The reality of Religion - All of them.

Saying that all we know is the Earth is shortsighted and ignorant-- and so is any other such pronouncement that purports to explain everything... unless you define exactly what you mean by 'The Earth'.

In one sense, your imagination can travel beyond 'The Earth' any time it wishes to. We tend to think of 'reality' or whatever in terms of a physical presence, however it is always possible to 'conjure' any sensation we wish if we have enough focus and are capable of bringing enough elements into it. Just because it isn't expressed in concrete terms doesn't mean it isn't valid.

And knowing 'The Earth' requires knowing its place in the cosmos and how it came to be-- it is definitely NOT a 'pure' body-- it is most likely the result of a great explosion, and then a dust cloud, and then a star with several planets, and then the collisions of those planets... and of course, there's always the possibility that all life traveled here from other parts of the solar system on the backs of comets-- which Jupiter or something flung towards the Earth with enough impact to completely change the composition of the planet-- and then of course, there was the oxygen catastrophe wherein all the iron of the oceans rusted out and killed those microbes for whom oxygen is poison... etc. etc. etc...

The Earth isn't just some magical wonderland conjured up by an archaic feminine spirit-- it's the result of billions of years of processes, as well as the right set of conditions, conditions that exist THROUGHOUT the solar system and are extremely interconnected-- ie: it is occasionally possible to 'hear' Jupiter's magnetic field on the radio. There are people out there who already DO know much more than 'The Earth' just from studying 'The Earth'.

AND you also couldn't possibly claim to definitively know every possible facet of consciousness, or what it connects to... or what dreams are, or how they work.

Your concept of 'The Earth' is poorly defined and your whole 'fakeness' trip is extremely superficial. What's important isn't that we learn to live without your 'list of vices', but that we learn how to moderate and not let them control us. You're assuming that there are things in this world that are inherently evil-- and yes, that sort of stark dynamic is just a lot of Judeo-Christian influence on Western society.

 

Been thinking about this one ... off and on. Well, practically everytime I visit the site when new stuff is posted to this thread.

Got to say, however.

No, I must not agree ...

I don't agree that people need something to live/die for ...

But I can agree that people should be allowed to believe what they want. Yes, even if it's the wrong thing. Because, who's to say what is wrong? Eh!

We can create an entire criteria of what catagorizes wrong according to our ideas and beliefs. Consequentially, another criteria of what catagorizes right. And if what we observe fits within this/these sets of criteria, then that's how we perceive right and wrong. Based entirely on whether what we observe pleases or displeases us.

Now everyone can agree that they don't want anyone taking their LIFE. No one wants to lose their LIFE. So we can all agree on this one that taking a life is wrong ... yes, even to sustain your own existence. Would you WANT a Tiger eating you alive? No ... !!! But it happens nonetheless.

We can even agree that we don't want people taking our things from us unless we give it to them. Stealing our things. These things that make us happy. So then we can all agree that Stealing is wrong ... yes, even taking that food item from the grocery store to stave off dire hunger.

Seems to me someone indicated how we can perceive right and wrong by one simple statement ... Do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE them do unto you ... sound familiar?

Seems to me also this means:

• if
• you
• don't
• want
• them
• doing
• that
• to
• you
• don't
• do
• it
• to
• them

i.e.,

• if you don't want your life taken, don't take a life
• if you don't want your stuff stolen, don't steal
• if you don't want anyone engaging in sexual manner with you, don't do it with them against their wishes
• if you don't want anyone lieing to you, don't lie to them

So, yes, I agree everyone should believe what they want ... even if it's the wrong thing. And anything outside of that (*pointing up*) is our own little criteria of what is right or wrong, and trying to impose this idea onto others ... yes, even suggesting that they MUST AGREE with us.

After all ... they are the owners of the results of their own actions ...

Doesn't mean we have to PROPOGATE other actions by reacting to them ... turn the other cheek, eh!

IMO, religions are based on this criteria we've established of our own projections onto others. How They Should Live/Act/Behave/Believe if they want to be Accepted By Us.

It's just a matter of perception ...

And not what's really going on ...

HTML:

 

Re-reading the first post, the OP sounds like they're selling a religion all of their own. A lot of the language is very similar.

 

I think this is a very very observant idea.
and I'm diggin' it.

I don't agree completely.
But I totally get where your coming from.

 

just remove the element of humanity applyed to life. live it as if u where just creatures. a natrual state of mind, look far past anything humans have devloped and live in a natural state of mind.

 

Maybe everyone should just keep their truths to themselves from now on, if all they have to substantiate them are false New Age axioms. It would certainly cut down on a lot of bandwidth for this site...

 

I would be content with simple coherency.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

I don't buy that, that's the luddite's way of thinking. With that logic you shouldn't be posting on a message board, because you're using human language and human technology. This message board might not be around in a generation, but message boards and the internet and lol human language will be.

