Vmarco

To understand something, sometimes it's helpful to see what something is not. 7 Habits of Chronically Unhappy People http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-star/7-habit-of-chronically-unhappy-people_b_6174000.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Do people really "choose" to alter their beliefs because conditions change,....that sounds more like following a groupthink, or anti-groupthink. There is an idea within prajnaparamita Buddhism and Taoism which could be put like this,...and experience born of belief, can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. Nearly every thinker will vehemently reject that statement, as it implies, that very few have ever had a direct experience. From my observations, very, very few ever have a desire to alter their beliefs,...in fact,...I've seen neuroscience evidence that suggests a quick reduction in beliefs through manipulating a persons EMF, causes an immediate physiological coma,...an idea that actually goes back thousands of years. "Human kind cannot bear very much reality" T. S. Eliot In the mid-90's, Gregg Braden, an accredited geophysicist described the Hopi traditions Great Purification as a "shift" that will bring a zeroing-out of the electro-dynamic fields on Earth for near 3 days. This temporary voidance of the EMF will bring great fear and panic to the majority of Earths human population, for the EMF is like a glue that holds together most of our beliefs. Articulating the Hopi prophesy with contemporary themes, Braden likened this Great Purification/Shift to the original computers which did not have internal batteries as our PC's now have. At the Shift, when the EMF zeros-out, will be similar to an older computer "crashing", which meant, it would lose all existing information, and would have to be reprogramed. At the Shift, most people will literally "pass out" due to the exposure of being removed from identification with their beliefs. The one's who remain awake however, their Collective Consciousness, will be the reprogram when the EMF restarts. For those who passed out, when they arise, their past will be erased, and all they will know is what those who remained awake, reprogramed them to know. Under this 2012 paradigm, those who realize and dissolve their belief patterns before 2012, thus being as immune to the shock of zero Electro-dynamic field, will be the one's to set the agenda for the next cycle. The original teachings mentioned in the Hopi Prophesy appear to go much further back, to the time before the Kali Yuga, when the "world turned another way". Those Original Teachings include the Ways of the Feminine,...not the patriarchal feminine of today,...but the authentic feminine, as in Mother Sky. They called it the time of the Blue Star Kachina,...the Birthing of Human Beingness. There are stories of ancient temples where Initiates would be shielded from what is called electromagnetic energy; the motion of duality. Reduction in the EM field that surrounds us is said to reduce the EMF around the brain which activates and processes sensory inputs. Perception functions through an energy field. Yet consciousness is not energy. Authentic consciousness is "connected with" when we shutdown brain lobes and senses as experiments with Freethought Meditators have shown. Turning down the EMF of brain lobes uncovers the consciousness that energy has obscured. Science believes that the EM field around the brain is a byproduct of that brain,...but what if brain function arises from the EM field?

Sure,...I agree that the deepest of imprints or engrams can be transcended,...yet, as you mentioned,...perhaps "only really functional for someone who is already inclined to their use" To toss in, what IMO is an important aspect to all this,...what if time was one thing? This suggests that evolutionary theory is not what it seems,...yes,...there would an appearance of evolution,...but it would be interlocked with future. You go to see a movie,...there is a beginning which evolves towards the end,...the evolution is necessary to realize the stories climax. We could not have one of the characters be inspired with free will somewhere in the middle,....it would alter the end,...which is already set in cement,...because time is one.

I can see that point,...however,...when taken deeper,...isn't the perception of free will conditioned upon accumulated beliefs,...not accumulated beliefs coming from a perception of free will? Do people actually have the free will to alter their beliefs,...or are beliefs altered by a complex of predisposed events?

Speaking of words,...is Chang,...ch-ang,...or ch ah ng like the elephant.

I would say,...go for the last 4 minutes,...to more fully understand the idea he is presenting.

IMO, you are not a typical American atheist,...24k posts on a Taoist forum attests to that. The typical American atheist worship the Priests of Science, and as such, usually denounce all aspects of ontosophy.

