The idea that beliefs and philosophy is meaningless and silly

[skydog]

Even if one "meditates" and is in a state of emptiness.

 

One still has beliefs,

 

they reside in the subconscious and the feelings.

 

Which will affect the energy system and the behaviour etc

 

There is no such thing as not having a belief system

 

People have certain strong thoughts, feelings and memories

 

whether they delude themselves into thinking they do or dont.

 

Not needing to call it "my belief" or "my belief system" or even "belief"

 

but it does kind of exist, and is not a worthless thing imo.

Edited October 8, 2013 by skydog

[Jetsun]

One who resides in emptiness may have thoughts and beliefs arising but they arise within emptiness and don't define it, so a person doesn't have to give them any more importance than clouds passing through the sky. There is a consciousness not defined by the thinking mind which can still operate in the world through spontaneous reaction to the present moment, it is the belief systems themselves which try to justify their own existence and say you need them for your survival, many of them act more like parasites who try to convince you first that you are them and secondly that you need them, neither of which are true

[suninmyeyes]

edit :i believe it is too late and i have changed my mind

Edited October 8, 2013 by suninmyeyes

[skydog]

Can see some truth in most things, and the opposite view usually has some truth.

 

More just making this post for some people who have a particular tendency.

 

Yeh I can see how conceptual thinking can seem innaccurate, but its accurate and innaccurate. Maybe it makes the brain go a bit fuzzy or seems uncool or something, but for example.

 

Someone has the belief that

 

- Meditation is evil.

 

-Its appropriate to kill all animals as a ritual (or some nonsense)

 

someone might be in emptiness but that doesnt mean they wont follow the strong ideas they have.

 

Eg I might be in meditation and believe that there is someone outside and stop,

 

When it was just a belief, so the belief still affected one, and their behaviour.

 

It can seem cool and courageous just taking right action, but is also cool when theres nothing to be courageous about because one doesnt have false ideas which cause them to have to be courageous.

[skydog]

Then one hasn't investigated enough.

 

Then one hasn't investigated enough.

 

Fair enough but there are people on this board who seem to be very experienced in meditation but are constantly saying illlogical things based on illogical belief systems, they know all about meditation but their false ideas still come through in their actions because they dont know its false.

[suninmyeyes]

(answer to Sky dogs last post that was not directed to me )

 

 

I do not know who are you refering too , but can tell this is possible from personal expirience . It is possible to have very deep meditation expirience , even lasting for a while , get amazing knowledge , but not embody it constantly .

Morever deep meditation expiriences do not necessary equate personal transparency and interconnectedness and elegant way of being .

Edited October 8, 2013 by suninmyeyes

[Jetsun]

Fair enough but there are people on this board who seem to be very experienced in meditation but are constantly saying illlogical things based on illogical belief systems, they know all about meditation but their false ideas still come through in their actions because they dont know its false.

 

We are all deluded which means we believe things that are false to be true, but I think you have a good point which is why I think it is good to combine meditation with some sort of enquiry method, this is the way it is done in many schools of Buddhism and in Taoism it is probably needed even more urgently if all that is being done is energy work. You could do all sorts of things with energy like gathering it and storing it but if the mind has free reign then it will create all sorts of stories and beliefs out of that extra energy, where it is wasted. But if the rising energy isn't wasted in deluded beliefs then the energy will turn back towards the heart instead of being absorbed by the conceptual mind.

 

One of the best methods of enquiry anyone could do (although I doubt she is popular here) is the method of Byron Katie, because if done with enough sincerity and persistence it shows you that for every thought and belief you have the complete opposite thought and belief is almost always equally as true, so after a while it becomes obviously stupid for you to give too much reality to any of your beliefs. The habit to do so is still strong though which is why it can be good to combine enquiry with meditation like they do in Zen.

 

The problem is that most will back off before they take enquiry to its depths with sincerity because they fear that life will be meaningless and their lives pointless without their beliefs.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Jetsun

[9th]

Is a color a belief? Is a sound a belief? Is a smell a belief? Is a taste a belief? Is a feeling a belief?

 

[skydog]

hahaha. You already know what I'll say to that. They haven't investigated long enough. There are demon states that arise from meditation. Refer to the last volume of the Shurangama Sutra for help in such situations. Otherwise these people who went into deep states of samadhi will continue to play with demonic states.

