The Nature of Beliefs

[Mokona]

Jed Mckenna's Spiritual Autolysis, or Robert Bruce's Catch Basket goes through the annoying bits and pieces of throwing out the BS and only leaving what you have experienced directly. Even then you should break that down, since perfect understanding is a bit difficult, given the humanity-thing. I think the point is to pick and choose what you want to believe in after you've gone back to as close to zero as possible. For me it was like knowing simple things abstractly, like touch and sight. "I'm cleaning out my closet!" I never finished either, I started Jed's method in 2006 and I started freaking out and walking all night with my demons in hand, we frolicked togther as I let them go. The pulling out of BS keeps creeping on its own too, I just aint scared anymore, its just acceptance that I don't know, or only know from my own perspective, which is enough.

 

It was surely rocking when I was ready to throw out all of my spiritual beliefs, but some godamned witch had to end up liking me and forcing me to consider it with abilities similar to what I hear Kunlun's Max does with Orgasming people.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Great Documentary!

[goldisheavy]

I get the emptiness a lot. I think thats where the true power comes from, the aloneness rather then being parts of groups, gangs .etc.

 

Yes, power does grow from that. When you realize that you have the entire convention internalized, you become the master of it. What do I mean? I mean normally people think that agreements exist externally, between one mind and another mind, for example. Or between mind and some external state or situation. That's one level of perceiving convention. A deeper level is to wake up to the understanding that all agreements are internal and that you are holding all the keys. It's like finding out that all the puppet strings go to one place and that place is your very core. Then the whole world is your body and all mind is your mind. But from a normal point of view, this kind of life is insane and scary.

 

Is why I think going in and out of trances is a good thing. Logic can't take anyone far. I find people like Dawkins a bit pathetic. They try so hard but will always fail.

 

Well, fail at what? In some ways Dawkins is spectacularly successful. He's popular. He's got a big band of sympathizers. He's energizing a movement. And frankly, while I don't like physicalists (and most atheists are physicalists), if they do something to take religions around the world down a notch, I will be grateful. I think religions need to be toned down and that we need to seriously revise things in our so-called "holy" books. In particular I think we need to de-holy-fy all the "holy" books, so we can look at them without the trace of awe, but just look at them in a practical and honest sense and throw away all the useless or barbaric stuff. I think the entire Bible, if you throw away all the garbage, can be condensed into 5 pages or so. And that's how it should be. Out of Koran you can maybe squeeze one page of something that seems useful. There is way too much bullshit and downright wrong and harmful instruction in religion. So I am thankful to people like Dawkins for taking religion on. More power to him. If I actually had a personal, private debate with Dawkins, I would demolish him. I have no real sympathy for physicalism.

 

Its like smart-ass kids at school, they may well have a good logical point but if they do not please the teacher and so fail. They break the teacher/student trance and so go against the flow.... They are straining and not trancing very well. Better to complement the teacher, smile, follow his orders even if there are apparent "logical flaws"... Girls are better at this. Smiling, fluttering the eyelids, very intelligent actions. NLP is like this.

 

It's definitely intelligent if you must stay comfortable within the convention. If being comfortable is important, or is an end-goal, certainly being a "yes man/woman" will go a long way, etc.

 

So I think its good to dream and be like a chameleon adapting to all situations(trances) and people will be non the wiser as to who you are since no-one there is substantial including yourself. I guess its a bit like that film eyes-wide shut (apart from the terrible acting and being caught!).

 

How can you be caught when no-ones real lol.

 

In an interview Richard Bandler said that people can't slip into trance because they are stupid. That is his definition of stupidity. So children are smarter then adults. I think children are a secret threat(feared) to adults since the vitality, focus and natural intelligence far exceeds theirs hence adults always talking down to children, bullying them, implanting beliefs, feeding nihilistic stories where the body is dependant on medical doctors .etc... If a child wants to "beat" them through mind force/strain then they have to "grow up". They have to become a sorcerer too. So I feel on the real path there is no "beating", no "rising to the challenge", no more "revenge", no more "growing up", just do the trances you like, stay alone in emptiness for the rest.

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. I think it all depends on how you interpret loss. Is friction a loss? Is being insulted a loss? Is not getting along in society a loss? So a lot has to do with how you understand value. What has value? Why? What is the nature of comfort? It's not as obvious if you actually question it. We tend to have a pretty solid idea about what comfort is. For example, never being insulted, always being respected, always getting along, always slipping through society like fish slips through water -- for many people this is what comfort is. But is that what it really is? Or is that just one possible preference?

