Spirituality might work if it wasn't so stupid.

I always end up having the same warm humorous belly laugh in these types of discussions-
And it is not insensitive, it is not "at" anyone, it is with and of "us".

Consider that there can be many paths to the same location.
Different thought pathways can lead to the same neuron.

"This is all there is " right here, right now.

We can play in it, enjoy it, or we can sit still and simply observe it.
If you're here arguing , you jumped in !
You saw something in what was arising that you feel is wrong, or mistaken or in need of some sort of change.
Or you just saw a space that could be filled with "you".


If "all is one" then Mis here, and his expression, is part of you, and part of all that is.

The argument that spirituality makes you better able to perceive the beauty and power in others is pretty much demolished by the number of self proclaimed "spirituals" pulling out the judgments and accusations of his inferiority to themselves.

Perhaps all there is here is a big belly laugh, of consciousness seeing it's own silly antics.

a reply to: Bluesma

I wonder if LesMes deliberately creates threads with provoking titles for either his philosophical amusement or he really is seeking to answer his "Is this all there is?" question...that other realm, where some of the spiritual people here have travelled to and share their experiences here at ATS, is that other place.

I notice that the insults and criticisms come from both sides now...we all really don't know clouds at all.

What LesMes may be on about.

This suggests that notions of immortality are a purely human construct. Because understanding of life after death runs the gamut of human experience and cultural values, anthropologists conclude that man invented religion and religious beliefs on an as-needed basis to explain life’s experiences and to offer solace from life’s troubles.

Is that all there is to it? Believers owe it to themselves to know whether the idea of an immortal soul stems from the human mind and if it has a biblical basis.

www.vision.org...

But does our understanding run the gamut of human experience...that is the question we are having difficulty with because some of us have ethereal journeys with common experiences, while others can't get off the ground, so to speak?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Bluesma

I wonder if LesMes deliberately creates threads with provoking titles for either his philosophical amusement or he really is seeking to answer his "Is this all there is?" question...that other realm, where some of the spiritual people here have travelled to and share their experiences here at ATS, is that other place.

I can't answer for him, about what is inside his head, beneath what we can see. I can express what I see and the responses I feel flowing to that. We can all do that.

I suspect LesMis is not searching for an answer to his "is this all there is?" (in fact, did he ask that? I don't remember seeing it, perhaps I need to revise the OP...).

It seemed to me he didn't ask, he gave his answer.

a reply to: Bluesma

That is my observation of him, always questioning, always searching.

originally posted by: earthling42
Define objects
...
Perception is not a memory, it is perceiving incentives through the senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling.
A memory can arise in the form of a thought if we recognize the incentive, thought is memory.
...
In the reality of an atheist, there is no god, in the reality of a theist, there is a god.
...
'Directly "knowing" it' is a wrong choice of words in my opinion.
Let's instead of reality use the word actual, the actual can be seen, life is movement, the movement is seen, but since the actual is constantly moving and thus changing, it can not be known, only seen and eventually becomes the known
If it is known, it is old, a recollection which is a thought, the actual is creative, always new.

Objects are anything that has form - conditional reality. Objects are modifications of the light-energy of reality itself.

Perception is indeed a memory - as it always takes time for the image of the object to be created in the body-mind. You look at a tree and it takes time to actually experience the perception of the tree. We are not really knowing the tree, just experiencing a memory of it.

Reality is reality - it is not impacted by points-of-view regardless of whether they are those of an atheist or theist.

Reality cannot actually be seen in the way you are seeming to describe such a process. It is not what is perceived, as everyone perceives any object differently, and perception is just an image or memory of any given object.

Reality is beyond all such perceptions (memory), points-of-view, time and space, anything limited whatsoever. All objects arise in reality as modifications of reality itself, and are inherently not separate from reality - but no object or other can ever know what reality is.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

That helps.

You speak of Kant's noumena. That something cannot be known for how it actually is, the thing in itself, but can only be known by the phenomena, how the thing appears to the human mind. It's not that different from Plato's forms.

The problem is, knowing and understanding is a human pass-time. No knowing or understanding is occuring if no one is knowing or understanding. The only way we can know an object is if humans are examining it. Only through a relationship between human and object is any knowing or understanding occuring, and it is exactly the thing it itself, the noumenon, that we are relating with and examining. We are not interacting with an appearance of reality, we are interacting with the thing in itself.

Models do not know; humans know. Models are only descriptions.

Right, the body-mind can never know what any object actually is - it can only perceive it, and even then, is only experiencing an image of the object. As you once said, a bat "sees" objects very differently from how a human does - even though the object is fundamentally the same to both species.