If you take your mind to its natural state, you'll still have consciousness there. That's a function of your brain because of the its ability to observe through senses; you can ignore it all you want, but it's still there. And ignoring it can be detrimental. The artificial comes when we apply words to our observations, because those words carry connotations that have been around for generations but have also changed with those generations.

But it's not the words that are fake, it's the intention behind some of them. Media corporations are in the myth-making business. They show snippets of events going on around the world, create entertainment distractions, and then tell us what those snippets and distractions are. That's what's fake. But that's not the world, nor is that so overwhelming that you can't find the real world. If you want to find the "real" world, take a some science and/or math classes, or just do some reading on your own time. And try to judge your own thought processes, because you'll have to deal with your own doubt and pre-educated (as in before getting educated) assumptions.

The real world isn't fully shrouded behind a big curtain, it's just that most people don't even know what they're living on because generations before us have been raised to see it as a big tool for us to reach the "heavens". We're at a time in recorded history when the fairy-tale-ness of that is starting to shift to temporary myths that don't have much lasting power, while the real world's materials are now starting to look like they're just materials being manipulated by educated men and women. In the end the Earth manipulates itself by old processes like plate tectonics and biological adaptation/evolution, if you want to simplify things. Humans are just around for a warm moment and the educated ones are manipulating what they can for both pleasure and survival. The survival part is still incorporated, but much of it is hidden by the pleasure.

Think of it like this: If next summer was cold enough that the snow at latitudes further south than 30 degrees of the Arctic Circle didn't melt, and this process repeated itself for several years, we'd have glaciers forming and a new ice age on our hands. If that was the case and you were still around, you'd want some shelter; it's doubtful that there would be enough caves for everyone and that the rest would be able to move to the tropics. Otherwise you'd probably freeze to death, and so would many of the frail humans around you. Is it right to say humans deserve that? If you think that's so then you believe too strongly in divine retribution and karma. Try not to let those myths attach themselves to your consciousness. Understand them all you want, just don't take them seriously unless you find a way to prove them beyond a doubt. When you try that with most ideologies, you'd see that they're just thoughts people think up in an attempt to identify, not understand, the world around them.

Azure

 

From a Buddhist point-of-view, I would, do, agree with everything you said, except the last statement that I quoted above.

Again, from a [Theravada] Buddhist point-of-view, it is generally understood as "an attempt to identify ones feelings" rather than the "world around them." Although, feelings do bring about perception, and perception does bring about mental volition (fabrication), and mental volition does bring about consciousness (awareness), so in essence our feelings can be considered the "world around us."

Excellent response, by-the-way, Azure.

HTML:

 

Well, I guess I would amend my statement by saying that identifying the world around one's self is an attempt to understand it. So yeah, I was wrong to say that. And also reallllllly simplifying ideologies, old and new.

I see what you're saying, though in a different way I guess. The way I understand what you said above is that the act of identifying an object is basically identifying one's feelings about the object? For example, I may call a tree a tree, but that doesn't identify any of the tree's functions or processes. Whether my feelings are part of the tree or not, it only goes so far in understanding what the tree is really about.

Though, I think I'm talking semiotics, and I'm not sure if that's the angle you're taking. Very interesting point though, it really made me think.

Azure

 

Basically ... yes ... identifying one's feelings about the object. This is the function of perception.

According to the teachings of the Buddha, more particular the First Noble Truth, when one of the six sense's contact the object of that sense (i.e., eye with light, ear with sound, nose with odors, tongue with flavors, body with tactiles, and mind with thoughts -- light, sound, odors, flavors, tactiles, and thoughts being the objects) a sensation is produced, albiet from a single moment of contact not considered continuous.

From continuous contact this sensation becomes a feeling. With the eye for instance colors are not but feelings, continuous sensations from photons striking the eye, and as long as the eye is open and in contact with light it is continuously being flooded with photons.

Now to continue, the result of continuous feelings is perception. Likewise the result of continuous perception is mental volition (fabrications, ideas), and the result of continuous mental volition is consciousness (awareness). That with the absence of perception there would be no consciousness, with the absence of feelings there would be no perception, and with the cessation of contact with forms there would be no feelings.

The tree's function or process are the one's you give it. But to identify a tree you are describing what you feel when you see it, and unless you are in physical contact with it, the the memory of the way it feels when you touch it. It's not the solidness of the tree you see, rather the various colors. Solidness as in the way it feels when you touch it are processes associated with contact with body, not the ear, nose, tongue or eye. As color is not a process associated with the ear, nose, tongue and body, i.e., you can't touch color, nor can you smell it, hear it or taste it. (in all seriousness let's not include what you experience when using an hallucenogenic substance which alters one's perception, like LSD.)

The way one understands "tree" is from their perception of the way it looks regarding color, feels regarding tactile, smells, and in some instances tastes. It's not at all possible to "hear" a tree, rather the effect of hearing the sound leaves make when being rustled by the wind ... this is not a sound being produced by a "tree". However, "tree" is nothing more than a shared word used to communicate (identify) one's feeling when contact is made with a sense [organ] and its associated object.

