Enlightenment

[Nixiam]

I like to take the lazy approach of finding two highly skilled debaters and learn as they do the heavy lifting.

Here I've found more than 2. I appreciate the level of honesty and the risk of openness everyone is willing to make while debating some deeply held beliefs. So thanks for putting yourselves out there.

Lol.

I think all of us do, at times.

 

[belligerent drunk]

But I don't know exactly how you expect me to provide evidence, other than refer to the classic masters and good teachers who've come to teach us. And, then, because I can't provide any evidence that means we can conclude there is no such thing? I think there is evidence, but maybe not the kind you want, that comes with a stamp of approval from the majority, or official authorities.

I don't know how you feel you can say such a thing there is no spiritual development to pursue, when millions of people have said otherwise, and a consistent system that seems to get results has been practiced for over 7000 years in India. Have you ever considered there might be a reason for that?

The kind of evidence people wish to see is the same kind of evidence people want to see when you make any claim. You have to be able to present physical evidence that shows that what you're saying holds water. Some people don't want to take your word for it, or the words of the so-called teachers and masters. As one great person once said, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

"Hold on", you want to say, "but what I'm talking about is non-physical, so how can I present physical evidence for it"? Here lies the problem - anecdotal evidence of non-physical phenomena is all it is, a word of mouth. Some may find it convincing, and may resonate with it (for whatever personal, emotional etc reasons), as you seem to do; and in those cases they feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant such beliefs.

I have to admit that earlier in my life I had a lot of weird stuff happen, the so-called "synchronicities". But then I asked myself, which is more likely: 1) it's a product of my very-oh-so human mind, which is prone to all forms of biases, like confirmation and observation bias, which are very real phenomena; OR 2) I, one out of 7 billion or whatever currently living humans, have a "life plan" made just for me? Somehow it seems more likely that I'm just a biased human than a special snowflake in this life.

Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum.

So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs ad nauseam, and derail the thread in the process.

E: PS Ninae and anyone else. If you feel that you're being unjustly ridiculed or your thread is being derailed, then report the posts to let moderators know what the problem is.

 

[Foreigner]

"Hold on", you want to say, "but what I'm talking about is non-physical, so how can I present physical evidence for it"? Here lies the problem - anecdotal evidence of non-physical phenomena is all it is, a word of mouth. Some may find it convincing, and may resonate with it (for whatever personal, emotional etc reasons), as you seem to do; and in those cases they feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant such beliefs.

I have to admit that earlier in my life I had a lot of weird stuff happen, the so-called "synchronicities". But then I asked myself, which is more likely: 1) it's a product of my very-oh-so human mind, which is prone to all forms of biases, like confirmation and observation bias, which are very real phenomena; OR 2) I, one out of 7 billion or whatever currently living humans, have a "life plan" made just for me? Somehow it seems more likely that I'm just a biased human than a special snowflake in this life.

Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum.

So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs ad nauseam, and derail the thread in the process.

In a way, what you've just written is worse than people who ignorantly enter a spiritual thread to berate it. The reason being that you clearly demonstrate that you grasp why the behaviour causes conflict, yet in the same breath you are still calling our knowledge and experience absurd. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Thank you for sharing why you decided to dismiss synchronicities in your life, and why you feel that, for you, it is a sign of some kind of delusional thinking.

You also misunderstood the point you attributed to me. I did not say that only people of like mind should discuss certain topics. I said that if people want to delve into a certain topic without intrusions, they should be able to request containment. For example, I'm not Christian whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I don't partake in Christian discussions. It's not about believers vs. non-believers. It's about people inserting their standards of evidence into a discussion knowing full well that they will never be met, and using that as a means to derail and dismiss the entire topic -- much in the same way you accuse Ninae of doing.

You've already identified a central issue in philosophy in general. There will never be concrete evidence for spiritual or philosophical assertions. That's why science, philosophy, and religion are different branches. It's like asking someone to use the Bible to tell us why hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water. Apples and oranges. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be less at odds with the philosophical/spiritual branches.

 

[belligerent drunk]

In a way, what you've just written is worse than people who ignorantly enter a spiritual thread to berate it. The reason being that you clearly demonstrate that you grasp why the behaviour causes conflict, yet in the same breath you are still calling our knowledge and experience absurd. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Thank you for sharing why you decided to dismiss synchronicities in your life, and why you feel that, for you, it is a sign of some kind of delusional thinking.

Interesting way to interpret what I said. I didn't call your knowledge absurd, I just showed what kind of "evidence" people (those who often question such beliefs, me included) wish to see, and what the problem with anecdotal evidence is regarding this subject.

I said that if people want to delve into a certain topic without intrusions, they should be able to request containment.

but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over

Unless I'm missing something, I think we're talking about the same thing. I worded it differently, but under "like-minded" I meant people who are interested in the topic/problem presented in the thread, rather than questioning the entire beliefs or whatever.

What/when did I accuse Ninae of derailing threads?

You've already identified a central issue in philosophy in general. There will never be concrete evidence for spiritual or philosophical assertions. That's why science, philosophy, and religion are different branches. It's like asking someone to use the Bible to tell us why hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water. Apples and oranges. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be less at odds with the philosophical/spiritual branches.

I know that very well, but that doesn't mean I should be OK with it. As far as spirituality goes, then there's nothing to say; but (and again this is just my view) philosophy could use a more evidence-based approach.

I feel like we've done enough damage to this thread now, no?

 

[Ninae]

I don't know what you mean by occultist.

Its a stretch to say you've ever tried to debate me, or even engage me in anyway whatsoever really. If anything, you just critcise me as close minded and materialist.

LOL. I was spot-on and you know it. And we've engaged in countless debates through the years.

