Seeking god.

Anyone can be a true Christian and still believe in the Big Bang

Anyone can be a true Christian and still believe in string theory, and all that science offers

If you want to be an X type of Christian who believes in a Creed, a Creed that says X, Y & Z
then you may be excluded in being an X type of Christian that also believes in science

Hope that answers your question, there are so many types of Christians that they fight with eachother, of course all claiming they are the true Christian

I can tell you this, you don't need to say/read 1 prayer to believe in Jesus

All you need is to attempt to openly communicate with the creator of the universe, I personally believe Jesus created the universe, science & math are barley understood by us cavemen mortals, science & math is the language of God, if you think God somehow is against math & science you are incorrect, God breathes math & science.

God is the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate scientist.

If for one second you think you know more than the creator of the universe you can easily take a seat in one of the largest rooms in the universe, this room is titled 'the room of imbeciles'.

Jesus is God, God is Jesus, Jesus is the creator of the universe, this is my firsthand knowledge, it was faith, but it gets to a point where it's no longer faith, it becomes fact when personal confirmations are given, these confirmations are for the receiver and the receiver alone, they can't be used to sway anyone, prove to anyone, confirm to anyone but the single solitary receiver.

reply to post by dominicus


I see this is going to be difficult within the context of, "if you disagree, it is simply ignorance due to your and lack of "mystical" experience". This assumption is the default position of every fanatic and every cult.

I didn't come to this subject with any label, other than someone searching for truth. As a child, finding the religious stories I had been told, a lot OTT, not helped by the obvious hypocrisy amongst those who fervently clung to such things.

I too have known many self proclaimed mystics, yogis, messiahs and various assorted "wise ones". While obviously not without wisdom, sadly I have found, in every instance, a well meaning charlatan. Someone who at some stage traded their search for truth, for the beliefs a glimpse of truth has given them. It is quite a paradox that a glimpse of such a thing can cause so many corruptions of it and stop such a search in the truest sense, yet leaving people wholly convinced otherwise.

I am also wondering when you met Buddha and personally asked him to elucidate the meaning of said event. So far I have seen an awful lot of explanations, each one conforming with the belief of the explainee...Go figure...

We can always be wrong. I am quite a bit. I could be wrong here also. Yet I have found such a position usually absent amongst the devout. In amongst all of the "enlightenment" I have yet to find this simple honest humility, so am guessing this must be part of the "ego" that has been left behind.

At the risk of sounding like two fleas arguing about the dog, I would like to offer a comment. Not with inference it must be true, but possibly worth considering, from the pov of someone who entertained such notions as you propose, yet continued looking.

I wonder how something which seems a unitotal perfection, an omipresence for which separateness or an existence outside of itself seems not to be possible, could exist as individual and separate parts as you imply. The psyche has many illusions, perhaps the "drop" entering the "ocean" might be another one. Human psychology with its complications and imagination seems the barrier to experiencing something in it's fundamental way, that is always there to begin with. The basic principle underlying "consciousness". Something of unlimited simplicity that I know was much more apparent and pronounced as an innocent child, yet difficult to recapture with maturity. Yet still possible to experience beyond the confines of intellect.

I guess you could believe this "soul", or "god", or anything you wish. I can see where Spinoza could have been referring to something similar when he became excommunicated. Though if this implies anything in the individual, meddling, religious sense of god, I guess I will have to just wait for explanation. That (IMO) would be such a corruption of unlimited beauty and intelligence as to make the whole thing seem a bit sad from my view and I begin to wonder if we are talking of anything remotely similar.


IMO science has far more chance to discover this underlying force/energy/principle one day, because it doesn't care so much about who said or believes what, who may or may not have been around a couple of thousand years ago, or for personal intepretation/testimony of truth. It is more interested in what it can find.

Well your following the same path as me. I believe in god. but i also see this evidence of evolution.



God created evolution.
Natural selection is real.
Natural Selection is just a magnified version of Evolution
science doesn't have to conflict with god.

I remmeber a woman or man on c2c talk about how god is the ultimate scientist. he was a demon hunter and had contact with god and angels. or just angels and they filled him in a bit.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I see this is going to be difficult within the context of, "if you disagree, it is simply ignorance due to your and lack of "mystical" experience". This assumption is the default position of every fanatic and every cult.

So by your logic, a person who says that they have had mystical experiences and tells others that they don"t understand fully, unless they too experience these things, is a cult based fanatic? But a child who tells another child, that they don't fully understand what Ice Cream is about, until they try it for themselves is what? Also a cult based fanatic.

I don't belong to any organized cult/religion, and I'm not trying to recruit you. On top of that, I've stated that there is truth in Esoteric Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Philosophy, and man many others..... where is the cult based fanaticism in that, if I'm not recruiting for any of them?

I didn't come to this subject with any label, other than someone searching for truth.

Therein lies the ultimate paradox, take the label-less belief-less route there, see what you find, tell others, and they will all tell you that what you're describing is a label and belief.

I too have known many self proclaimed mystics, yogis, messiahs and various assorted "wise ones". While obviously not without wisdom, sadly I have found, in every instance, a well meaning charlatan.

I've met charlatans too, but I've also met genuine folks who have seen & experienced what have I.

It is quite a paradox that a glimpse of such a thing can cause so many corruptions of it and stop such a search in the truest sense, yet leaving people wholly convinced otherwise.

That "Truth" is incorruptable and stands of its own accord regardless what anyone says of it. If you're saying language based descriptions of things, corrupt the actual "things" then all we have left is to not discuss or use any words at all.