So what does the object actually appear as? We cannot know with our limited point-of-view body-mind mechanisms. Science can do wonders with its objectification of objects in terms of describing objects down to their sub-atomic nature, but in the end, it will never discover what any object actually is, for science also necessarily suffers the limitation of point-of-view.

So that leaves us with the option to transcend all points-of-view, all perceptions, all limits, any sense of objectifying anything whatsoever - if there is to be discovery (direct "knowledge") of what reality actually is. Sounds like transcending the entire body-mind complex, and all conditionality is necessary ... Hey! That sounds spiritual, doesn't it? And hopefully it doesn't sound stupid to you!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think I understand spirituality quite well. We see it everywhere. Watch anyone who claims to be spiritual. I'm not sure you understand spirituality, and rely too much on the abstract. Let's talk about what is there instead of what isn't.

i think you have been watching entirely the wrong sort of people. some people claim to be good cooks, not all of them are. some people claim that they can run the country. and some people claim to be spiritual. i dont think emotions are anymore abstract than freedom or love. i think that our relationships with ourselves, each other, and the world in general will always be under the influence of our emotional disposition and our attractions/aversions. and given your apparent disdain for such devices, i find it hard to believe you attach much importance to anything at all. a very materialist approach, in its literal sense.

Why pursue money, drugs, sadism or satiation? It makes them happy. Happiness is never an argument.

thats why we have the golden rule. it is assumed when pursuing happiness that said happiness takes into account the happiness of others. communal harmony. otherwise it is self defeating, unless you are a psychopath or hermit. dont ask me why money or drugs or thrill seeking make people happy. why does someone choose pecan pie over pumpkin? what make one taste more appealing than another? is that discernment unreasonable? is the dress blue and black, or is it white and gold? so many questions. and that is exactly the answer. it makes me happy. you are eating because you are hungry, but you are specifically eating a piece of pecan pie because you like it. how much do you like it? more than you like pumpkin pie or the leftover lasagna. thats a choice that defines who you are. it reflects your emotional disposition, both what is happening and how you are reacting to it. everything we do reflects that. but i guess if happiness isnt an argument, then neither is anger or hope or despair. pure survival. is that more your style?

Buddhists are not very peaceful either. They vehemently advocated nationalism and violence in world war 2. The Mabatha are doing that today.

and hitler was a christian and stalin was an atheist. everyone has their radicals. once again, taking a cup of sea water and calling it the ocean.

a reply to: bb23108

Thanks, objects are conditional reality, modifications of reality.
There is a language barrier on my side since this is not my native language

Of course many people already have preconceived ideas, if this is the case, there is no direct perception because one perceives through a screen (his background) which is the image that distorts the actual 'what is'.
It means that what is perceived is already colored by ones own idea of reality.

I take it that this is what you mean?

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: bb23108

Thanks, objects are conditional reality, modifications of reality.
There is a language barrier on my side since this is not my native language

Of course many people already have preconceived ideas, if this is the case, there is no direct perception because one perceives through a screen (his background) which is the image that distorts the actual 'what is'.
It means that what is perceived is already colored by ones own idea of reality.

I take it that this is what you mean?

I wouldn't have guessed this is not your native language - you write very well.

It is true that we filter our perceptions in various ways, but what I am getting at is more fundamental than that. There is no way for the body-mind to have direct knowledge of any object because it is limited to its identification with the body-mind's point-of-view making mechanism (attention) - and so the object being perceived is never actually how it is in reality.

Earlier on this thread I wrote about what the room you are sitting in actually looks like in reality. To know this you would have to see it from every possible point of view, and this would make the room unrecognizable. But the room obviously exists, so what is the room in reality? No point-of-view will ever know this.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i think you have been watching entirely the wrong sort of people. some people claim to be good cooks, not all of them are. some people claim that they can run the country. and some people claim to be spiritual. i dont think emotions are anymore abstract than freedom or love. i think that our relationships with ourselves, each other, and the world in general will always be under the influence of our emotional disposition and our attractions/aversions. and given your apparent disdain for such devices, i find it hard to believe you attach much importance to anything at all. a very materialist approach, in its literal sense.

One who puts the material as his primary focus gives the material importance, or in other words, you, myself, and the world. Therefor I attach importance to everything. To put primary importance on the abstract is akin to attaching importance to nothing at all. Freedom? Where? Love? Where? Emotions? Where? Everytime you try to point these abstracts out you will be pointing at the material. I don't think you have an argument there.

