No. Is he new agey? I don't pay that stuff much attention. — Buxtebuddha

I can already tell that you probably won't like him.

I have no idea what "new age" is, but he makes a lot of sense to me. He's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

Then with the power of now, we agree to disagree. — praxis

Yes :D

Pleased to meet you! Perhaps we may discuss aviation matters in the future! — Lone Wolf

Likewise, and yes, it would be nice to talk aviation sometime ! Happy flying, in the meantime :D

I've heard of him quite a bit but have never read him. I suppose that I should? Is he more insightful than the first Eckhart? — Buxtebuddha

Hmm, I didn't know the first Eckhart, but I'm pretty sure Eckhart Tolle named himself after Meister Eckhart. Tolle's original name was Ulrich Leonard Tolle, which became Eckhart Tolle.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to the same guy (first Eckhart) that Tolle looks up to.

Yes, ET is quite insightful. I got a lot from listening to him. Have you read/listened to him too ?

This is a sign that you don’t have a good grasp of them. — praxis

Before this gets out of hand, I will respectfully, and completely, disagree, and move on with my evening :)

Do you fly? — Lone Wolf

Very cool !

No, I'm just an aviation enthusiast ... I love aviation science and accident investigation (the show "Mayday" for example). And, I'm one of those passengers on the flight who sits far from the doors if possible, because I'm terrified of a possible decompression :D

Did you say to whom you are referring somewhere in this thread or did I miss it? — Buxtebuddha

Oh, I mentioned it here and there, but the guy I'm referring to is Eckhart Tolle.

It might help to flesh out your ideas if you interact with others. creativesoul is no intellectual slouch. — praxis

I responded to you because you responded to me in a calm manner that facilitated a discussion as opposed to just shooting down everything and writing as if you were yelling. If someone responds like you did, I'm happy to respond back and exchange ideas. If not, I've got better things to do.

I can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she writes ... that includes the choice of words, the tone, etc. I can tell when a piece of prose has substance/depth and when it's just someone trying desperately to sound intelligent :) I can also tell when someone is in a desperate emotionally supercharged struggle to prove himself/herself "right". I instinctively stay away from such people, because they're "unconscious" - completely immersed in ego. I don't need their drama.

And no thanks, I'm quite confident that creativesoul has nothing to teach me. I'm not a complete idiot. I'm not missing anything

To the more experienced members here - are arguments / heated discussions quite commonplace here ? Are there cliques / warring factions of members ?

I'm a student pilot — Lone Wolf

Cool ! What kind of aircraft ? What do you want to fly eventually ?

She's really been hittin the Bowflex, it appears.

That's bullshit — creativesoul

So is your expectation that I will respond to (or even read the entirety of) such a post from you :)

Don't bother responding to any of my posts again. You're the newest member on my shit list. Congratulations ! :)

And not only that, you already responded to the same post like two days ago already... — Agustino

Wow, that's the first and only valid point I've seen you make ! I'm impressed.

I was drunk when I wrote that initial response, so I was happier than I should have been, and I didn't fully read your shitty response :D What I said back then is entirely true (I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I'm ok with it), but it doesn't apply in response to anything you have to say, sorry.

Now, re-reading it in a sober state, I realize that your response was total shit and that I shouldn't have said that I was likely wrong.

Sorry for misleading you into thinking you had brains. It was the alcohol, you know ?

I like a lot of what you have to say (in general ... also counting previous posts I've come across by you). There is a lot of depth and substance to what you write, which I find generally lacking in posts here (and elsewhere).

It is easy to write a totally meaningless post with big fancy words and quotes from famous people (and I find a lot of folks doing that), but not as easy to write in a way that demonstrates a true/deep understanding of whence those words originate.

I'm curious about your background ... occupation / life phase ... answering is totally optional, of course :)

Thanks for the response to my questions about fact/opinion. It's nice to have crossed paths with you here.

And BTW, I kind of plagiarized you earlier in this thread (maybe 2 pages back). Specifically, your phrase "perpetual postponement of satisfaction". I gave you credit as best as I could, not knowing the proper "format".

I have responded harshly to what I see as the contemptuous and condescending way he talks about other people - the general public in the previous thread — T Clark

I do agree that my referring to the masses as "idiots" was condescending ... no question about it. Perhaps, I should have used different words. I can see how this might have offended you and others. Thank you for the honest feedback. It has been noted, and I hope to do better next time.

Hi, sorry to hear about your situation.

It does sound like moving out would be the only good solution I can think of. Otherwise, you cannot escape the turmoil between your parents.

Do you have any friends/relatives whom you could stay with temporarily ?

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. — praxis

I'm beyond the end of my patience trying to explain myself on this subject. However, it is one of the few threads on this site that addresses a subject I actually care about, which is why I've been so prolific on this thread. But, I don't think I can do any more of this, so I think I will take a break and listen to what others have to say :)

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.

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

:)

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.

Anything anyone says is an opinion.

Now, that is a fact ;)

Me neither :D

I don't know what this really means — Wosret

I don't think I do, either. But, I enjoyed reading your post :)

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.

"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

Just because you're not smart enough to figure out a way to rule and replace whoever you claim the idiots are, it doesn't mean that the world is by necessity ruled by idiots. It just means you're failing. There comes a time when one gets sick and tired of hearing people complain about politicians, etc. - why don't you go replace them eh? — Agustino

(This is your second response to me on this site. Both were worthless, which convinces me that you have nothing to say that is of interest to me. So, this will be my last communication to you on this site.)

Maybe you could try replacing them ? I think you'd do great.

Take care. Like I said, don't expect any more responses from me. You're not worth my time.

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s the mind. — praxis

Ok :)

As I mentioned, it is not my place to convince you and doing so would be futile anyway.