I am also wondering when you met Buddha and personally asked him to elucidate the meaning of said event. So far I have seen an awful lot of explanations, each one conforming with the belief of the explainee...Go figure...

The description of Buddha's supreme state and buddhahood, experientially, is the same as descriptions of the Tao, Nonduality, Union with God, Theosis, Deification, etc. On top of this, when I considered myself (way back when) of a certain stance, & came to these experiiences, upon further investigation, found that Buddhists, Yogi's, and fellow mystics that I would eventually meet, also got to these same experiences in other ways. Buddhism is misunderstood unless one experiences the states referred to therein.

We can always be wrong. I am quite a bit. I could be wrong here also.

Then in that case we can go so far to say nothing is right, everything could be wrong, including everything we currently know, subjectivity/objectivity are both wrong, there are no absolutes

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I guess you could believe this "soul", or "god", or anything you wish.

What I'm saying is that these things are real ....and by all means don't take my word for it, cause I didn't when I was an Atheist, instead, see for yourself if these things experientially exist. If your bothered by the "various techniques" to get there, being owned by say Buddhism, or Christianity, or some other "religion" ...well then just strip the ownership and view it as merely a experimental technique to see what results come about.

I would highly recommend A.H. Almmas, Peter Kingsley, Aziz Kristoff, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Nondual techniques & Philosophies, and so on. Most of these mentioned lack any "organized religion" however you have to understand many things are discussed in and claimed by organized religion as well.....

Though if this implies anything in the individual, meddling, religious sense of god, I guess I will have to just wait for explanation. That (IMO) would be such a corruption of unlimited beauty and intelligence as to make the whole thing seem a bit sad from my view and I begin to wonder if we are talking of anything remotely similar.

What we are talking about is similar, it's just the associated baggage that makes some people cringe, others' look away, the misunderstandings, and so forth.

That original awareness/consciousness you mentioned having as a child, is re-attainable and has merely been covered by mind/ego/cultural programing. All the authors mentioned above discuss how to regain the original consciousness from childhood, and doing so opens the doors to the original consciousness being loosened from the body, being able to merge back with an infinite source like consciousness.

IMO science has far more chance to discover this underlying force/energy/principle one day, because it doesn't care so much about who said or believes what, who may or may not have been around a couple of thousand years ago, or for personal intepretation/testimony of truth. It is more interested in what it can find.

Even though I think science will eventually quantify spirit, non-local consciousness, and its source, it may be possible that science may never find it, forever holding on to bias against further studying consciousness as a field.

I'm seeing all this tech come out, the smart phones, internet, info overload ....is bringing about a.d.d, attachments, addictions, and an overall Love for tech and bringing about a certain form of Hive mind based group think. All this tech can make us evolve into a very cold emotionless based being who lack the ability or understanding of ever penetrating the depths of the inner life and the experiences we speak off.

With Quantum computing on the verge, A.I. on the verge, we will eventually evolve into a species that merges with tech, relying on a global cloud based A.I. Siri type character who makes the decisions and thinking for us. That is inevitably coming and can take us to a very interesting and crazy place which would undermine the spiritual life/realities, no more intuition, no more Love, etc etc. You see where this can go.

If it was to go this route, then we would still be where we are today. There would remain experiential based unplugged mystics, still telling a bunch of plugged in cyborgs, that they are missing, have missed, and will continue to miss the point arguing that global A.I. knows everything and we only go by what this Intelligence knows because it's 1000 times more intelligent that any single individual and it knows nothing about a source of consciousness.

Can go either way though. Science may eventually quantify and we won't have any choice but to acknowledge the existence of individual bits of consciousnesses and their source If that's the case, then we'll look back at history and say, wow the mystics were right all along, or at least partially right.

Originally posted by dominicus

So by your logic, a person who says that they have had mystical experiences and tells others that they don"t understand fully, unless they too experience these things, is a cult based fanatic?

Strawman fallacy.

Not what I said, easier to address than what I did say. It seems not possible for you to comprehend, yet people who disagree with you might have had every bit as much experience, perhaps even the same experience.

Therein lies the ultimate paradox, take the label-less belief-less route there, see what you find, tell others, and they will all tell you that what you're describing is a label and belief.

I find there is some unfathomable component to our existence that can be experienced. You claim to have fathomed it, at least in part. Soul, god, people walking on water...You have not gone close to substantiating this, beyond your personal belief and reference to religion, "esoteric" or otherwise. To claim you are right because others say so, is also a fallacy.

I've met charlatans too, but I've also met genuine folks who have seen & experienced what have I.

Most charlatans I have met have been nice genuine people, not without experience. Not realising they fell into a religious type belief and were charlatans.

That "Truth" is incorruptable and stands of its own accord regardless what anyone says of it. If you're saying language based descriptions of things, corrupt the actual "things" then all we have left is to not discuss or use any words at all.

No, I am saying your notions (soul, god) about such a thing, seem to be additions based on your beliefs. Beliefs about the truth, not the thing itself. You seem to have already denied some of the most basic observations we have to begin with, in favour of pure unfettered belief. Unless you feel Christ was an ordinary man surrounded by myth. It appears the original custodians of which your faith seems a brake away sect, who were there at the time (as a people) disregard it. Ever looked at the Toldot Yeshu? Oh, this is not really "esoteric".....

It is hard not to see incongruity in the terms "Christian" and "Mystic" when used together. Nothing too mystical about belief IMO. Many delusions and fantasies can hide behind the "esoteric" label. I have doubts that denying the most basic obsevations we have about our world and the universe, in favour of unfounded belief, are a solid foundation for the search for truth.

