Just to give you some idea about my work in the areas I mentioned here is a link to my blog.
https://jansandhere.wordpress.com/

Yes, I believe so. My view has been influenced by Eckhart Tolle who has studied all those schools of thought. He puts the whole thing in very simple words, but that's where his knowledge derives from - Buddhism especially.

This consciousnesses you speak of is mindless? — praxis

I wrote about it in depth in my previous post (I'm guessing you didn't read it ?). Take a look there. I'll summarize it again:

Consciousness is the primordial life force that animates all forms. So, consciousness is entirely formless (no mind, no body, no thing). It is the awareness that allows you to perceive whatever you perceive (those perceptions then lead to thoughts or physical actions).

It's not something that is easy to describe in words (precisely why science is irrelevant here). It needs to be experienced and felt by you. Unless you experience it, you'll have no clue what I mean.

According to what you describe I experience it quite frequently, as in the your example of observing negative emotions.

According to what you describe I experience it quite frequently, as in the your example of observing negative emotions. — praxis

Ok, good, so then, going back to the original point of my post that led to this discussion, it is precisely that experience of consciousness that is the "goal" (if you can call it that) of true religion/spirituality.

True religion does not aim to, and nor does it need to, teach one about "how to treat one's neighbor". Religion shouldn't be an ethics course :) It only needs to point to that state of consciousness that we, as humans, have "forgotten about". Our minds have evolved to a point where that primordial consciousness is all but entirely obscured by the mind. We know how to send vehicles into space, we can cut open a human heart and fix it, we can write highly sophisticated computer programs for any and all utilitarian purposes, but something has gotten lost along the way - our state of consciousness. It has been obscured by the mind.

The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lie. Everything else that is "important" (morals, ethics, whatever) will automatically follow from that state. Treating one's neighbor with respect then comes naturally, not needing to be taught and then artificially played out like a charade.

The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lies. Everything else that is "important" will automatically follow from that state. — Aurora

Well, your opinion isn't really humble at all, is it. You are telling billions of people who worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, and all the rest that they are misguided and that you've seen the only true way.

Well, your opinion isn't really humble at all, is it. You are telling billions of people who worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, and all the rest that they are misguided and that you've seen the only true way. — T Clark

Let's talk when you've cooled down and when it's not just your emotion that's talking ? Maybe come back to this in a couple of days ?

There is nothing personal to be gained/lost here, for any of us.

Let's talk when you've cooled down and when it's not just your emotion that's talking ? Maybe come back to this in a couple of days ?

There is nothing personal to be gained/lost here, for any of us. — Aurora

I'm not angry or upset. I stated a fact - you are telling billions of people that they are wrong and you are right about the most important thing there is. I can't think of anything less humble to say and I think it deserves a pointed response.

you are telling billions of people that they are wrong and you are right about the most important thing there is — T Clark

No, I'm not. If you think this, perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "opinion".

opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When I say, "in my humble opinion", (and even if I don't explicitly say it) it is implied that I am not claiming that what I have to say is factual.

No one here or on any other forum needs any particular "qualifications" to express his/her opinion. Isn't that what free speech is about ? And isn't that what the internet and social media are all about ? Or, are you telling me that everything everyone says here and on Facebook is factual ?

It is always wise, even when someone claims something is "fact", to take it with a pinch of salt. It goes without saying :)

So, perhaps ask yourself why you keep attacking me when it is clearly implied that anything anyone says here (or anywhere else) is, by definition, just an opinion.

I think that what I'm saying (about religion) is setting off some kind of emotional trigger within you, i.e. you feel the need to strongly defend your viewpoint even though I am not even attacking your viewpoint. I am simply stating mine.

You are fighting a fight that hasn't begun. You are fighting yourself, really :)

No one here or on any other forum needs any particular "qualifications" to express his/her opinion. Isn't that what free speech is about ?

