:Frank wrote:
Quote:I specifically excluded using word games or sophism in this area...and I have already conceded that I could make a sophists argument that argues for the stuff I called "knowing" not to be truly knowing.
Well, Twyvel, I'm not sure that "thinking" is your strong suit.
I explained in detail what I was saying...and if you are unable to understand what I said, just ask. I'll try to flesh it out for you. I promise...I'll go slow.
Quote:PERIOD. If you can argue against the stuff you call "knowing" then you shouldn't be using the word "knowing" in the first place.
The notion of you giving me a lecture on the misuse of the word "know" is so goddam funny, I nearly spit my soda on my keyboard.
Give a guy a bit of warning before doing something like that!
Quote:
And if you can argue against the stuff you call knowing, then this statement of yours:
"I know 2 + 2 = 4....I know the serial number I used when I was in military service...I know the name that is printed on the Birth Certificate the state sent me....I know the name used by the woman with whom I share my life...I know....but no need to go on."
is bullshit.
Sorry, Twyvel...any bullshyt in our converstions starts when you go into that belief system that runs your life.
Quote:You might want to drop these silly claims Frank, they are polluting your other wise disciplined agnosticism.
Nah...not a chance.
Quote:
Quote:But as I said earlier...if you think that because I say I can "know" my name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....
...then it makes sense for you to say you KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITY...
Misrepresentation. I never said, "it makes sense for [me] to say (I) KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITY
because "you say you can "know" your name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....
I
am saying your claims of knowing are pure guesses. It's is a belief/guess system of yours, which is varyingly referred to as Naive Realism, and/or Subject-Object Dualism, Positivism etc.
You are saying a lot of things...but you cannot back any of them up.
You are pretending that you KNOW the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...and it is pitifully obvious you have no more idea of what the Ultimate REALITY is or isn't...than a stone.
Quote:You are making guesses from this belief/guess system of yours and are being hypocritical in the process as you chide others for MAKING GUESSES AND PRESENTING THEM AS IF THEY ARE KNOWLEDGE.
If you want to think that me saying 2 + 2 = 4 is a guess...go ahead. If you want to think that when I say "The name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa"...go ahead.
But you really should seek professional help, Twyvel. You are way over the edge.
Quote:It is clear as day to anyone involved here that YOU are doing precisely that.
Yeah, sure. I have maintained since day one that I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions about the nature of REALITY...and you have claimed that you do.
And you are lecturing me on hypocrisy and truthfulness.
Get a life!
Try stand-up comedy. Yer a natural.
Quote:
Quote:...then you probably need psychiatric help...and that is outside the areas we are covering here.
"Psychiatric help",
..No shame or wrongness in that. Millions of people, from all walks of life, visit and benefit (and are adversely affected) by psychiatrists every day, though not I. It is no longer a taboo or an insult Frank. Wake up! (Wake up
from the bright light of day,
)
Glad you feel that way.
Get thee to the psychiatrist immediately...and begin your stay with him by telling him about my guesses!!!
Quote:Quote:But I do appreciate the laughs.
You people who have set up elaborate belief systems...which essentially offer your based-on-nothing guesses as facts....are a gas.
I love to watch you folks try to rationalize the unrationalizeable.
How do you manage to work up the silly ego necessary to assert you KNOW the Ultimate REALITY?
Frank says, as Frank trips over himself as he gradually retracts foolish claims of knowing by asserting he can argue against them.
I cannot gradually retract it, Twyvel...if you learned to read, you will see that I mention it EVEN BEFORE I started those comments.
But I know how hard it can be to read all those words for someone like you.
Maybe one day I'll put it in coloring book form...and you'll feel more comfortable with it.
What...that you have trouble reading...that you think that I am guessing when I say 2 + 2 = 4....or that you think you KNOW what the Ultimate REALITY is.
Ya gotta be more specific, Twyvel.
Wow! I'm really enjoying this!
Vacuous and ad hominem. THE WHOLE POST.
Wow, indeed.
Yep. Better to simply dismiss it rather than try to deal with the problems in your (you should excuse the expression) logic that I've pointed out.
Hey...as long as your belief system helps you deal with your fear of the unknown...and your fear of simply acknowledging you don't know certain things...go with it.
Don't let the fact that it is complete nonsense deter you.
Terry wrote:And last but certainly not least:
joefromchicago wrote:If you believe that everything in the world is illusory then you also, perforce, believe that your belief that everything is illusory is also illusory, correct?
Did I miss twyvel's response to this question?
It seems that it is not logically possible to
believe in non-dualism without contradicting yourself.
To be fair, I didn't address that question to
twyvel, I addressed it to
Asherman -- and he answered it. Of course, I would have no objection if
twyvel wanted to answer it as well, but I am certainly not insisting upon it.
