everything else does .....

Of course the term "soul" is a mental/cultural construct, nothing we can point to, only think or fantasize about. And, of course, we come up with constructions that make us feel good. What makes me feel good is the notion that my True Self (not just my decaying body or non-existent ego) is the Cosmos itself--whatever that may be. There is, ulitimately, no "I" who "has" a soul. I like to think (fantasize) that there is only this Cosmos Stuff, this universal Soul which is me (and you).
While I like much in Hinduism (esp. the Vedanta literature) and Buddhism (esp. its "zen" aspect) I do not relate to the popular or "religious" doctrines which indicate, as FeelFree has reported, that:

"The Hindu and Buddhist belief is that the soul accumulates experience and knowledge as it incarnates in successive bodies on earth, culminating in liberation in which the soul merges with the Infinite."

As I fantasize it, there is no separate soul (ego) that merges with an infinite. From the beginning here is only the "infinite/universal/absolute soul" which includes You and Me (our Big Minds, not our Little Minds)

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why Talky; How kind of you to join some other threads.

Are you unsure of the condition of the dead?

Matthew 13:42 should be considered along with a few other scriptures:

(Psalm 112:10) The wicked one himself will see and certainly become vexed. He will grind his very teeth and actually melt away. The desire of the wicked ones will perish.

(Matthew 8:12) whereas the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be."

(Luke 13:28) There is where [YOUR] weeping and the gnashing of [YOUR] teeth will be, when YOU see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves thrown outside.

BTW, No need to shout. We can hear you just fine.

Thank you Neo.

I'm not uncertain about and what dead means, that among others the reason for my questions to IFeelFree, but you didn't answer my question, seen in the light of what comes forth in the Scriptures. Cast outside isn't the same as been thrown into the fire, so the question remains to you Neo:

How does it come that persons thrown into the fire, with reference to Revelation 21:8 shall or can be able to wailing and gnashing of teeth, since it isn't those outside and those who survive, in differnt classes as the Watchtower teach.

Is it another or a different fire or level described in Matthew 13:42 than in Revelation 21:8 and if it is, how can a person do anything in a fire? (Different levels like Limbo, Progatorium in Hell as the Catholics teach?)

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Pls. Explain for me with your own words, as the Watchtower says.

Ps. Sometimes it helps to get your attention and release you from your blinders, Awake and Watchtower Neo!

By the way have you got some Brewskis at Moe resently?

0 Replies

Talkactive wrote:

2. To you IFeelFree, will you pls. explain whats left behind after you cut the blood and oxygen to the brain, since it will without no discussion stop any form of activity and will it be possible to collect or get use of the memory from a dead brain and what form has it taken as a "Soul"

Without blood and oxygen the brain dies. The soul's link to the physical world is severed. However, the soul is non-physical and does not depend on the survival of the body. When the body dies, the soul relinquishes attachment to it and withdraws into the subtle, or astral body. The conscious awareness is then of the astral plane. If a higher astral world, it is perceived as heaven. If a lower astral world, it is perceived as hell.

Quote:

To above explain what happen with the data in a computers dynamic RAM memory when you cut of the Power. Will there still be some kind of "Soul" going around in universe, with the data who have been lost in the RAM?

A computer is a mechanical device without a soul. It is not imbued with life. When the power is cut, the circuits discharge and any data stored in dynamic RAM is lost. That's why it is called volatile memory.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Of course the term "soul" is a mental/cultural construct, nothing we can point to, only think or fantasize about. And, of course, we come up with constructions that make us feel good. What makes me feel good is the notion that my True Self (not just my decaying body or non-existent ego) is the Cosmos itself--whatever that may be. There is, ulitimately, no "I" who "has" a soul. I like to think (fantasize) that there is only this Cosmos Stuff, this universal Soul which is me (and you).
While I like much in Hinduism (esp. the Vedanta literature) and Buddhism (esp. its "zen" aspect) I do not relate to the popular or "religious" doctrines which indicate, as FeelFree has reported, that:

"The Hindu and Buddhist belief is that the soul accumulates experience and knowledge as it incarnates in successive bodies on earth, culminating in liberation in which the soul merges with the Infinite."

