Envix said:

yeah that's the whole nature of doin' thangs. 

heres a bashar thang

---

I thought bashar was a cook, but he is definitely speaking the truth here


this is the answer to the whole god debate.  How did it start? how was it created? it wasn't. IT IS POSSIBILITY itself. There was nothing that "created" existence, it just is, and everything there is is within it, infinite possibility, and there is nothing outside of it, not even nothing. The concept of nothing is only something within existence/possibility itself.  We are possibility. That is how "god"/the universe is consciousness itself. It is whatever is possible, and again, there is nothing outside of it, not even "nothing"

hard to explain, but I'm surprised Bashar seems to grasp this concept



doin thangs is doin thangs. There ultimately is no difference between anything; possibility is possibility itself.


"God" is a kid playing out every possibility of an infinite Rubik's cube, and everything and nothing in between. Doin everythang, and doin nothang all at once. God is a dude jerking off, and within that frame is somehow a reflection of everything there is, all at once

Brainstem said:

And what is your definition of reality oh, purveyor of liberty ?

---

Reality is the real and not the imagined. It is foremost the experience as it stands to the mind. Although all experiences are 'real' they don't necessarily convey the true nature of things. Things as they truly are is a non-dual, seamless and inconceivable interaction of interactions. There is no lasting entity to be found, all form is impermanent, yet returns cyclic.

However, reality is our everyday life, if that is easier to accept.

Icelander said:

It's "your opinion"  not "you're opinion"

---

You forgot to add a period.

I AM SWIM said:

Icelander said:

It's "your opinion"  not "you're opinion"

---

You forgot to add a period.

---

OOOOOOOO NIGGA GOT TOLE

I AM SWIM said:

Icelander said:

It's "your opinion"  not "you're opinion"

---

You forgot to add a period.

---

Good point. (pun intended)

Brainstem said:

All the religions of the world are based on the direct, first-hand experience of GOD by individuals. These prominent people Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and so on, had personal subjective experiences which we cannot prove or disprove. My question is this, Does trying to disseminate and make defining statements about these experiences immediately devalue the importance of the personal first-hand experience and any insight gained ? My opinion is that you can put down institutional religions all day, but the sources of these religions and the first-hand experience of GOD, may be subjective, but so are so many other things that we still credit as valuable, and I think that it is in communicating the experience that the significance is lost.

---

The experience is subjective but it is one experience, the experience of limitless love, all the sages have declared this
We must try to communicate this, otherwise we are just communicating some other meaningless rubbish
Talk about limitless love, or the weather?

The weather will be as it is whether we talk about it or not, bringing the flood of limitless love into this world, now thats something to talk about

Still, i agree with what your saying which is basically go beyond belief & into direct experience of the truth

quinn said:

Okay, my brain is somewhat recovered.

Freedom said:

I think the first instant of perception is 'pure'. But the second instant the perception becomes associated with memory. Most memory is colored by good and bad, desire and fear. Pushes the mind stream around...

---

This is interesting. But when you say 'pure perception' do you mean
-perception without any interpretation (i.e. meaningless)
-perception with a little interpretation (i.e. basic objects discerned, but as yet no 'content' to those objects)
-perception with a little more interpretation (i.e. basic objects with content like a 'relation' to yourself 'i should be afraid of this' 'that is neutral' etc...)

probably the more interpretation the more abstract the 'object' becomes until you get to 'that is a dog' or something. but is that still 'reality'?

i guess Q1 is where do you draw the line?

---

Quote:

Quote:

What I mean is that there is perception, and this is reality.Illogical conclusions from that perception is fantasy.

---

the perceptual world is reality... doesn't logic need to deal with objects with 'content' and therefore that are not 'in' perception... like 'this is a dog', but isn't that then a kind of unreality?

'What is a dog? that isn't a dog... that is that.'

i am not really sure of what i am asking or what this means exactly. i feel it is in some way obliquely important. maybe...

---

Quote:

Quote:

But most Christians don't claim to see god, or hear god. They just interpret weird shit as signs from god and miracles and they do this illogically.

---

example 1: i have never heard or seen or touched or smelt a Komodo Dragon. But heaps of people have told me about them and heaps of people believe in them... is it logical for me to believe in them?

example 2: i have never seen electricity. But heaps of people have told me about it and heaps of people believe in it. I see it performing miracles like making light, flying planes and running my computer... is it irrational for me to believe in it?

I dunno i just get the feeling that the criteria for 'rationality' is not clear and maybe a problem...?

---

Shins said:

IMO it's an individual thing.  for some religious conclusion can be adequate. 

It all depends on what is adequate to each individual.

So to answer the original question;  No, not all religious conclusions are inadequate.

---

interesting...

i once did a pysche course where they said like 90% (WARNING unverified claims present) of the input through perception is filtered out before it even hits consciousness, or something.

they also showed us how the brain 'distorts' our perceptual input for things like facial recognition...



also when you see like a 'box'. you see an object with 6 sides, you know it has 6 sides... but only three are present. you can turn it over but u still only see 3. so i think in these kinds of cases we have to 'fill in' alot of what is not actually there...

I guess my somewhat point with all this is our sense perception is somewhat distorted to begin with... but i don't necessarily think it goes against what you were saying.

Quote:

coming up with abstract categories (dog) and then finding objects that fit into those categories is not fantasy, its logic applied to perception. Memory helping to sustain the perception so it can be manipulated by logic...

---

Quote:

Millions of people believe in electricity and when they come home at night they flip a switch and the lights come on. Millions of people believe in god yet their prayers are always unanswered. The evidence for electricity is sound and if you test it, it will not let you down. The evidence for god is not sound - in fact there is no evidence for god. If people's experiences of god or other entities were uniform, I would be tempted to believe them. But they are not. Reading the stories of religions I find they reveal quite a bit about human psychology, rather than some alien up in the heavens...

---