 

 

I am not asking for help,

 

I am making a statement.

 

They are not demonic people, beliefs are part of reality and if one doesnt know certain ideas etc are false no matter how much meditation they do, they will still be affected by their false ideas.

 

Also change is very gradual process sometimes, one can be in a deep state of peace/light etc, and encounter an old situation that normally triggers discomfort, and opt to make new changes, but I find that if there is too much change, or when there is change, it has to by law of nature go back a little bit yin and yang balance kinda thing.

[Infinity]

I always say beliefs are choices not truths. And Louise Hay says beliefs are just thoughts we think all the time.

 

Is it not possible that one could have 'understandings' other than beliefs based on real experienced truths obviously this is subjective unless there was no subject and object :-)

 

This is I only a thought that I have thought a few times :-)

[9th]

Belief is always an interesting topic when it comes to so-called "spiritual" people, especially those who believe themselves to be "highly advanced" or "highly evolved" or "supremely immortal" or some such nonsense. The obscenely pervasive amount of sanctimonious righteousness and blatant hypocrisy makes them an easy target for manipulation by snake-oil salesmen, because they cant afford to discover just how duped and deluded they really are. Take note of such cautionary tales as they unfold.

[skydog]

If there is a strong belief, or I know I have strong negative beliefs towards certain topics it does not mean I am not in some way strongly affected by certain topics. I know that certain areas which make me very weak have to do with very negative beliefs, and knowing I have them and they are just beliefs doesnt mean they are resolved one looks to shed light on them.

 

Funny I also see some of the "snake oil salesman" as meditation extremists who act like psychos.

[Unlearner]

Is a color a belief? Is a sound a belief? Is a smell a belief? Is a taste a belief? Is a feeling a belief?

 

I like this observation, though I feel that our senses are not the beliefs themselves, but they are what we base our beliefs upon, as they are what connect us to the universe. We make an observation through our senses, and we interpret that as in some way reflecting the true nature of reality, and we use that to form an idea of what we believe "the true universe" to be.

[Taomeow]

Beliefs are useful if used consciously, like everything else. Most beliefs people hold are unconscious -- they believe because they were conditioned to, and they don't know that it's someone else's constructs in their mind that they believe in. This is harmless in some instances, not so in most.

 

Conscious beliefs are, however, different. They are, indeed, choices, as someone pointed out, and they are different from unconscious uninformed choices in that they engage all human faculties. I.e. they don't merely reside in the head. They affect your physiology and in some cases even anatomy. These are not thought, they are done.

 

And they do co-create reality. The reason for the existence of all temples, churches, shrines, cathedrals in the world is that their creators believed that a god or goddess or saint will descend and inhabit a home you provide, since none of them have physical bodies in this dimension. So, you make a "body" for them to inhabit, and then if you don't screw up along the way, they will inhabit it. The same can be done on the level of one's own body if it is offered to a deity or spirit to take residence in -- all invocational systems operate on this premise, and in this sense there's no difference between a devout Christian manifesting stigmata and a Voodoo priestess possessed by Erzulie for the duration of the ceremony. Belief is a starting point -- then it's a matter of technology, technique, and the qualities and talents of the "technician," the "craftsman" or the "woman of the Craft."

 

Much of subtle anatomy depends for its development on beliefs too. It isn't not there and it isn't there -- you make it be there or you stunt its development, depending on what you believe in, not in the head but by doing or not doing your beliefs. You make it possible to juggle six tennis balls by first believing it's possible, and developing new neural pathways for brain-hand coordination that do make it possible, that weren't there before you started believing in the form of practicing. With dantiens (e.g.) it's largely the same. If you don't believe in them, you won't get them. But by no means does it mean that they are imaginary. Imagination (another word for "belief") is just the first of the many tools in your tool box, but a sine qua non at that.

[Nikolai1]

An unconscious belief is otherwise known as a 'fact'

 

To the conscious person, all facts are opinions.

 

All the conscious person's 'beliefs' are therefore not beliefs but authentic choices

[skydog]

An unconscious belief is otherwise known as a 'fact'

 

To the conscious person, all facts are opinions.