The description of Buddha's supreme state and buddhahood, experientially, is the same as descriptions of the Tao, Nonduality, Union with God, Theosis, Deification, etc. On top of this, when I considered myself (way back when) of a certain stance, & came to these experiiences, upon further investigation, found that Buddhists, Yogi's, and fellow mystics that I would eventually meet, also got to these same experiences in other ways. Buddhism is misunderstood unless one experiences the states referred to therein.

"Supreme state and buddhahood"? Very impressive. I wonder what the man himself would have said.

Wonderful thing religion, always another mythical belief around mere mortal, idols to venerate. Experiences to compare and to classify, titles to confer, dogma to observe. It actually seems to get worse in "esoteric" circles, the distinction between phenomena and beliefs around it can be subtle and insidious, it can become very blurry.

Though this doesn't address the event in question in any way, it just infers that all who don't meet your esoteric criteria, don't understand. I wonder if any of them understood?

Then in that case we can go so far to say nothing is right, everything could be wrong, including everything we currently know, subjectivity/objectivity are both wrong, there are no absolutes

reply to post by dominicus

Perhaps you misunderstand "ego". It's necessary to distinguish logically words to string together sentences for the sake of communication. However, in my case there is a separation & space between Awareness & Ego, &is easy to let go the latter when no longer required for certain tasks. The problem w/ online "forums" is that there's no seeable body language, essence, pronunciation, feeling, etc. So perhaps you've taken out of my discussions, "ego" and lack of "humility" ..however none of the Atheists, I discuss this to, in person, ever bring up "ego" or "humility". Context is vital.

Perhaps. It implies far more in the context of "esoteric"psychology. It can also imply "loaded language".

IMO nothing exemplifies the sentiment and wisdom of honest humility (in this sense) more than that attributed to Socrates.

"I know that I don't know anything, but the others don't even know that"

Meister Eckhart also experienced these "things" & was locked up, labeled heretic, ex-communicated, etc ...yet he was right. Exotericism seems to exist in a safe self imposed bubble and anything outside itself is a threat, including the esoteric. I've had talks with Exoteric Westernized Fundamentalist Christians & been threatened

I find much the same in "esoteric"circles.

I am still waiting for your claims to be substantiated in some way.

I can see that you are obviously very genuine and sincere. I don't claim your experience or conclusions have to be wrong. They could be however, to make such claims about souls and god as fact while it appears obvious you cannot substantiate it beyond "other people say so too" and "esoteric" religious concepts (ie. personal beliefs), doesn't seem wise.

Science already studies consciousness. It already acknowledges it is there, as we all do. We don't need mystics for that. It will not necessarily be "non-local". IMO it cannot be. It might be all pervading and fundamental to existence.

I know the experience you mention. I will keep your claims under consideration, yet at this stage not having enough to see them as accurate, having found that it doesn't really appear so. I doubt there is anything to merge with. The separateness is the illusion. There is no separateness to begin with.

Yet even if we could truly fathom this, I doubt it would make us that knowledgeable. Just another understanding, another piece of something that never ends. Another vantage point of something that seems infinite.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

It seems not possible for you to comprehend, yet people who disagree with you might have had every bit as much experience, perhaps even the same experience.

well so far I've come across roughly 2.5 dozen or so people in my life, who have had similar experiences to me, and not one disagreed. I have a group near a University by me called Philosophy Fridays, once or twice a month we get together w/ various folks and discuss various topics.

I find there is some unfathomable component to our existence that can be experienced. You claim to have fathomed it, at least in part.

yes that's it. not fathomable by logic/reason, but at least experienceable

Soul, god, people walking on water...You have not gone close to substantiating this, beyond your personal belief and reference to religion, "esoteric" or otherwise. To claim you are right because others say so, is also a fallacy.

my only method of substantiating would be direct experience, which is repeatable in anyone who undergoes the same methods to get to the experience. This would have nothing to do with "belief, religion, or any other labels".

Walking on water would entail a whole other thread that would go at least 10-15 pages long. Save to say that, a person who penetrates reality and permanently merges with the source of reality, would theoretically have access to bending realities rules. (neither here nor there for this thread)

No, I am saying your notions (soul, god) about such a thing, seem to be additions based on your beliefs.

Those are "histories terms". Compatible w/ "consciousness" & its "Source." Interchangeable never the less.

Beliefs about the truth, not the thing itself. You seem to have already denied some of the most basic observations we have to begin with, in favour of pure unfettered belief.

My claim is built on repeatable experiential observation. No belief required. Don't see what I'm denying.

Unless you feel Christ was an ordinary man surrounded by myth. It appears the original custodians of which your faith seems a brake away sect, who were there at the time (as a people) disregard it.

I don't use "Faith" nor is it "my faith". In my case, instead of faith, there is for me no denying the existence of a Non-Local source of Consciousness. It's like breathing air. On top of that, any branch of study that discusses penetrating the depths of consciousness, reality, God, etc is my good friend & "proverbial faith" ...

Ever looked at the Toldot Yeshu? Oh, this is not really "esoteric"

yea ...it's 11th century material. If they find an older one, well then will require more respect. Again the contents are neither here nor there. Jesus very well could have married, had kids, been all types of things that people say ... ultimately, I went within and followed precepts according to certain NT teachings, and was surprised by ecstatic ego deaths & timeless transcendental transformation allowing me to Love complete strangers, amongst a vast array of others. Same w/ Zen/Buddhism.... read a Koan and it destroyed me & freed me from the body and revealed a source to Consciousness. If there were a Toldot Yeshu for Buddha ....so be it. He was a regular person too, but that still wouldn't take away from depths he revealed from himself having penetrated experientially.