I just think it's intellectually dishonest. If you oppose something because it goes against your belief system, just be upfront about that. Don't pretend it's because you're too skeptical to consider any spiritual belief system.

 

[Ninae]

The kind of evidence people wish to see is the same kind of evidence people want to see when you make any claim. You have to be able to present physical evidence that shows that what you're saying holds water. Some people don't want to take your word for it, or the words of the so-called teachers and masters. As one great person once said, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

There is over-whelming evidence of the existence of a spiritual world in all the spiritual traditions and personal accounts left behind through the ages, and I don't really understand how it makes sense to anyone to disregard all of that. This is even a form of material evidence.

In my experience, very few who make arguments like that have actually looked at those things in much depth. I don't think you can do and not come away a believer.

 

[Ninae]

"Deeply, Govinda bowed; tears he knew nothing of, ran down his old face; like a fire burnt the feeling of the most intimate love, the humblest veneration in his heart. Deeply, he bowed, touching the ground, before him who was sitting motionlessly, whose smile reminded him of everything he had ever loved in his life, what had ever been valuable and holy to him in his life."

- Siddharta, Hermann Hesse

 

[swilow]

LOL. I was spot-on and you know it. And we've engaged in countless debates through the years.

I just think it's intellectually dishonest. If you oppose something because it goes against your belief system, just be upfront about that. Don't pretend it's because you're too skeptical to consider any spiritual belief system.

No, I have been interested in the occult but I think its as nonsensical as anything. I am sceptical off all spiritual claims.

Please don't try to fit me into your paranoid worldview and then call me dishonest. Thats pretty pathetic.

 

[Nixiam]

I truly think swilow is skeptical.

It isn't so polar, y'know?

I don't partake in spiritual practices because it isn't convincing to me.

I do plan on dabbling a bit in the future.


Has anyone else noticed how often I use the word, "I"?

 

[swilow]

Well I'm certainly not a Satanist trying to occlude spiritual awareness. That's one of the weirder claims levelled against me.

 

[Ninae]

Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum.

So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs ad nauseam, and derail the thread in the process.

E: PS Ninae and anyone else. If you feel that you're being unjustly ridiculed or your thread is being derailed, then report the posts to let moderators know what the problem is.

Well, that's all I was asking for. By the way, I don't resort to name-calling like "pathetic" or aggressive attacks when someone disagrees with me. I always try to be civil, even if some might take my arguments personally.

 

[swilow]

Ninae, your most recent comment about me is an insult. Your saying I'm lying to further an agenda. That claim IS pathetic. And rude. Whatever, im over posting in this section.

 

[Yourbaker]

Swilow I think your input in this section accounts for 50% of the reason I've read or posted here. You've used reasonable arguments and been polite when others where not.

This forum improves from your involvement. Personally I look for that reason, logic and sober second look when I post here. Despite not being a 'seeker', something has happened or I've gone insane, I really cant discount the possibility entirely, I'm here looking for that kind of counterpoint.

 

[Nixiam]

Suck up.

Just kidding pal. Well, I don't know if I'll feel okay with myself if I continue to hijack Ninae's thread, so I'll be on my way.


P.S., Enlightenment is good!

 

[Ziiirp]

There is another term for enlightenment : Delusions of grandeur.

The word satori does not mean anything more than insight and it is only related to oneself. Constant practice can (not necessarily) provide a state of constant insights. There is no enlightenment switch, that will free you from any deluded thought patterns for eternity.

Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.

 

[Ninae]

How evolved are you?

http://www.socialappbuilder.com/gfba2/a/6534942/3/

 

[Ninae]

Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.

Actually, the meaning of the word enlightenment is a process in Tibetan Buddhism. And that was more the perspective I'm approaching it from. Not as a final state to brag about.

The process is what interests me. All the things you can do to raise and expand your consciousness. This is fascinating to me, but I guess most are more interested in saying things like "There is no enlightenment" or "You think you can know what enlightenment is?" etc.

 

[Foreigner]

There is another term for enlightenment : Delusions of grandeur.

The word satori does not mean anything more than insight and it is only related to oneself. Constant practice can (not necessarily) provide a state of constant insights. There is no enlightenment switch, that will free you from any deluded thought patterns for eternity.

Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.

Since no one can really say what enlightenment is for sure, what you're saying is entirely possible.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Since no one can really say what enlightenment is for sure, what you're saying is entirely possible.

I suppose that's one way of addressing something we don't really understand, but there are people that study this thing in earnest without resorting to platitudes and without dismissing or diminishing the phenomena that many are claiming. His work demystifies a lot of the claims being made about enlightenment-like states of consciousness and I favor this approach to the subject.

Dr. Jeffery Martin has produced some of the most detailed studies on the subject to date across thousands of subjects who claim to have reached a state some describe as enlightenment. His analysis is rigorous and uses modern psychological and physiological test, including EEG's. He has been able to make some generalizations about these states of consciousness from his data. He uses the less charged word persistent non-symbolic states to describe enlightenment, which is probably a good idea since enlightenment has a lot of baggage.

The following paper summarizes some of his findings:
http://nonsymbolic.org/PNSE-Summary-2013.pdf

His website for the work contains a lot more stuff
http://nonsymbolic.org

His EEG findings should be really exciting when they are reported in honest. From what I've heard the brains of these people seems to display very different activity patterns but his findings are still preliminary.

 

[Ninae]

Scientheologists work on enlightenment in a way too, or they sure do a lot of clearing and shadow-work.

I wouldn't go near the church, but I read Dianetics by Ron Hubbard this spring, and it was very impressive. It's psychotherapy, basically, but also seems very conducive to spiritual development. If I could find someone who practiced auditing independently where I live, I think I would try it.