I think you have been watching the wrong sort of people. Sure if you want to watch over the smiling faces, I imagine it will bring you comfort. But you might as well just go join them. I would prefer to watch over those who are busy stealing their wallets.

thats why we have the golden rule. it is assumed when pursuing happiness that said happiness takes into account the happiness of others. communal harmony. otherwise it is self defeating, unless you are a psychopath or hermit. dont ask me why money or drugs or thrill seeking make people happy. why does someone choose pecan pie over pumpkin? what make one taste more appealing than another? is that discernment unreasonable? is the dress blue and black, or is it white and gold? so many questions. and that is exactly the answer. it makes me happy. you are eating because you are hungry, but you are specifically eating a piece of pecan pie because you like it. how much do you like it? more than you like pumpkin pie or the leftover lasagna. thats a choice that defines who you are. it reflects your emotional disposition, both what is happening and how you are reacting to it. everything we do reflects that. but i guess if happiness isnt an argument, then neither is anger or hope or despair. pure survival. is that more your style?

The golden rule stipulates that one should treat others how one wishes to be treated. Frankly, I do not want to be treated how you wish to be treated. I think the golden rule is unethical, for it is purely concerned with one's own wants and desires, and that these wants and desires should be projected onto others. It should be learned, not assumed, how one wants to be treated.

Happiness is criterial for being a happy person, not an ethical person. And yes the same goes for anger and hope. Pure survival? I'm not sure what you mean there.

and hitler was a christian and stalin was an atheist. everyone has their radicals. once again, taking a cup of sea water and calling it the ocean.

I think it was you who was saying buddhists live long, are peaceful, and they stay sharp. Taking a cup of sea water and calling it an ocean, was what I was attempting to show.

a reply to: bb23108

So what does the object actually appear as? We cannot know with our limited point-of-view body-mind mechanisms. Science can do wonders with its objectification of objects in terms of describing objects down to their sub-atomic nature, but in the end, it will never discover what any object actually is, for science also necessarily suffers the limitation of point-of-view.

I do not think you have addressed any of my arguments at all throughout this whole thread. So please, I have read and considered your points, it would do me honor if you wouldn't mind addressing some of mine.

What does an object actually appear as...to what? If there is nothing there to look at it, it doesn't appear at all. It's like asking what one hand clapping sounds like, or what a fried egg without the egg tastes like. It's just a bad question. It takes knowledge out of the hands of only beings who know. Without points from which to view, there is no understanding or knowledge occurring at all. It is self-refuting. A relationship between a being and other objects is necessary for any appearing, understanding or knowing.

Once again, we are directly knowing the objects as they are. We are not interacting with appearances; we are interacting with the objects themselves. Do they look differently to a bat or a dog? Yes; they have different bodies than us, but the objects they are viewing are still the same and they are directly knowing them.

From your limited point of view, how do you know we have a limited point of view? This suggests you might know of an unlimited point of view, but then again that is conclusion made by a limited point of view. Yet every point of view is limited, even those points of views that supposedly transcend all points of view. So how does your "transcend all points of view" point of view, not suffer the same consequences of, say, a more objective and testable explanation?

How does a "body/mind" come to the conclusion that a "body/mind" can have no way of direct knowledge of any object? It would follow that even this conclusion should be put in doubt, and that we may, in fact, be completely correct in our objective descriptions for all you know. As you yourself are a limited point of view, you must necessarily doubt your "transcend all points of view" point of view.

If and when you have transcended all points of view, why should we drop our points of view, so as to adopt yours?

Thank you.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The dreamer is always the same dreamer but the dream is constantly appearing different. The image in the mirror might change but the seeing aspect does not.

Who is the seer ... If we are talking about Humans ... they see different things at different times ... experience different things at different times ... their awareness may grow or diminish ... Non on Earth see the whole of everything all in the same instant ... unless they were the conciousness/awareness of everything ... which is an impossibility ...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One who puts the material as his primary focus gives the material importance, or in other words, you, myself, and the world. Therefor I attach importance to everything. To put primary importance on the abstract is akin to attaching importance to nothing at all. Freedom? Where? Love? Where? Emotions? Where? Everytime you try to point these abstracts out you will be pointing at the material. I don't think you have an argument there.

if you dont know where freedom or love is, then perhaps the intellect of spirituality is the least of your concerns. although im sure you will dismiss that evaluation along with the rest. it concerns me that you have such difficulty coming to grips with the emotional spectrum as a real and active facet of the higher cognitive spectrum. what prevents you from enjoying a serial killing spree?