 

Back to children, they are very powerful early on before the mind solidifies. The way they can create whole worlds in the mind and be deadly serious about it is amazing. Even though it may seem trivial/silly like cuddly toys having a tea party compared to adult standard the focus is awesome, and so this is the real intelligence. I was letting my young cousain trance me the other day and you can learn much more from them then they you. Every time I opened my mouth I felt humbled due to my lack of natural intelligence (even though I'm doing a masters degree).

 

Seriously? I don't feel that way with children. Children are mostly losers, and do you know why? All the good qualities children have are unconscious. What does it mean? It means children don't know they have any good qualities, do not value them, are not wise about all possible alternative ways of being (they are comfortable in their more magical reality, but for example, they don't know about the less magical world of the adults, and that's a serious fault). Because children don't know that the qualities of mind they have are wonderful or precious, they lose them easily. And we see this first hand everywhere. This is why children are not sages.

 

Sure, you can learn a lot from a child, but a child has a lot to learn from the world and from the adults too. A child is going to lose his gems because he or she doesn't know they are gems, and so lets go of them easily, but once they let go, reclaiming them is not always easy.

 

I don't think of children in worshipful terms. I respect a child's natural mind's ability. I do. But I also see lots of flaws in children. This is why children are not enlightened and they are not sages. You can learn from them, I won't argue with that at all.

 

I know when I was a child, I was pretty magical too. But I quickly lost it because I didn't value it. I didn't think it mattered or that it was useful. So when adults taught me their ways, I just accepted that without critical thinking. See the weakness? Logic is an important guard dog of the mind. And as a child, my mind didn't have that guard dog protecting the treasures. So when adults taught me their ways, without logic and analysis, I had no tools to use to evaluate their ways, and simply uncritically accepted them. Big mistake.

 

The intellectual, wordy stuff is only good if you've got some hustle behind it. Like U G Krishnamurti who was well-educated in the past. He studied physics and philosophy so he could use these disciplines against themselves to fuck with peoples heads.

 

I think the real use of logic is to turn it against itself.

 

Exactly. This is why you should never put logic down. Logic is the Lord. When your reasoning skills are mature, you can never be tricked into any belief. When they are not, you will mindlessly follow whatever random beliefs floats through your mind and you'll be a victim of beliefs and not their master.

 

Logic and the Mystery are one perfect whole. They exist in perfect union. Logic doesn't destroy the mystery. It protects it. The mystery doesn't destroy logic -- it's what gives logic its force. Like two wings of one bird, they carry the bird in flight. Reason and mystery, I use them both equally.

[Sunya]

Hehehe. That first question is a trick question, right?

Yep. You stressed "always". I am satisfied with 99.9~%. I do maintain a fair amout of flexibility.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Marble, it's very interesting to me how you're able to so easily and smoothly ignore opposing arguments by ignoring and discarding them and swiftly re-asserting your view without even giving any argument as to why. You're a nice guy, but it's odd that you're here participating in such discussions. This isn't afternoon tea chat, most members here actually care about truth. You stand out to me since it seems you're just making small talk here and truly don't care about figuring things out, evolving, by questioning yourself and your assertions. Maybe you're not on a path and this is all good fun for you, and that's fine, but if you participate in such discussions then participate, truly participate, or else it's a complete waste for you and everyone else. At least put a disclaimer at the end of your post "I don't really care what's happening here but I'll chime in with my opinion anyway"

 

Everything that you have said in response to me, such as the world being proved to exist by your own experience and through science, still does not answer my questions. Science is not some super method, it's used by people relying on their intellect and senses, all of which are limited and finite. How can true knowledge be based on limited senses and thinking ability? You cite your own experience but I think it's obvious to anyone who's on a spiritual path that its our own obvious experience that must bear the most weight in questioning, since what is obvious is usually ~99.9% wrong. Obvious to an ant, is strange to us, but obvious to us is true, how? Are we omniscient beings?

 

"There are scientific processes for testing the validity of a theory" Tell me, who tests these theories? Is it not people themselves?

 

Also you talk about something being true if its relatively true. Imagine you're dreaming, this dream world is completely illusory but it appears before you and you act oblivious to this. for you then, everything that appears before you is true, getting out of bed, going through the motions of life, and you would have the same beliefs because you can rely on them; you would read scientific reports in your dream paper and you would feel totally happy with everything. But, as stated, this is a dream world so all of your beliefs are wrong. So even though your beliefs are true, relative to the dream, in an actual sense they are wrong because they depend on ignorance and illusion. If you were to wake up in this dream world, realize that it's all illusory, would you still act the same? I'd think yes you would still get out of bed and go through all the motions, but would you have the same beliefs? No.

