I don't think it's quite that ... I think panpsychism is the key here, as actual rather than presumed.
Death is an illusion
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Artificial could be argued, intelligent would be tougher.Heavens, no! That would put you on an ai list ... none of us want that ...
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 1,351
- Points
- 108
How can they be sure that there aren't entities that are more powerful, hard to detect with the senses, etc and that human reason has declared them "supernatural" but in reality they are just - other?
Good idea and excellent morals of course
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Chat-GPT:"Life is characterized by the ability to grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and adapt to the environment. Living organisms, from single-celled bacteria to complex multicellular beings like humans, share these fundamental traits."
Chat-GPT: You seem to have forgotten vegetation, which the pious butcher of Bhagawat Purana did not forget 2,000 years ago.
(Dharma Vyadha, Vyadha Gita)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
No evidence.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 1,351
- Points
- 108
It's one thing to say no evidence, it's another to say no possibility.
Here's my contention:
One of the reasons, or perhaps THE big reason I believe in God and the supernatural world, IS the ubiquitous existence of religion in all the worlds cultures for as long as there is recorded history or archaeological evidence. I hypothesize there is a reason people believe that goes beyond just wishful thinking, but more about sensing a greater reality rarely accessible to the physical senses, but too present to ignore, thus people speculate and make things up, but never ignore or dismiss it altogether. Or at least, no culture that I know of has, as a whole, completely ruled out religion. (Some governments have tried, but the culture/society, not so much)
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
Sounds like your mind has the habit or skill of viewing (what most people would identify as) its own projections and using what developmental theorist Piaget called “accommodation” to experience them. The mind accommodates the raw perceptions instead of assimilating it into known concepts. The non-dominant, usually right side, brain hemisphere tends to do better at processing “novel”/unfamiliar stimuli, so perhaps it can even kind of see familiar or somewhat familiar things in novel ways as well. Which might explain why creativity is often associated with right brain use. In the area of abnormal psychology, states of derealization and depersonalization are said to occur usually when a person is under high anxiety. I have had a few of both though when my mind seems to wander off in midstream or cut out and then come back on, as though I space out for a second or two. Just as an example, it allowed me once to see my own left hand as a fascinating object that is neat to have.
Most people have to be on drugs to have those kind of experiences.
One neuropsychologist claimed that the left hemisphere (associated more with the conscious, normally-categorizing mind) operates under a narrower range of cortical stimulation than the right hemisphere. So either high or low arousal states might leave the right brain to process while the left brain is inoperative. Perhaps zen Koans overload the left brain and let the pattern-oriented and impressionistic right brain bring what could end up being appreciated as fresh new (novel) perspectives.
Three possibilities would seem to exist: 1. Some are just naturally inclined to use the right brain more, and so use it as a gift of creativity, etc.; 2. Some who have high anxiety or PTSD or a tendency towards high arousal (hyperactivity?) would accidentally liberate right brain processing but tend to miss out at times on normal left brain processing that is so heavily used in our modern world; 3. Some brains (possibly mine) may seem to kind of fall asleep (narcolepsy?) and be in such a low arousal state that the “relief pitcher “ (right brain) steps up to the plate while the regular pitcher (left brain) sits on the bench.
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
I’m
Add to that the use of positive self-fulfilling prophecy. Praying to God works well enough to make some desired “prophecies” come true. “God” helps the mind attract good things from out of the blue, from the unknown. This is the topic of my new post, Religion as Self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course not all prayers are prayers of petition, but even a vague “prophecy” of something undefinably good is made when feeling God’s presence during prayer. We don’t have to know what we are doing to create and nurture “good” things in life. Creativity can sometimes trump regular intelligence. God can assist our rational minds. See also my speculations here about how the non-dominant brain hemisphere may play a role in creating things out of the blue, from “God.”
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 43
Everything you do has minds associated with it ptsd and anxiety may release some higher levels of hormones or lower levels either way and they can figure this out. Birds of the feather flock together, this just means that we normally find time with minds that have similar capabilities so not to teach you anything new.
I have seen so many things and experienced so many things. I have had no personal drug experiences, but that time/minds are not good, I call them the fairly odd couple. I can find time inside of anything that tries to figure me out, anything. I was inside a woman the other day and we were some where in Europe during world war 2 in a German occupied town. We were in a old store and she was inventorying merchandise while overseen by some high ranking German soldier, that was fond of her. The soldier later brought her a book that she was allowed to read in her spare time the feeling of the shop and the old style wood work, people and her feelings were so in the moments like it was just happening. They said she was dying and that these were some of the thoughts she was having in those last moments.
Tastes, smells and other sensations require a lot more time to experience these things inside of others. I know there are minds that can teach you anywhere on this planet I keep trying to figure them out, I know himself he is Thomas asparagus to me. Thomas is the mind that teaches you about anything you want to figure out kind of like a librarian of this world. Anyway I am rambling just so many thoughts I keep revisiting to figure things out.