Yes,...this is a "very exciting happening!" Most atheists (atheism = a belief in no god) have been like Dr. David Eller, the Colorado director of American Atheists, who said, “I urgently recommend that we stop using the term spiritual. Atheists are not spiritual and do not have spiritual experiences.” Very much so,...IMO,...this Sam Harris book is a game-changer. Atheists would have only listened to one of their own,...they are overall a very closed-minded group,...and as faith based as any religious group,...faith, in their case,...is the faith in objects as being real. Nobel Laureate Charles Townes said, “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.”

I'm enjoying the book,...especially the honest dialogues on the nature of religiosity,...and his implications that Buddhism is not a religion. For example, Harris writes, “[buddhism] isn’t primarily a faith-based religion, and its central teachings are entirely empirical.” A huge problem with that statement, one that Harris repeats over and over, is that Buddhism is empirical,...when in truth, Buddhism is as far removed from empiricism as one can get. Empirical: evidence that encourages incurable neurosis. Nothing wrong with empirical evidence if understood in its proper place, that is, empiricism is based on objects that ultimately do not exist. Empirical evidence is Skandha evidence. The Skandhas are not real. Empirical evidence arises from human sentience,….Buddhism is set of instructions on the liberation from sentience. Empiricism may lead to the delusion of an enlightened ego,…but is an absolute barrier to real waking up. As for the definition of Spiritual,…Harris is getting close,…but is to empirical to ever understand that Spirit implies in-breath/out-breath,…the Yang/Yin of perceived life. Spirit is ultimately a delusion,…the illusion of duality. Nevertheless,…I’ll continue reading,…especially to get an idea of why people like himself believe the things they do.

For anyone to say without proof that the planets around us do not exert forces, albeit subtle, is like saying that the seasons do not affect the clothes that we wear or the foods that we crave. It would be like claiming that our moon has nothing to do with ocean’s tides or that the orbital distribution of electrons within an atom does not influence its nucleus. Viewing astrology only through the blinders of a sciential point of view, instead of through the point of view of what is being observed, is paralogical. To differentiate my assessment of astrology from a relative perspective, consider Bode’s law. If the earth were one measure from the Sun, then Mars would be 1.5, the asteroid belt 2.5, Jupiter 5, and Saturn 9.5, relationships less in relative distance than the particles within the volumes of many atoms. The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung made an astrological analogy with wine. He said, “We are born at a given moment, in a given place, and like a vintage-year wine, we too have the qualities of the year, season, and time in which we were born.” To say that there is no astrological influence on our life is like saying that one bottle of wine is identical to every other bottle of wine.

LOL

OK,....sure,...the moment a person transcends ego, she is the Whole,...instead of the figure of speech "part of the Whole." There is nothing, IMO, contradictory about a benevolent dictator,...as an interim surrogate while the majority of humanity are realizing the falsity of their humanness. Of course, individualists would challenge the necessity of such a surrogate,...like most would want to slay Bodhisattva's if they realized what the Bodhisattva Vow implied. The full quote of that Canadian,...from Alberta Provence: "Waking up is not necessarily pleasant; you get to see why all this time, you chose to sleep. When you wake up the first thing you will see is Reality does not exist for you, you exist for it. Shocking as it is when you let it in, there is rest. You do not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist; forcing something to be real that is not real. You and this life you have been living are not real ... In letting it in, even through the shock... pain... shattering, there is rest. Reality is when all you want to know is what is true ...just so that you can let it in and be true. Reality is not a safe place for you - the you that you have created. It is the only place where you would die; where there is no room for your hopes, your dreams. Once you have let it in, once you begin to re-awaken; to let Reality wake you up, nothing can get it out. That is the beginning of your end. Waking up can be much more painful than the agony of your dream, but waking up is real."

Yes,...totalitarianism is seen as too negative, even with the word spiritual before it,...and fortifies the desire for individualism. The moment a person transcends ego, she is part of the Whole. Or as a Canadian once said, "Waking up is not necessarily pleasant; you get to see why all this time, you chose to sleep. When you wake up the first thing you will see is Reality does not exist for you, you exist for it. Shocking as it is when you let it in, there is rest. You do not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist; forcing something to be real that is not real."