 

what we are talking about here is dismantling the dream by questioning the very foundation of the dream, the foundation which all dream beliefs depend on. these foundations are: the existence of an objective world filled with objects and things, and the existence of a subjective self separate from this world. The first step is questioning how you have come to know what you know and what evidence you have for that knowledge, and the assumptions that you have which that knowledge depends on. The crux of this is the belief that we, the human collective brain, have accurate and sufficient means to judge, make sense of, and form conclusions about reality. All of science depends upon this assumption, and all of your conclusions about your own experience, whatever is obvious to you, likewise depend upon this assumption. Even if you discard science you will undoubtedly fall back on your own experience as something undeniable, the fact of which is so obvious that its unquestionable simply because its before you. The beauty of human existence is not in our ability to know truth but in our ability to realize the futility of this search.

Edited January 3, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Marble, it's very interesting to me how you're able to so easily and smoothly ignore opposing arguments by ignoring and discarding them and swiftly re-asserting your view without even giving any argument as to why. You're a nice guy, but it's odd that you're here participating in such discussions. This isn't afternoon tea chat, most members here actually care about truth. You stand out to me since it seems you're just making small talk here and truly don't care about figuring things out, evolving, by questioning yourself and your assertions. Maybe you're not on a path and this is all good fun for you, and that's fine, but if you participate in such discussions then participate, truly participate, or else it's a complete waste for you and everyone else. At least put a disclaimer at the end of your post "I don't really care what's happening here but I'll chime in with my opinion anyway"

 

You hit the nail on the head. I see the same quality in Marblehead and I find it deeply offensive and highly insulting. His penchant for superficial politeness just makes me even more furious. It's like his whole value system is distorted. To him decorum is lord, and the meat of the issue is just a side dish. Not my man.

[Marblehead]

Marble, it's very interesting to me how you're able to so easily and smoothly ignore opposing arguments by ignoring and discarding them and swiftly re-asserting your view without even giving any argument as to why. You're a nice guy, but it's odd that you're here participating in such discussions. This isn't afternoon tea chat, most members here actually care about truth. You stand out to me since it seems you're just making small talk here and truly don't care about figuring things out, evolving, by questioning yourself and your assertions. Maybe you're not on a path and this is all good fun for you, and that's fine, but if you participate in such discussions then participate, truly participate, or else it's a complete waste for you and everyone else. At least put a disclaimer at the end of your post "I don't really care what's happening here but I'll chime in with my opinion anyway"

 

Okay. Here I am, just chiming in again. I do not ignore opposing arguements. I counter every arguement with my understanding of the concept. Just because I don't agree with aomeone else's understanding does by not means mean that I am ignoring what was said. I cannot talk Buddhist talk because I am not a Buddhist, I am a Taoist. I will use whatever words I wish to use. I do not have to live according to anyone else's rules. I live according to mine.

 

I stand out to you and others here vecause I present very valid arguements concerning a subject and the other party doesn't like what I said. Well, learn to live with it. No. I am no longer on a path. I have arrived at my destination and what I am doing here is sharing with others how I managed to arrive at my destination.

 

So you believe that I am not participating just because I don't agree with what you said. Well, have you considered that I don't agree with what you have said and that I elected to present an alternative way of viewing the concept under discussion?

 

Everything that you have said in response to me, such as the world being proved to exist by your own experience and through science, still does not answer my questions. Science is not some super method, it's used by people relying on their intellect and senses, all of which are limited and finite. How can true knowledge be based on limited senses and thinking ability? You cite your own experience but I think it's obvious to anyone who's on a spiritual path that its our own obvious experience that must bear the most weight in questioning, since what is obvious is usually ~99.9% wrong. Obvious to an ant, is strange to us, but obvious to us is true, how? Are we omniscient beings?

 

So, exactly, WTF is your specific question. Ask one simple question. Do not fill it will all forms of variables. Be specific and to the point. And you saying that what is obvious is usually 99.9% wrong then I suggest to you that you are usually 99.9% wrong. This is according to your own criteria stated above.

 

So you would prefer that we throw out all knowledge and go back to living in caves. You have to be shitting me. Knowledge is what has enabled us to communicate over the internet. The knowledge that led to this ability was a process of recorded knowledge over many years. Apparently there are a lot of people who believe in the accumulation of scientific fact and knowledge. Why do you insist that we can't know anything and then throw directly in the face of all those people you are speaking to all the knowledge that you possess? You want the whole world to forget everything it thinks it know and listen to only your opinion? Yeah, right!