As I fantasize it, there is no separate soul (ego) that merges with an infinite. From the beginning here is only the "infinite/universal/absolute soul" which includes You and Me (our Big Minds, not our Little Minds)

It is true that from an enlightened perspective there is no individual soul. However, it is the experience of the individual prior to complete enlightenment that they are an individuated consciousness, or soul. As the experience of transcendental awareness unfolds, the individual will begin to experience the higher Self as an inner alert stillness, the background to all perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. The individual still tends to feel that there is some distinction between the Self and the non-Self, i.e., between pure consciousness and form. In that sense, they still conceive of themselves as a separate "soul", even if that soul is not bound by form. At a higher stage of awakening, the absolute, unbounded Self begins to spill over into the world of relative, conditional forms until there is no distinction between the Self and the "objective" world -- oneness with all things is realized. From that higher perspective there is no individual soul.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Eorl wrote:

That's exactly how I view religion, and this mysterious "soul", yet people still try to claim it is rational. It isn't. Santa Claus cannot be disproved and more than any gods (or souls) can. That why they need to be proved before rational people accept it.

No. Belief in Santa Claus is a belief in objective facts about the world that can be verified to be untrue -- we can stay up all night on Christmas Eve and verify that Santa Claus does not come and deposit gifts under the tree, or whatever. It is falsifiable.

There is no way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. ("He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake". . . !) A belief in Santa Claus is just as rational as a belief in god(s), a spiritual dimension, astral plane, or whatever.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Talkactive wrote:

2. To you IFeelFree, will you pls. explain whats left behind after you cut the blood and oxygen to the brain, since it will without no discussion stop any form of activity and will it be possible to collect or get use of the memory from a dead brain and what form has it taken as a "Soul"

Without blood and oxygen the brain dies. The soul's link to the physical world is severed. However, the soul is non-physical and does not depend on the survival of the body. When the body dies, the soul relinquishes attachment to it and withdraws into the subtle, or astral body. The conscious awareness is then of the astral plane. If a higher astral world, it is perceived as heaven. If a lower astral world, it is perceived as hell.

Quote:
To above explain what happen with the data in a computers dynamic RAM memory when you cut of the Power. Will there still be some kind of "Soul" going around in universe, with the data who have been lost in the RAM?

A computer is a mechanical device without a soul. It is not imbued with life. When the power is cut, the circuits discharge and any data stored in dynamic RAM is lost. That's why it is called volatile memory.

Thank you for your answer.

As you stated, the brain dies as with the RAM memory of a computer, since there will not be any electric impulses anymore, due to loss of power, unless you have the possibility to save the personality / information before the activity stops. Otherwise the activity will be a "Perpetum Mobile" which runs without power.

So whether it is the brain or the RAM of a computer every data will be lost and as long as nobody with the ability to reactivate or restore the data and functions, everything will be lost forever.

Let us then take a situation at the hospital where a unconscious person still have brain activities which can be measured and seen at a scope.

When the brain activities stops and the person will be declared brain dead by the doctors, can you explain for me how it comes that the electric pulses stops and doesn't continue, if the "soul" continues with the same activities, e.g. thoughts or the like?

If we look at the Jews they never believed that the "soul" leaved the body, and that can be explained from the words, in Hebrew "Nefesh" and the Greek one " Pneuma"

The Catholic Church teach that the "Soul" is leaving the body and with the ones who belives in reincarnation, where I often have been wondering how it comes that we don't know anything about our former life and can't use the experience we have gathered in former lives.

To be able to understand your answers, will it be too much to ask for if you will explain why and how you have come to your conclusion, that the soul continues to live after a person or the body dies, is it based at a religion or is it based at professional experience e.g. facts or what you feel are going to happen after the body dies?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

. . . oneness with all things is realized. From that higher perspective there is no individual soul.

If there is no individual "soul" how can there be any perspective at all?

0 Replies

We must keep in mind that "soul" is a metaphor, indeed all of language is necessarily metaphorical, except that some metaphors are meant to "be metaphorical". All language is useful even though it distorts reality (it is our tool for making sense of essentially chaotic reality, but it does not describe it; it constructs meaning; it reconstitutes reality). At one pole of a value scale poetic metaphors are beneficial--exercised with artistic licence--at the other end they may amount to no more than lies (e.g., the Christian notion of souls and Hell).