On netflix is the movie, The Passion of the Christ. I am not sure I will watch it all as it seemed kind of poorly made in just the few minutes I was watching it. In the beginning Jesus was talking to I think god about helping him avoid the traps and those trying to capture them this was when he was betrayed by Judas in the woods. When Jesus was talking to god a woman supposedly Satan was standing near him and telling him that he could not and no man could bear the full burden of sin. This is true what Satan is saying for you must bear it by not knowing anything about it at all. Only a mind/yourself can bear this burden as long as it does not become itself inside of itself if it did he would become the devil. That is why the left hand path is "I know who he is" and not "I know everything about everything here" as the right hand path.
powessy
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
You are welcome to your views. For myself, if there is not even a single proof of what the scriptures say in the last 10,000 years, then I will say there is no possibility - like there being no elephant in my cupboard, however hard anyone tries to make me believe that there is one (or many, a whole herd).
Last edited:
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 1,351
- Points
- 108
ah, you didn't even respond to the best part of what I said!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
What is there to reply in an 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy? That is why I said you are welcome to your views.
Their opinions count, as long as they are mindful of the risks. I came across this today:
It's an excerpt from a two-volume work called "Silence: A User’s Guide" by Maggie Ross, an Anglican solitary. According to Richard Rohr at the Center for Action and Contemplation: "Maggie Ross is a seer, listener, and hearer of the first magnitude!"
"Meditation practice is but one very minor aspect of the work of silence: it is an entry-level, beginning step in an all-encompassing commitment. The language of meditation is not necessarily inclusive of the whole person ... whereas, by contrast, the work of silence engages all of the person.
It is possible to practice meditation under the illusion that one is outside of any perceived value system, but this idea is deceptive and dangerous: meditation will intensify whatever values a person holds, whether or not they are acknowledged ...
Meditation needs to have a context and be subject to deliberate intent. It is for this reason that the contemporary division between religion and “spirituality” is perilous, as is the division between so-called spirituality and ordinary life. While it is not essential to believe the tenets of a particular sect, it is vital to be aware of one’s own beliefs, one’s own ethics, and the purpose for which one is meditating – that is, intent – and intent is supremely important in this process, for meditation accesses the deep mind, and the attention of the deep mind is influenced by intention…
Many teachers (and practitioners) limit themselves to various techniques of meditation – in effect making meditation in itself something of a panacea, a goal, even an idol, and therefore a dead-end … "
(Maggie Ross, Volume I: Process, pps 32-34)
Meditation, towards the pursuit of silence, is the practice of kenosis, of self-emptying, to allow one to sink into a union with the all and an unfettered engagement with the Real and the True, be it God, Logos, the Tao, Buddha-nature, one's Ancestors ... whereas all too often, those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious' are unconsciously following a philosophy of self-affirmation, of self-fulfilment, which is quite the opposite to the aims of authentic spiritual practice.
Linji Yixuan (臨濟義玄; Japanese: Rinzai Gigen; died 866 CE) was a Tang dynasty (618-907) Chinese monk and teacher of the Hongzhou school of Chan (Zen) Buddhism. He is infamous and notoriously misunderstood saying: "If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha" – in this case, the idea of a 'spiritual self' which becomes idolatry.
Rinzai's message was to eschew all that which clouds one's outlook and blocks the path of enlightenment. All such words and concepts, all too often the 'spiritual but not religious' statement as a cover for a self-serving practice, are delusional and as much as an impediment as an attachment to any crass idea or objective, such as sensual gratification or material gain.
I'm not saying in every case ... just throwing this out there for contemplation.
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
Years ago I picked up on an image that was in my wife’s mind when I was trying to be mentally deep. It was a red barn. If what you say is true, my mind reading was the low hanging fruit. It would have taken more time and skill to pick up on smells and touch/feelings? When I mentally resurrected Jesus as my Rabbi while running and meditating on Easter Sunday, I only got a vague visual impression, no verbal content of his teaching, but I did feel love towards him. Not his feelings but mine. Whether my visualization attached to Jesus Christ himself back in his time, or was just a part of myself that has Christ-like (spiritual) potential, I don’t know (and am okay with either), but for the spiritual practice to work, it seems necessary to accommodate the meager mental impressions, and to receive them as something real out there before I can download the spiritual growth potential that the contemplated object/being has to offer. I can reclaim the projection as being my own potential but if I reclaim it too fast, its potency and potential to transform me seems diminished or lost altogether. I can’t just say it’s just my imagination and expect to learn or be changed by the experience. I need to allow the imagined or perceived object to BE, so I can be moved by it. Similar to identifying with characters in a movie, I have to imagine they are not just fictional representations, but are real enough to move me emotionally and in terms of new insights or strengthened values.
While I am okay with psychological explanations of the imaginative meditations, I am at times baffled by external synchronicity events. Case in point: two mourning doves flew across my path, right in front of me while running. First time that has ever happened. Coincidence? If so, a highly meaningful one. At least confirming that we can have quite a bit of good luck in our lives that also have a lot of bad luck and suffering and struggle. Grace is woven into Creation,
Out west years ago while I was in a deep meditative state and was drawn to a statue memorializing a young boy who drowned in rapids while chasing geese, I had a large cottonwood tree fall down on a calm day when I went through the park’s turnstie (sp?) as I exited.
Only 2 or three weeks later my good friend and next door neighbor drowned in a riptide in the Atlantic Ocean while vacationing with his family.
It was as though both telekinesis AND premonition had occurred in that park out west. BTW, I was intentionally trying to contact spirits during that out west vacation where the tree fell down.
These occurrences cause me to bet on actual metaphysical realities associated with my deep psychological experiences. But they are not required to make me believe in the worthwhile-ness of mentally going deep.
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
I was just talking with Powesse about the need to let the meditative object be, to accommodate it, instead of putting it in a mental/conceptual box. I think my word for listening or silence is going deep. I think you have to be still and silent to go deep mentally.
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
Poem about the God function, regardless of it’s metaphysical status:
Whateverland
When the mind goes deep to God
or into the great unknown
I know it will yield a harvest,
but not sure where the plants are grown.
Are they grown in a peaceful meadow
that’s a hidden part of me?
Or in vast plains
that stretch across eternity?
I place my bet on the latter,
based on certain things I perceive.
But I also think it may not matter,
based on the bounty I receive.
Of one thing I am certain,
the rock on which I stand,
going deep is worth the journey
to and from whatever land.
otherbrother
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 43
Somewhere here you also emphasize non duality. Which would sacralize the mundane because it is attached to all that is. While this is an embrace of material environment, that unified field stretching out and connecting oneness mental activity of non dual seems to be more of an energy concept than a matter based concept. In Eastern thought about types of spiritual practice, it seems “Tantra/Tantric”. Somewhere here I suggested that the one body in Christ thing in Christianity is also Tantric. Transcending but including the gradual path of growing by moral practices, following law, fake it until you make it. The theological concept of Grace seems to also fit into the non dual and Tantric line of spiritual practice. Perhaps contemplation of Brahman, the original (and current) stuff or primordial Source is Dogzhen-like also, but to sense an ever-present non dual reality seems to involve a feeling of swimming in an Ocean, a stretching out into All-ness, or Krishnamerti’s “expansiveness.” To me, Brahman experience seems more Tantric, energy-based. Matter has gaps. Energy flows together, forms unified fields.It is not nihilistic. Buddha was definitely not a nihilist. Simply said, it means returning to the environment.
You were Brahman, you are Brahman, what constitutes you will still be Brahman even when you are no more.
That is "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are - Chandogya Upanishad, the second oldest Upanishad of Hinduism, 600 BCE)
Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4:
"yathā somya ekena mṛitpiṇḍena sarvaṃ mṛinmayaṃ vijñātaṃ, syād vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ, mṛttika iti eva satyam."
(O Serious inquirer, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes in name are deformations in the matter of naming only. earth alone is the reality.)
Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 6.1.4 (English and Sanskrit)
Verse 4: O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But...www.wisdomlib.org
This is my issue with no evidence.
We could not hear space till we got the skills to develop the tools to listen.
Same with bacteria before the microscope.
Or the molecule, and atom.
Just cause your 6 senses or mine can't grok it doesn't mean it isn't there.
For that reason we leave the chair out for Elijah, and I will leave my door and heart and mind open as well.
But you do you brother!
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 1,351
- Points
- 108
That's not quite right. I can see where you could mistake it for an "argumentum at populum" fallacy but that is not it.
Imagine this scenario: Suppose you run an inn, maybe your family runs it for generations. For some reason different people who do not know one another report hearing sounds in one corner of the building. People pass through from all over the world and you have no evidence they know one another nor know a thing about local legends. Different people describe the sounds differently, but most report hearing the sounds.
The building changes hands and goes into disuse. It is then restored and used for other things. New occupants resume reports of unidentified sounds in a corner of the house.
Conclusion?
Not much specific to go on, but there is probably something producing sounds in that side of the house. Who knows what. Just something.
Or something exterior producing echoes into that side of the house.
Different peoples at different times all over the world persistently develop theories about the supernatural.
Conclusion?
Well, there's tons of detail, but not much specific to be sure of.
There's probably something transcendent that people somehow perceive and feel a connection to. Then they go wild speculating, form religions, and fight about who's right for thousands of years.