In a Spiritualized society, which cannot occur as long as people's ego's grasp for the delusion of independent liberty and insanity of moral identity,...the latter being an indoctrination accumulated to force upon others to keep them asleep,...the illusion of choice vanishes. Choice arises through the skandhas,...that is,...through what people think themselves to be,...which is always the mirage of being separate from the Tao. Osho, very correctly stated: “Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. It can only be pseudo, false, a façade, it cannot become your real being…morality is bound to be nothing but a deep suppression. You cannot do anything while asleep; you can only suppress. And through morality, you will become false. You will not be a person, but simply a “persona”—just a pseudo-entity. . . . Only a dishonest person can be moral.” The preachers have convinced the whole world that “you are all sinners.” This is good for them because unless you are convinced, their profession cannot continue. You must be sinners; only then can churches, temples and mosques continue to prosper. Your being in sin is their success. [Churches] are built on your guilt, on your sin, on your inferiority complex. Thus, they have created an inferior humanity. We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…A child is born in a society, and a society is already there with its fixed rules, regulations, behaviors and moralities which the child has to learn. When he will grow he will become false. Then children will be born to him, and he will help make them false, and this goes on and on."

From an ultimate Taoist/Buddhist POV,...there is no "individual liberty,"...but there is a need to understand Dependent Origination. What humanity needs IMO, is a Spiritual Totalitarianism,...where compassion,...consideration for other's before one's perceived self,...is the ideal. To understand "individual liberty," study the life of a cancer cell,...that which puts the individual above harmony with the whole. Cancer cells are rogue cells, that strive towards individualism, and separation from the company of the Harmonic Balanced Interchange of healthy cells. Politically, cancer cells are as "Tea Party" cells,...perceived individuals, fully into themselves, not the harmony of the Whole, who join with other fear based cancer cells, to disrupt the Whole. One of the main propagators of rogue cells are the Abrahamic religions,...who are fully against plurality. "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism..." Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." -- Martin Luther If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it. -- William Jennings Bryan "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand....after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Secretary of the Interior James Watt on Global Warming, as told by Bill Moyers. "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to Christianity as a human being." James Joyce

"any one who gives you a belief system is your enemy" Osho

A socially conservative media that media-tes the sheeple to vote right,...of course, those who vote right-wing will deny that they can be media-ted so easily. "too few people (Rupert Murdoch, Bain Capital, Sumner Redstone) own too many media organizations." Ted Turner,..and promote extremist conservative agendas and Republican policies. The above shouldn't suggest that the few media outlets which lean Left, don't media-te,...but it is much easier to brainwash conservatives because of their predisposition towards fear. http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/conservativepsyche.html

http://hermetic.com/bey/millennium/religion.html

I was a Poll Watcher, more than once, and the voting irregularities, and outright trashing of provincial votes, were quite disturbing. The polling in the US is so outdated,...which of course, benefits the precinct people for the Two Parties. I like Iceland's democracy,...nearly 100% participation. A 36% turnout is not democracy,...IMO it's a Country whose people are media-ted to follow the current groupthink.

Only 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes in the recent election. Thus,...the new laws following this election were approved by less then 20% of voters. After the Tea Party win in 2012, Christocrat’s pushed through over 40,000 new intrusive laws spawned in Tea Party Legislatures,…many aimed against women,...while projecting an image of concern over Big Government.

Some have commented that the recent US election had the lowest percentage of voter participation since 1942" 1942 is an interesting date. Trivia: According to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population. It was also in 1942 that the majority of politicians put their Faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution. In 2002, all members of the Senate and Congress put their faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution,...and thus all current Federal politicians should be stripped of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, Sec 3,...preferrably being sent to some faith-based Country. "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion". President John Adams, 1797 Statement drafted by George Washington, unanomously ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams in 1797, is a law because the US Constitution says all such statements are the law (According to Article VI of the United States Constitution.