By the way, Talkactive: my metaphorical Soul references something* that exists both before, during, and after my life. If you ask the "operationalist" question of how--by what operations--I came to this conclusion, I must say that I cannot recall. It certainly wasn't by logical or scientific procedures. It's just an intuition that feels right.

*Gasp! It is not a thing, nor an "it". Grammar, forces thought into the framework of an implicit metaphysics, consisting of things while there are only processes.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

There is no way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. ("He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake". . . !) A belief in Santa Claus is just as rational as a belief in god(s), a spiritual dimension, astral plane, or whatever.

Wrong. The "Santa Claus thesis" is a theory about the objective world and is falsifiable. For example, I can stay up on Christmas Eve and verify that Santa does not come and deposit presents under the tree, etc. Similarly, the "spiritual thesis" is also falsifiable, even though it refers to subjective reality -- engage in spiritual practice and verify whether or not you begin to have spiritual experiences. Without having done the "experiment" you cannot falsify the "theory".

0 Replies

Talkactive wrote:

Let us then take a situation at the hospital where a unconscious person still have brain activities which can be measured and seen at a scope.

When the brain activities stops and the person will be declared brain dead by the doctors, can you explain for me how it comes that the electric pulses stops and doesn't continue, if the "soul" continues with the same activities, e.g. thoughts or the like?

When a person is unconscious, conscious awareness of the physical world via the nervous system is at least temporarily suppressed, much like the deep (non-dream state) sleep we experience every night. In the case of brain death, the ability of consciousness to function through the physical nervous system is ended. However, if the patient is still breathing, and blood circulating, we may say that the person is still alive. In that case, the the soul may still be attached to that physical body. At some point, when the life force ceases to function in the physical body, the soul or individualized consciousness separates from the body. Conscious awareness eventually shifts to the astral body.

Quote:

If we look at the Jews they never believed that the "soul" leaved the body, and that can be explained from the words, in Hebrew "Nefesh" and the Greek one " Pneuma"

The Catholic Church teach that the "Soul" is leaving the body and with the ones who belives in reincarnation, where I often have been wondering how it comes that we don't know anything about our former life and can't use the experience we have gathered in former lives.

When the soul incarnates into a physical body, memory of the past is usually suppressed. This occurs for two reasons: (1) memory of all the past lives with the suffering, death, etc., that was endured would be painful; (2) memory of "the other side" would be a distraction to life on the physical plane. We are here to deal with the limitations of this life, not to bask in memories of the astral plane and anticipation of future after-death experiences.

Quote:

To be able to understand your answers, will it be too much to ask for if you will explain why and how you have come to your conclusion, that the soul continues to live after a person or the body dies, is it based at a religion or is it based at professional experience e.g. facts or what you feel are going to happen after the body dies?

It is a combination of personal experience and extensive reading. The personal experience includes past life memories that have haunted me since childhood, and range of spiritual experiences resulting from 33 years of spiritual practice, living in spiritual communities, etc. I have had profound experiences of blissful, liberating states of consciousness, and awakening of chakras, or spinal centers, with sometimes dramatic results. The spiritual literature and experiences of others that I have read, have given confirmation to my own experience. The texts include the following: The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Theosophic literature (Blavatskay, Leadbetter, Besant, Powell, etc.), Autobiography of a Yogi (Paramhansa Yogananda), the books of Gary Renard, Easy Death (Adi Da Samraj), A Course in Miracles, Life After Death (Deepak Chopra), the writings of Rudolph Steiner, Play of Consciousness: A Spiritual Autobiography (Swami Muktananda), The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception or Mystic Christianity (Max Heindel), the Urantia book, and numerous recorded near-death experiences.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
. . . oneness with all things is realized. From that higher perspective there is no individual soul.

If there is no individual "soul" how can there be any perspective at all?

