Spirituality might work if it wasn't so stupid.

a reply to: dominicus

Because transcendence is the highest view, and it allows love to be like a puppies love, available to all. Most can only love those they know, but not strangers. I have been without transcendence until 25, and then with it for the last 11 years, and its apples and oranges. To be without transcendence is to live under the guise of a ridiculous limited mind and body.

Indiscriminate love is the worst kind of love. It's a love that's watered down and spread out too thin. It's diluted love. I'm hesitant to call it love at all. Loving heroes and rapists alike shows that one does not know how to love, and loves only for his enjoyment. If transcendence leads you to this conclusion, I don't want a part of it. Besides, only a lower view would call itself a higher view.

Being. Human Being(s). THe Universe Being. Existence Being. Are there any boundaries to Being? Does a tree discern where its being ends and the forests being begins? No. The imagined and illusion constructed division of beingness, is just that, an illusion. The Beingness of existence can be tapped into and merged with, and it is itself conscious and intelligent

The beingness of existence...that sounds about as fascinating as the running-ness of jogging.

You color all these things in the way that you do above, because you lack access to them. As someone who has access to them, it is nothing like you propose above. It is the next step in human evolution and it is the default of pre-existence, and how you will be when you're meat suit dies and leave behind limited belief systems

People have been claiming to have sole access to strange knowledge for thousands of years, my friend. The claim is as far as it has ever gone. Perhaps take the next step.

Of course its your take because it comes from someone who has not accessed these things. The Majority of monks across global cultures who work on themselves in a variety of settings, pretty much all come across the memories of pre-existence. Heck, there are even a number of threads of ATS'ers who remember before being born.

And? Then what? Thousands of years of this "accessing" and not a single advance has come of it. To imagine taking the advice of someone who lives in a monestary their whole lives is frightening, especially with their tendency to debase the innocence of children.

There are many more besides those and we can take it one of 2 ways. We are all just imagining and making it up. Or you just simply don't remember and don't have access to these memories and as a result are forced to construct a philosophy based on materialist and mainstream science belief systems, including their limits and biases. Of course, until I was 25, I believed much like you, except that I was always agnostic about things and open to possibilities. When the pre-existence memories arose from my heart, it pretty much changed everything.

The going rate seems to be people promote such a view are lying. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt.

You took my examples out of context. They are not quitting their jobs and giving everything away. Heck, even I work and save and have goals/plans. My point was that philosophizing/theorizing like you do, plus the rat race, plus material belongings and children/family...all the things the world has to offer, has still left people empty and lacking a deep inner connection with themselves and the universe. My cousin used to talk like you do, and no is telling me, "damn, you were right all along about this stuff. Sorry for fighting against you."

That's your view of things. I do not see how detaching from something does not imply gaining a deeper understanding.

Again, out of context. I'm saying you have this brilliant infinite diamond within you, that you have not accessed yet. Instead, you build up excuses, assumptions, speculations about what it is, or that it doesn't exist at all, as circular reasoning by the ego/logic/reason/mind in order to not see for yourself...because it threatens the belief systems you have built up for yourself.

This is to kick dirt in the face of thousands of years of physiology, biology and medicine, pursuits that actually produce fruit. No one has seen any such diamond, and to say they haven't looked is untenable. Your definition of "accessing" this diamond seems to be to think about it. But I do agree that the best way of accessing such imaginary things is to imagine them.

Yes it is circular reasoning. First, you have assumed something is there in the first place. This is called begging the question, where you assume the conclusion in the initial premise. You are beginning your argument with what conclusion you hope to end with.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, however I am not just an immaterialist, but also a materialist, because both exist. And I have figured out, to a certain degree, how to unlock the birdcage and my consciousness leaves it t wander freely at certain times. I know I am not the body or the ego...but that consciousness which is aware of it.

Well you need to try harder.