So, perhaps ask yourself why you keep attacking me when it is clearly implied that anything anyone says here (or anywhere else) is, by definition, just an opinion. — Aurora

Please point out anywhere I have attacked you. I have tried hard to change my way of arguing to take out all personal attacks and to focus on the argument, not the person. Sometimes I fail and it's good to point that out to me.

Here is my statement - You (Aurora) have said that billions of people are wrong about the basis of their spiritual life and that you are right. Is that true or false?

If my statement is wrong, then I've misunderstood. If it is correct, then, in my opinion, what you've written is very arrogant. It is not humble at all.

what you've written is very arrogant. It is not humble at all. — T Clark

That's it ! Thanks for making it even clearer this time around :D

Those words I quoted are what I'm talking about. Is that not a personal attack ?

what you've written is very arrogant. It is not humble at all. — T Clark
That's it ! Thanks for making it even clearer this time around :D

Those words I quoted are what I'm talking about. Is that not a personal attack ? — Aurora

I didn't say anything about you. I said something about what you said. I attacked your statements and ideas, not you. If you're going to make statements on this forum, you should expect to have to back them up, put up your rhetorical dukes.

You are manufacturing this "arrogance" out of what I said. You are taking something quite simple (a viewpoint) and adding your own interpretations to it. i.e. you are putting words in my mouth. This is what convinces me that you have some sort of personal vendetta/agenda here. This is your emotions reacting, not you responding.

I never said that the other 7 billion people are stupid for doing what they do. I only said what I think true religion is. You then took that and added on your own interpretations.

If I say, "I think that apples are tasty", that is NOT me saying, "I think people who don't eat apples are idiots." :) If you make up a 100 page story out of the 10 words I say, it's your problem, not mine.

If this doesn't make any sense, let's not bother with this anymore. I've got better things to do.

Those words I quoted are what I'm talking about. Is that not a personal attack ? — Aurora

This happens from time to time. I find myself at odds with another forum member on what I consider pretty fundamental philosophical issues. What I generally do then is to back off. Try to avoid that poster on issues where we are likely to clash. Not get tangled up in something that raises hackles. In this particular case, I take a certain parental interest since this is a thread I started and that I care about. I can assure you I will not follow you around the forum looking for things to disagree on, but I can't promise we won't hiss and bark again.

Yes, I get that. I'm used to it too. And yes, it is perhaps best for us not to speak about this topic again, because we're getting nowhere good.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter to me whether or not this is your thread. If you don't want responses, don't post a thread. So, in other words, I'm not going to back off this thread, just because you authored it. I may still respond to others, if I feel like it.

Likewise, if I start a thread, and we have a little tussle there, I can't expect you not to post there anymore. You can post; I just won't respond to you.

Have a good one.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter to me whether or not this is your thread. If you don't want responses, don't post a thread. So, in other words, I'm not going to back off this thread, just because you authored it. I may still respond to others, if I feel like it. — Aurora

I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't post, only that I am less likely to back off on this thread than I might be on others because of my personal interest. Please, post wherever you please. I will not go looking to tangle with you.

You (Aurora) have said that billions of people are wrong about the basis of their spiritual life and that you are right. Is that true or false? — T Clark

False. Because of the definition of the word "opinion", which I included previously.

THE END

I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't post, only that I am less likely to back off on this thread than I might be on others because of my personal interest. Please, post wherever you please. I will not go looking to tangle with you. — T Clark

Great. I think we have an understanding :)

"The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lies. Everything else that is "important" will automatically follow from that state." — Aurora

Well, your opinion isn't really humble at all, is it. You are telling billions of people who worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, and all the rest that they are misguided and that you've seen the only true way. — T Clark

Incorrect. That opinion was clearly and explicitly stated as an opinion. ...not as a fact intended to correct or criticize everyone who believes something else.

I'm posting my reply to this point in the argument, because this is where the big misunderstanding happened.