 

All the conscious person's 'beliefs' are therefore not beliefs but authentic choices

 

Agree and disagree

 

An unconscious belief is otherwise known as fact.

 

Most people who have some experience with enquiry or the nature of beliefs know that for every belief the opposite is true.

 

However if they believe something is a fact because they dont know it is just a belief then they will not see it as an opinion but as a fact.

 

Some people get too wrapped up in this "conscious person with no beliefs" or "unbeliever, believer" brainwash from meditation teachers, everyone has strong beliefs which are basically unconscious and accepted as facts, until they recognise they are not.

 

"A conscious person" whatever that means is not cut from a different cloth they still think some things are facts and some are opinions.

 

Let me give an opinion.

 

One may never have been to the other side of the world but think that a certain country exists due to seeing it in the media, so they do not know, but they believe it exists, to them this knowledge is a fact but it is more like a belief.

 

People may think that we have been going to the moon and visiting it all the time, and it is just empty, but this is what people have heard from media, and since they have not been there it is more of a belief, when there are a million other ideas about the moon. A "conscious person" will still think the moon is what they have heard and regard their belief as fact. So their ideas do matter.

[doc benway]

Even if one "meditates" and is in a state of emptiness.

 

One still has beliefs,

 

they reside in the subconscious and the feelings.

 

Which will affect the energy system and the behaviour etc

 

There is no such thing as not having a belief system

 

People have certain strong thoughts, feelings and memories

 

whether they delude themselves into thinking they do or dont.

 

Not needing to call it "my belief" or "my belief system" or even "belief"

 

but it does kind of exist, and is not a worthless thing imo.

 

I have a love-hate relationship with belief.

A belief is the acceptance of an statement or concept in the absence of direct personal experience or knowledge.

While it can be practically useful it can also be limiting and misleading.

You may be correct that "There is no such thing as not having a belief system" but that itself is a belief.

 

A big part of my own practice has been to identify my beliefs and systematically dismantle them.

It's challenging and possibly a never-ending process, but when I'm able to let go of belief, I feel like I am making room for knowing.

I'm also OK with simply not knowing, rather than replacing that not knowing with belief.

 

J Krishnamurti was a big influence on me in this way. He helped show me the importance of looking for answers directly, rather than accepting an answer (belief) in the absence of personal experience.

 

On the one hand, beliefs can be a very practical aid in our daily, relative reality (I don't need the personal experience of a rattlesnake bite if I accept the belief that it's not desirable, it's helpful to believe the bus will show up where and when it is scheduled) .

On the other hand, I think it is less helpful in the process of spiritual investigation where direct experience and direct knowledge are really what I'm after.

[Taomeow]

Things happen in the world for which the human mind hasn't even formulated beliefs yet, or perhaps "yet" is a tad optimistic. Someone I know, a "materialist" and "atheist" with a bit of an agnostic streak is plagued on a regular basis by mysterious experiences that are ridiculous. Fully mysterious and fully ridiculous. E.g., useless things materialize out of nowhere after he reads about them in a book or sees them in a movie -- say a tacky cup with a mermaid on the bottom, which the next day someone returning from a trip to Florida gives him as a present. He has no use for these objects and has never been able to discern a meaning in their appearance, but the pattern is recurrent in his life. What kind of belief would he have to have to explain it? He almost wound up arriving at a belief in a prankster god, a god who likes to make you feel stupid.

 

I occasionally feel that certain developments are leading me toward a false belief, a stupid belief, or a useless one, and take care to nip it in the bud. Beliefs feed off the energy invested in them, grow and mature and become more influential in the world as they go, so they are, in a sense, a great responsibility.

 

Spiritual or scientific, beliefs are not any different in terms of responsibility -- it's worth examining what's in it for humanity, for the world, if you choose to believe certain things. A belief in heaven and hell, e.g., created the obedient sheeple and maintained their carrot-and-stick-based obedience for many centuries. A belief in evolution of man from ape is another example of a disempowering paradigm that stripped man of his (and her) spiritual affiliations. And a mere belief it is, rooted in no more than an opinion interpreting certain ideas as "facts" while ignoring certain other, observable facts. E.g. according to this same theory the human fetus is supposed to recapture in its development the evolution of the whole species. Well, it does look like a fish at early stages, complete with gills and a tail and a corresponding body shape, but does not, at any stage of its development, look like a little ape. However, a dolphin fetus at 2 weeks of age looks exactly like a little human baby. Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Darwin.

