Religion is the poison of Spirituality

[三江源]

cats dont want to be in bags!

[zerostao]

cats dont want to be in bags!

some do and some dont

 

 

[Aaron]

And as ill-informed LOL

 

congratulations you are the second person on my ignore list.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

Every answer you receive is a lie. The only truth that exists is the truth you find within yourself.

Religion is the poison of spirituality. It is simply legalizing and formalizing something that should not be. Everyone has the potential to find the wisdom they seek within themselves,

Aaron

 

Close,...but still BS. Let's break it down. Religion is a set of beliefs,...that is the definition of the term religion. All beliefs are false. No belief is true. If a belief were true, it would not be a belief.

 

Spirit(uality) is the in-breath/out-breath of duality,...it is the proof that all beliefs are false. No theist or atheist is spiritual,...theism and atheism are belief systems. Beliefs deny, disempower, disconnect, etc,...all beLIEfs are lies. Doesn't matter if belief may be based on a truth,...as Jed McKenna said, "One millionth of 1% false is completely false"

 

Not only is there no truth outside the self you think you are,...there is no truth inside the you that you think you are.

 

In both Buddhism and Taoism, one seeks to uncover prajna. Prajna implies to see things as they are,...prajnaparamita is the Perfection of Prajna,...that is to say, the highest level of prajna when all wisdom is transcended.

 

Wisdom is not Prajna. Prajna is as a Consciousness beyond the Five Aggregates,...whereas wisdom is what the Five Aggregates feel is best about themselves.

 

Wisdom is accumulated by ego. It literally means knowledge accumulated through philosophic or scientific learning. In other words, wisdom points to the highest and most lofty ideas of ego consciousness, whose sole purpose is to sustain itself. Wisdom is to make the best use of knowledge,...yet to realize enlightenment (to realize the Tao) means to let go of all knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through thinking, that is the Head-mind,...whereas truth arises from gnowledge, or the Heart-Mind.

 

Lao-zu said, "To attain pure Tao you must understand and integrate within yourself the three main energies of the universe:

 

The first is the earth energy. Centered in the belly, it expresses itself as sexuality. Those who cultivate and master the physical energy attain partial purity (all phenomena is sexual,...the yin/yang nature of duality);

 

Second is the heaven energy. Centered in the mind, it expresses itself as knowledge and wisdom. Those whose minds merge with the Universal Mind also attain partial purity.

 

Third is the harmonized energy. Centered in the heart, it expresses itself as spiritual insight. Those who develop spiritual insight also attain partial purity.

 

Only when you attain you achieve all three - mastery of physical energy, universal mindedness, and spiritual insight - and express them in a virturous integral life, can you attain pure Tao." Hua Hu Ching, sixty-two

 

Look again,...where did Lao-zu say Spiritual Insight arises from? The Heart.

 

All belief, all religion, all faith, all hope,...comes from the Head.

[gatito]

congratulations you are the second person on my ignore list.

 

Aaron

 

Thanks Aaron

 

I'm very happy about that LMAO!

[gatito]

Just "friend" me if you change your mind

[gatito]

I'm glad you're back Vmarco, you've been missed

[Isimsiz Biri]

congratulations you are the second person on my ignore list.

 

Aaron

 

Who is the first? Oh, no, Moi?

[Marblehead]

Not only is there no truth outside the self you think you are,...there is no truth inside the you that you think you are.

I still don't buy this.

 

Yeah, nice having you back.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[zerostao]

this is the thread that just keeps on giving

wb vmarco, i see that now you and et thoughts have now met

(wishes do come true afterall)

[Birch]

 

I still don't buy this.

 

Yeah, nice having you back.

 

What if stopped concerning with whether it's inside or out? I reckon it makes a difference if concerning one way or the other. I don't want to say 'you' because I don't want to say who might or might not concern themselves any which way (or % ways because I'm almost sure some people mix it up either by assuming absolute control or influence over everything, just some things, just some things in some cases and others not or none whatsoever none of the time.)

[Marblehead]

Hi -K-,

 

Truths do exist. Most of them are objective truths but I will add that there are some subjective truths as well. The objective truths cannot be altered by subjective reasoning. Subjective truths come and go most of the time. What I hold as a truth today may be judged as a falsehood by me tomorrow. And, of course, what I judge as a falsehood today may become one of my truths tomorrow.