No one (other than a few Atheists) is saying that Literalists of all religions and denominations are misguided. Literalists believe some doctrinal details that i don't believe, but I feel that there's usually also (in my opinion) validity in what they feel, more fundamental than their Literalism doctrianal details. I don't criticize them.

...except when they themselves reject that commonality, and emphasize how wrong their doctrine says I am, and get critical and ugly if I don't accept their doctrinal teaching. ...as of course is pretty much always the case, with the door-to-door denominations. (I won't name them, but you know who they are). That's why I no longer talk to them.

I don't even criticize Atheists, except for their manners. Their beliefs are their business, not mine. It's nice that they don't go door-to-door.

Michael Ossipoff

"The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lies. Everything else that is "important" will automatically follow from that state." — Aurora

Well, your opinion isn't really humble at all, is it. You are telling billions of people who worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, and all the rest that they are misguided and that you've seen the only true way. — T Clark


Incorrect. That opinion was clearly and explicitly stated as an opinion. ...not as a fact intended to correct or criticize everyone who believes something else. — Michael Ossipoff

(Y) (Y) (Y) :D

Disagreements aside, I do have one important thing to say about this subject. As always, this is an opinion (I hope at least that is clear, so I don't have to repeat myself).

I say what I have to say about this, not just as some obscure theory I read/heard somewhere and arbitrarily decided is true. I'm quite a practical person; theory doesn't appeal to me much without practical application. So, whatever I speak about here, almost always, is the result of direct practical application in my own life, i.e. based on my experience. Although I have been greatly influenced by one spiritual teacher, I don't take everything he says for granted ... some of what he teaches proved true in my life and some didn't. Needless to say, I'm talking about the part that proved true for me.

The function of consciousness/awareness is mainly a shift in perspective - to show us where everybody and everything fits in. How important is my job ? My home ? My marriage ? How important is food and water ? How important are this mind and this body ? What are we relinquishing our sanity for, each day, dealing with the traffic and the meetings and the bills and the stock prices ? And, is what we're getting in the end worth losing our sanity ? What are we chasing in the end ? How important is it for me to prove to this person that I'm "right" ?

... a shift in perspective. That's all. And, if it can achieve just that, it is a huge step forward, for most people, because most are entirely unaware of the formless realm. Form is all they see ... money, job, car, home, spouse, cell phone, computer, and their thoughts and judgments about all those things. They're too zoomed in.

There is much peace to be (potentially) had, if one can simply step back, and take a look at their life from that place.

Incorrect. That opinion was clearly and explicitly stated as an opinion. ...not as a fact intended to correct or criticize everyone who believes something else. — Michael Ossipoff

Please explain the difference between these two statements:

Statement 1 - Frank Smith is an asshole

Statement 2 - In my opinion, Frank Smith is an asshole.

Statement 1 implies that you're wrong if you don't think Frank Smith is an asshole.

Statement 2 doesn't imply that.

Statement1 states or claims a fact.

Statement 2 merely states the speaker's opinion.

Either way, Frank Smith won't like you, but there's still a significant difference in what you're saying.

Michael Ossipoff

Anything anyone says is an opinion.

Now, that is a fact ;)

there's still a significant difference in what you're saying. — Michael Ossipoff

What a bunch of bullshit. You guys should have the nuts to take responsibility for what you say and not hide behind that sorry excuse.

Be that as it may, this is a thread about the experience of awareness, not dumbass language games.

You guys should have the nuts to take responsibility for what you say and not hide behind that sorry excuse. — T Clark

Sorry to break it to you, but no one is obligated to explain/justify anything to anyone. You can have that expectation, but then also expect to be disappointed and angered (as you clearly are). Furthermore, also realize that not everyone finds it important to explain their views to others and "prove themselves right". It may be important to you to always be "right", but not necessarily to others. Others, such as I, may consider it an utter waste of time arguing over who is "right" and who is "wrong". For some, as for me, the exchanging of ideas is what is the motivation to come to a forum like this, not some illusory sense of "I'm right, you're wrong."

