Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."
— praxis

In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite. — Dharmi

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.

All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha. — Dharmi

I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnate after Purusha, and are still considered sentient beings?

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral.
— praxis

No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago. — Dharmi

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."

Because the world of sense perception is transient... — Dharmi

And all sentient beings have sense perception, right?

certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong ... but the Buddha was not wrong. — Dharmi

What exactly? The rule of transiency?

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.
— praxis

No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual. — Dharmi

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. Without change, well, nothing would change and everything would be static and dead. The rule of transiency may only be relevant to sentient beings, however, if that's what you're getting at. In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism.

I don't understand why you don't simply claim that the Buddha was wrong.

There either is a Self or there is no-Self.

But the Buddha himself didn't teach non-Self. It's a Buddh-ist doctrine. The Buddha's teachings, by themselves, are totally Hindu. — Dharmi

Do not vainly lament, but do wonder at the rule of transiency and learn from it the emptiness of human life. Do not cherish to unworthy desire that the changeable might become unchanging. — Gautama Buddha

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.

Buddha himself was not a Buddh-ist, he was a Sanatani. — Dharmi

The Hindu atman apparently contradicts with the Buddhist concept of emptiness. I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to talk around the issue, but I don’t see a way to resolve it, and if there’s no resolution then at least one story must be false.

What do mean by inherent meaning?

Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter.
— praxis

Just because meaning is utilized in this way doesn't mean there is no meaning. — Dharmi

I didn’t suggest there is no meaning. In fact, I believe that we are all utterly saturated in meaning.

Here nobody teaches us the pursuit of happiness or at least something close to. — javi2541997

Nobody in the USA (a capitalist society) does either.

Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter.

Well, this is supposedly the normal curve of happiness.

... nobody knows how thinking works.

...there is a part of the brain that... — synthesis

Do you mean to say that only you know how thinking works?

So Hrvoje bested me in our 16 day game.

Looked like this at the end where there was no way for me to win so I resigned.


Never played a game like that before. About halfway through I started really analyzing and planning for many moves ahead. Hrvoje always succeeded in thwarting my best laid plans though. :grimace:

Good game, @Hrvoje

We can only make decisions based on our thinking. Reacting without thought is not decision making. It's an involentary conditioned responce. We can deliberatly condition ourselves to react in particular ways, but that requires planning etc., i.e., thinking. For example, if you were speeding down the freeway and the car in front of you abruptly slowed down you'd probably hit the brakes without thinking or deciding to hit the brakes. With deliberate practice we can train ourselves to do this as well as possible. That's something that we can chose to do, and that decision would be based in reason.

Deciding something based on a gut feeling or intuition is also thinking in that it involves the subconscious, it's just not well considered, or perhaps it is well considered if deliberate conditioning were involved.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to function in this highly ineffectual manner. If we can simply observe and accept (without comment), then we can see things for what they really are and respond with the most appropriate measures. — synthesis

It's not necessary to think for ourselves, that's true. We can rely on others to see things for what they really are and inform us on how to respond with the most appropriate measures. Not everyone is made to be a follower though.

"Nobody has a clue as to how thinking works."

"Oh, yeah?!"

"Yeah!"

"Yeah?!!"

"YEAH!!!"

:lol:

K, if you're as convinced as you seem there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. :victory:

Our subconscious is continually predicting and reacting based on our conditioning, and this can happen in the background, so to speak, freeing us to think whatever we like.
— praxis

Says who? Nobody has a clue as to how thinking works. — synthesis

Including old Shakyamuni?

The reason is that none of these people is using a part of their brain that is asking, "What's next?" — synthesis

Well, no, people think of all sorts of things while driving and don't crash.

It is very similar to when an extraordinary athlete preforms at the highest levels because s/he is, "in the zone." — synthesis

Well, no, it's just ordinary driving. High level driving, life professional racing, requires a lot of training and skill, I imagine.