 

"There are scientific processes for testing the validity of a theory" Tell me, who tests these theories? Is it not people themselves?

 

Yes, people do the testing. Are you suggesting that we should ignore everything everyone does? If you were really living your own supposed beliefs then you would never be bothered by anything I have ever said. But no, you constantly worry yourself over the information I present on this forum. Why? What insecurities do you have that are being shattered by my words? Why do you fear my presence?

 

Yes, there are very specific guidelines as to how a scientific inquiry is to be conducted. You can search the internet (you know, the one that exists because of all the accumulated knowledge over many years) and find these guidelines if you are interested. (I really doubt that you are though.) I think you and another member are on a crusade to discredit any posts of my opinions and understandings because you cannot reasonably argue them. You and the other come up with all this off-the-wall BS that is something like a story from an Aussie dream.

 

Also you talk about something being true if its relatively true. Imagine you're dreaming, this dream world is completely illusory but it appears before you and you act oblivious to this. for you then, everything that appears before you is true, getting out of bed, going through the motions of life, and you would have the same beliefs because you can rely on them; you would read scientific reports in your dream paper and you would feel totally happy with everything. But, as stated, this is a dream world so all of your beliefs are wrong. So even though your beliefs are true, relative to the dream, in an actual sense they are wrong because they depend on ignorance and illusion. If you were to wake up in this dream world, realize that it's all illusory, would you still act the same? I'd think yes you would still get out of bed and go through all the motions, but would you have the same beliefs? No.

 

Don't you understand that dreams are different than conscious awareness? You really need to understand this. Yes, I can imagine I am dreaming. (I used to do that before I attained inner peace.) No, dreams are not the same as conscious awareness. Dreams are all screwed up with input from numerous unrelated memories. I have never thought my dreams were reality for more than a minute or two after I woke up. As soon as I became consciously aware after waking I immediately realized that the dream was only a dream. No, I disagree with you, even when dreaming I could really believe the dream because it was so far removed from reality.

 

So, yes, I would still hold to my current beliefs until I had a reason to change them. Everything I believe and everything I present on this forum is a result of my testing my beliefs and having them verified and validated. I do not pretend that the objective world does not exist because I am totally content with what nature and Tao have given me. It is only those who are discontent who wish for something better. It is only those who cause themselves suffering who need to be liberated from suffering.

 

I prefer to live in this objective reality. I don't need any guru telling me that the universe doesn't exist because I don't believe in stuff like that. I don't need some god allowing me to do whatever I wish. I have free will and I will exercise it. I will remain on this forum for many years to come so just get used to my presence. As I told someone else recently, if you don't like what I say there is an ignore button you can push at any time you wish to do so. But I suggest that to ignore something of the objective universe is to be ignorant. But you too have free will to do as you wish.

 

And so, my dear friend, just because I do not say what "you" want to hear does not mean that I am not saying something.

 

And in ending, I see you are still trying to find a good way to deal with your suffering and it is very apparent that your Buddhist learning has done nothing for you yet. You might want to consider becoming a Taoist because we don't suffer all that much.

 

Peace & Love!

[Magitek]

..

Edited January 29, 2010 by Magitek

[Marblehead]

You hit the nail on the head. I see the same quality in Marblehead and I find it deeply offensive and highly insulting. His penchant for superficial politeness just makes me even more furious. It's like his whole value system is distorted. To him decorum is lord, and the meat of the issue is just a side dish. Not my man.

 

So I'm still rubbing you the wrong way, am I? That's great. Get used to it because I am going to be here for a very long time. I am soooo very proud of the fact that I have been able to offend you. And you know what? I wasn't even trying. No, I will never be your man. I am not gay. I love women. Always have, always will. I see I am making you furious too. That's great!

 

Without even trying I have accomplished all these wonderful deeds. Now that is true Wu Wei!!!!!

 

Now, let me go see who else I can offend.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

I stand out to you and others here vecause I present very valid arguements concerning a subject and the other party doesn't like what I said. Well, learn to live with it....So you believe that I am not participating just because I don't agree with what you said. Well, have you considered that I don't agree with what you have said and that I elected to present an alternative way of viewing the concept under discussion?

