The better term here, rather than "I am holy", might be "I am pious". "I am holy" implies I am of great perfection and I ought to be revered, while "I am pious" implies that I have great respect for something more perfect and higher than myself — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok sure, the new identify comes in many flavors, agreed.

And then there's another factor, other people buying in to whatever new identify we've created for ourselves.

I always think of Eckhart Tolle here, but many examples could be given. Best I could tell he's a sincere guy who has learned and skillfully articulated some insightful ideas (very similar to JK). And then a bunch of people who want a leader gather around and start chanting, "You are holy, you are wise, you are our teacher, our leader" etc. And being human, who can resist? I mean, if it were me, and there were hippy chicks involved, I'm lost, a goner.

I'm not sure if this is true but I read once that Tolle was charging folks to touch him. Could be a rumor, but he appears to be charging for lots of stuff, so maybe not. Anyway, point being, if we don't succeed in sucking ourselves in to delusion there may be a bunch of folks standing by ready to help us.

The only hope is that wisdom will keep pace with scientific knowledge — EnPassant

Agreed. Either wisdom has to be dramatically accelerated somehow, or knowledge had to be slowed down dramatically, or some combination of the two.

There is a process which can accomplish this. It's called pain. Disaster. Calamity. That's how we typically learn big stuff.

Jokes go a long way in the business agenda — Metaphysician Undercover

You could be right. If JK had popped his authority bubble a bit with some fart jokes that might indeed made him more popular. But probably with a different audience, more hippies, fewer intellectuals.

JK was a very dignified and classy person, very much part of his appeal. He spoke to hippies among others, but he certainly wasn't one himself. I'm not sure he could pull off a fart joke, much to his classy credit. :-)

So did you hear the one about the crackpot who said JK should tell fart jokes, but that suggestion turned out to be a fart itself? Ha, ha, ha, ha..... ha..... uh.....

What? Hello? Is this mic on?

And this self-identity is the source of all the mischief and all the unnecessary suffering of the world. — unenlightened

In my view, the self identity is a product of the real bottom line source, the medium which the self identity is made of. As evidence, this self identity is generated in every person ever born, pointing to a source which is more fundamental than culture.

Many approaches, including JK's, attempt to address the self identity at the level of the content of thought, by editing our ideas about self identity. We should detach, we should observe, it means this it means that, it's good, it's bad etc.

But what happens? Typically all that happens by this process is that the person's self identity changes from something like "I am a smart person" or "I am a sad person" to something like "I am a holy person". Some see "holy" as being a more appealing identity than smart or sad, so such a process can be popular.

What's happening here is that the true source, thought itself, is re-generating the self identity to match whatever forms are suggested by one's chosen culture. So if I choose to be a JK reader, thought says, "Ok, we will rebrand you as a supposedly insightful person". If I like that image I keep reading JK. If I prefer some other self image, I read something else.

The reason that this circus goes endlessly on and on is that the real source of "all the mischief and all the unnecessary suffering" has not been correctly identified, thus the remedies are aimed at the wrong target. Religion as a whole is very involved in this very error.

The true source of the problems is not ideas such as "I am X". The real source is the medium which both "I" and "X" are made of. Self identity is a symptom, a product, of the underlying fundamental process of division.

Thought operates by a process of division. It divides everything it touches. It divides me from you, me from society, me from reality, me within myself.

Trying to think one's way out of this box just piles more logs on the fire.

Yes. Krishnamurti at least, rejects authority, including his own, in favour of a scientific approach — unenlightened

Yes, he was very explicit about that. However, he was the one sitting on stage, and he spoke in a quite authoritative manner. The message was undermined a bit by the presentation. Some people got confused by his regal bearing.

It might have helped if JK had sprinkled his serious thoughtful talks with the occasional ridiculous fart joke. Some folks appear to have needed the authority bubble they were constructing to be punctured in a decisive manner. That said JK was in a sense a businessman, in that he made his living as a speaker/writer/philosopher. Fart jokes wouldn't be helpful to such business agendas.

Would it be possible for us to agree that NDE experiences don't prove anything one way or another? If yes, that might a basis upon which a conversation which doesn't just repeat past threads might be possible.