In a courtroom, when a lawyer shouts, "Objection !" to what the opposing side is claiming, yes, the other side needs to justify/validate what they're saying. But, this forum isn't a courtroom, is it ? If it were, it would hold little interest for me (and likely most others). Nothing here (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that deadly serious, nor does it need to be.

This simple premise is the reason why so many choose to join forums such as these ... and is what makes the internet so popular as a place to hang out. Anonymity, and no obligation to explain/justify anything to anyone. I can state my opinion and walk away, explanation and "right/wrong" be damned.

Ask yourself what the ultimate goal of being here is ... what are you trying to get out of being here ? It can be a helpful way to solve these communication blocks sometimes. Zoom out of the little argument/debate, and look at the bigger picture.

I'm noticing more and more, that perhaps, it is best we not communicate with each other. Our goals on this forum seem to differ greatly.

Ok, good, so then, going back to the original point of my post that led to this discussion, it is precisely that experience of consciousness that is the "goal" (if you can call it that) of true religion/spirituality. — Aurora

This 'experience of consciousness', as you call, is typically referred to as mindfulness. It's been very fashionable in recent years. There's no religion built around it that I'm aware of. Mindfulness is an important practice in Buddhism but that's not its goal. The goal in Buddhism is basically to experience emptiness.

The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lie. — Aurora

The purpose of religion is to supply meaning. A system of meaning binds a community in common values and purpose. That is its essential purpose and anything else like 'true peace', salvation, or the experience of emptiness is entirely optional. Religion isn't needed to find peace, salvation, or emptiness. It may help in achieving those goals, or it may be harmful.

Religion isn't needed to find peace, salvation, or emptiness. It may help in achieving those goals, or it may be harmful — praxis

:)

There's no religion built around it that I'm aware of. Mindfulness is an important practice in Buddhism but that's not its goal. The goal in Buddhism is basically to experience emptiness. — praxis

Right.

"there's still a significant difference in what you're saying." — Michael Ossipoff


What a bunch of bullshit. — T Clark

And how's that for an irrefutable argument? :D

Thanks for demonstrating that you really don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

T. Clark is demonstrating a common practice--Expressing an opinion as if it were a fact.

You'd be correct if you'd said, "In my opinion that's bullshit." You'd be correctly expressing your opinion. I'd then reply that I agree that that's your opinion., and of course you have a right to express it.

But you're incorrectly presenting it as a fact.

Do you see the difference yet, between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact?

I admitted that Frank Smith wouldn't like you even if you said that it's your opinion that he's an asshole.

But it remains true that there's a big and obvious definition between stating a fact that Frank Smith is an asshole, as opposed to stating an opinion.that Frank Smith is an asshole.

Yes, strictly speaking, of course when you state an opinion, you're stating a fact about your opinion. But you aren't stating a fact about what your opinion is about.

And that distinction can have a lot of practical importance too:

Say, after parking on a hill, you think you set the parking brake (or turned the wheels to prevent rolling), but you aren't sure..


The person who rode with you asks if you set the parking brake.

If you're honest, you'll say, "I think I set the parking brake." Your friend will go and make sure.

If you state an opinion as a fact, you'll say, "I set the parking brake". Your car ends up rolling past a stop sign, into a busy 50 mph highway.

Sorry, T. Clark, but there's a big difference between an opinion and a fact, sometimes with dire practical consequences.

You guys should have the nuts to take responsibility for what you say

Good point, T., don't say things that you can't support, or will regret later.

and not hide behind that sorry excuse.

See above.

Be that as it may, this is a thread about the experience of awareness, not dumbass language games.

The dumb-ass language game started when you confused a statement of opinion with a statement of fact. You initiated the dumb-ass language-game.

Michael Ossipoff