If you believe it's the mind, who am I to tell you otherwise. You know yourself best.

I'm unsure how a virus or parasite that produces more resilient offspring make it any better than those that do not. Maybe you are thinking of something different when you mention "quality" offspring than what I think you are thinking of. — dclements

Yes, by "quality offspring", I just meant children that aren't as stupid as the parents. Not "resilient", just not as stupid as their parents.

Of course, that is a fantasy, to put it quite mildly. As you pointed out, crappy parents can't magically produce quality offspring. In fact, generations are only getting more and more stupid over time. Thanks to things like Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones, that graph resembles an exponential curve.

What I said was really just an expression of sarcasm. I hold no hope for this human race ... none.

The materialists and determinists will probably tell you that that "stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind" is an illusion.

And they will probably say that empirical science shows that it is an illusion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You and I are speaking from different planes altogether. I don't foresee us making much headway, to be honest.

If you ask me, this is not something that science has the authority to lend an opinion to, because it goes way deeper than science, i.e. science is irrelevant here. (And I say this as someone who studied computer science and loves science of almost all kinds ... in other words, I'm a science lover, not a science hater) But then, you will respond quoting some scientific research that someone out there that has done. Apples ... oranges. Apples ... oranges. Bla bla bla ... blu blu blu. We're getting nowhere :) It's ok, this happens on such forums a lot. But, it needs to be pointed out, to avoid unnecessary frustration.

With all due respect to those "proofs", a "proof" only "proves" something if the person you're showing it to agrees with it :)

In other words, "fact" is only what a handful of "experts" agree on, and usually only because there is no one out there with the motivation or ability to disprove what they have to say .. the same "experts" that, until not long ago, considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder ... the same "experts" that called Pluto a "planet" and then changed their minds ... the same "experts" that agree and then disagree, on a daily basis, about the negative impact of the cholesterol content of egg yolks :)

I'd like to plumb the depths a bit. When you say a conscious being with a temporary form to dwell in, are you suggesting that the conscious being is independent of the temporary form and may not be temporary itself? — praxis

The consciousness that animates every living form is eternal, but the form that it animates is temporary. So, when one is born, it is the one (eternal) consciousness manifesting as a form, but when one dies, the consciousness doesn't die with that form. In other words, you can think of the form as a channel for the consciousness to pass through. So, each form gets an opportunity to "live" through that consciousness.

If this sounds like bullshit, ok, it is not the easiest thing to see.

Just try this one thing ... let's say that someday, you are overwhelmed with anger or some powerful negative feeling/emotion, and suddenly you find yourself stepping back from that emotion and seeing it instead of getting lost in it ... just as an observer, without any judgment of thought ... totally neutral ... and the turmoil suddenly turns to peace. What is that place you are watching those negative emotions from ? Is it the mind ? Or is it something outside the mind/body ?

Or, let's say you find yourself staring at something beautiful, like a sunset or a bird on a tree branch, and suddenly, you find yourself at total peace. There is no mind involved, no body involved. Just a perceiving without imposing any ideas/thoughts on it. What is it that perceives ?

Sometimes, even after a loved one dies (or simply leaves, as in a breakup), the survivors say, "I still feel his presence around the house." The form is dead/gone, so what is it that lingers ? (And no, I'm not alluding to some horror movie crap).

What this is really about (and spirituality, in general) is giving a person a new perspective from which to look at life and the world. One might think that this esoteric abstract bullshit has no practical purpose, and that it is just for the books. On the contrary, when you are able to distance yourself from your mind and body, when you realize that your identity is no longer just your mind and body and other forms like material possessions (which is to say, how good you look, how much you know, how much money you make, etc, etc, etc), think about how much it simplifies your life and how much peace is to be had from that realization.

But of course, nothing anyone says or does will convince you, nor should it. You have to see it for yourself. Convincing is utterly futile. And, if you don't see it, that is perfectly ok. Life continues solely on that other plane - the plane where only form is honored. That's fine too.

That's the best I can do to try and explain it. Language is really quite inadequate when it comes to these things.

Happiness is a good goal — praxis

"I plan to be happy on Friday at 5 pm" :)

Yes, a good goal ... and quite naive. If you're talking about true happiness, you cannot aim to be happy; you can only be happy now (i.e. in the present moment). When the future comes, it will also be now.

(When I say "now" for conciseness, I mean "in the present moment", just to be clear)

Have you ever planned a kickass vacation with a lot of great anticipation ? And then, when the vacation actually came, it sucked ? Or you were anticipating a great date with a hot new girl/guy ? And it turned out to be crap ? Think about it for a minute - what does that prove ?

You enjoyed the anticipation of the future event, not the future event itself, and you enjoyed that anticipation now. You cannot plan to be happy :) ... for the simple reason that you cannot predict the exact circumstances or "form" a future moment will take. You can only react to the form of the present moment (by being happy or sad or whatever). So, you cannot plan to be happy in the future, because the future may involve a divorce, bankruptcy, an earthquake, or a black ant in your food (or a million other things you cannot possibly foresee).

If you really want to "plumb the depths", ask yourself what real happiness is. Is it the temporary ego satisfaction that comes from a new car or a raise at work or how about a sexy new partner ? Or is it something deeper. And, if it is something deeper, does it need to be planned for ? Or enjoyed now ?

I'm going to borrow a beautiful expression from another forum member here. I think his name is Michael Ossipoff. Hope he'll be ok with me borrowing his words.

The "perpetual postponement of satisfaction" that we constantly engage in is the reason we are eternally miserable. That is what we get for having happiness as a goal :)

Said another way, the "goal" is to "have no goal" ;)

If none of this resonates with you, any further words of mine will likely be futile.