Maybe this is stretching the topic too far, but there are all kinds of related experiences which can be examined. Just being a senior citizen is kind of a "near death experience" in that it becomes increasingly difficult to remain in the safe little bubble of delusional denial. I know we have some members who are over 80, so perhaps they could speak to this.

As another example, me butting heads with mods could also perhaps be described as a near death experience. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happens in a real NDE experience. There's the tunnel, and the light, and when you get to end of the tunnel, WHAMMO!, Saint Peter bans your ass!!! Or, if you've not really been all that bad, you are confined to Lounge purgatory until you see the error of your ways. Oh dear, this is the kind of post that can happen if you were raised Catholic...

First of all, the endless exponential grows doesn't exist in nature — Skeptic

Once we invent computers, then research in most other fields can then proceed at a substantially faster pace. Once we invent CRISPR, genetic research and engineering can then proceed at a substantially faster pace. Once we invented the printing press, the Enlightenment could proceed at a substantially faster pace. Once we invented writing... Once we invented language... Etc.

What we've learned just in my lifetime likely dwarfs what was learned in a couple of centuries previous.

All that said, you're right that exponential growth is not limitless in nature. Sooner or later it hits the wall and crashes. Just like I started this post to explain.

This again? Time to move on, HH. Work on improving your own posts — jamalrob

Should I use yours above as my example template? Brief, dismissive, dodgy, devoid of actual content or reasoning?

Please take another look at my posts in the thread above, and yours too. While my points are obviously entirely debatable, the effort invested far exceeds that which you have shared with us.

Physician, heal thyself.

I'm definitely not mad at anyone, just weary of being lectured by those who can't keep up, or won't bother to keep up, and then proclaim themselves leaders. Sorry, el-bunko.

You don't me hence you don't know what I do. — Janus

I know what you write and don't write, publicly available for all to see.

I am saying that I think it's eminently reasonable to drop conclusions; — Janus

But you are not dropping conclusions. You are repeating the same conclusions over and over. As is your right of course.

But doing so undermines your credibility, because that's an argument with your own stated position, making you vulnerable to the kind of debunking you may prefer that you would be applying to others.

This does not look promising, The Opposite — jamalrob

Really and truly no kidding not trying to start a war with management, but how about this?

Instead of the mods standing back and passing judgement on everyone else's posts, instead of saying this is no good and that is no good....

How about a mods only section where the mods model the kind of writing and behavior which represent their goals for the forum?

Yes, this would put pressure on the mods to deliver above average content. But that is what is required if the mods are to have credibility when they pass judgement on the content of others.

I am saying that I think it's eminently reasonable to drop conclusions; that's the whole point! — Janus

Saying, but not doing. Thus, not credible.

Then how do we know many have travelled to it? — Isaac

Good point, we know only they have left the realm we know. And we don't even really know that.

That we have absolutely no information on which to base speculation - "I think it's made entirely of pink blancmange", "Really? I think it's the intestines of giant space alien" ... What a fascinating conversation. — Isaac

Imho, it can easily be a fascinating conversation, just never a conclusive one. As example, many DMT users report what they feel to be death like experiences, which they are then able to return from and report on. Conclusive? Surely not. Interesting? Sure, why not?

I would agree that anyone on any side who adamantly claims to have certain knowledge can quickly become tiresome.

I'm very open to counterarguments, but none have been forthcoming. — Janus

I've already presented you with counter reason, which you have ignored, while claiming no counter arguments have been presented, exactly as Wayfarer predicted.

You appear to want me to present some argument justifying conclusions which have arisen from religious experiences. Why? You've already clearly stated you don't find such conclusions valid or useful, and I've already agreed that is a reasonable position.

So why are you clinging to that which you have already clearly and repeatedly identified as not being useful to you? How is that an example of reason?

Reason might look this like.

1) Separate the experiences from the conclusions.

2) Drop the conclusions.

3) Keep the experiences.

This is a common problem on philosophy forums, you are not alone. Some members like to lecture religious people about reason, while ignoring reason themselves. Not very credible, imho.

I'd be less sympathetic to a discussion in which people actually took these studies to be evidence of an afterlife. — jamalrob

Why?

Let's say there is a continent called SomewhereLand which many have traveled to, but none have returned from, equaling a state of pure ignorance for those who have not yet made that trip. Upon what basis should we exclude any speculation about SomewhereLand? How does one evaluate such speculation based on exactly no information?