Like I said, it is a nauseating view. This claim to revelation, without holding it up to any human standards or scrutiny, is a form of "just knowing" because you "just know". It's meaningless. And calling the body and reason limited, unrealiable, impotent and incapable of perceiving the "real" reality and the "true" truth, while at the same time remaining as a body, is profane and obscene. This is, to me, an attempt to escape the risks of knowledge by nihilistically destroying the relationship between knower and known, and resorting to the unfocused, indiscriminate and cloudy undirected gaze—what everyone in here is selling as fundamental awareness—for solace and comfort. Whatever fragmented emotion or wish arises during this time is ordered to peers—not reasoned about or shown, but ordered—to be absolute and final truth; and if and when reality contradicts said "knowledge", it is reality and the body that is limited, wrong, false or nothing.

Keep it.

Nothing is happening! It just looks like something is! right....

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Nothing is happening! It just looks like something is! right....

No, wrong.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

there is nothing

In a way nothing truly exists ...

it is just happening to look like something

How can nothing be happening to look like something ... If there was nothing before this Universe came into being ... then it has come a long way from nothing and may it continue to do so

this appearance that is appearing is the form nothing is currently appearing as.

Nothing is nothing ... There is no something that is nothing unless that nothing is also something

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Indiscriminate love is the worst kind of love. It's a love that's watered down and spread out too thin. It's diluted love. I'm hesitant to call it love at all. Loving heroes and rapists alike shows that one does not know how to love, and loves only for his enjoyment. If transcendence leads you to this conclusion, I don't want a part of it. Besides, only a lower view would call itself a higher view.

There is within you an all encompassing love in the soul, that loves the true essence of all people, even if they are under the spell/illusion of doing evil, and it is the best kind of love. I love my parents, sister, and have had multiple lovers in my life, and absolutely nothing trumps transcendent love, but you don't know about it, so you can only speculate. As for higher viewer, having a transcendent timeless fearless deathless view of existence, is definitely higher that viewing life through biases, filters, limits, and confines. But you haven't tasted what I propose, so again all you have left is speculation

The beingness of existence...that sounds about as fascinating as the running-ness of jogging.

The source of your own Beingness, is in the Gut/Belly, there is a portal there for you to merge with. It is called lower dan tian in variety of cultures, navel gazing by the mystics, and your belly also has neurons in it:

The Neurons in the Second Brain of the Gut Article:

This multitude of neurons in the enteric nervous system enables us to "feel" the inner world of our gut and its contents.

Surprisingly, the Heart has Neurons too, and some theorists are theorizing that Neurons are basically transistors for consciousness (See ORCH-Or theory)

On another level, I'm a runner and have been for 2 decades now and it is a science, an art to me. Proper stretching, mileage, water and calorie intake prior/post, proper shoes, best speed, heart rate checks, and of course the runners high. The running-ness is a beautiful experience, and someone who doesn't know it, wouldn't know of the Zen state you reach while running. Thanks for the great example.

People have been claiming to have sole access to strange knowledge for thousands of years, my friend. The claim is as far as it has ever gone. Perhaps take the next step.

I have taken the next step, and am continuously spiritually evolving daily. At this point, there is a ton of vastness, openness, flow, and non-resistance since life has become like water. As far as claims, you have your approximations, and I have mine, we can't both be right, and I would be willing to bet everything in bank account and a paid off house that I'm right on my take.

Thousands of years of this "accessing" and not a single advance has come of it. To imagine taking the advice of someone who lives in a monestary their whole lives is frightening, especially with their tendency to debase the innocence of children.

Unless you can provide an official source, that all monks debase children, then I will simply pass. Its really not that hard to transcend the need for lust/sex, as I've done so myself under the teachings of said persons. Much has come from Monks, including various branches of philosophy, thought, the fist time an Atom was proposed was by an India Mystic named Kanada in 1500 B.C. Chemistry/Alchemy, Sciences, etc. You'd be surprised

This is to kick dirt in the face of thousands of years of physiology, biology and medicine, pursuits that actually produce fruit. No one has seen any such diamond, and to say they haven't looked is untenable.