 

Ok, let's see how valid your arguments are and whether you truly offer another valid alternative

 

So you would prefer that we throw out all knowledge and go back to living in caves. You have to be shitting me. Knowledge is what has enabled us to communicate over the internet. The knowledge that led to this ability was a process of recorded knowledge over many years. Apparently there are a lot of people who believe in the accumulation of scientific fact and knowledge. Why do you insist that we can't know anything and then throw directly in the face of all those people you are speaking to all the knowledge that you possess? You want the whole world to forget everything it thinks it know and listen to only your opinion? Yeah, right!

 

So in response to all of my criticisms about knowledge you present the extreme of hiding in caves? No, I never said that. I'm talking about truth not technology. I'm talking about using science as metaphysics, basing your whole world view on scientific discovery. I never said I dislike technology. You've completely ignored everything I said and presented myself as a pioneer for regression into an animal-like state, so far you haven't shown any arguments against what I said and have not shown any alternatives, which you said above you would do.

 

Yes, people do the testing. Are you suggesting that we should ignore everything everyone does? If you were really living your own supposed beliefs then you would never be bothered by anything I have ever said. But no, you constantly worry yourself over the information I present on this forum. Why? What insecurities do you have that are being shattered by my words? Why do you fear my presence?

 

I don't fear you buddy, just trying to figure out why you believe what you believe, this is after all a discussion forum and the topic is beliefs. So, again you've ignored what I said and just painted an extreme. I never said we should ignore everything, I'm saying we should question the assumptions for why we do what we do, and the conclusions that we make.

 

Yes, there are very specific guidelines as to how a scientific inquiry is to be conducted. You can search the internet (you know, the one that exists because of all the accumulated knowledge over many years) and find these guidelines if you are interested. (I really doubt that you are though.) I think you and another member are on a crusade to discredit any posts of my opinions and understandings because you cannot reasonably argue them. You and the other come up with all this off-the-wall BS that is something like a story from an Aussie dream.

 

So again, you ignore what I've said about scientific inquiry (that it's created by, and used by, people with limited capacity for truth).

 

Don't you understand that dreams are different than conscious awareness? You really need to understand this. Yes, I can imagine I am dreaming. (I used to do that before I attained inner peace.) No, dreams are not the same as conscious awareness. Dreams are all screwed up with input from numerous unrelated memories. I have never thought my dreams were reality for more than a minute or two after I woke up. As soon as I became consciously aware after waking I immediately realized that the dream was only a dream. No, I disagree with you, even when dreaming I could really believe the dream because it was so far removed from reality.

 

It was a metaphor, Marblehead. A metaphor to show you that relative beliefs depend on the existence of axioms which are assumed to be true. without those axioms the truth of the belief crumbles.

 

And in ending, I see you are still trying to find a good way to deal with your suffering and it is very apparent that your Buddhist learning has done nothing for you yet. You might want to consider becoming a Taoist because we don't suffer all that much.

 

you think Buddhists are the only ones who question reality? I'm not even arguing Buddhism right now, so discarding what I say as 'unTaoist' is strange. I'm simply posing questions which are relevant and important. There are many philosophers, mystics, and saints which have argued the same, including Taoist, but i'm not relying on them as authority. If you genuinely take an interest in examining your beliefs about the world and yourself, then this would be a much more interesting discussion. So far you've just acted defensive and haven't offered a worthy presentation. It's only been "well i believe what I believe because it's true, science says so, and so do I, plus i'm happy and you're Buddhist so check out Taoism or at least my Taoism"

 

You said you present valid arguments and alternatives but you haven't at all.

Edited January 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Gold, good points.

However when we mention consciousness we come into a very wierd situation.

 

Is consciousness just a string of linked perceptions (be they physical, etheric, astral, it all the same)? Or something inherent in itself, that can turn upon itself, as many of the mystics say?

 

 

I'm not sure I can answer that question. I think we can study our beliefs and how beliefs affect our perceptions and how beliefs affect our manner of being in the world. But is paying attention to beliefs the same as paying attention to consciousness? Is paying attention to perceptions the same as paying attention to consciousness?

 

I think that consciousness is a very high-order idea, that investigating it is like tasting your tongue.

 

But when hypnotists talk about consciousness, I think they mean something simpler. I think consciousness as hypnotists usually mean it can be examined and studied. In that sense, consciousness is our belief structure when fully engaged, and it's like a filter. We see what we believe in and we do not see what we don't believe in. And by belief I do not mean what people claim to believe, but that upon which they act and base their very lives. I find that what we claim to believe significantly differs from our real beliefs.

 

So I'm still rubbing you the wrong way, am I? That's great. Get used to it because I am going to be here for a very long time. I am soooo very proud of the fact that I have been able to offend you. And you know what? I wasn't even trying. No, I will never be your man. I am not gay. I love women. Always have, always will. I see I am making you furious too. That's great!