I have doubts that denying the most basic obsevations we have about our world and the universe, in favour of unfounded belief, are a solid foundation for the search for truth.

how is "repeatable experiential observation" denying "basic obsevations we have about our world" or has anything to do w "unfounded belief"? What if everyone is merely "believing" all of these observations of the world/universe and it is all then unfounded belief?

"Supreme state and buddhahood"? Very impressive. I wonder what the man himself would have said.

Buddha:

"As a water bead on a lotus leaf, as water on a red lily, does not adhere, so the sage does not adhere to the seen, the heard, or the sensed."

"You yourself must strive. The Buddhas only point the way."

Now go find definition of "Sage" & "Buddha". Simple

It actually seems to get worse in "esoteric" circles, the distinction between phenomena and beliefs around it can be subtle and insidious, it can become very blurry.

I don't know why you have your panties in a knot about this. Experiences are discussed, shared, compared, and written down the same way scientific experiments & results are. It's constructive and is what you make of it. No blurriness for me because the experience is still accessible and I know how to let go of the minds need to endlessly wrestle w/ distinctions.

continued....

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Though this doesn't address the event in question in any way, it just infers that all who don't meet your esoteric criteria, don't understand. I wonder if any of them understood?

Has nothing to do w/ criteria. If "something" allows to be better understood by direct experience, then logic & reason deduces that understanding of said "something, will be considerably less if not experienced. This is basic logic.

No. When we cannot conceive of the notion that we could be wrong, this is fanatical

So then I can say, there is no possible way that 2+2=4 is wrong and that equals "fanatic?"

This is honestly very difficult to conceive for me, because the experience of this Seeming Absolute state, has even led me to question subjectivity/objectivity, duality, etc. I used to be so sure that "I Am" however in the experience of the "Source" it was so Intense to all those who tasted it, I have honestly never been more sure about anything as much as that, and in "That" there no longer was a "Me (I Am) there. I'll go w/ 99.9999% because this body is not yet deceased

Everything has the potential to be wrong. We should always be open to the possibility that with further knowledge, if we find good reason, we might need to refine or change our concepts.

So then you remain open to the possibility of non-local consciousness & an infinite Source from which it comes?

IMO nothing exemplifies the sentiment and wisdom of honest humility (in this sense) more than that attributed to Socrates. "I know that I don't know anything, but the others don't even know that"

Ha! Who does he think he is to say that "He "KNOWS" that he knows nothing!!!" Just kidding. But seriously, its a Double negative paradoxically speaking, if he knows nothing, then he wouldn't know that he knows nothing.

At the same time, anyone who experiences the Source, would eventually come to said conclusion, because ultimately words, ideas, concepts are all illusion compared to an Absolute State

They could be however, to make such claims about souls and god as fact while it appears obvious you cannot substantiate it beyond "other people say so too" and "esoteric" religious concepts (ie. personal beliefs), doesn't seem wise.

"repeatable experiential observation" based on instructions of the very institutions who used the words "soul & God" as well as other institutions which used the word "Tao, Absolute, Source."

The interesting fact, is that I once thought like, and used, every argument & point you are using here in this thread w me. Yet eventually Observed something more real and substantial than our everyday reality we deal in that destroyed my stance that I once had. I've seen & witnessed first hand the possibilities of consciousnesses effect on matter, albeit a small scale.

Science already studies consciousness. It already acknowledges it is there, as we all do. We don't need mystics for that.

A branch of study in its infancy. The average Joe doesn't plunge the depths of his own being the way a Mystic does, nor does science yet have access to that. It is the Mystics that come in, merge w/ The Absolute, and allow science to study any brain changes. W/ out mystics, science wouldn't even know if there are brain correlates.

It will not necessarily be "non-local". IMO it cannot be. It might be all pervading and fundamental to existence.

Why can't it be if everything is a possibility?

The separateness is the illusion. There is no separateness to begin with.

IS this your direct experience? Or just a concept/theory?

Yet even if we could truly fathom this, I doubt it would make us that knowledgeable. Just another understanding, another piece of something that never ends. Another vantage point of something that seems infinite.

I have reason to believe that physiological changes take place in those who are permanently experiencing such a state. If that is the case, the implications are huge!!!!

I will say this next statement is a belief/theory, and that is that I think the next great leap in our evolution will be the permanent experience of this state and the physiological changes that would take place, theoretically giving us a certain access to, the effecting of the building blocks of reality, just like the effect observation has on the double slit experiment, except at a greater scale.

Yes, everything I have said pertaining to what you call god, source, soul etc. is from my own direct experience. I am usually very careful to point out this is opinion and always leave room I could be wrong. Sometimes I am. I also realize that being personal experiences, no matter how right I think they are, can only lead me to personal beliefs. I don't claim it must be fact for this reason. When it appears for good reason that I am wrong, I accept it and move on.

This seems something not comprehendable to yourself, that someone who disagrees with you could do this, as so many pages have shown.

Again, this is the default position of the fanatic.

No getting anything in a knot. No need to discuss logical fallacies. You have established your beliefs and the reasons for them, now if you could simply back your claims pertaining to your stated facts that would be better, thanks. I think you might have a little trouble, it is looking this way so far.