　 Only exaggeration for those into revisionist history. The problem in America is not the Right-Wing Christian social conservatives,...it is the Moderate Christians who enable Fundamentalist agendas. 　 tracie h wrote: 　 I have a theist friend who thinks I’m too quick to blame some of the world’s ills on religion. After all, he was raised in religion. He believes in god, and he doesn’t care if anyone else does or not. He isn’t trying to force it onto anyone else. He isn’t writing to legislators to ask them to incorporate his beliefs into laws that impact anyone else. And none of his friends or family has ever done anything like that, either. Christianity isn’t impacting U.S. policy. I’m simply imagining things. My friend is an example of what Sam Harris discusses in his writings when he describes how moderate Christians act as a buffer—a safety net—for fundamentalist Christians who are pushing their agendas into public policy and legislation. To criticize such a Christian agenda insults moderate Christians (like my friend) who are quick to defend that their religion should not be blamed for public ills. After all, what moderate wants to be held responsible for harmful public policies and legislation? Say that religion is at the root of such a problem, and you get shot down before you’re even out of the gate (if I can mix my metaphors)—not by overzealous fundamentalists, but by moderate, liberal Christians—like my friend. Point out where religion harms society, and you’re met with the shout down—from moderate, middle-of-the-road Christians—that you’re guilty of painting religion with too broad a brush. You’re cherry picking lunatics and fanatics and trying to impose that dysfunctional mess upon all Christians, who are, for the most part, socially benign. To be honest, I have no idea if the majority of Christians are "moderate"—in the sense that they have personal beliefs they don’t try to spread around or impose on others. I have no aversion to assuming most Christians fit that bill. Certainly most believers I have met personally aren’t any different. But whether they have majority numbers or not, it’s the fanatics that are running the program, invading politics, and shaping law and policy in this nation to bend it to a fundamentalist Christian agenda. If a silent majority doesn’t like being represented by a squeaky-wheel faction—I recommend they should learn to speak up against their brethren whom they condemn privately as "lunatics" and "fanatics." Instead, from what I can see, moderates would rather use their collective, "majority" voices to speak out against anyone else who condemns their fanatical members publicly. And here I have to excuse (and applaud) more responsible, moderate Christians—few though they may be—who do actually counter fundamentalism publicly, such as Barry Lynn Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But it can no longer be denied, by any reasonably informed person, that public policy is being shaped by Christian agendas—whether it is the work of a fanatic, but highly politically efficient, minority of Christians or not. And if the moderate middle rebuffs criticisms of their more fanatic brethren, denies there is any problem in their midst, and refuses to join anyone in confronting the negative elements within their own camp—how are they not part of the problem? These moderates aren’t just guilty of letting the fundamentalist element run roughshod while they sit silently by, they’re actually protecting fundamentalist actions against legitimate criticisms by throwing the accusation "gross generalization" and "prejudice alarmist" at anyone who dares claim there even is a problem to criticize within the Christian ranks. In the editorial section of this morning’s Austin American-Statesman, there are two articles that address the statistically observable supreme failings of Texas’ abstinence-based sex education in public schools. One article, "Learning Sex the Texas Way," has this to say: "Gov. Rick Perry's office said he is comfortable with the abstinence-based approach. ‘We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage,’ said his spokeswoman." Make no mistake, Perry has won re-election in the past. I cannot claim that he is unpopular. And I’m guessing he knows who his supporters are. What politician doesn’t? If he put forward policies not backed by the majority of voting Texans—how would he remain in office? Any thinking person might legitimately then ask, "what constituency would support failing programs and policies that put their own children at risk of deadly STDs and unwanted pregnancies?" Let’s examine that question. At the American Family Association (AFA) online, in their article, "Abstinence-Only Education Proves Effective," it states, "there is no logical reason why abstinence-only education would not be effective in reducing sexual activity among teens." Logical or not, we come pretty close to abstinence-only in Texas—and it’s not working as it "logically" should. Just to cement that this is a Christian organization, in their section "Does AFA hate homosexuals?" the site states: "The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor… AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ." Make no mistake AFA is a Christian coalition. Another supporter is The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. On their site is an article "Support