 

What kind of belief I'm to derive from this observable fact, I don't know! So I don't derive any -- at least until I understand better. Would that darwinians did likewise, and creationists, ditto.

[skydog]

I wanted to add that

 

 

The word belief is deceptive.

 

It is a thought and one can believe it to various degrees....eg certain, almost certain, very likely, quite likely, perhaps, quite unlikely, very unlikely, almost untrue, untrue.

 

Also beliefs have truths depending on ways of looking at them.

 

The idea that no one exists or "no one has a belief system is also a belief" is an idea that is true on the level of emptiness and almost completely bogus on the level of human reality and form. There are things which are almost certain and a lot of people regard their ideas as almost certain because they realise that most things are partly untrue so they cant be fully certain of it. If they regard something as almost certain or very likely, it is almost as powerful as a 100% belief, even though the word belief is a concept in itself.

 

So if one thinks that a group of "a certain race, with hoods on" are dangerous and going to rob them 90% and get scared etc, then this is an idea which might not be a 100% belief, but an idea which is very likely and so strongly affects them.

 

There are some things which are not certain 100% but if I walk in a road of cars coming towards me chances are I will die or get injured. Perhaps one might say thats just a belief, but this kind of thinking is silly imo. As some things are far more likely.

 

For example I might believe someone is cheating on me, because I misinterpreted a situation based on a past situation and then get angry and break up with someone, I can say that I didnt 100% believe it because I am a conscious person with no beliefs but I thought something was very likely so the idea affected me.. (just using an example)

 

A certain member who I wont name, says that he doesnt have any beliefs, and is very very experienced in meditation, however he mentions how evil pitbull owners are. So even though he says he doesnt have any beliefs, he has a thought which may not be 100% fact considered to him as hardly any thoughts are, but 90% or more.

 

So again ideas, etc matters.

 

and no I am not against the concept of stilling ones mind, or meditation.

 

I am for raising ones vibration, living in harmony with ones heart and higher self, etc etc which depends on ideas at least to a fair degree.

[9th]

I like this observation, though I feel that our senses are not the beliefs themselves, but they are what we base our beliefs upon, as they are what connect us to the universe. We make an observation through our senses, and we interpret that as in some way reflecting the true nature of reality, and we use that to form an idea of what we believe "the true universe" to be.

 

It depends on what you mean by "true". For example, you may have a dream in which you perceive yourself falling off a cliff, and it may feel "true", but when you wake up you regard it as "false". Then you may fall off a cliff while awake, and perceive it to be "true" then you hit the ground and die.

 

In terms of sensory experience, it seems to be more about what you are feeling. For example, whether or not you regard your senses as being accurate indicators of "the true universe" or not, I challenge you to stick your hand into a fire and disbelieve that it hurts, and that you feel no pain whatsoever, and further that your body is not damaged by it.

 

In contrast to ideas of what things are, and descriptions about how they work, the senses will provide a much more immediately energetic assessment of living experience - regardless of how "true" or "false" you may wish to describe it. Having an idea of power is one thing, and actually having power is quite another. The same goes for understanding, awareness, vision, etc.

[Stosh]

Things happen in the world for which the human mind hasn't even formulated beliefs yet, or perhaps "yet" is a tad optimistic. Someone I know, a "materialist" and "atheist" with a bit of an agnostic streak is plagued on a regular basis by mysterious experiences that are ridiculous. Fully mysterious and fully ridiculous. E.g., useless things materialize out of nowhere after he reads about them in a book or sees them in a movie -- say a tacky cup with a mermaid on the bottom, which the next day someone returning from a trip to Florida gives him as a present. He has no use for these objects and has never been able to discern a meaning in their appearance, but the pattern is recurrent in his life. What kind of belief would he have to have to explain it? He almost wound up arriving at a belief in a prankster god, a god who likes to make you feel stupid.

 

I occasionally feel that certain developments are leading me toward a false belief, a stupid belief, or a useless one, and take care to nip it in the bud. Beliefs feed off the energy invested in them, grow and mature and become more influential in the world as they go, so they are, in a sense, a great responsibility.