Consciousness and contact are the same thing. Mental volition (fabrications, ideas) and contact are the same thing. Perception and contact are the same thing. Feelings and contact are the same thing. Much the same as consciousness and feelings are the same thing, and consciousness and perception are the same thing, etc. We change the labels to identify the non-stop continuation of contact between sense and object.

The moment contact stops feelings cease, perceptions cease, mental volition ceases, and consciousness ceases regarding the sense [organ] and its associated object.

So, basically speaking, the world around you is nothing more then the feelings you experience when your sense organs come into contact with light, sound, smell, taste, touch, and thinking.

Buddhism goes beyond this conveyed idea, however. It goes on to explain that each one of these sense-contact moments are being motivated by factors which determine whether we like how we feel when contact is made, whether we dislike how we feel when contact is made, or whether we neither like-nor-dislike how we feel when contact is made. And it is these factors which determine the duration, or perpetuation of each moment of contact. Thus we have the basis for feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness.

HTML:

 

This dosent necessary have anything to do with Religion, because Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, because this naturalistic state of mind has nothing to do with believing, which is what im more pointing twords. Its more of removing any beliefs, and sticking with what you can see with your own two eyes. Instead of going by that mystery of all, but by going by what we can see, and what we know.

 

Empiricism is all fine and dandy. The problem with your original post is that you assert that there are are in fact right and wrong values. All values are fabricated and based off of our personal perceptions and the emotions that follow from our perceptions, then they are filtered by our personal reasoning, thus values are subjective. And you are arrogant.

 

To reply to darrelkitchen first:

I agree with what you're saying when it comes to observation of the tree. But my problem with what you're saying is that the observer's perception of the tree when simply looking at it and saying "There is a tree," only goes so far in understanding the tree. It can only be a part of the world around me if I observe it, but my observations don't give the tree its functions. Its cellular structure does that, the water its cells absorb and the sunlight it photosynthesizes to grow further. My consciousness didn't start these processes, nor does my consciousness or observation even affect them - I can only record them with memory through extended observation. Further, I can only affect these processes if with physical contact. I may be part of the same universal system of atoms that make up the molecules that make up you, me, the trees, the atmosphere, and the ground/Earth we walk on, as well as this solar system and this galaxy, etc. But I can't see my own parts as attached to, or the same as, the tree's parts. We each have our own functions and processes and parts, that (along with gravity ) is what makes the world go 'round. The world immediately around me is created in my mind through my senses, but wasn't it already there before I observed it?

To floes:

When you just go by what your two eyes see, you can't understand the world unless you use your eyes and brain to observe and record. Our eyes aren't sensitive enough to see at the cellular level, and you have to remember what you're seeing too. The result of technology is not from corruption of the world by shadowy evil men who want to enslave mankind, they come from the same place as religion - trying to understand the world we live on and make it easier for us to live on. Unfortunately, the rest of the planet's animals have been forgotten in this equation, but that's another topic.

I think the problem with some religions is not the religions themselves, but that many people who adopt them as lifestyles get stuck with the dogmatic part of their religion and refuse to accept any other world view. And then they expect everyone else to think and believe the same way they do (darrylkitchen, this definitely does not include you, I appreciate your attempts to help me understand your point of view ). That's not so much evil as it is misguided, and potentially dangerous when someone like this has either political or financial influence. The problem isn't the system being followed, it's that some of the people following it expect total validation so much to the degree that they are willing to change other people's reality to reflect their own. And many of the time, these people ignore the morality of their own religion, or just misidentify it.

Guaranteed that if society and technology were to disappear suddenly, there would still be development of ideologies that would be agreed upon by groups of people. We're a species that organizes information about the world around us into sets of data and keeps these sets in mind when doing our daily tasks. Whether that be figuring out how to catch/grow tonight's food or how to best avoid traffic to get to work as quickly as possible.

Plus, even if you were to simply go with what your two eyes see, you'd make connections about the world around you anyway - you have memory, thank the gods. How do you think people thousands of years ago developed observational astronomy and understood seasons to know when to best grow and harvest food they learned to grow?

Azure

 

i don't really believe there is any one thing that can be honestly said about "ALL" "religions" at all. you can say that all major organized beliefs are the will and work of the same unknowable 'big, friendly and invisible whatever'. but that's still not the same thing.

unless you limit your definition of "all religions" to major organized beliefs. even then.
and i for one, can't see doing so at all.

truth of course is that we don't know what we don't know. but also that our not knowing it does not make what we don't know not exist. even if we were borderlessly contiguous with all of the rest of existence. as some perceptions seem to suggest.

i think "the" truth, is that there really is something, lots of something and somethings, out there, beyond the sudratulmuntaha (signpost at the end of the road, litterally, beyond which there is supposedly no orientation) of what we are capable of indipendently conferming of each other. but also that most, nearly all, of what anyone thinks they know about all of that, just comes from among ourselves, rather then beyond, rather then from any of what is actually out there.