Unpopular Opinions

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Apech and Mark Foote  discussing Buddhism .

 

yea but who is the gal?  If it's Apech's wife shouldn't she be helping the hubby?  (since Mark has the advantage of breath control thus can't be choked)

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by old3bob

[Bindi]

2 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

Shiva/Shakti as transcendent "God" or Supreme Being is far beyond the limitations of form, (including even the soul light form)  thus has no division of any kind including with Kundalini or Shakti,  as a jiva in human/astral form and thus not yet being a fully evolved soul that has merged in unification with the Supreme Being there is still some degree of division/duality...even if there are periods of Self-realization.  (aka coming and going)

Shiva/Shakti as transcendent “God” may be a philosophy, working with these subtle polarities can be a fact, we are here divided until such time as we are not, why propose something undivided that you haven’t actually attained and have no direct experience of apart from theoretical? What is the benefit of that idea practically speaking? 

[old3bob]

9 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Shiva/Shakti as transcendent “God” may be a philosophy, working with these subtle polarities can be a fact, we are here divided until such time as we are not, why propose something undivided that you haven’t actually attained and have no direct experience of apart from theoretical? What is the benefit of that idea practically speaking? 

 

what is the benefit of being theoretically sure about what some ordinary Joe or Jane (or a Self Realized Sat Guru)  knows or doesn't know?  (Btw the Rishi's - authors of the Upanishads were not just Theoretical imo or ime)

Edited August 1, 2023 by old3bob

[Bindi]

4 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

what is the benefit of being theoretically sure about what some ordinary Joe or Jane (or a Self Realized Sat Guru)  knows or doesn't know?  (Btw the Rishi's - authors of the Upanishads were not just Theoretical imo)

This is the question I was asking you. My answer is there is no benefit, because one can be theoretically sure about a multitude of things that’s are simply not true, better to inch oneself towards tangible truths than be misled by a mile. 

[old3bob]

agreed that careful preparation is important but there comes a point when only the benefit from a leap of faith (not blind faith) can overcome the beast of divisional doubt.  

 

Btw, the difference in my reply from your question is not to make the projection on others that one is dealing with in themselves

Edited August 2, 2023 by old3bob

[whocoulditbe?]

"Unity, solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity, attraction, etc., as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of unity, that is, the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and the change of each into its opposite are all the appearances of things in the state of qualitative change, the transformation of one process into another. Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute."

Spoiler

– Mao Zedong

 

[Bindi]

16 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

"Unity, solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity, attraction, etc., as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of unity, that is, the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and the change of each into its opposite are all the appearances of things in the state of qualitative change, the transformation of one process into another. Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute."

  Hide contents

– Mao Zedong

 

And he brought an estimated 65 million Chinese to their ‘greater union’. Dangerous philosophy indeed. 
 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bindi

[Bindi]

11 minutes ago, old3bob said:

agreed that careful preparation is important but there comes a point when only the benefit from a leap of faith (not blind faith) can overcome the beast of divisional doubt.  

 

Btw, the difference in my reply from your question is not to make the projection on others that one is dealing with in themselves

Faith in what anyone says without it being my direct experience is fraught with danger (in the realm of the subtle body and subtle energies), the only faith I can have is in my own *Higher Self, so my Higher Self is what I must find. 

*I equate Higher Self with Higher consciousness/Shiva. 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

Surely that leads to the notion that if I kill you I would have done you a service because I brought you to the greater union?

 

That  was the justification of the Inquisition .

 

If you kill me , you will have denied me of my separation by which the longing / love of the divine is generated .

 

 Anyway if karma and rebirth exist death is no final solution. 

 

Oh no, of course , mere death alone , is not the final solution !

 

[old3bob]

17 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Faith in what anyone says without it being my direct experience is fraught with danger (in the realm of the subtle body and subtle energies), the only faith I can have is in my own *Higher Self, so my Higher Self is what I must find. 

*I equate Higher Self with Higher consciousness/Shiva. 

 

true, although pointers can be useful, more so when proven in stages of taking one to a threshold, a threshold  that only they can go through since the pointers themselves can't do so for someone else.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Karma and original sin might both better be called "original trauma," since they cause sorrow and sickness, but do not on their own deserve to be treated with shame.

 

Cupis dissolvi.

 

yeah ... just swap Jesus for 'Big Mum'     .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

yea but who is the gal?  If it's Apech's wife shouldn't she be helping the hubby?  (since Mark has the advantage of breath control thus can't be choked)

 

 

If that was Apech's wife ..... she would be helping Mark.

[Nungali]

48 minutes ago, old3bob said:

agreed that careful preparation is important but there comes a point when only the benefit from a leap of faith (not blind faith) can overcome the beast of divisional doubt.  

 

Btw, the difference in my reply from your question is not to make the projection on others that one is dealing with in themselves

 

My religion is based on experiencing  and resultant  'certainty ' not faith .... specifically and by direction ... not faith at all .  Results !

 

....

 

Thats gotta be unpopular ! 

[old3bob]

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

My religion is based on experiencing  and resultant  'certainty ' not faith .... specifically and by direction ... not faith at all .  Results !

 

....

 

Thats gotta be unpopular ! 

 

righto,   btw I already cautioned against blind faith... anywho the mind is a very clever thing but it is not no-thing.

[whocoulditbe?]

11 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

My religion is based on experiencing  and resultant  'certainty ' not faith .... specifically and by direction ... not faith at all .  Results !

 

....

 

Thats gotta be unpopular ! 

Faith is a compromise employed by people who have had their own experiences and wish to proselytise. But in some contexts, the wish to proselytise seems to devalue the experience in some way, so both Buddhism (convinced by Brahma Sahampati) and Daoism (by Yin Xi) include some kind of reluctance to share the doctrine in their origin stories.