Socrates realized he was ignorant. Most "enlightened" people I know of curiously seem to bypass this as a starting point. They don't need it, Buddha (or the like) tells them what they need to know. They use the "blueprint" and is if by miracle find the "blueprint" is right. Quite sure of the secrets of the cosmos, while the first realisation hasn't dawned on them yet.

The explanation of the "Buddha" episode a while back was one of the worst I have ever heard, even people with no interest in the subject at all seem capable of better. Is it so hard to say "I don't know what it means"?

There is no wisdom in claiming facts you cannot back up. People also experience leprechauns and fairies and all sorts of other things "repeatably and experientially" and back them to the same level you have. There is historical precedent and tradition of this. Though I doubt anyone has reached genuine "leprichaunhood" yet. They could be real also, possibly in "esoteric" realms, yet I have doubts. Why would you be any different?

It seem you might be just another well meaning charlatan who has obeyed the rules and had the acceptable experiences, while becoming a little fanatical. I am beginning to sense some of the unconditional Christian "lovin'" which usually seals the deal. Or perhaps some more "ego death" would be appropriate?

was surprised by ecstatic ego deaths

This has me intrigued again. I feel I know the source of this and possibly of your "mysticism", as you call it. The way you use the phrase...



Am still waiting for you to back your claims. We haven't even got around to god yet...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I am usually very careful to point out this is opinion and always leave room I could be wrong. Sometimes I am. I also realize that being personal experiences, no matter how right I think they are, can only lead me to personal beliefs. I don't claim it must be fact for this reason. When it appears for good reason that I am wrong, I accept it and move on.

You know, from my move over the past 2 decades from Atheist to agnostic to eventual Mystic to beyond all labels, the one thing that I realized Philosophically I could never deny is Existence.

Existence inherently includes each an every individual and their experience of existence. I think, therefore, I am, I realized is better said as I Am, therefore, I think. In this existence we can have both Belief of things and Non-Belief of things. We can have thinking and not thinking.

I don't know who in their right mind would not be sure of, or deny, this very existence as far as philosophers, scientists, and thinkers across all branches of society go. I don't understand how "observation" itself can not be taken seriously or that it wouldn't count for anything, let alone be labeled as belief.

This seems something not comprehendable to yourself, that someone who disagrees with you could do this, as so many pages have shown. Again, this is the default position of the fanatic.

I completely comprehend why you don't agree with me because I once held your very own position on this stance. The things that "observing existence" have shown me, crushed in me the very stance you hold, one which I myself held due to bias of various sorts and lack of the deeper things that were revealed when observing existence. IF anything, I admit I could be .0001% wrong.

No getting anything in a knot. No need to discuss logical fallacies. You have established your beliefs and the reasons for them, now if you could simply back your claims pertaining to your stated facts that would be better, thanks. I think you might have a little trouble, it is looking this way so far.

This above quote is a belief as well paradoxically.

See this thread here

It was a word for word discussion with an old atheist friend of mine, who has no problem realizing what I am saying and agreed that perhaps some things may only, by their very own nature, be known by direct experience, making the scientific method as we know it, the wrong method to quantify such things.

Socrates realized he was ignorant. Most "enlightened" people I know of curiously seem to bypass this as a starting point.

What is the correct definition of"ignorant" ? Buddha says, those without realization of the Supreme state live in Ignorance, and to Socrates, ignorance is something else, as it would be to you, and to academia in general.

They don't need it, Buddha (or the like) tells them what they need to know.

For cavities, one goes to an expert (dentist), health issues (doctor), math (mathematician) to plunge the inner depths and realize the Supreme, one goes to those who have already gotten there. What's so hard to understand? You've needed people to tell you things your whole life, starting w/ parents, and try to verify for yourself anyway if they were right.

They use the "blueprint" and is if by miracle find the "blueprint" is right

There is no miracle. It's logic & reason. Play w/ fire you get burnt, jump in water you get wet, turn on a light in a dark room and you can see, plunge the depths and you find the Absolute.

The explanation of the "Buddha" episode a while back was one of the worst I have ever heard, even people with no interest in the subject at all seem capable of better. Is it so hard to say "I don't know what it means"?

I have friends that are 20-30 year Buddhist scholars and they don't have any problems w/ my take on "Buddhism" as long as I use buddhist terminology, and even they say it's much more Universal & Compatible w mysticism across the board. Where's the issue?

There is no wisdom in claiming facts you cannot back up. People also experience leprechauns and fairies and all sorts of other things "repeatably and experientially" and back them to the same level you have.

Is there a historical equivalent of Leprachaunism the way there is Buddhism? I just don't see such a case anywhere and when I did a little background on "leprechauns" find that they are bound geographically as folklore to Ireland & surrounding areas. While direct experience of an Absolute state is found without any geographical or time based boundaries across the board. Big dif

continued.....

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

It seem you might be just another well meaning charlatan who has obeyed the rules and had the acceptable experiences, while becoming a little fanatical.

What are the "rules"? Al these religions say not to go outside of them and that only they are right, exoterically speaking. Science says only they and their rules are right, as does psychology, and all these other rules.

Ultimately I'm a mystic who says I can be .0001% wrong about the things I've experienced. So if I'm a Fanantical Charlatan then so are all other Mystics, so is Buddhism as what Buddha taught was stated as factual and right and for each individual not to take his word for it, but to see for himself to experientially quantify. That means some of the greatest institutions of thought, philosophy, psychology are all Fanatical Charlatans. Oh well, I've been called that by Westernized Fundies, so what's one more Westernized Scientific Fundy. I at least rest assured, that at the end, the great equalizer that is physical death, will reveal the other side ( if it's there or not wink wink) ..."Death" just another self defense mechanism for "Truth."