 

Yes, truths exist inside (within) and outside (external to us). How we judge these truths is an individual thing. Vmarco's subjective truths are just as valid as are mine. However, Vmarco's objective truths are valid at any given point in time as are mine. (Remember, everything is changing so even objective truths will change over time.)

[zerostao]

when an objective truth (whatever that is) changes over time does it remain truth?

for me in my view it is when there is a union of the object and the subject, then and only then, in that(brief fleeting) moment of connection,

there may be a brief view of truth,

then poof it is gone

edit> "what therefore is truth? a mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms...truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions"

fred

Edited December 5, 2012 by zerostao

[Vmarco]

Well that seems to be your beliefs, thoughts, ideas on the matter... Mine are singularly different... and it would be best to keep the truths that exist in each position rather than reject them all based on some lie imbedded in the beliefs, thoughts, ideas... in other words recognize what be and embrace the truths while rejecting the lies (or knowing the truths the lies seek to obfuscate)... based on ..."One millionth of 1% false is completely false" what you said would be false... though as I said it would be best to keep the truths that exist in each position rather than reject them all based on some lie imbedded in them

 

Edited to add that evil uses three tactics...

... mix into truth lies (so that individuals will reject it all or embrace some lies)

... claim it is the same as truth

... arrange the truths in such a way as get individuals to see the wrong idea

 

Only a person unfamiliar with a single truth would reply like that.

 

ALL beliefs are Untrue. If I was to spew a belief, without explicitly saying it was a belief, and thus only an opinion, it would be better that an anvil be tied around my neck and thown into an abyss, than to interact on these threads.

 

All object-ive truths are relative, and thus untrue. If I was to spew a relative or object-ive truth, then I would clarify it was merely an object-ive truth,...which is not a truth at all, but an opinion based on object-ivity. All empirical evidence is untrue.

 

When I use the term truth,...it should be taken as absolute truth,...not an object-ive, personal, empirical opinion.

 

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate purportedly asked circa 28 CE in Palestine, according to John 18:38. For most, truth and reality have little value in everyday life. The majority merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible. The wisdom and reality that arise from certainty would undermine the survival of their object-based beliefs and conceptual imagery.

 

Few seem to realize that those considered priests of the scientific method have neither uncovered nor explained truth. That is not their job. Scientists have little interest in truth or reality, for their paychecks are derived from the pursuit of facts about objects. Science builds its theorems or working hypotheses upon previous beliefs, and therefore it often labels any discussion of absolute certainty as absurd. For example, to say that there is no "present in time" is antithetical to science’s established beliefs. Truth and reality confuse the priests of the scientific method. Their paradigm, or fixed set of beliefs, is founded on concepts of a materially existing world; that is, sciential theorems, not the sapiential truth or the reality beyond objects. Scientists, like most others who are uninterested in truth, are as characters within a dream who think that the dream is real. As truth and reality are taboo in the scientific groupthink, they cling to a faith in objects, to make the dream—and their attachment to separateness—more palatable. As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."

[Isimsiz Biri]

Only a person unfamiliar with a single truth would reply like that.

 

ALL beliefs are Untrue. If I was to spew a belief, without explicitly saying it was a belief, and thus only an opinion, it would be better that an anvil be tied around my neck and thown into an abyss, than to interact on these threads.

 

All object-ive truths are relative, and thus untrue. If I was to spew a relative or object-ive truth, then I would clarify it was merely an object-ive truth,...which is not a truth at all, but an opinion based on object-ivity. All empirical evidence is untrue.

 

When I use the term truth,...it should be taken as absolute truth,...not an object-ive, personal, empirical opinion.

 

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate purportedly asked circa 28 CE in Palestine, according to John 18:38. For most, truth and reality have little value in everyday life. The majority merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible. The wisdom and reality that arise from certainty would undermine the survival of their object-based beliefs and conceptual imagery.

