Customer Discussions > Religion forum

"We do not know what God is. God...transcends being."

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 734 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:37:43 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
Okay, then, D.S., for me, the sixth sense is the Mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:42:45 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Between life regression is more interesting. Amazing the correlation from person to person.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:43:11 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
With a capital "M" I see? :>)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 4:06:39 PM PDT

 The video link you mentioned earlier was very interesting and the broad concept seem part of a common thread . I can understand the idea behind the video but not the experiential aspects of meditation and it strikes me as very parsimonious yet very grand. 

 Which also strikes me as the perfect reason to refrain from embracing it as a theoty of everything. I think the universe will always be stranger than any current sentience could understand or discover and  I think that the problem with all our GUT theories especially superstring theories is the lack of a testable hypothesis but any theory not based on empirical  evidence seems to be less amazing  than the ones nature gives up after a fight. Dark energy dark matter and all the really interesting stuff from the expansion of the universe to the accelerating expansion are a consequence of better instrumentation, better measurement not of self reflection in Plato's cave but then again that's the best reason for not ignoring the possibility you might be right and for exploring such ideas more fully. 

The history of science is littered with great theories that were not strange enough. 

However having said that there is a lot of commonality in the imagineering of our respective realities maybe all the roads are leading to the same place

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 4:08:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 4:12:35 PM PDT
I agree that Ego (capital "E"), Soul, and Higher Self all refer to the same thing. The word "mind" is somewhat trickier because the mind is modular in operation. We can think of it as the compartmentalizing function of our awareness; it connects learning, memory, and language into organizational patterns. All of these patterns are associated with emotions and the environmental stimuli that trigger them. Consider too that mind is cultural in its expression and is influenced by social factors such as child-rearing practices, for example. That means that mind is located in a theoretical space that is ultimately transpersonal in nature. We need mind/culture to articulate just what this complex phenomenon (considered in its separate modules we could say phenomena) is. Mind is not something that we are ordinarily aware of in the same way that we are aware of the "I". The "I" (which includes both the lower "ego" and the "Ego" proper) is an immediate mental phenomenon of pure experience. This is true even *before* we are aware of the "I"; developmental psychologists have ways of gauging an infant's self-awareness, and it begins very early. That is why I say that the "I" belongs to "pure experience." The mind has more to do with how we *direct* our attention: i.e., it is dependent on self-awareness, which is itself discovered in a social/cultural context, as, for example, in the mirroring interactions between a mother and infant.

Those are just some of the things that make human development and psychology along with the social sciences so difficult to get a grasp on.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 4:24:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 4:25:50 PM PDT
I read your link and what Eric Chamberlain had to say. I don't think you got what I was trying to convey by pointing you in the direction that I offered. I will be more careful of how I present things. Sometimes I just like to give hints or suggestions. That serves two purposes: 1) I can observe how someone absorbs an indication and develops it in his/her own mind, and 2) I don't have unlimited time to make extensive posts during the middle of the day. Just pointing someone to a source of information can be a way of getting the ball rolling.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 4:27:33 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
We're using different terminologies and definitions for "Mind", but that's not unusual. One of the best definitions I've found is "The mental faculty which attracts, repels, coordinates and produces cohesion". Also known as "manas", the faculty of the Thinker.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:00:46 PM PDT
Well, that's what I meant about the word "mind." It's already too commonly used in a variety of academic and professional contexts to serve for more esoteric purposes. I like your definition, and I'm also familiar with the term "manas." For anyone who is not familiar with this Sanskrit word, "A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English" states: "Manah--mind; one of the aspects of the internal organ (from the root *man*="to think") 1. Mind emerges from the Pure (sattva) aspect of egoity (ahankara). 2. Mind stimulates the other senses to attend to their respective objects. Thus it is an organ of cognition [thinking] and of action. 5. According to Dvaita Vedanta and Sankhya, the mind is considered as one of the sense organs (indriya). 6. According to Mimamsa, different cognitions are explained by a type of 'atom' called *manas*. The mind alone brings about cognitions, aversions [negative reactions to certain stimuli], efforts, etc., but by itself it is devoid of any qualities such as color, smell, etc. Thus it needs the aid of the other organs to cognize [differentiate, discriminate] these qualities.

DSC, are my comments in brackets [ ] helping you to digest some of the terms with which you may be unfamiliar?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:08:09 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Not really. Again, I'm pointing to two different halves of our actual being. And two entirely different types of spiritual experiences.

They are explained perfectly by what I'm trying to describe.