 

[Nungali]

3 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Faith is a compromise employed by people who have had their own experiences and wish to proselytise. But in some contexts, the wish to proselytise seems to devalue the experience in some way, so both Buddhism (convinced by Brahma Sahampati) and Daoism (by Yin Xi) include some kind of reluctance to share the doctrine in their origin stories.

 

 

I cant see the use of proselytizing  ... I might advocate a system though .

 

My 'enlightenment ' is due to me, my path, my life, my experiences , my teachers giving relevant teachings to me , for me and for a specific time and place .  Also 'what we bring with us ' .

 

No way will all of that be relevant to or for another person .

[Daniel]

OK, ok...

 

Here's an unpopular opinion:

 

I use faith a lot and it works.  It's a useful tool.  My mantra, if that's a proper word for it, "there's always another way".

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Daniel

[whocoulditbe?]

There's the argument that religious faith is just the same kind of trust that is required for any grasp on reality, whether applied to experience or second-hand information, see Swinburne on credulity and testimony, blah blah blah.

[Bindi]

The very fact that there are numerous different religious beliefs leads to the inevitable conclusion that 99% of them at least are not true. That leaves one a 1% chance of believing in the true belief, and that’s allowing that one belief is actually based on subtle reality. 

[whocoulditbe?]

9 minutes ago, Bindi said:

The very fact that there are numerous different religious beliefs leads to the inevitable conclusion that 99% of them at least are not true. That leaves one a 1% chance of believing in the true belief, and that’s allowing that one belief is actually based on subtle reality. 

This whole way of thinking is unpopular with me. Pascal's wager vibes.

[Bindi]

22 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

This whole way of thinking is unpopular with me. Pascal's wager vibes.

Argument from inconsistent revelations

 

The argument from inconsistent revelations is an argument that aims to show that one cannot choose one religion over another since their revelations are inconsistent with each other and that any two religions cannot be true.[61] The argument appears, among other places, in Voltaire's Candide and Philosophical Dictionary. It is also manifested in Denis Diderot's statement in response to Pascal's wager that, whatever proofs are offered for the existence of God in Christianity or any other religion, "an Imam can reason the same way".

[Daniel]

33 minutes ago, Bindi said:

The very fact that there are numerous different religious beliefs leads to the inevitable conclusion that 99% of them at least are not true. That leaves one a 1% chance of believing in the true belief, and that’s allowing that one belief is actually based on subtle reality. 

 

That sounds like a popular belief... 

 

I think that there have been many wise people across the globe, and I appreciate learning from them.  However, the religions that have developed from these wise people, may or may not be useful.

 

I like to graze... cafeteria style.

 

Long ago in my career, I was shadowing two of the senior engineers, and they asked me what I wanted to focus on.  I told them, I wanted to learn about everything.  They both told me, that would never work.  Yet, magically, it worked great, and I've never regretted it.  In fact being ubiquitous has been a true asset.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

There's the argument that religious faith is just the same kind of trust that is required for any grasp on reality, whether applied to experience or second-hand information, see Swinburne on credulity and testimony, blah blah blah.

 

Good point .  ... and that is 'its'  (religion ) point .  From an anthropological point of view, it has been rather essential for our 'development' .  I studied both anthropology and comparative religion , they intersected very early in the comparative religion lectures ; which where prefixed by an essential series of lectures on 'belief' . During this we looked at the nature of the term religion and how, what it means to us today , probably does not relate to the 'ancient' viewpoint .  For example, if we translate the word in each language of many of these religions that is interpreted as the English word 'religion' , we find their concept might be better termed , for them , 'Law' .  In ancient Aboriginal culture, it is so, and still termed Law.  Or consider the Hebrew ; 'Torah'.  We can say it means both religion and law . Not our concept of mundane law though, more like the all encompassing system of Aboriginal Law.  There is no separation between the 'mundane' or material and the religious or spiritual .

 

'Navah' sums it up well :

 

" There is no Hebrew word for religion. The concept of “religion” is a Greco-Roman dualism that divides a social life into religious and secular. However, this form of dualism is foreign to the Torah, which instead sees all aspects of life as one and the same: a righteous life. "

 

https://timeofreckoning.org/category/hebrew-word-for-religion

 

Another thing we looked at was certain anthropologists view of the function of religion and   their summing up of its purpose .  The best one seemed to be close to your observation ;   " religious faith is just the same kind of trust that is required for any grasp on reality"  .

 

( I am running on memory here ... trying to remember the definition and author ... been a couple of years since I wrote on this  ... its eluding me at the moment .  )

 

 

That is, it should be something that holds a culture together , helps them make sense of their experiences , bond together and survive successfully . It definitely has a purpose .

 

 

 

[Bindi]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

That sounds like a popular belief... 

 

I think that there have been many wise people across the globe, and I appreciate learning from them.  However, the religions that have developed from these wise people, may or may not be useful.

 

I like to graze... cafeteria style.

 

Long ago in my career, I was shadowing two of the senior engineers, and they asked me what I wanted to focus on.  I told them, I wanted to learn about everything.  They both told me, that would never work.  Yet, magically, it worked great, and I've never regretted it.  In fact being ubiquitous has been a true asset.

I think the Indian parable of the 5 blind men each holding a different part of the elephant is spot on, I also find some truth in a variety of different systems. 

[Nungali]

... I found the reference , I had to break out an old 'flash drive' .

 

" 

Anthropologists John Monoghan and Peter Just state that, "it seems apparent that one thing religion or belief helps us do is deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable. One important way in which religious beliefs accomplish this is by providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune."^[2]