 

Without even trying I have accomplished all these wonderful deeds. Now that is true Wu Wei!!!!!

 

Now, let me go see who else I can offend.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Marble, don't take it so seriously. When I said I was furious, I meant it as a metaphor. I hope you don't think I am actually furious. I welcome your presence. I sometimes don't understand why you are present here, but I have no intention whatsoever to shoo you away or anything like that. Just the opposite. Please stay and share whatever it is you want to share. If I don't understand why you are here, that's my problem, and I am free to wonder about it out loud. You don't seem to have a spiritual bone in your body. But by all means, please stay.

Edited January 4, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Ok, let's see how valid your arguments are and whether you truly offer another valid alternative

 

Okay. Let's do that.

 

So in response to all of my criticisms about knowledge you present the extreme of hiding in caves? No, I never said that. I'm talking about truth not technology. I'm talking about using science as metaphysics, basing your whole world view on scientific discovery. I never said I dislike technology. You've completely ignored everything I said and presented myself as a pioneer for regression into an animal-like state, so far you haven't shown any arguments against what I said and have not shown any alternatives, which you said above you would do.

 

But you haven't said anything I can directly respond to. I told you that I believe that the dream world and the consciously aware state are totally different. Anyone whith a little knowledge of dreams will agree with that. (At least I think they would.) But if you argue this point please do not recire some Buddhist writing because you should be aware by now that I don't care about reading that kind of stuff. I stated a number of times that I tried Buddhism as my path but it wasn't good for me so I discarded it.

 

So if you wish to discuss technology we should do so without adding all kinds of irrelevant trash to the discussion and keep strictly to a discussion of technology.

 

I don't fear you buddy, just trying to figure out why you believe what you believe, this is after all a discussion forum and the topic is beliefs. So, again you've ignored what I said and just painted an extreme. I never said we should ignore everything, I'm saying we should question the assumptions for why we do what we do, and the conclusions that we make.

 

And I have said that I have already questioned my assumptions and I am very satisfied with my conclusions. Now, I am speaking directly to what you said above. I am glad you do not fear me. I don't know if you will ever be able to figure out why I believe how (not what) I believe. I have never figured me out yet. But I do know this; I have found inner peace and contentment. No, I cannot describe it. The 'feeling' is beyond words.

 

So again, you ignore what I've said about scientific inquiry (that it's created by, and used by, people with limited capacity for truth).

 

No, I did not ignore it. I did agree that people conduct scientific inquiry and there are specific guidelines that are used. I generally accept something that is stated as a proven fact if two or more verifications have been made by qualified people in that field of study. But, there are times where I will not accept something even if these criteria are met because they directly contradict what I have already established as a fact on my own. And there are other things that just don't matter to me one way or the other in the least so I don't even bother my mind with it.

 

It was a metaphor, Marblehead. A metaphor to show you that relative beliefs depend on the existence of axioms which are assumed to be true. without those axioms the truth of the belief crumbles.

you think Buddhists are the only ones who question reality? I'm not even arguing Buddhism right now, so discarding what I say as 'unTaoist' is strange. There are many philosophers, mystics, and saints which have argued the same, including Taoist, but i'm not relying on them as authority. If you genuinely take an interest in examining your beliefs about the world and yourself, then this would be a much more interesting discussion. So far you've just acted defensive and haven't offered a worthy presentation. It's only been "well i believe what I believe because it's true, science says so, and so do I, plus i'm happy and you're Buddhist so check out Taoism or at least my Taoism"

 

So you presented me with nothing to respond directly to.

 

I have mentioned the tree in my front yard a number of times. In reality, there is no tree. There are only gardens with flowering plants and rose bushes, about twelve of them, and flowering vines, specifically, Passion vines, Bleeding Heart vines, and Mandavilla. But everyone who read any of the posts I made regarding my tree willingly accepted the suggestion that I had a tree in my front yard. I created a part of their relative reality. No, it is not their objective reality because they never realized my non-existant tree objectively.

 

Perhaps I unfairly criticize Buddhism. I apologize if I have done so. So if you are looking for specific responses from me it is important that a specific question or suggestion be presented. If what I read is vague then my response will be equally vague.

 

So let's just start something here. The nature of my beliefs is that when I experience a 'thing', whether it be an object or a thought, I question that experience. Shall we again consider the red rose?