Thanks for trying though.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:18:35 PM PDT
Could you say more about the different types of spiritual experiences?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:26:03 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I went into them extensively on our thread (might be back on HH now).

One is the typical enlightenment awakening...loss of "self" memories...unity consciousness and oneness with the universe...etc.

The other is things like past-lives and spirit guides, astral travel, etc.

Adyashanti for instance, publicly says that he can't reconcile his experiences of other lives with his experience of the "ultimate truth". Interesting, isn't it? What normally happens when we bump up against an apparent paradox?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:30:47 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I mentioned this guy before, but he's the only one I know of, other than ALF that lays this out. I'm sure there must be others somewhere, perhaps a binary soul society or something, lol.

The Division of Consciousness: The Secret Afterlife of the Human Psyche

The Lost Secret of Death: Our Divided Souls and the Afterlife

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but am still amazed at what he assembled.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 7:26:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 7:29:19 PM PDT
IFeelFree says:
SD: I think the universe will always be stranger than any current sentience could understand or discover and I think that the problem with all our GUT theories especially superstring theories is the lack of a testable hypothesis but any theory not based on empirical evidence seems to be less amazing than the ones nature gives up after a fight.

IFF: I agree to a large extent, if we're talking about a Theory of Everything (TOE). However, the triumph of superstring theory (and a couple other TOE theories) is that for a long time physicists had *no idea* how to marry quantum theory with general relativity in a way that might account for all known phenomena. QM and GR seemed so fundamentally incompatible. Unfortunately, these theories are going to be very difficult, if not impossible for all practical purposes, to test empirically. There are other objections, such as Godel's Theorem from mathematics, which suggests that the effort to develop a TOE is doomed to failure.

In any case, this is not especially relevant to the connection between consciousness and physics. The trend of physics in the past 50 years has been to replace "particles" and "forces" with "fields" and "interactions" as the most fundamental elements. Furthermore, unification in physics indicates that physicists believe that there is a single unified quantum field at the most fundamental physical level. (Whether this turns out to be a string field or not remains to be determined.) If we want to avoid dualism, we must assume that both consciousness and objective phenomena are components of a single unified reality. If there is to be unification in physics, physicists are forced to consider that the unified quantum field of modern theoretical physics is the source of both subjective and objective existence. This is because most physicists would like to avoid the necessity of introducing anything external to the laws of physics, such as a metaphysical explanation for consciousness, so that the unified field must be the dynamical origin of all phenomena. Thus, consciousness is not merely a byproduct of physical processes in the brain, but rather a fundamental component of reality, and so has a deep connection with the unified field from which all physical phenomena emerge.

The belief that consciousness is entirely the product of complex biochemical brain processes reflects the mechanistic view of nature characteristic of the past 300 years of scientific investigation dedicated almost entirely to the analysis of macroscopic, inert matter. This paradigm or world view has become deeply inscribed in our thinking and in our educational institutions. However, it represents only a particular metaphysics, and one which is not well supported by the facts. No reinterpretation of quantum mechanics can obviate the need to take into account the special role of the observer in wave function collapse. The brain merely determines how consciousness is expressed and interacts with the world. The brain "conditions" consciousness.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 7:58:34 PM PDT
I read The Lost Secret of Death, and I liked it. But it sometimes takes numerous exposures to an idea or ideas before you really start to get it. Karl Konig, one of Steiner's foremost expounders said that anthroposophists should read and digest Knowledge of the Higher Worlds thirty or forty times! I've read it twice, and most likely will read it again at some point, but do you see what I'm getting at? It takes a long time to really "get" these insights at the level of the soul's understanding. If we just work with ideas instead of looking deeply at our own soul processes then we make only minimal progress. On the other hand, you need different viewpoints to help give you perspective. It's a back and forth cycle of familiar and novel elements that leads to greater illumination.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 8:10:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 8:10:54 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I'm sure certain people "take" to some things easier than others. Once was enough for Novak's work to click with me. It made total sense very quickly. Not his conclusions just his overall idea.

On the other hand, as you know, the Steiner stuff just never seems to make sense to me. It doesn't match up with my experience of (this) reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 8:26:05 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
My daughter worked at a Waldorf school and, since I had read some of Steiner, I knew more or less what to expect, but I was really appalled at how the children were kept ignorant, unable to read, until the age of seven. I understand Steiner's intention, which was to develop the intuition, and that's a good thing, but I'm just not convinced Waldorf goes about it the right way.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:05:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 9:05:50 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I can't speak to his teaching ideas. Building up an ego in a child is completely different to what spirituality is usually attempting, in my opinion anyway.