I am beginning to sense some of the unconditional Christian "lovin'" which usually seals the deal. Or perhaps some more "ego death" would be appropriate?

All that is always "there" in my experience, the way breathing is for you in your experience. Even w/ all your labels, beliefs, and inability to comprehend that experience itself holds weight, and the means by which we exist, there is still Love for you knowing that at the very basic common denominator, you too are a Unit of Consciousness devoid of everything you've been taught on this world and all the stances you choose to have.

Am still waiting for you to back your claims. We haven't even got around to god yet...

Please define what to you is a "substantiated claim". Is it psychological based?? Science based? Are the "rules" that apply?

Let's break this down first and see where we end up

Lots of words and hot air, little substance as yet. It would seem obvious that people searching for truth were probably looking for the same thing. The many competing ideas makes it less obvious they really found it. Even far less obvious you have. Though I don't doubt that some believe as you do, possibly for good personal reasons. Others don't, also for very good personal reasons.

Your claim that the only way to know is to look in the same way as you have done and therefore must find exactly the same things or be wrong, does have a few obvious flaws. It is a fallacy that overlooks a few things.

Apart from requiring belief in the non possibility that you could be wrong, leaving no room for discussion (common to cult doctrines/dogma, nothing unreasonable there ). It seems to overlook the many other versions of truth derived the same way. If it were true we could also now be discussing Xenu, as Scientology use the same claims. Though possibly in a less arrogant way. As do countless other "truths", many of them "mystical" and "esoteric". All with their associated circular logic to protect them. Everyone from sincere people to genuine brainwashing cults.

It overlooks that many use exactly your method and come up with different "truths". Including Buddha who you reinterpret for your own ends (and also seem to have a bit of a crush on, by the way).

It overlooks the fact that many of these "mystical esotericists" are delusional fanatics and is a term can be comfortably interchangeable with "nut job". In more severe instances they offer a glimpse into the truth of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, more so than the universe.

I understand why they corrupt, reinterpret and plagiarise other traditions just like you have done. Giving the impression that the Ashrams are used in secret to pay "esoteric" homage to jesus, Buddha now grovels at his feet in heaven. The "mystical" equivalent of "my dad's better than your dad".

This would seem more because your type of Christian faith would be empty in this regard and devoid of substance on its own. It needs propping up. Rather than "piercing the secrets" or whatever, it can be an instance of completely rupturing something that in most people allows them to differentiate fact from possible fantasy. Sometimes irreparably. Then inner personal belief becomes confused with universal facts that all must adhere to or be deemed ignorant, delusion follows.

All of your claims in this way are narrow and seem massively exaggerated. As exaggerated and self important as your truths that you feel all should submit to. Even those who agree with your truths should be cringing.

Most intelligent Christians realize their religion is based on faith. Another range of the human experience that shouldn't be discounted. In this much I agree, without having this faith.

Some however, become fundamentalist and fanatical about it. Some even use the pretext of "mystical" or "esoteric" to excuse it. Religious fanaticism is quite a problem in this world today. The difference between this unrealistic stance and yours are......you claim yours are real.....just like they do.

It is very common to see someone with a new belief who possibly had a few experiences before they were ready, or were mature enough to put them into context. Thus they go around not so much feeling everyone should share their "truth" and proclaiming great things, as hitting everyone over the head with it. Until they learn that pride makes a far better servant than it does a master. Could be relevant.

I have no need to debate what would constitute substantiating your claims. Anyone with the slightest common sense will see the unlikelihood of that ever happening. Perhaps you should have considered that first? Hot air and "because I say so" or "because others say so" or "because I claim Buddha says so" etc. don't really do it. It is fascinating to see how you dance around it, however. The "mystical pride" that you don't have, seems to have other ideas, ones that preclude that one honest sentence from being uttered.

"The surest way to gauge a man's honesty, is to ask him about the afterlife."

Leprechauns, elves, pixies, fairies, elementals etc. belong to a certain mystical genre with a long historical tradition. With many references and different names, by different cultures. Reference to them goes back to antiquity. I know of one Professor of Science who studies them. There are pictures of fairies (whether you believe them real being another matter). No less than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed fervently. I doubt they exist, but don't really know. Yet a cursory google search and you give an offhand rebuttal? How hard have you searched? I certainly wonder about your methods, by the standards you request of others, you seem to be displaying complete hypocrisy.

Ever studied the teachings of any modern Christian "Gnostics"? Your new age pseudo mysticism and synthesising/corrupting of other systems to fall in with your belief, even the terms you use. Uncanny similarity. They are considered by many a negative mind control cult. Ever been influenced by such teachings?

Veni, vidi, defui (I came, I saw, I failed). So far at least.

By all means, keep going though....


ps. The Toledot Yeshu (while seemingly about as accurate as the new testament) is generally considered 4th-6th century. Think you might be talking of the oldest known manuscript.

The crazy thing is that the most consistent Christians are the insane creationist fundamentalists. They don't pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible, they don't ignore they horrific parts and pretend the old testament doesn't exist.

Sure they ignore any evidence for things that contradict the bible, but at least they don't try to bend and twist the very source of their religion to fit what they want to be true.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Yes quite true I suppose, but just mind boggling that someone could actually accept such a book in any literal sense. No wonder so many have to reinterpret it. Wonder why they don't just see the obvious instead?

With around 38,000 different (known) sects/variants of the one belief, some of them vehemently opposed to each other, it gives the impression there could be a little more confusion surrounding the christian "truth" than they would have us believe.