 

Spiritual or scientific, beliefs are not any different in terms of responsibility -- it's worth examining what's in it for humanity, for the world, if you choose to believe certain things. A belief in heaven and hell, e.g., created the obedient sheeple and maintained their carrot-and-stick-based obedience for many centuries. A belief in evolution of man from ape is another example of a disempowering paradigm that stripped man of his (and her) spiritual affiliations. And a mere belief it is, rooted in no more than an opinion interpreting certain ideas as "facts" while ignoring certain other, observable facts. E.g. according to this same theory the human fetus is supposed to recapture in its development the evolution of the whole species. Well, it does look like a fish at early stages, complete with gills and a tail and a corresponding body shape, but does not, at any stage of its development, look like a little ape. However, a dolphin fetus at 2 weeks of age looks exactly like a little human baby. Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Darwin.

 

What kind of belief I'm to derive from this observable fact, I don't know! So I don't derive any -- at least until I understand better. Would that darwinians did likewise, and creationists, ditto.

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism— often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

 

"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."^[25]

 

^{Ernst Haeckel attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts}

 

 

 

So Darwin has nothing to do with the thing you are talking about .

[Unlearner]

It depends on what you mean by "true". For example, you may have a dream in which you perceive yourself falling off a cliff, and it may feel "true", but when you wake up you regard it as "false". Then you may fall off a cliff while awake, and perceive it to be "true" then you hit the ground and die.

 

In terms of sensory experience, it seems to be more about what you are feeling. For example, whether or not you regard your senses as being accurate indicators of "the true universe" or not, I challenge you to stick your hand into a fire and disbelieve that it hurts, and that you feel no pain whatsoever, and further that your body is not damaged by it.

 

In contrast to ideas of what things are, and descriptions about how they work, the senses will provide a much more immediately energetic assessment of living experience - regardless of how "true" or "false" you may wish to describe it. Having an idea of power is one thing, and actually having power is quite another. The same goes for understanding, awareness, vision, etc.

 

Fair points, but consider this as well: when you stick your hand into the fire, you feel pain. However, are you actually feeling what fire is? or are you merely interpreting a sensation (pain, heat, etc) to get a better understanding of the actual nature of fire? When you look at a fire, or a picture of a fire, or someone describes to you what fire is, do you automatically understand every single thing about fire from just that? Of course not, things tend to be much more complicated than our senses and descriptions give them credit for, and yet somehow they retain the ultimate simplicity of the natural way of things. It's not about whether it hurts or not, it's about being able to understand that fire is not merely "something that is painful to stick my hand into", that is merely one singular property from an observation made by the observer.

 

In regards to the dream scenario, though you recognize a dream only as a dream when you wake up, how is there any way of knowing that this is not a dream, or even some simulation? How do we even know what happens when we die? How can we understand the nature of the "true universe" through our mere sensations? How do we even know that there even is a true nature of the universe?

 

It is only the opinion of one person, but I feel that one must think extraordinarily highly of their ability to perceive the universe in order to claim that they can "know" the answer to any of these questions without considering a single iota for belief. That is the role that belief plays in my understanding. I "believe" that there is a true nature to the universe. I "believe" that our senses, while not able to show us the true nature of the universe itself, can provide us with information and insight that reflect the true nature of the universe. After all, our senses are the only thing that allow us contact with anything external to ourselves.

[Taomeow]

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism— often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

 

"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."^[25]

 

^{Ernst Haeckel attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts}

 

 

 

So Darwin has nothing to do with the thing you are talking about .

 

Says who? Source please?

 

The way I learned it in the course of formal schooling, embryonic development proved the theory of evolution. I don't buy this theory to begin with, darwinian or neo-darwinian, whether with this or that part of what was scientific dogma just recently "discredited" here and there, only to be replaced by another dogma that gets "discredited" as soon as they stumble upon a new fact and promptly sprout a new belief. I don't change beliefs as fast as our trend-chasing scientific gurus do. I believe in co-creation, unfolding, and intervention... in other words, I'm a taoist. Reality hasn't yet "discredited" anything I believe in, so I brace myself for when/if it does, just in case...

[Stosh]

Says who? Source please?