The golden rule stipulates that one should treat others how one wishes to be treated. Frankly, I do not want to be treated how you wish to be treated. I think the golden rule is unethical, for it is purely concerned with one's own wants and desires, and that these wants and desires should be projected onto others. It should be learned, not assumed, how one wants to be treated.

Happiness is criterial for being a happy person, not an ethical person. And yes the same goes for anger and hope. Pure survival? I'm not sure what you mean there.

and i will repeat my response: you come across as facetious and pedantic to the point of obnoxiousness. you may be aiming for efficiency but you are landing on full-blown constipation.

a reply to: bb23108

But awareness, one's fundamental being, does not change. But awareness, one's fundamental being, does not change.

Awareness is not the being ... Awareness is an abstract principle ... By which I mean awareness is not a object but one can be aware of an object ... In a persons case it would (Self awareness) ... you can be aware of many things ... and yes the being does grow ... it can evolve or even regress ...

Of course you can be aware of other beings ... But not be that being ...

Also consider this sentence ... He became aware of his lack of wisdom ...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I do not think you have addressed any of my arguments at all throughout this whole thread. So please, I have read and considered your points, it would do me honor if you wouldn't mind addressing some of mine.

I am very surprised you think I don't at least attempt to answer what questions you pose - my sense of this is that I always respond to your considerations. My apologies if I have not done so!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What does an object actually appear as...to what? If there is nothing there to look at it, it doesn't appear at all. It's like asking what one hand clapping sounds like, or what a fried egg without the egg tastes like. It's just a bad question. It takes knowledge out of the hands of only beings who know. Without points from which to view, there is no understanding or knowledge occurring at all. It is self-refuting. A relationship between a being and other objects is necessary for any appearing, understanding or knowing.

See this is where we differ. You presume that only a body-mind knows that an object exists and what it looks like; whereas I am arguing that everything is a modification of consciousness or reality itself, and as such, reality is aware of what is arising and is not separate from what is arising. Reality has real knowledge of what everything is, whereas any point-of-view mechanism cannot possibly know what anything actually IS.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Once again, we are directly knowing the objects as they are. We are not interacting with appearances; we are interacting with the objects themselves. Do they look differently to a bat or a dog? Yes; they have different bodies than us, but the objects they are viewing are still the same and they are directly knowing them.

From your limited point of view, how do you know we have a limited point of view? This suggests you might know of an unlimited point of view, but then again that is conclusion made by a limited point of view. Yet every point of view is limited, even those points of views that supposedly transcend all points of view. So how does your "transcend all points of view" point of view, not suffer the same consequences of, say, a more objective and testable explanation?

How does a "body/mind" come to the conclusion that a "body/mind" can have no way of direct knowledge of any object? It would follow that even this conclusion should be put in doubt, and that we may, in fact, be completely correct in our objective descriptions for all you know. As you yourself are a limited point of view, you must necessarily doubt your "transcend all points of view" point of view.

Why is it not obvious that we do not actually know an object directly? When we see something, what we are experiencing is an image of the object, not the actual object. It is reflected light, neurons firing, etc., not the object itself. Everything we experience is a mode of awareness, not the objects themselves. All perception is memory, we are only thinking that we directly see the object.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If and when you have transcended all points of view, why should we drop our points of view, so as to adopt yours?

Lol! I was making an argument that really makes sense to me. It is not a matter of adopting another point of view - it is simply about how reality can never be encapsulated by any point-of-view. To fully understand reality one would need to be reality altogether! Well that is a very great matter that may be glimpsed even with these types of considerations, but to actually realize the unconditional reality in which all arises is a whole other matter.

originally posted by: artistpoet
Awareness is not the being ... Awareness is an abstract principle ... By which I mean awareness is not a object but one can be aware of an object ... In a persons case it would (Self awareness) ... you can be aware of many things ... and yes the being does grow ... it can evolve or even regress ...

Awareness and being are inseparable. Consciousness is self-aware. Do you really sense any difference between what you feel as your being and your awareness?

Awareness and being are inseparable.

I would say it is your thoughts and you that are inseparable whilst on Earth
The being may be unaware
The thought activates the body ... without thought you could take no action or even consider anything ... Your awareness of anything stems from your thoughts ... we are users of thought ... and have the capacity to choose how we use or misuse them ... like words, which are thoughts written down and manifest

Hey Les,
As usual, since I've always been the white to your black, left to your right, up to your down, I'll take a bite from the "obviously" placed bait:

First, in regards to the practicality of spirituality, I see little benefit. So you’ve reached enlightenment. Now what? What do you as an enlightened being endowed with full infinite wisdom have to offer the world?