The sciences don't look for "soul." They've been biased all these centuries by assuming that only what can be seen and measured is true, which is B.S. because there are plenty branches of science that use by extension math, philosophy, and theory to propose answers about things that can't be measured, yet.

physiology, biology and medicine are all biased branches of thought that do not focus nor do they look for soul

Your definition of "accessing" this diamond seems to be to think about it. But I do agree that the best way of accessing such imaginary things is to imagine them.

my definition of soul, is a spark of consciousness in the heart that is also connected to an ocean/source of consciousness and access such requires specific practices. Imagining something is illusion, whereas looking directly and finding something experientially isn't. I don't imagine my soul, because it exists prior to imagination

Yes it is circular reasoning. First, you have assumed something is there in the first place. This is called begging the question, where you assume the conclusion in the initial premise. You are beginning your argument with what conclusion you hope to end with.

From the onset, I was agnostic. Maybe its there, maybe not. I never tricked myself into imagining such

Like I said, it is a nauseating view. This claim to revelation, without holding it up to any human standards or scrutiny, is a form of "just knowing" because you "just know".

What kind of scrutiny is best, is to see for yourself that it is so. You live in a limited, frail, time limited body that can only perceive a tiny fragment of everything that exists, and are under the guise of an operating system (ego/Mind) that has no access to its own source, to the subconscious (where pre-existance memories are), and so it picks and chooses biased approximations from a pool of whats available created by others like you, who have created their own systems of what defines and doesn't define scrutiny, all based on these limits and illusions. Its a grand joke

And calling the body and reason limited, unrealiable, impotent and incapable of perceiving the "real" reality and the "true" truth, while at the same time remaining as a body, is profane and obscene.

I am not just a body, but a soul, and as soul, have access to perceptions that you do not have access to. case closed. Google the "Umwelt"

Whatever fragmented emotion or wish arises during this time is ordered to peers—not reasoned about or shown, but ordered—to be absolute and final truth; and if and when reality contradicts said "knowledge", it is reality and the body that is limited, wrong, false or nothing.

you don't have access to what I, and many others do, so all you can formulate is the above, and limit yourself to it.

If you really want to comprehend my points fuller, watch these two vids:
Ted Talk on Limited Human Perception

The op is just as the Muslimeen would call him--- a disbeliever


That’s all you are....that's all you bring to the table


And what are you a disbeliever in

You disbelieve in the unseen intelligence---unseen reality

You only believe in what you see


So you actually are claiming that your sight is conclusive, and not subject to change, error, or development

A sad thing


Know that just because you haven't seen the roach hidden in the soup doesn’t mean you haven’t eaten an insect for dinner

People who don’t believe in the unseen or spiritual intelligence can be likened to the primitives of yore who would laugh in their ignorance at the concept of a radio, or a TV or any modern appliance we all now take for granted


This is an indication of their intelligence


forgive me

Alas…there is much “stupidity” in spirituality, indeed often I find it difficult to even spell the word.

But the issue is finding out where the stupidity comes from

People express and experience spirituality in different ways and for different reasons. You might prefer to express spirituality through religion. Or, you might choose to express and search for spirituality in other ways.

Whatever you choose, you're asking yourself and the world around you questions about the meaning of life, or seeking connectedness with the world in which we live.

a reply to: Willtell

The disbeliever is another myth promoted by assumed spiritual hierarchies. Truth is, I believe in something; you believe in nothing.

I even believe in you, friend. You're real. I would place no spirit, no consciousness, nor no God above you. I do nothing but defend your reality, while you and others slander it.

i use my entire body, not just sight. What do you use?

a reply to: artistpoet

Nothing is nothing ... There is no something that is nothing unless that nothing is also something

Emptiness is forming.