All speculation on any topic with no information could be excluded, that would be intellectually consistent. But then we have to say goodbye to all God and anti-God threads too, and probably a long list of other topics as well. As example, science could continue for many thousands of more years at an ever accelerating pace. If true, that means we currently know close to nothing in comparison to what can be known. So stop talking?

A related issue to NDE is the drug DMT, which reportedly takes some users through a death like experience. Not saying this proves anything, but I don't see the case for dismissing it out of hand. If we were to dismiss all drug driven experiences then we'd be required to include caffeine too, and there goes the entire forum down the drain.

and avoid a schism which would be perhaps be caused by a radically new interpretation of the vinaya. — TLCD1996

Aren't schisms inevitable in every philosophy, religion, ideology etc?

If yes, what can we learn from that?

If religion could tell us anything definite, which could be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be true — Janus

Many people have a typically unexamined faith that the rules of reason invented by a half insane semi-suicidal species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, only recently living in caves on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, should automatically be accepted as the final authority on the very largest of questions regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

This faith position is as easily ripped to shreds as any other. But only fools such as myself bother to do so, because everyone is entitled to whatever form of faith they can connect to, and it's almost always the case that any and all inconvenient challenges to their faith will be promptly discarded.

And of course I agree about exploring experience, and coming to no conclusions about it — Janus

And yet, your posts would seem to be filled to overflowing with your conclusions, and so far as best I can tell, little report of your exploration of experience.

My apologies. I truly have no beef with you personally and just wanted to make sure that's clear. I have a bad case of the "picking things apart" disease, and can thus be rather annoying and inconvenient to people of faith of all flavors. Were I truly rational, I would quietly watch everyone yell about their competing faiths while cheerfully eating a fresh ripe apple. But, like everyone else I am not truly rational, so hey, here I am! :-)

That is why religious experience cannot tell us anything definite — Janus

This is a reasonable conclusion which many people share. There is a simple obvious rational solution to this concern. Explore the experience for itself, and set aside any explanations which arise. End of problem.

What typically happens on philosophy forums is that many members really really want to see religion as nothing more than an ideological assertion machine, because they really, Really, REALLY want to play the role of The Great Debunker. And so for example, we'll see 8 billion "does God exist" threads, and none on the experience of love.

My point is this: people don't like Biden, but there is little or no substance. The expression used to be, "Where's the beef?" No one seems to have any. — tim wood

It seems reasonable to question some of Biden's decisions, or any politician's decisions. If anyone wishes to that on a philosophy forum it would be even more reasonable to start a thread which challenges one particular decision in some careful detail.

Don't like his Iraq war vote? Ok, let's go in to that step by step.

that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. — TLCD1996

Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.

In any case, whatever it is or isn't, we are presumably all going there, probably no matter what we do or don't do.

No comment on good or bad Buddhists, but it seems that his lineage is part of a controversy around the issue of genuine reincarnation lineages. An issue found lately in Tibetan Buddhism — TLCD1996

Ok, thanks. As a follow up question, what flavor(s) of Buddhism would be the least likely to get drawn in to such controversies?

The Buddha's emphasis, over and over, is on the four noble truths, and it is under this framework that all classifications of "self" or "ultimate" are presumably abandoned and done away with. — TLCD1996

To the degree one isn't thinking in any given moment, all classifications of every flavor are abandoned and done away with.

Given that many or most people could access some level of such abandonment by fairly simple methods for hours a day if they so chose, and perhaps more if they are enthusiastic, perhaps it's worth questioning why this isn't enough?

You speculate that all classifications are "presumably abandoned". Why presumably? We know that classifications are made of thought, and that the volume of thought can be controlled to varying degrees by various methods. Given that we all know and agree on this...

By "presumably" you would seem to be referring to the possibility of permanent abandonment, yes?

What's the case for making such a huge demand? Is greed a sin in Buddhism?

A life long every day routine of temporary abandonment is readily available to all, or at least most.

Why not be content with such a bounty?

And in between the bounty, why not just look in the mirror, give a smile a try, and accept that like everything else in nature, human beings are imperfect?