Abstinence Education," that says, "Don’t let the Senate jeopardize the future of abstinence education. Call or e-mail today!" Do I need to keep going? The religious right has code words as well, such as conservative, family values, traditional, moral, and so on. They have less overtly religious organizations as well, such as the National Review—which bills itself as a "conservative" media source. Not every group is an outright Wallbuilders. But the more you educate yourself about these issues, the faster you begin to recognize the words that equal "Christian." Doubt me? Try following a few of these sites for a month to see if you don’t start seeing particular words and phrases that begin to stand out as secular, yet repetitive. Why use codes? Why not simply say, "This is my religious belief, and I’m going to do all I can to promote it in public policy and legislation"? AFA pretty clearly does this—so why not all organizations with a Christian base? There is one clear advantage to hiding a religious agenda. Ask Intelligent Design proponents. When the courts tell you that teaching Creationism in schools is using the government to promote religion, and you can’t do that, you are forced to find more subversive, secular-sounding means to reach your goals. You take out "god" and put in "Intelligent Designer." (Just make sure to double-check the search-and-replaces in your documentation really well before going to court.) Still, today I realized something different and new and as enlightening as it is disturbing. I realized that even powerful mainstream critics of these religious fundamentalists have learned to pretend that this is actually a battle between secular ideologies—Republican vs. Democrat—and religion plays no part. In both opinion pieces, religion is oddly absent—as is any mention of who might be promoting such policies. Why call out Perry alone? Yes, he’s a politician, and his performance should be examined in the paper. I can’t deny that. But is a public official who has won re-election really the cause of bad policy or is he merely the elected representative for it? Again, without the support of the majority of voting constituents in Texas—he could not have won re-election. Perry is doing the will of the (voting) majority in Texas. And when his office can issue a statement such as the one quoted earlier—can there be any doubt it’s a Christian Right majority he intends to please? What would happen if the paper published an editorial critical of the "Christian" agenda to promote abstinence-only education? In addition to raising the ire of far right groups like AFA, Wallbuilders, Liberty Commission, and so on—they would upset, as well, huge numbers of "regular" people—like my friend—who would cry "foul" at being lumped under the umbrella of the fundamentalist "lunatic fringe" who are causing this harm. But if I say Christians are at the root of the abstinence-only policy, I’m not generalizing any more broadly than if I were to say that horses run in the Kentucky Derby. The group promoting these policies consists of self-identified Christians. And the animals running in the Derby consist of horses. Do all Christians support these policies? No more than all horses run in the Derby. So, what’s the problem? I don’t care if some Christians—even most Christians—aren’t supportive of these policies. It’s no less true that the policies are, by the largest margin, Christian created, promoted and supported. But if we say that, nobody will hear—not because the Religious Right will shut us down, but because religious moderates will. My friend made this point loud and clear. "There’s nothing religious in those articles. It’s just about the schools and education. Where do you see religion even mentioned?" He’s right that I don’t see religion even mentioned. But I have to ask if he sees any mention of who is at the root of these policy directives? Does my friend imagine Perry just made this up himself? Fundamentalist Christians use public policy and legislation to push their religion onto everyone else. Anyone who criticizes the far right source is immediately shot down by the moderate middle. And, for the most part, we all pretend religion has no bearing on public policy—to the point that many people actually believe this is true. Anyone who says otherwise is just an overly excited alarmist. And the fundamentalists proceed, without mainstream majority opposition or interference, to push their religious agenda onto everyone else, with absolute gratitude toward their moderate brethren—the ones who would never do anything to push their religion onto anyone else. 　

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” ―Albert Einstein

“As a Christian I have...the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” Adolf Hitler

No, not that it ever will happen,...but under the current two party regime,...unlikely for a long time. For one thing,...the option for an on-line vote vs a multi-hour ordeal to go to poll booth, or absentee ballad,...there would be no more "provincial votes that are never counted,...and such a polling option would show that neither of the Two Parties could singularly get more than 30% of the vote,...which by itself, would reshape the dialogue, and the Party in power. Under the current system, that of disenfranchising nearly 1/2 of all voters,...assures the system will remain sick for a long time.