This is a place where we can access perceptual reality and function at a much higher level. When we revert to our "normal" thinking, we transform perceptual reality into our personal reality and this is where all the distortions come to life. — synthesis

Our subconscious is continually predicting and reacting based on our conditioning, and this can happen in the background, so to speak, freeing us to think whatever we like. It's only when there's a prediction error, like tripping on something while walking, that our attention may shift exclusively to the sacred **perceptual reality**

By doing instead of (over)-thinking, we are able to transcend the mistakes made by human misinterpretation and miscalculation (normal thinking) and live a better life without ever asking, "What's next?" — synthesis

Over-thinking is over-rated!

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other.
— praxis

I agree that there is, it's just that I'm not biased to think that only one side engages in poetic and comedic expression, while the other engages in hate and oppression. Both sides have hateful oppressors and poets and comedians, but you are only capable of seeing the world through your prism of politics. — Harry Hindu

You mentioned specific events, numbnuts, and I addressed each. Without bothering to check, if I recall correctly, "blow up the White House" was part of a poem that Madonna recited at the Woman's March. The decapitated Trump photo was a stunt by comedian Kathy Griffin. BLM are hateful oppressors???

I watched, in morbid fascination, much of the 'stop the steal' protests on YouTube. No comedy or poetry. Just a bunch of knuckleheads getting riled up by protest organizers who’s real motivation seemed to be soaking the gullible fools for donations.

No one under 21. I guess we don’t need to worry about corrupting minors.

Is religeon primarily concerned with human Morals? Or primarily with religeous Ritual? Or primarily concened with advice about mundane concerns of day to day living? Or primarily concerned with group activities such as Bingo games or picnics? Or economics? Or all of the above in equal amounts? — Ken Edwards

It’s primary purpose is to bind groups in common values and teleology. It’s all about the tribe and all other concerns are secondary. This is why religious folk aren’t uncommonly virtuous, or particularly good and offering mundane advice, but have a good turnout at bingo night.

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other.

As someone who works as a creative (graphic designer) I can say that the general formula for creative ideas is to saturate yourself with material related to the design problem, put the problem aside for a while to let the subconscious do its work, and then brainstorm. If other dimensions are involved in that process I’m completely unaware of it.

God would have created atheists to train the faithful.

I'm not a white guy asshole. — frank

Not a white guy, not an asshole, or neither a white guy nor an asshole?

I'm not worried about shamanic techniques, :grin: I'm curious about how art can be about entering into different states of consciousness. Maybe I'm taking you too litterally?

Art and the arts can be about self expression, but it can also be about entering into different states of consciousness and that is where it is more shamanic. The shamans did sometimes use stimulating herbs, but there are other ways to stimulate this including certain music. — Jack Cummins

Don't recall if they're shamanic but there are techniques where just the breath is used. Anyway, never heard of art to induce different states of consciousness. I often experience flow (sometimes referred to as a peak experience, I think) while painting or other creative things but that doesn't sound like what you're talking about.

I remember thinking who would want to rule a world of orcs?

Sounds more like self-discovery/expression than conscious or deliberate transformation.

I see things very differently. Deliberate practice in meditation to relieve general and existential anxiety, and to 'depattern' the mind. Deliberate practice in art to build skill in self-expression. A good practice in creativity is letting your imagination wonder, I think, and tap into the subconscious.

The whole idea of transformation which I am talking about is ways we can work on ourselves, including meditations practices and seek out achieve states of peak experiences for ourselves, rather than just follow rituals. — Jack Cummins

And myths may facilitate this in the ways I mentioned, if not other ways? I'm still curious about exactly what you're talking about. For instance, it isn't clear if you mean consuming or studying the myths of others or generating your own myths. If the latter, how would generating myths lead to peak experiences?