I would say that I'm a radical Zen revolutionary, I mean REVOLUTIONARY!!, except that, oops, I still really have close to no idea what Zen is. :-)

Just remembered, this fellow lived directly across the street from us for a few years. Buddhists in robes coming and going frequently. Perhaps interesting that nobody seemed phased by that at all. He seemed friendly enough but we didn't talk much. When we did it was mostly about my wife's wildlife rehabbing, and him seeking advice and assistance getting snakes out of his yard. :-)

https://www.ktcgainesville.org/

Resident teacher, Lama Losang, leads our weekly meetings. A fully ordained monk, Lama Losang completed the traditional Kagyu three-year retreat at Karme Ling in 2004. In addition to being a Karma Kagyu lineage teacher, Lama Losang (David Bole) is also an Acupuncture Physician with a Doctorate in Psychology, and teaches, lectures, and conducts workshops around the country. In honor of Lama’s 70th birthday, July 26, 2019, Mayor Lauren Poe and the City of Gainesville proclaimed Dr. David Bole (Lama Losang): Health, Happiness, and Liberation Day.

So are those the good Buddhists or the bad Buddhists? :-) Of course I have no idea, as I'm doing good to know they are Buddhists.

Perhaps not seeing that nukes are disadvantageous to both is the insane aspect to the issue. — TheMadFool

Imho, being bored by nukes is the pinnacle of the insanity.

like StreetlightX. — TheMadFool

I have no beef with him personally. But just as I don't have the right personality for being a mod, neither does he, imho.

My last comment on the matter. Made my suggestion, said my peace, on to the next thread.

Who said we were in charge? — Possibility

Do we want to be in charge? Or are we content to ride on this train where ever it is going, even though the most logical outcome is likely some form of disaster?

But the ‘big picture’ seems too big now for an individual mind - I think this has been our main issue for some time. — Possibility

Yea, that seems reasonable. And it's true, big picture thinking is not well rewarded.

We draw arbitrary boundaries where physics blends into chemistry and chemistry into biology, and we say ‘stay within your lane’ with clear funding and industry segmentation. It’s no wonder the big picture is out of our grasp — Possibility

Ok, yes, specialization is both key to the knowledge explosion, and a primary form of blindness.

We’ve looked up from focusing on our individual, specialised tasks and thought, “Crap - how did this happen?” — Possibility

I must agree this is very understandable. After all, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge was perfectly sensible for our entire history, until quite recently. Given enough time, and enough pain, I'm sure we could adjust to the new reality. But we may not have much time, and the pain can now be fatal.

I think a key issue is the scale of the emerging powers.

With small powers one makes small mistakes and so can clean up the mess and correct the course.

With large powers one mistake can be game over, removing the ability to learn and adapt. With every day that passes the room for error is quietly shrinking, shrinking, shrinking, arguably at an ever quickening pace.

Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden? — 0 thru 9

Whoa, you should go in to the consulting biz!

Now, what 'enlightenment' is, is obviously a vexed and deep question. In the Buddhist tradition, the word that was translated as 'enlightenment' was 'bodhi', which is elsewhere translated as 'wisdom' — Wayfarer

It might help if you could, here or elsewhere, dive further in to this description. Or perhaps point us to descriptions which have been translated out of Buddhist terminology in to something approaching every day English.

If the argument is "does enlightenment exist or not" then it would seem to help for us to have clearer understanding of what enlightenment is proposed to be. I've been reading about such things for 50 years, and don't have a clear understanding myself.

I REALLY hope you won't bail on the forum, but I'd still be interested in reading you respond to a challenge which I've not yet seen you address, though you very well may have. You're heard this one before I think...

I'm agreeable to the possibility that some form of fundamental transformation of human psychology may be possible, because there are people with special abilities way out at the end of the talent bell curve in every field. Assuming such people exist...

My challenge would be that they seem to be so exceedingly rare as to be largely irrelevant to the human condition.

Thank you for the information and I can tell you're much more knowledgeable than me! — Daniel san

You, and everyone else too it seems. I've never met anyone with such detailed information on the subject.

They come into and go out of existence continuously in exceedingly short time-spans — Wayfarer

From the science point of view, the following video seems to claim that space consists of an infinite number of particles which pop in and out of existence at a fantastical rate. The video puts this much better than I can.