As for your second point: non-dualists are always contradicting themselves. But since they apparently
don't accept the law of non-contradiction, that doesn't seem to be a problem for them.
one thing i am very confused about is most of the buddhist say that rebirth is a process (passing away, reappearing, passin away reappearing, etc), my question is does the process have an identity, i mean am i a part of the process therefor i am the process? the process is me? i change with the process? how come some of the buddhists agree with that but some say no, they say when i die, i die, there is no a part of me that is reborn, i will cease to exist and that some other poor person will be affected with my karma when Buddha said "Thou thyself wilt reap what thou sowest, not others"
Gold Barz wrote:one thing i am very confused about is most of the buddhist say that rebirth is a process (passing away, reappearing, passin away reappearing, etc), my question is does the process have an identity, i mean am i a part of the process therefor i am the process? the process is me? i change with the process? how come some of the buddhists agree with that but some say no,
That is the way it is with guesses!
In a belief system like the Buddhist belief system...it is possible to guess (or believe, if you prefer) whatever you want. And sometimes one person will guess "a"...and another "Not a."
i am starting to lose interest in buddhism quick, because of that problem....its like people are playing with my mind, i ask one he says this i ask another he says the exact opposite thing, how can people continue to call it "rebirth" when nothing is reborn?
Gold, Forget about soul and rebirth. Concentrate on your life as in the here and now and the future and how you can improve your life without any external influence. You alone know how to react to your environment; most understand right and wrong or should. The key words are spoken by most religions; do unto others you would have them do unto you. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That's all that is needed in one's philosophy of life. Most of us will be completely forgotten even by our own family members after a couple of generations. Only now matters.
Terry, you said sometime back that:
"Yes, core consciousness can exist without the autobiographical self component. That does not mean that the self is illusory, just that it only exists when the necessary brain circuits are activated (normally anytime we are conscious)."
I agree with your first sentence. Indeed, what you mean by "core consciousness" sans "autobiographical self" sounds like the meditative state as I see it. But let me ask you in response to your next sentence: could we not say that the self is at least illusory in the sense that it is an epiphenomenon of the activities of brain circuits?
JLN, Many cameras register images that are pretty near accurate. We can accept that although mechanical in nature, they're pretty reliable. No different from how our brain registers what we see; only the brain has the power to interpret what we see. In that sense, it is illusory, but pretty accurate.
GoldBarz, you say:
"i am starting to lose interest in buddhism quick, because of that problem....its like people are playing with my mind, i ask one he says this i ask another he says the exact opposite thing, how can people continue to call it "rebirth" when nothing is reborn?"
I think you should lose interest in Buddhism if you are going to treat it only as a belief system. Buddhism, as I understand it, requires great independence (a lantern unto yourself), not dependence on others to support your need to belief in rebirth. What do we know? If rebirth is what's in store for you, our agreement or disagreement with the "doctrine" will not change anything. Stop believing and find a valid teacher who can help you to achieve independence by means of meditation (self-study). Don't LET others play with your mind; it's yours to study.
If having a belief system were the only option, if there were no ways to have direct seeing into the spiritual nature of your being, if you cannot see your reality wordlessly, if you can only find peace by means of verbal doctrines, then you should follow Frank's advice and simply admit you do not know.
but i want to know what Buddha was really trying to teach, i have posted alot of quotes from him that makes it clear he believed in rebirth and past lives and all of that
"this is my last birth, no more births for me" - that is pretty effin clear right there
he also said that we reap what we sow, not others (maybe that others is me too, and i am the others) so it cant be karma being the only thing being passed on from life to life
You might look at your deep concern to continue--as YOU (ego-self)--in future lives.
I suspect that much of the Buddhist talk about about past lives should be taken metaphorically, not literally. A "past life", for all we know may be the stages of our lives (infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, senility) or simply yesterday. I think that the wisdom in all religious thought--whether be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Judaic, Taoist, or Buddhist thought--is spoiled when taken literally, as do fundamentalsts of all faiths.
Is there anybody left in this thread who doesn't wish that Gold Barz would just go and get reincarnated or something? Yes, I know, I'm being mean, rude and obnoxious, all qualities I intend to dump in my next revival - when I expect to become Pope. I'm already practicing!
i dont think you are mean, rude and obnoxious or whatever i simply dont care what you have to say
"I suspect that much of the Buddhist talk about about past lives should be taken metaphorically, not literally. A "past life", for all we know may be the stages of our lives (infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, senility) or simply yesterday"
naw, Buddha meant it as a real past life meaning he "passed away and reappeared"
As you wish. And I mean wish.
What I wish is that he meant something "deeper" than that.
well most people interpret it as just that.....past lives