There is an awareness of one's identity with the source of all existence, pure undifferentiated consciousness. However, the ability to focus consciousness on finite forms is not lost. Awareness of the one's unbounded nature coincides with the ability to be aware of concrete expressions of the Infinite. At the same time, the ability of the finite to express the infinite is known. At that advanced state of realization, the union of the finite and the infinite is appreciated. That is the realization -- finite forms can express the infinite. To make an analogy, it is like a mathematical expression, while just a few symbols on a page, expresses something very abstract and, in its own way, profound. To a mathematician or physicist, the symbols stand for a deep connection between disparate concepts. Obviously, it is difficult to fully express all of this in words.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

We must keep in mind that "soul" is a metaphor, indeed all of language is necessarily metaphorical, except that some metaphors are meant to "be metaphorical". All language is useful even though it distorts reality (it is our tool for making sense of essentially chaotic reality, but it does not describe it; it constructs meaning; it reconstitutes reality). At one pole of a value scale poetic metaphors are beneficial--exercised with artistic licence--at the other end they may amount to no more than lies (e.g., the Christian notion of souls and Hell).

Words are pointers. What they point to is not necessarily fantasy. In the case of the word "soul", the word refers to the reality of the survival of consciousness after death of the body. Because we normally do not remember "the other side", many people think that that is just a fanciful idea. However, as I explained in a previous post, there are reasons we usually don't remember the subtle planes of existence while in a physical body. Through spiritual practice, it is possible to become increasingly sensitive to the subtle planes. These experiences lend credence to the notion that the soul is not dependent upon the physical body for its existence and, so, survives death. Numerous accounts in the spiritual literature, including many near-death experiences, confirm this notion.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:

There is no way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. ("He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake". . . !) A belief in Santa Claus is just as rational as a belief in god(s), a spiritual dimension, astral plane, or whatever.

Wrong. The "Santa Claus thesis" is a theory about the objective world and is falsifiable. For example, I can stay up on Christmas Eve and verify that Santa does not come and deposit presents under the tree, etc.

No, you cannot. If you stay up all night Santa Claus will not come to your house. Lots of kids have stayed up all night hoping to see Santa Claus, and you know what happens? It pisses him off and he gives your presents to other kids.

Quote:

Similarly, the "spiritual thesis" is also falsifiable, even though it refers to subjective reality -- engage in spiritual practice and verify whether or not you begin to have spiritual experiences. Without having done the "experiment" you cannot falsify the "theory".

Specifically, which spiritual practice do you think might be good for conducting this "experiment"?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:

There is no way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. ("He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake". . . !) A belief in Santa Claus is just as rational as a belief in god(s), a spiritual dimension, astral plane, or whatever.

Wrong. The "Santa Claus thesis" is a theory about the objective world and is falsifiable. For example, I can stay up on Christmas Eve and verify that Santa does not come and deposit presents under the tree, etc.
No, you cannot. If you stay up all night Santa Claus will not come to your house. Lots of kids have stayed up all night hoping to see Santa Claus, and you know what happens? It pisses him off and he gives your presents to other kids.

If you are saying that there is no experiment we can do that can disprove the "Santa Claus thesis" than that is different. In that case, you proposing a thesis that is not falsifiable. Even though it is a thesis about the objective world, it is not scientific. The best we can do is to attempt to find either supporting or contradictory evidence. Children lack the intellectual tools to discriminate fully between fantasy and reality. As adults, we can see that the bulk of the evidence is on the side of discrediting the Santa Claus thesis.

Quote:

Quote:
Similarly, the "spiritual thesis" is also falsifiable, even though it refers to subjective reality -- engage in spiritual practice and verify whether or not you begin to have spiritual experiences. Without having done the "experiment" you cannot falsify the "theory".

Specifically, which spiritual practice do you think might be good for conducting this "experiment"?

In my case, it was the practice of meditation, breathing exercises, and yoga, supplemented with spiritual exercises involving surrender, specifically, radical forgiveness as taught in "A Course In Miracles". Others may have had their own particular paths. When I began practicing meditation in 1974, I immediately began to notice changes in my awareness. Odd as it sounds, I noticed that colors seemed brighter. I began to develop a state of restful alertness that brought greater peace to my mind. As the years passed the experiences deepened, and the restful alertness became more profound. A deep silence, or Presence, opened up to me. There were/are experiences of great bliss and a sense of freedom. My chakras, or spinal centers, opened up. (When my heart chakra opened, the experience was so painful that I went to the hospital fearing a heart attack. However, the doctor confirmed that it had not been a heart attack. There was nothing physically wrong with me.) There's more, but I've probably said enough.