I wish to suggest that the main idea which I think is central in the individual mythical and spiritual pursuit is that of transformation. — Jack Cummins

We can learn from stories and in a sense be transformed by them in that way. Stories can also reinforce prejudices or influence us in other ways that we may not be entirely aware of, and transform us that way. I suppose that something like a Zen koan could be viewed as a myth that has the potential to transform us in a transcendent way. Not sure what you're suggesting exactly.

Which social truths are you thinking about? The reason I ask about that is because there are ones which are just about conformity. I definitely believe in communicating with others, and you say it's a bit like art, but I see art and the arts as one of highest forms of communication. — Jack Cummins

I'm just curious about how or why anyone would utilize myths in an individual spiritual pursuit, basically.

I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones.
— praxis

No, I don't agree with that. — Wayfarer

Of course you don’t, human knowledge is superficial, except for the human knowledge that we subscribe to. :lol:

I prefer to think that rather than being brainwashed we can enter into our own symbolic quests, the journey of the shaman. Of course, that does come with perils but it is about discovering our own mythic truths. — Jack Cummins

We can pursue spirituality without religion, I agree, but the reason I was asking about the value of myths is because I believe that the value is in reenforcing social truths, and social truths are necessarily social, so what role would they play in a individual pursuit? Perhaps it’s like art, where we can both discover and express ‘truths’ with others?

//and I’m not saying that as a preamble to saying that ‘God did it’, only to highlight how superficial our knowledge might be.// — Wayfarer

I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones.

You are asking an extremely difficult question really, in asking about the value of myth. It all comes down to perspectives on truth: religious knowledge and myths as 'truth'? How do we evaluate it ultimately. — Jack Cummins

First we can distinguish between objective truths and social truths. Clearly, myths and legends fall into the category of social truths.

The shallowest value that myths may offer is that of mere entertainment, but even in this regard myths can resonate on a deep or archetypal level, such as stories that reflect the all to common theme of the hero's journey.

Myths have value in helping to reinforce social truths, and thereby strengthen group solidarity. That is the primary value, I believe. There is an additional value in religion, which is simply that the generator of myths (though they're not seen as myths until there's a paradigm shift) enjoys the position of ultimate authority, because only they have special access to whatever metaphysics they're preaching. Basically any charismatic leader can develop their own social truths and lead the weak minded around like cattle, and that's the negative value of myths.

I don't think you're being obscure.

What I am trying to say is that myth is a whole perspective or way of viewing experience, incorporating symbols. I am also saying that it is one way of trying to grasp 'truth.' — Jack Cummins

Right, what I'm asking is what's the value of this method? There are other ways of viewing experience and grasping truth. How is that value expressed?

So are you saying that this is your experience and the benefit of "going for it"? If your child or loved one got diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example, you'd be okay with it and not suffer at all because of it?
— praxis

I will tell you from experience because I have lost a son. It was his death that prompted me to embark on a very serious philosophical journey that morphed into my Zen Path. — synthesis

There's a saying that spiritual life begins with the introduction of pain.

Those who truly "go for it" are generally people who have come out of a very serious life episode (as did I). — synthesis

And maybe after a nice simple balanced life. Nothing wrong with that!

In thinking of the mythical we are talking about a whole dimension of experience of trying to capture truths. — Jack Cummins

Okay, what's the value of packaging truths this way?

I don’t mean I believe in the Greek gods. What I mean is, that imaginative realm is far richer than the picture in which human life is simply the outcome of the random collocations of atoms. — Wayfarer

A random collection of goofy gods is imaginatively richer than a random collection of atoms? Frankly, the later requires more imagination. I could never have dreamt up nuclear physics on my own, and have only the most basic concept of it now. A person could spend a lifetime studying and theorizing about it.

Like @Jack Cummins, you seem to think that myth has value in religion, and in the absence of myth life is somehow spiritually barren or less meaningful.

A neglectful thread host, Jack as thus far not addressed the question of how myth expresses its value in religion. Perhaps you or someone else will?