In deep sleep there is nothing (no things) and then the light appears to be seen but the light is not a thing - it appears as all there is.
It only appears to be more than one because of the seaming separation (the seer assumes it is separate from the seen) - then a whole world of things seem to appear.
But there is no seer separate from the light scene - it is one without a second.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Nothing is happening! It just looks like something is! right....

Right!!
This that is actually happening is not a thing.
There are no things - one without an second.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Emptiness is forming.

Impossible ... emptiness would not be emptiness if it was "forming" ... something would be forming ... such as a flower upon a plant ... there are many processes occurring ... nothing is a no state ... a lack of life

In deep sleep there is nothing (no things) and then the light appears to be seen but the light is not a thing - it appears as all there is.

In a deep sleep the sleeper is unaware of his/her surroundings ... but the surroundings still exist

a reply to: artistpoet

there are many processes occurring ... nothing is a no state ... a lack of life

The word nothing points to no thing. Is a process a thing?
Is what is happening a thing?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The word nothing points to no thing. Is a process a thing?
Is what is happening a thing?

A process can involve many things ... we process information for example ... nothing can not be processed as there is nothing to process unless nothing is made of something ... In that way nothing would be a state of entropy

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The word nothing points to no thing. Is a process a thing?
Is what is happening a thing?

A process can involve many things ... we process information for example ... nothing can not be processed as there is nothing to process unless nothing is made of something ... In that way nothing would be a state of entropy

If processing is happening then that is what is happening.
There is just what is happening - this that is arising - whatever it appears to be...................but there is the illusion that there is some 'thing' seeing some 'thing'.
There is just what is happening.
The person you 'think' you are is not!!!
There is just what is arising as what is actually happening.

Where does 'there and then' appear?

originally posted by: dominicus
If you really want to comprehend my points fuller, watch these two vids:
Ted Talk on Limited Human Perception

Good vids, dominicus - thanks!

I enjoyed how they dealt with our limited perception and how we have a great history of being wrong about most everything we think we know.

This can be summarized by the understanding that we never know or can know what even a single thing is. What it actually IS. We can perceive an object in various ways, as we can also perceive our body-mind and come up with ideas of who we are - but no such perception or knowledge ever equates to knowing what anything or anyone IS.

This should be very humbling to all of us, and hopefully leave us sensitive to the vast mystery of this whole appearance, even in a state of embracing non-separate reality altogether to discover whatever reality actually is.

originally posted by: bb23108
The simple proof that every object we experience is a memory is this:
By the time the light hits your eyes and the neurons fire and you sense the object, the object has already changed.

Look at a star - that star may already be dead in reality, but the light it emitted is still coming to you. So by the time you see the image of the star, the star may well not exist any longer, and will certainly have changed by the time you register its light. It is just a memory.

LesMis, I look forward to your response to my post a few pages ago - especially this section.

I thought more about what you said that you experience objects directly, that for instance with vision, an object's reflected light is directly affecting your eye, causing neurons to fire, etc.

However, an object's reflected light striking the eye is not your direct experience of that object. It is your eye's reaction to that object's reflected light, but you are simply experiencing an image that such reflected light caused and perhaps a sensation of light (if bright enough) striking the eye.

And given all this takes time, the image and sensation are no different than a memory - it is already in the past relative to the object reflecting the light. Thus you, as being aware of this image and sensation, are not actually experiencing the object as it is in the current moment, but only as a memory of what it may have appeared like moments before.

If this example does not make sense to you given the brevity of the time that elapses, how about the distant star example?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

If processing is happening then that is what is happening.

How can you process nothing ... unless there is something to work upon or something to cause the processing

There is just what is happening - this that is arising - whatever it appears to be...................but there is the illusion that there is some 'thing' seeing some 'thing'.

Name one thing that is happening that does not have a cause for it happening ... Nothing is nothing so anything you say about nothing is something you are saying and therefore is not nothing ... but the conclusion you come to that ... everything is nothing is deeply flawed ... there is no value in nothing until it is something ...