0 Replies

The inscription on the temple of Apollo 'know thyself' would be more compleat by the additional inscription 'and become one.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
The "Santa Claus thesis" is a theory about the objective world and is falsifiable. For example, I can stay up on Christmas Eve and verify that Santa does not come and deposit presents under the tree, etc.
No, you cannot. If you stay up all night Santa Claus will not come to your house. Lots of kids have stayed up all night hoping to see Santa Claus, and you know what happens? It pisses him off and he gives your presents to other kids.

If you are saying that there is no experiment we can do that can disprove the "Santa Claus thesis" than that is different. In that case, you proposing a thesis that is not falsifiable. Even though it is a thesis about the objective world, it is not scientific. The best we can do is to attempt to find either supporting or contradictory evidence. Children lack the intellectual tools to discriminate fully between fantasy and reality. As adults, we can see that the bulk of the evidence is on the side of discrediting the Santa Claus thesis.

Yes, and in the same sense, we may also do away with notions of astral planes, spiritual dimensions, souls, etc.

IFF wrote:

In my case, it was the practice of meditation, breathing exercises, and yoga, supplemented with spiritual exercises involving surrender, specifically, radical forgiveness as taught in "A Course In Miracles".

I agree that meditation, breathing exercises, yoga can contribute to a person's well being, but they offer zero evidence for anything "spiritual". Then again, if you believe in ACIM. . .

Quote:

Others may have had their own particular paths. When I began practicing meditation in 1974, I immediately began to notice changes in my awareness. Odd as it sounds, I noticed that colors seemed brighter. I began to develop a state of restful alertness that brought greater peace to my mind. As the years passed the experiences deepened, and the restful alertness became more profound. A deep silence, or Presence, opened up to me. There were/are experiences of great bliss and a sense of freedom. My chakras, or spinal centers, opened up. (When my heart chakra opened, the experience was so painful that I went to the hospital fearing a heart attack. However, the doctor confirmed that it had not been a heart attack. There was nothing physically wrong with me.) There's more, but I've probably said enough.

That's all really cool, but nothing you have described so far suggests that there are ultimate truths to be found in the "spiritual" realm.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

That's all really cool, but nothing you have described so far suggests that there are ultimate truths to be found in the "spiritual" realm.

If you're looking for objective evidence of the subjective, you won't find it. In the same way, it would be impossible to prove that someone is having emotions such as love, or jealousy, etc., yet you probably don't doubt someone when they tell you they are feeling those emotions, do you? You don't ask for objective evidence. The different between emotional states and spiritual states is that you've probably experienced those emotions at some point in your life and so you don't doubt their existence. Since you apparently have not had any spiritual experiences you assume that they are not real, or that they don't indicate anything of any significance.

I understand that you don't want to be fooled into believing bullshit. You want the truth. However, it is self-limiting to be too skeptical. How many enjoyable activities in your life would you not have tried unless others encouraged you, or suggested the idea? It is good to keep an open mind. Don't write off spirituality on the basis of a bunch of fundamentalist nut jobs. Most people who profess to be spiritual seem to reflect an adherence to rigid dogma, or use spirituality as an identity for self-aggrandizement, rather than a truly liberated consciousness. There is real spiritual experience and it is as real as falling in love, feeling jealous, getting angry, or feeling happy. These subjective experiences have real consequences in our lives. They change how we understand ourselves and live our lives. They reflect aspects of consciousness. They are real.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
That's all really cool, but nothing you have described so far suggests that there are ultimate truths to be found in the "spiritual" realm.

If you're looking for objective evidence of the subjective, you won't find it. In the same way, it would be impossible to prove that someone is having emotions such as love, or jealousy, etc., yet you probably don't doubt someone when they tell you they are feeling those emotions, do you? You don't ask for objective evidence. The different between emotional states and spiritual states is that you've probably experienced those emotions at some point in your life and so you don't doubt their existence. Since you apparently have not had any spiritual experiences you assume that they are not real, or that they don't indicate anything of any significance.

A "spiritual" experience IS an emotional experience.

Quote:

I understand that you don't want to be fooled into believing bullshit. You want the truth. However, it is self-limiting to be too skeptical. How many enjoyable activities in your life would you not have tried unless others encouraged you, or suggested the idea? It is good to keep an open mind. Don't write off spirituality on the basis of a bunch of fundamentalist nut jobs.