 

Few seem to realize that those considered priests of the scientific method have neither uncovered nor explained truth. That is not their job. Scientists have little interest in truth or reality, for their paychecks are derived from the pursuit of facts about objects. Science builds its theorems or working hypotheses upon previous beliefs, and therefore it often labels any discussion of absolute certainty as absurd. For example, to say that there is no "present in time" is antithetical to science’s established beliefs. Truth and reality confuse the priests of the scientific method. Their paradigm, or fixed set of beliefs, is founded on concepts of a materially existing world; that is, sciential theorems, not the sapiential truth or the reality beyond objects. Scientists, like most others who are uninterested in truth, are as characters within a dream who think that the dream is real. As truth and reality are taboo in the scientific groupthink, they cling to a faith in objects, to make the dream—and their attachment to separateness—more palatable. As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."

 

I am asking in order to better understand, are you saying that truth is given in Holy Bible?

[Stosh]

^{My car is outside in the parking lot , thats objectively true ,and I believe it , its useful to know where my car is ,so I can drive it,}

^{and my expectation that it will be there for me will be upheld when I go home. When I go home the original objective truth will no longer be held to be true.}

 

^{If all beliefs are untrue , then believing that is believing a falsity.}

^{I also would have no reason to look for my car in the parking lot}

^{so I would be stranded.}

^{Not wise advice but Its nice to see your'e posting again ( because other stuff has been better founded.)}

[zerostao]

^{My car is outside in the parking lot , thats objectively true ,and I believe it , its useful to know where my car is ,so I can drive it,}

^{and my expectation that it will be there for me will be upheld when I go home. When I go home the original objective truth will no longer be held to be true.}

 

^{If all beliefs are untrue , then believing that is believing a falsity.}

^{I also would have no reason to look for my car in the parking lot}

^{so I would be stranded.}

^{Not wise advice but Its nice to see your'e posting again ( because other stuff has been better founded.)}

i hope no one steals your car when you are not looking

[Stosh]

i hope no one steals your car when you are not looking

So do I , then my belief would be objectively untrue , and I would be subjectively unhappy.

[Birch]

Hi -K-,

 

Truths do exist. Most of them are objective truths but I will add that there are some subjective truths as well. The objective truths cannot be altered by subjective reasoning. Subjective truths come and go most of the time. What I hold as a truth today may be judged as a falsehood by me tomorrow. And, of course, what I judge as a falsehood today may become one of my truths tomorrow.

 

Yes, truths exist inside (within) and outside (external to us). How we judge these truths is an individual thing. Vmarco's subjective truths are just as valid as are mine. However, Vmarco's objective truths are valid at any given point in time as are mine. (Remember, everything is changing so even objective truths will change over time.)

 

Do you have examples of objective truths? I'm finding it tough to understand the part about objective truths changing and how you'd (or me'd) go about recognizing them.

 

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Marblehead]

when an objective truth (whatever that is) changes over time does it remain truth?

 

For me in my view it is when there is a union of the object and the subject, then and only then, in that(brief fleeting) moment of connection, there may be a brief view of truth, then poof it is gone.

 

edit> "what therefore is truth? a mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms...truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions"

fred

Heavy stuff you are talking there fella.

 

Your second sentence is valid, I think, if we include the human animal in the equation. And therefore I think I can again say that it is possible for the objective truth to equal the subjective truth.

[Marblehead]

Do you have examples of objective truths? I'm finding it tough to understand the part about objective truths changing and how you'd (or me'd) go about recognizing them.

Hi -K-,

 

I think that the best way for me to respond to this is via Taosm.

 

The Ten Thousand Things are objective truths. That is to say, the manifest universe and all things within are objective truths. Now understand, Tao, and all things and all non-things are in constant flux. This is the part where all things are constantly changing. True that some of the changes that happen in the universe take a very long time and our lifetime is too short in comparision for us to recognize those changes but they are happening all the same.

 

An example from nature: The pansies I planted recently will have spent their entire lifetime within about six months, from birth to death. But the giant Redwoods in California live many hundreds of years. We could go look at a specific Redwoon when we are very young and then go back eighty years later and we would notice no difference in the tree between the two times we viewed it.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

BELIEF and KNOWING. i think we're arguing over semanticsat this point... What about: Belief in truth? OR Belief in Knowing. To believe does not gaurentee that the belief itself isa lie. belief could be a precursor to knowing if the belief is in truth. but then it is not a belief, but a knowing. HOWEVER, if the individual does not KNOW it is more than BELIEF, it is then the precursor to knowing.