 

I walk out my front door and turn left. I walk about fifteen paces and stop and turn left. I am now directly in front of the rose bush that produces flowers that 'appear' red in color to me. As I know I am not color blind I need not question if it is red or brown. I place my hand around the rose flower and gently close my hand. I feel the rose flower in my hand. My sense of touch is good so I need not question if I actually am feeling the rose. I bend down and try to smell the flower. I cannot smell it. This is because my sense of smell is very poor. I know this so I do not need to question it. I release the flower and touch one of the thorns. I feel the sharpness of the thorn and realize that if I apply any additional pressure I will cause my self pain so I apply no further pressue. I straighten my body bact to an erect position and follow the stems down to the ground. Yep, it is firmly planted and rooted in the ground. The ground is composed of local dirt, mostly sand, as well as mixed-in waste from my fish pond filters. I use fish pond waste to fertilize most of my plants.

 

So after all this awareness I still believe that I have a rose bush in that particular area. I can show it to people who come over and they all agree that it is a very healthy looking plant with beautiful red roses. I have never had anyone tell me that the roses are colored blue or any other color. I can therefore hold to my belief that this rose bush exists objectively.

 

The tree, on the other hand, existed in the mind of anyone who accepted my comment about my tree in my front yard but it did not exist objectively. It was only an imaginary tree. If anyone on this forum would have come over to my house looking for my tree they would have been disappointed and they probably would have accused me of lying to them.

 

Okay. That's done. How else can I explain to you why I hold to the beliefs I hold to?

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

So let's just start something here. The nature of my beliefs is that when I experience a 'thing', whether it be an object or a thought, I question that experience. Shall we again consider the red rose?

 

I walk out my front door and turn left. I walk about fifteen paces and stop and turn left. I am now directly in front of the rose bush that produces flowers that 'appear' red in color to me. As I know I am not color blind I need not question if it is red or brown.

 

That's interesting because often color-blind people find out about their condition by accident later in life. The color-blind people start out in the world without any indication that there is anything different about them. I suspect many somewhat color-blind people die without even knowing of their condition.

 

I place my hand around the rose flower and gently close my hand. I feel the rose flower in my hand. My sense of touch is good so I need not question if I actually am feeling the rose. I bend down and try to smell the flower. I cannot smell it. This is because my sense of smell is very poor. I know this so I do not need to question it. I release the flower and touch one of the thorns. I feel the sharpness of the thorn and realize that if I apply any additional pressure I will cause my self pain so I apply no further pressue. I straighten my body bact to an erect position and follow the stems down to the ground. Yep, it is firmly planted and rooted in the ground. The ground is composed of local dirt, mostly sand, as well as mixed-in waste from my fish pond filters. I use fish pond waste to fertilize most of my plants.

 

So after all this awareness I still believe that I have a rose bush in that particular area. I can show it to people who come over and they all agree that it is a very healthy looking plant with beautiful red roses. I have never had anyone tell me that the roses are colored blue or any other color. I can therefore hold to my belief that this rose bush exists objectively.

 

The tree, on the other hand, existed in the mind of anyone who accepted my comment about my tree in my front yard but it did not exist objectively. It was only an imaginary tree. If anyone on this forum would have come over to my house looking for my tree they would have been disappointed and they probably would have accused me of lying to them.

 

Okay. That's done. How else can I explain to you why I hold to the beliefs I hold to?

 

Peace & Love!

 

Everything you just described I have felt in a dream. Would you say that things I saw my dream exist objectively?

[Marblehead]

That's interesting because often color-blind people find out about their condition by accident later in life. The color-blind people start out in the world without any indication that there is anything different about them. I suspect many somewhat color-blind people die without even knowing of their condition.

 

Yea!!!!! I get to agree with you.

 

Everything you just described I have felt in a dream. Would you say that things I saw my dream exist objectively?

 

Hehehe. You really need to stop dreaming about me. No, GiH, your dream was a subjective experience. It just happened to coincide with objective reality (if what you said is true).

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

but Marble, everything that you've described are just phenomenal experiences that appear in the mind. when you gain enough lucidity in dreams you can experience the very same sensual and visual experience, and actually with even more vivid awareness.

 

 

"No, I did not ignore it. I did agree that people conduct scientific inquiry and there are specific guidelines that are used. I generally accept something that is stated as a proven fact if two or more verifications have been made by qualified people in that field of study. But, there are times where I will not accept something even if these criteria are met because they directly contradict what I have already established as a fact on my own. And there are other things that just don't matter to me one way or the other in the least so I don't even bother my mind with it. "

 

you missed my point, scientific inquiry is not done by robots. it's done by humans, the process is not objective because it is humans that created the process, it is humans that interpret the data, and it is humans that form conclusions about the scientific theory.