 

The way I learned it in the course of formal schooling, embryonic development proved the theory of evolution. I don't buy this theory to begin with, darwinian or neo-darwinian, whether with this or that part of what was scientific dogma just recently "discredited" here and there, only to be replaced by another dogma that gets "discredited" as soon as they stumble upon a new fact and promptly sprout a new belief. I don't change beliefs as fast as our trend-chasing scientific gurus do. I believe in co-creation, unfolding, and intervention... in other words, I'm a taoist. Reality hasn't yet "discredited" anything I believe in, so I brace myself for when/if it does, just in case...

You suggested Darwin was responsible or wrong about evolution and should 'smoke' embryological development theory in his pipe , essentially eat his words.

Its not In Darwins words , Ive read his book and it aint in there.

Haeckel is reputed to have given that idea legs .

 

(If you highlight a chunk of a quoted sentence from the web and put it back into the search box , you will find that it takes you immediately back to the source used , (most of the time).)

 

embryonic development proved the theory of evolution, yeah I was told that in HS too ,

and there is an aspect of it that does support the idea that evolution happens since old encoding is over written because it may not be expressed in developed creatures , but becomes evident during development.

the thing is ,that the development doesnt mirror evolution in some linear unfolding.

 

Science does modify over time, Yep , no doubt about it , and that may scare some folks ,but thats how it unfoldsand it doesnt rewrite everything

since not everything is incorrect. the small modifications over time are self correcting unlike primitive belief systems which lack such flexibility.

 

"I believe in co-creation, unfolding, and intervention... in other words, I'm a taoist."

Thats your Tao? thats a very different view from mine , and seems more in line with monotheism to me , but to each their own. But if you are going to mock science with science, at least get it straight that

1) it wasnt Darwins conclusion,

2) Science has already adjusted to accommodate the facts better .

 

Just as I am sure you do when a recipe flops ,or turns out mediocre, and you adapt to improve and become enriched ,, you accept the verdict ,or continue to fail.

 

[9th]

Fair points, but consider this as well: when you stick your hand into the fire, you feel pain. However, are you actually feeling what fire is? or are you merely interpreting a sensation (pain, heat, etc) to get a better understanding of the actual nature of fire? When you look at a fire, or a picture of a fire, or someone describes to you what fire is, do you automatically understand every single thing about fire from just that? Of course not, things tend to be much more complicated than our senses and descriptions give them credit for, and yet somehow they retain the ultimate simplicity of the natural way of things. It's not about whether it hurts or not, it's about being able to understand that fire is not merely "something that is painful to stick my hand into", that is merely one singular property from an observation made by the observer.

 

In regards to the dream scenario, though you recognize a dream only as a dream when you wake up, how is there any way of knowing that this is not a dream, or even some simulation? How do we even know what happens when we die? How can we understand the nature of the "true universe" through our mere sensations? How do we even know that there even is a true nature of the universe?

 

It is only the opinion of one person, but I feel that one must think extraordinarily highly of their ability to perceive the universe in order to claim that they can "know" the answer to any of these questions without considering a single iota for belief. That is the role that belief plays in my understanding. I "believe" that there is a true nature to the universe. I "believe" that our senses, while not able to show us the true nature of the universe itself, can provide us with information and insight that reflect the true nature of the universe. After all, our senses are the only thing that allow us contact with anything external to ourselves.

 

 

Of course these are all your beliefs, that is certainly correct. You do not know if you are even correct in your beliefs, and this is also certainly correct. But why is it correct? Simply because you believe it to be?

 

What does this mean for you in terms of living your life? Does this "understanding" of belief empower you in some way? I would like to know why it is so important for you to define how beliefs shape your perception of "the true universe". Does it mean that there is no such thing as a "true universe" beyond the beliefs you ascribe to it? Or is there something else involved?

 

 

It's not about whether it hurts or not, it's about being able to understand that fire is not merely "something that is painful to stick my hand into", that is merely one singular property from an observation made by the observer.

 

Why is it not about the sensation, and about being able to abstractly conceptualize a "singular property from an observation made by the observer"? Why is it about detaching yourself from the physical body and entering a realm of pure ideation? You have made the distinction of importance and priority here, and I would like to understand why. Personally I do not share your priorities, but perhaps I am in error in regards to the process of "unlearning"? Tell me more.