Then we have the new age variety who seem to take the Blavatsky route and just throw it all together, corrupt anything you like, have a few "inner experiences" and hey presto. Buddha believed in god and was a christian too. Or at least he would of been, if he could have been.

A shame, many of the eastern religions seem far more intelligent than primitive mythology like christianity.

reply to post by AdamLaw


Dude, you ARE 'god'. Everyone is. Everyone is a part of the whole. We are all individual expressions of the infinite creation all that is exists in. We literally manifest/create our realities, you are your own universe !! YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE!! do you realise how literal and amazing this is ? Jesus said be like me, not follow me. He wanted everyone to be like him, not follow and watch him, preach and prey to him.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

It's funny because I've discussed my points with friends who are now College professors and self described Atheists, and none of them were as vehement to deny all my points as you are, so perhaps your skepticism will remain so strong that even when science quantifies these things, you will still remain a skeptic.

The many competing ideas makes it less obvious they really found it. Even far less obvious you have.

You mean just like when the study/theory of quantum physics came out during Einstein's time and the majority of science was opposed to it? Just like there are competing branches and theories in Psychology/Psychiatry? Just like in politics? Are there not various views within all branches of thought?

Your claim that the only way to know is to look in the same way as you have done and therefore must find exactly the same things or be wrong, does have a few obvious flaws. It is a fallacy that overlooks a few things.

Here is a link for 112 ways to get to the experience of the Absolute.
112 ways to get "there"

By no means am I saying, "my way" is the only way. Considering everyone is agreeing this experiential Beingness, underlies all of realty, then logically there are various ways to see for one's self. But you seem to be having none of this. I think the implications for your subjective bias bubble that a soul and it's source (God) exists, completely threatens the way you have chosen to view reality.

As do countless other "truths", many of them "mystical" and "esoteric". All with their associated circular logic to protect them

There is no circular logic here because the experience transcends "logic" and logic itself deduces that logic is limited. You viewing this from the outside in, means your only method of wrestling with all of this is circular logic. I have no choice but to use language to discuss the ineffable.

It overlooks that many use exactly your method and come up with different "truths". Including Buddha who you reinterpret for your own ends (and also seem to have a bit of a crush on, by the way).

I don't know why you keep repeating the same arguments when I already covered this. Having Buddhist scholars that I'm friends with, and explaining my direct experiences to them, they've quantified that it's legit. Should I take you serious with your above quote and give it any weight? Or should I trust that Buddhist Scholars same my experience is true to Buddhist thought/philosophy? I'm going to go with the scholars on this one.

It overlooks the fact that many of these "mystical esotericists" are delusional fanatics and is a term can be comfortably interchangeable with "nut job". In more severe instances they offer a glimpse into the truth of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, more so than the universe.

Well that quote says it all in a nut shell. A typical educated professional scientist would intellectually choose the neutral stance on such claims and it wouldn't be necessary for all the name calling, which would psychologically imply that your mind is made up and filled with much bias which is rooted in who knows what.

The "mystical" equivalent of "my dad's better than your dad".

Those like me, who have come to the realization of the Absolute, have no reason to argue who's dad is better. On top of that, the older materialists who run academia and think the way you do, are dying out and are being replaced by minds that are neutral on this subject. It is that neutrality that needs to be inherent to locate your scientific proof.

Most intelligent Christians realize their religion is based on faith. Another range of the human experience that shouldn't be discounted. In this much I agree, without having this faith.

Faith is for babies. It might be necessary in the beginning to at least have faith that God is possible. But to someone who has experienced God, Faith goes out the window. Do you have Faith that you breath air, or that your heart beats? Of course not ...it just does. So too with the God experience, it just is, like breathing, and requires no belief or faith after the fact.

Some however, become fundamentalist and fanatical about it. Some even use the pretext of "mystical" or "esoteric" to excuse it. Religious fanaticism is quite a problem in this world today. The difference between this unrealistic stance and yours are......you claim yours are real.....just like they do.

Is human experience devoid of belief/labels real? Do you not experience reality? Instead of answering this, you go off on these unintelligent rants because the possibilty of God threatens your bias & comfort.

Continued.....

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I have no need to debate what would constitute substantiating your claims. Anyone with the slightest common sense will see the unlikelihood of that ever happening. Perhaps you should have considered that first? Hot air and "because I say so" or "because others say so" or "because I claim Buddha says so" etc. don't really do it. It is fascinating to see how you dance around it, however. The "mystical pride" that you don't have, seems to have other ideas, ones that preclude that one honest sentence from being uttered.

There must be some loss in translation on your part because like Ive said, I have brought my points up to floks who have PHD's and work in academia (requiring much more respect in such discussions then whatever you think), and they have all said my points are valid, without them going off on delusional rants.

I think this video speaks for itself here, and I'm happy to say that science is alot closer to proving my claims true than I thought. Instead of 100-300 years to do so, it may happen within the next decade, which will require you to readjust what you believe, and don't, to be true:

"The surest way to gauge a man's honesty, is to ask him about the afterlife."

what does this even mean and who said this? I can just as well say ""The surest way to gauge a man's Bias, is to ask him about the afterlife." Circular logic and means nothing. Moving along....

Leprechauns, elves, pixies, fairies, elementals etc. belong to a certain mystical genre with a long historical tradition. With many references and different names, by different cultures. Reference to them goes back to antiquity. I know of one Professor of Science who studies them. There are pictures of fairies (whether you believe them real being another matter).