I think my open-mindedness and my skepticism are pretty well balanced, already. I'm afraid if I were any less skeptical I might turn into a new ager.

Quote:

Most people who profess to be spiritual seem to reflect an adherence to rigid dogma, or use spirituality as an identity for self-aggrandizement, rather than a truly liberated consciousness. There is real spiritual experience and it is as real as falling in love, feeling jealous, getting angry, or feeling happy.

but no real-er!

Quote:

These subjective experiences have real consequences in our lives. They change how we understand ourselves and live our lives. They reflect aspects of consciousness. They are real.

Yes, experiences are real. But that does not mean that one's interpretation of an experience is therefore accurate and meaningful. Like the theists, your "proof" is simply a sufficiently convincing experience.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
That's all really cool, but nothing you have described so far suggests that there are ultimate truths to be found in the "spiritual" realm.

If you're looking for objective evidence of the subjective, you won't find it. In the same way, it would be impossible to prove that someone is having emotions such as love, or jealousy, etc., yet you probably don't doubt someone when they tell you they are feeling those emotions, do you? You don't ask for objective evidence. The different between emotional states and spiritual states is that you've probably experienced those emotions at some point in your life and so you don't doubt their existence. Since you apparently have not had any spiritual experiences you assume that they are not real, or that they don't indicate anything of any significance.
A "spiritual" experience IS an emotional experience.

How would you know, if you haven't had one? There are other types of subjective experiences -- thoughts, sensations, mental images, etc. Why would you think that spiritual experiences only involve emotions? At least you've admitted that there are spiritual experiences. You just don't believe that they reflect anything that is true about the objective world. I could ask a similar question: Does love tell us anything that is true about the objective world? Suppose I say it indicates a connectedness we have with others. Is that a meaningful statement? Should we discount love as being real or having any meaning?

Quote:

Quote:
I understand that you don't want to be fooled into believing bullshit. You want the truth. However, it is self-limiting to be too skeptical. How many enjoyable activities in your life would you not have tried unless others encouraged you, or suggested the idea? It is good to keep an open mind. Don't write off spirituality on the basis of a bunch of fundamentalist nut jobs.
I think my open-mindedness and my skepticism are pretty well balanced, already. I'm afraid if I were any less skeptical I might turn into a new ager.

What I think you are saying is you'd be afraid of turning into a gullible person who believes bullshit. Would that really happen? It is possible to investigate spiritual claims without swallowing it hook, line, and sinker? One can explore spiritual ideas and spiritual experiences while maintaining a healthy skepticism. That is how I have approached the subject. I've known plenty of "new-age" types who say all sorts of bizarre things and I just smile. At heart, I'm a scientist and I believe in reason and the scientific method. I have never been a believer in "faith". That doesn't prevent me from exploring other ways of looking at the world and, in particular, being open to spiritual experiences in order to see what they could teach me, if anything.

Quote:

Quote:
Most people who profess to be spiritual seem to reflect and adherence to rigid dogma, or use spirituality as an identity for self-aggrandizement, rather than a truly liberated consciousness. There is real spiritual experience and it is as real as falling in love, feeling jealous, getting angry, or feeling happy.
but no real-er!

Yes. Are emotions real? Is love an aberration? Does it tell us something about our connectedness with others and our need to work together and help each other? Or is it just a fleeting delusion? Emotions tell us something about the way that our consciousness works. We are not machines. Therefore, emotions are "real". They are an important dimension to our consciousness, and so is the spiritual.

Quote:

Quote:
These subjective experiences have real consequences in our lives. They change how we understand ourselves and live our lives. They reflect aspects of consciousness. They are real.
Yes, experiences are real. But that does not mean that one's interpretation of an experience is therefore accurate and meaningful. Like the theists, your "proof" is simply a sufficiently convincing experience.

Perhaps my interpretation is inaccurate. Whether it is meaningful is more difficult to gauge. It has meaning to me in that it sheds light on certain aspects of existence that otherwise are mysterious -- What is consciousness? Is consciousness separate from the phenomenal world? Do higher states of consciousness exist? What do they reveal? The difference between me and the theorists is that I don't talk about faith. I talk about direct experience. Subjective experience, yes, but that is very different from advocating that people should just "believe".

0 Replies

IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

0 Replies

everything else does .....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know