I'm slightly more familiar with Montessori schooling. How is it different from Waldorf? Any idea?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:16:17 PM PDT
Baba Dots,

I am sorry if I missed the point you were trying to convey. I presume that you wanted me to respond to the neural nexus that acts as a local controller and remote sensor for the heart. I knew there was some kind of neural nexus there but didn't know much about it. Can it generate emotions? Can it think?

No. Forty thousand neurons is just a speck in the bucket compared to roughly twenty billion neurons in the cortex. The nexus and heart can and do participate in emotional responses as one of many organs in the body that do so. But it is not a generator of emotions and there are not enough neurons to do any thinking. Your cortex probably has millions of neurons active every second of your waking life.

In order to think, we need to have established millions of neural circuits consisting of thousands upon thousands of neurons in response to sensory and movement patterns over many years. And that won't even guarantee very good thinking.

I also read some of the reviews of the Heartmath book on Amazon. One of the reviewers describes each of the three Heartmath techniques step by step. Those techniques consist of well established technology consisting of thought stopping and cognitive counterconditioning. The emWave machine they sell is a biofeedback device using heart rate measured in the thumb. It all probably works just fine. It is just way over hyped.

I am sorry I am the one who delivers this kind of message about something you consider very special. But I couldn't do otherwise and be true to you and true to myself.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:19:58 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
D.S., I think it's vastly different. Montessori starts the child at her/his own pace, and each child is responsible for a child younger than s/he is. Each child is encouraged to achieve her/his own potential. Here's a very short rundown on a couple of differences:

WALDORF: Academic subjects are kept from children in Waldorf schools until a much later age than Montessori. They are thought to be, as in traditional schools, something necessary but not especially enjoyable, and best put off as long as possible. The day is filled with make-believe, fairies, art, music and generally the arts, putting off reading, writing and math until age seven or so.

MONTESSORI: Dr. Montessori on the other hand, filled her first school of 3-6-year-olds with dolls and other traditional make-believe toys but found that when children were given the opportunity to do real work such as cooking, cleaning, caring for themselves, each other, and the environment, they completely lost interest in make-believe and preferred real work.

She later, at the request of parents who were so impressed with the new cleanliness, happiness, and good manners of these slum children, invented manipulative language, math, and other academically-oriented materials and studied the children's response. Academic lessons were, and are now, never required or forced, but offered to and enjoyed by the children.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:26:18 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Interesting. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:27:34 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
You're welcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 10:01:31 PM PDT

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 6:54:36 AM PDT
You sound like my (same-sex) husband. He was able to read by kindergarten, so naturally he sees no advantage in late reading. But Steiner explains the reasons for his methodology in "The Education of the Child." If you are familiar with what is called the "ether body" then you know that "it becomes, in a person [as opposed to a plant or animal, which also have ether bodies], the bearer of enduring traits such as habits, character, conscience, memory, and temperament." Until the child loses the baby teeth at about the age of seven s/he is still tied to the mother's etheric body (even when they are physically separated). Steiner says, "Before the change of teeth, only the physical body is ready for the influences of the external world; all training should be restricted, therefore, to what concerns the physical body." Influences of an intellectual sort before this time negatively affect the child's will to learn. "Education should be based on happiness, on joy and a child's natural cravings." Bear in mind that this was written before the age of television, video games, junk food, and impulse sales.

One of the reasons that Waldorf education is not more effective is because many parents of students are ignorant of Steiner's teachings on the human being. They let their children be influenced by harmful aspects of the surrounding culture and, when they are diagnosed as ADHD or conduct disordered, switch them to a Waldorf school.

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 7:01:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 7:01:23 AM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
IFF, Nancy and Dots...this is for you. (you too Paul, lol)

"Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others-lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions-lies. Your teaching-lies. Your theories, your art-lies. Your social life, your family life-lies. And what you think of yourself-lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day. You will see that you are different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two. One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born."

- From The First Initiation by Jeanne de Salzmann

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:08:33 AM PDT
You may be surprised to learn that the human ego is not fully formed until the age of 28. Remember, the little ego and the Ego proper form a necessary connection for your present incarnation. Because you have such a negative view of thinking, you do not realize that the structures of intuitive intellection (Buddhists call it "prajna", Hindus call it "jnana") begin forming as soon as the ego's growth is complete. You have to have a firm foundation to place your ladder of ascent.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Religion forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  734
Initial post:  Apr 17, 2012
Latest post:  25 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions