Hi Shaolin Wookie continued,
I stated:
We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.
Quote:
I think this statement is ridiculous. (I hope you don't think I'm being disdainful. This is an argument, and I'm not going to waste words, so it might sound abusive) . According to this thesis, General and special relativity would never have arisen. People constantly question the existence of things, and their non-existence. Consider the technological revolution of the past century. The world does not even look like a former shade of itself anymore. Seventeenth century time-travellers would never recognize New York City....
This does not preclude one from having conditioned views that regulate what they will accept as worthy of investigation. You appear to have fixed views about this subject. These fixed views limit your ability to fully understand the topic. These fixed views affect your ability to consider information that contradicts your fixed view. This is not a quality of mind that is unique to you, it occurs with all humans. There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.
I wrote:
We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.
Quote:
I don't like this line of thinking. I never have. You question the gamut of experience/perception based on what experience/perception has given you first, in order for you to question its validity. This is like the skeptic's credo. Fun to read. But logically untenable.
This is an excellent example of my previous point. You have a fixed view and cannot understand a clearly worded example that refutes your view. My examples may be directly experienced to prove the point. I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. You will be unable to understand the experience of happiness or the taste of an orange unless you have had the experience yourself. These experiences occur in a non-discursive manner. They are communicated in a discursive manner. When a non-discursive experience is discursively described the non-discursive experience gets confused with the discursive description. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! The fact you are apparently unable to understand this simple point demonstrates how your fixed view will not allow you to consider what you have determined to be unreasonable.
I wrote:
This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!
Quote:
They are. If I'm born alone in a black cave, fed through some kind of nano-technological feeding device (don't ask), and have a sense perception inhibitor of another nano-technological sort, and am never able to feel, touch, taste, smell, see, or hear anything outside of myself, or even of myself, I will never develop any kind of identity. For all I know I could be running through a forest, hitting every tree on the way there, but I'll never know it. I have no input. Hence, there is no development.
This is pretty demonstrative of the tyranny of cause and effect.
You are assuming here. You do not fully understand the qualities of mind so you cannot know this will occur. Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. It is just as likely the mind would create qualities of thought and artificially separate them from itself as God/Tao has done. It is possible discursive thought would occur spontaneously, since this is an inherent quality of mind. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena. The only reason our dreams occur according the context of material experience is because this is the primary context experienced by the discursive mind. There is no reason to believe this is the only way we dream. It is at least possible the mind translates non-discursive experience into a discursive context in order to make the dream more understandable to the limited perception of our mind.
Quote:
Well, ****, I've studied it almost 20 years (first five years don't really count, except as brainwashing), half-in, half-out, and never half-assed. My greatest gripe with religion is that 99% of the people who profess it, or profess to disbelieve in it, display 5% sincerity on the topic. That goes for many of the people on this board. Hopefully, I figure if I stir up enough ****, someone might actually begin to exercise their brain cells. that's why I love to argue this subject, and why many people hate to do so. (Not talking about you, SB)
I would agree with you concerning sincerity and religion.
I am not discussing organized religion here, but direct experience of God/Tao. Religion serves a purpose in society; if it didn’t it would not exist, however organized religions commonly create limited, flawed and sometimes foolish views of God/Tao.
Organized religion serves a social and emotional purpose for those who need it, but it creates a limiting and confining context for those who choose to transcend the narrow aspects of the social and emotional context. Religions are one means societies use to cultivate social cohesion. Social cohesion is generally a benefit to individuals and that is why cohesive structures occur, however these same structures force individuals to conform to artificial structures that limit human experience and creativity. All societies require common behavior codes in order to provide social cohesion; one consequence of this is it creates a sense of “us and them” which encourages conflict.
Most of the major religions do have indications of the principles I have discussed, but they are hidden within the teaching and are not easily discerned. The majority of adherents participate in the social aspects conforming to rituals and behaviors on a superficial level, but never explore the deeper meanings.
Quote:
I love discussing this topic. I may not be a believer. But I am sincere in my interest and research into it.
I appreciate your sincere interest, but sincerity is not a substitute for comprehensive understanding. You may have been investigating for 20 years, but your search does not appear to have produced satisfactory results. Your posts appear to reflect resentment, hostility and frustration. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the tone of your posts or, if I am correct, perhaps your attitude is due to the lack of satisfaction with your current belief system. In other words, perhaps you have an inner desire or impetus to want to believe/understand, but have not found a satisfactory means to come to an understanding of God/Tao. I will leave it to you to clarify your position if you so desire.
At any rate I appreciate your continued participation in our discussion.