 

 

"But if you argue this point please do not recire some Buddhist writing because you should be aware by now that I don't care about reading that kind of stuff. I stated a number of times that I tried Buddhism as my path but it wasn't good for me so I discarded it."

 

So you think it's only Buddhists that say reality is dream-like? Actually so do Hindus, so do Taoists, so did Gnostic Christians, so did Jewish Qabalists, and many many other mystics. Likewise so did many Western philosophers such as Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Berkeley, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Derrida, Schopenhauer. etc. I could go on. Point is, this idea isn't Buddhist, its practically universal, so let go of your disdain for Buddhism for a second because that isn't relevant here.

Edited January 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Hehehe. You really need to stop dreaming about me. No, GiH, your dream was a subjective experience. It just happened to coincide with objective reality (if what you said is true).

 

Dreams feel exactly the same as waking to me, in terms of the quality and lucidity of perceptions. I can't understand why one experience is called subjective and another objective, when both experiences feel exactly the same. There is no difference in perception, and yet we arrive at two different labels for the same thing. I don't get it.

Edited January 4, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

but Marble, everything that you've described are just phenomenal experiences that appear in the mind. when you gain enough lucidity in dreams you can experience the very same sensual and visual experience, and actually with even more vivid awareness.

 

Okay. Okay. Cheeezzzee! Yes, our dreams can sometimes cause physical responses. I had wet dreams when I was young. But the dream and what objectively happened were two different things. I was dreaming of a woman who didn't exist at that place in time and I am sure you know what was really happening.

 

"No, I did not ignore it. I did agree that people conduct scientific inquiry and there are specific guidelines that are used. I generally accept something that is stated as a proven fact if two or more verifications have been made by qualified people in that field of study. But, there are times where I will not accept something even if these criteria are met because they directly contradict what I have already established as a fact on my own. And there are other things that just don't matter to me one way or the other in the least so I don't even bother my mind with it. "

 

you missed my point, scientific inquiry is not done by robots. it's done by humans, the process is not objective because it is humans that created the process, it is humans that interpret the data, and it is humans that form conclusions about the scientific theory.

 

Okay, so we are subjectively testing a presumed objectively existent reality. There has to be someone to do the testing, right? But I have to add that the world is round even if someone conducts an experiment and draws the conclusion that it is flat.

 

"But if you argue this point please do not recire some Buddhist writing because you should be aware by now that I don't care about reading that kind of stuff. I stated a number of times that I tried Buddhism as my path but it wasn't good for me so I discarded it."

 

So you think it's only Buddhists that say reality is dream-like? Actually so do Hindus, so do Taoists, so did Gnostic Christians, so did Jewish Qabalists, and many many other mystics. Likewise so did many Western philosophers such as Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Berkeley, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Derrida, Schopenhauer. etc. I could go on. Point is, this idea isn't Buddhist, its practically universal, so let go of your disdain for Buddhism for a second because that isn't relevant here.

 

Yep. I was being unfair by pointing out Buddhism. I will try very hard to refrain from doing that again. But to your point, yes, I understand that there are many who believe that reality is dream-like. I am not one of those. Dreams are dreams and reality is reality. I have not been confused about this for about fifteen years. Actually, that's not true. I have always felt this way. I have always been a Philosophical Taoist as far back as I can remember.

 

I really don't have a disdain for Buddhism. I know that might be hard to believe but it is true. The only thing that really irritates me about it is the proposition that there is no objective reality. All the other concepts that I do not agree with don't really bother me at all. And in my real life (the physical objective one) I don't even discuss the subject because I have no physically, objectively real friends who are Buddhists.

 

Peace & Love!

[Pero]

And in ending, I see you are still trying to find a good way to deal with your suffering and it is very apparent that your Buddhist learning has done nothing for you yet. You might want to consider becoming a Taoist because we don't suffer all that much.

 

Ignorance is bliss ey? What a silly idea in this case (for a Buddhist anyway).

[Marblehead]

Ignorance is bliss ey? What a silly idea in this case (for a Buddhist anyway).

 

Not really. I never recommend ignorance. In fact, I constantly repeat myself saying that we should observe and learn - understand the difference between suffering and pain. We can eliminate suffering without any pretending whatever - it doesn't exist if we don't allow it to exist. Some pains we just have to live with - they are a part of life. But even pain can be controlled to a certain extent.

 

Knowledge is power. (I really don't care for that saying but it seemed appropriate at the moment.)

 

Peace & Love!