You realize, like an infinite tapestry, everything is connected via a butterfly effect of karma. Give a young boy a bit of advise during a troubled time, and he will remember you for the rest of his life, perhaps even, those words remain in him as sparks of hope, life, change. Open the door for an old lady bent out of shape that life dealt her the wrong cards, and it changes her consciousness, which effects all other things. You teach, provide links at the bottom of your posts, help others, and offer guidance so another may experience the aspects of enlightenment that you have.

idolatry, where a man reads aloud and waves a book that was perhaps once relevant thousands of years before, all at the cost of our own dignity and whatever change we have in our pockets

There are hustlers, power trip narcissists, scam artists in every branch of humanity, especially things that have to do with religion/spirituality....meaning its not genuine. But genuine, and not, is inherent in all things.

In my own opinion, the word “spiritual” is derogatory, a sign of a weaker more tender sort

That's just a relative definition. Whereas mine is someone who is sensitive enough to feel their own soul, gut, intuition, awareness/consciousness, connection to the source. Can't both be right, bu then again, plenty masquerade in spirituality masks as a way of escapism and trends, sure.....but that's not genuine.

The non-sequitur that spiritual practice should lead to understanding is what bothers me most.

There are channels and portals with you, and they exist in your heart, gut, third eye, spine, etc. WIthout spiritual practice, you can forget about merging with the source of consciousness, or absolute beingness, or the light of awareness, or the source of thought.....in that case, you merely entirely wrapped up in the illusions of what the ego/mind has to offer in a very limited and relative level. Whereas in enlightenment, you can access transcendence and the bigger picture of universes, timelessness, present moment, becoming immovable by what the world throws at you, loving towards all, etc.

And of course, you will adamantly announce the benefits of meditation are palpable, but as far as I can see, they are no different than the benefits of getting a good nights sleep.

in a friendly way and no offense, that's a statement from ignorance. In your heart/subconscious, are the memories of who and where you were, before you were born here on earth, and that gives you a more defined knowing of what's really going on then main stream media, science, earth knowledge.

I’m sure you’ll find that the child who does the opposite—who doesn’t close her eyes, and who doesn’t meditate and conform when told to, who expresses rather than suppresses her learning faculties—will become the more exceptional adult.

There are various dynamics to this and I can give examples of the opposite. I have quite a few cousins and childhood friends who would never meditate, eyes always open, super extroverted, financially successful, travel, always busy doing, making kids, chasing more, etc....many of them have come to recently to express that they want the spirituality that I have, the peace/silence/contentment that exudes from me, and want to know spirituality/meditation because they feel the need in their hearts (something the natives are keen to when they say the West has lost their way because their heads are disconnected from their hearts, lol)

Take the whole metaphor of “going inward for knowledge” or “finding truth within” to its logical extremes.

That metaphor is based on accessing the Soul that is within you, the bliss and light and ocean of consciousness you can open up to in the heart and the portal in the gut. If you sit for a few hours, as a skeptic, and can't face the silence, the boredom, can't face yourself in that manner, then you will never ever find that gold that is within, and will be basically subject to assume and project that there is nothing there, which results in posts such as these.

Once the clock runs out on your meat suit, you'll see on the other side that all this "spiritual" stuff is legit.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I do not think you have addressed any of my arguments at all throughout this whole thread. So please, I have read and considered your points, it would do me honor if you wouldn't mind addressing some of mine.

Okay, this statement had me go back and look at my posts on this thread because I do actually try to respond fully to your posts when I am around.

Your statement seems really off to me because in looking back I did respond as well as I can. I often agree with you in your criticism of much of the so-called spirituality people fool themselves with.

However, I also will always attempt to relieve you of your materialistic presumptions that have their place in certain disciplines like science, but to make a way of life out of them is to close oneself off from what reality may reveal to you if you simply embrace life whole bodily and not just with mind.

Now perhaps you do this elsewhere, but it seems here at least that you do tend to abstract yourself into mind and tend to make provocative even questionable statements like the one quoted above. I really don't see what you are criticizing here in examining our dialog.

You speak about the turning out to others, and I agree with you whole-heartedly, but many of your posts here seem more angry and separative than relational and out-turning.

Isn't always being in relationship to whatever is arising our real spirituality? I don't mean being passive, but relating on a basis that demonstrates this fundamental understanding that we are all in the same boat, all in a vast field of relatedness? Our body-minds are completely dependent on the external world, so there is no question about relatedness being our actual situation here.