I recently begun to wonder if universes mirror this vibrating pattern, just on what seem to us to be very different time scales.

It’s simply not worth discussing it with someone whose mind is already made up. It’s a waste of time for both parties. — Wayfarer

Well, discussing doesn't necessarily require the possibility that anyone will be convinced of anything. And as you undoubtably know from long experience, it's quite rare that anyone is persuaded to any view other than the one they already hold. Many people, probably most, consider anything said on any philosophy forum to be a waste of time, a point of view which is not so easy to dismiss.

Personally, I keep typing a billion words to nowhere because I was born to type. If I wasn't typing on the Internet, I'd be typing in my head, just as I long did before 1995.

but because you won't admit it is a faith like any other. — Janus

If you are willing to admit that your position too is built upon faith, then this seems like a reasonable complaint. If you are not so willing, then Wayfarer seems justified in investing his time elsewhere.

Please forgive me for this guess, which is based on 20 years of experience, but no knowledge of you personally. My best guess, which could easily be wrong, is that you don't know that your position is based on faith, and thus you are being sincere if you claim it isn't. If that's the case (and it may not be), you wouldn't be intellectually dishonest but just not fully informed.

I don't believe any conclusions can be rationally derived from them. — Janus

It's unknown whether valid conclusions can be derived from such experiences or not.

My point would be that to the degree we feel the need for explanations of such experience, what we're really saying is that the experiences themselves are not enough, a premise which I don't agree with. The irony is that the rush to explanations is in a way a denial of the experience.

Others can see you sitting at the table and thus confirm your belief in your experience of sitting at the table. — Janus

That's just their experience. What if they are deluded too?

Why would you say that? — Janus

Because I'm annoying, stupid and stubborn, and insist on saying things that long experience should have taught me will accomplish nothing at all. :-)

It is the theist who is claiming that something invisible exists. — Janus

Space, the overwhelming vast majority of reality, is invisible, and has none of the properties we typically use to define existence. And yet it is real. If you consider yourself to be a person of reason, consider how you may be completely ignoring a fundamental principle of your chosen methodology, observation of reality.

Phenomena which is invisible and has no mass or weight etc can be real. Not a religious doctrine, a fact proven by science. And not a tiny obscure matter, but rather most of reality at every scale.

It is the theist who is claiming that something invisible exists — Janus

So they are. And so they bear a burden for their claim, just as anyone making a claim bears a burden. Atheists are making a similar wildly speculative claim, though most of them seem not to realize that. You might be different though, I don't know.

What is the unproven claim which atheism is built upon?

The main problem with our usual understanding of secularity is that it is taken-for-granted, so we are not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology that pretends to be the everyday world we live in.

Yes, thus the so very common assumption by forum atheists that they bear no burden of proof, that this is the other fellow's burden exclusively.

Note, I'm not claiming that peak experiences don't tell us anything about the nature of reality, but simply that we have no way of knowing that they do, no matter how certain we may feel that they do. — Janus

The solution to this could be to embrace the experiences for their own value, and don't bother trying to translate them in to some collection of abstractions. Personally, I tend to see the abstractions and conclusions etc as being sort of a waste product of the experiences. We eat a nice dinner, and then perhaps we have to go to the bathroom.

Or, if one is incurably philosophical and simply can't avoid creating the pile of abstractions, then it might be wise to carry them lightly, with a wink and a smile. Like watching clouds blow by. There's a pretty one! And now it's gone. Here comes another one. Etc.

Example: Some people report they have experienced God. Often this seems to be a positive experience. So far so good. And then they may begin to insist it was God they experienced and not something else, thus opening the door to centuries of pointless conflict that goes endlessly round and round to nowhere.

Gnosticism is the belief that certain kinds of experiences tell us something about the nature of reality. That cannot ever be anything more than a belief or feeling, no matter how convincing the experiences may be. — Janus

So my experience of sitting at this table can never be anything more than a belief or feeling?

Not at all, you just seem to have forgotten when you wrote the linked post that this is a philosophy forum. — praxis

I have no idea what your point is, and doubt you do either.

. No really, science and implementation of a technology should be two separate things. — ssu

Tell it to Oppenheimer?

I suggest that you keep this more top-of-mind. — praxis

The king of lazy one liners is now lecturing us about how to do philosophy.