Yeah '___' and other substances pretty much reveal such beings in almost all who experiment in certain substances that are available globally. SO what? What I refer to, has nothing to do with substances and is repeatable.

I certainly wonder about your methods, by the standards you request of others, you seem to be displaying complete hypocrisy.

You said leprechauns and omitted elves, pixies, etc etc the first time around. Leprechauns are limited geographically and culturally so where's the hipocracy? If you would have included the other's first time around, then my point & rebuttal would have changed, yet your quick w/ your bias to start call people hipocrats making me even wonder just how old you are and what your educational level is.

Ever studied the teachings of any modern Christian "Gnostics"? Your new age pseudo mysticism and synthesising/corrupting of other systems to fall in with your belief, even the terms you use. Uncanny similarity. They are considered by many a negative mind control cult. Ever been influenced by such teachings?

Look I don't care about labels and religions. I have access to and experience something that is inherent in all of reality, is repeatable, and have shown others (without using religions and labels) how to get there, by using logic and reason. The resulting find, gives credence to what many religions point to and that's it. Very simple in a nut shell. Even staunch and hardcore materialists such as yourself have seen this reality and it has destroyed all their previous stances. You refuse to even go look for yourself so your stuck in your subjective bias bubble.

You're choosing to go off on all these delusional rants and gnostic this and mystic that when all of that can be destroyed by the simple and logical statement of: "Just like the thought, label, idea of a tree, is not the same as an actual tree itself, so too is the thought, label, idea of person not the same as and actual person themselves."

ps. The Toledot Yeshu (while seemingly about as accurate as the new testament) is generally considered 4th-6th century. Think you might be talking of the oldest known manuscript.

Don;t matter. If the manuscript is legit, it doesn't change that I have experienced myself as consciousness separate from the body and experienced the source of consciousness. I myself have a criminal past and regret many decisions in my life, but that wouldn't take away from me saying that if a person wants to experience the Absolute, here's how one can get there.

People can partake in character defamation tactics all they want to try and disprove certain things. Ultimately it comes down to seeing for yourself. Regardless I feel good about my stance with the video I posted in this thread, the fact the physical death is inevitable, that scholars take my points seriously without going on childish rants, and that I have shown strict atheists how to see for themselves and they no longer ascribe to your stance ...enough for me

reply to post by dominicus


Thanks Deepak...er...I mean Dominicus.

Scientists are otherwise normal people with many and varied personal opinions. If you could show me the reviewed and accepted paper that has science now agreeing with you, that we do have a loveable little soul that finds it's way back to god, that would be good. Or if you could show me the peer reviewed and accepted paper that has found quantum effects must be relevant to the subject (at least any more relevant than any other process) via experiment, that would also be good.

As far as I know the scientists in the field are unsure as yet and refer to such speculation as "quantum doodleflap". If you can do this I will know you are not using the term "science" as a logical fallacy to support your view (he agrees with me, or at least doesn't disagree, so it must be right). Speculation is not established fact. Though I agree that some the speculation is fascinating. I disagree that it necessarily supports your views which, from what I have seen, appear to be a rehash of simplistic Judeo/Christian mythology.

What I deny (as a separate issue to what might be the truth, or not), is being told what truth I must believe in by someone who might not really know. By someone who simply dismisses other people's experience offhand, under the guise of owning the "mystical" truth, if their conclusion don't match. It assumes all who don't agree with you have no experience of what you call the "absolute". This could be very wrong, some might have looked beyond the assumptions such experience can lead to, perhaps there is more.....

I also find the self appointed title of "mystic", when used in a way to infer superior knowledge or abilities, quite a misnomer. Possibly the result of an inflated, aggrandised self image.

If the "quantum doodleflap" has the potential to be very misleading, what of the "mystical doodleflap"? When we consider the great mystics who wrote such tomes as the bible.....in view of modern cosmology, evolution, physics, medicine etc. There are countless instances of the mystics not being just stupefyingly and ridiculously wrong, but holding back the advancement of genuine knowledge. The "mystical" "esoteric" know-it-alls should always be challenged.If only this happened in the past...

The claims you make about other systems under the guise of "esoteric" is already very questionable, if understandable when your chosen faith (yes, faith) is taken into account.

I can see the possibility that any notion you have of "you" will no longer be required at the end of it all. It won't matter, there will be plenty of time to get used to it. Perhaps something far greater happens. Whatever the truth will be, no doubt it has every possibility of being elegant and awe inspiring. I can also see the possibility of your own simplistic and seemingly crude interpretation (IMO) as being comparable in similar way to the "mystics" creation account v evolutionary biology.


Though it probably won't matter, what the "mystics" do seem very proficient at, is reinterpreting anything they can in a way which could support their beliefs...er sorry...direct experience. Then they can simply put all fear of their mortality aside, safe from certain other likelihoods.Soul, god heaven, sugar and spice. When that can't be done, they will just claim others are ignorant. The facts must align with the belief.

Originally posted by dominicus
You said leprechauns and omitted elves, pixies, etc etc the first time around. Leprechauns are limited geographically and culturally so where's the hipocracy? If you would have included the other's first time around, then my point & rebuttal would have changed, yet your quick w/ your bias to start call people hipocrats making me even wonder just how old you are and what your educational level is.

Please read the relevant post again. This time allow your mind to perceive the word "fairies". You have not even rebutted the leprechauns in any genuine way. Some people believe, which makes them as relevant as anything you have said. You have not given any indication of having studied it in depth, internally or otherwise, which you seem to request of others. I can see where a quick google search and resulting rebuttal would seem unfair to yourself, why should fairy believers be any different?