To encourage the exchange of thoughts about Deepak Chopra and his work, we will post your comments, inquiries, and opinions. Please feel free to respond to someone else's comments or questions, or simply post your own.
Please Post Your Comments Name: Email Address: Comments:
Name: Email Address: Comments:
Email Address:
Comments:
Displaying messages 1 through 80 of 54243. << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>
<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>
Anyone here old enough to remember Firesign Theater and their Powerhouse Church of the Presumptious Assumption of the Blinding Light? Hymn #352: "Oh, Blinding Light... Oh, Light that blinds... Look out for me... I cannot see."
Hymn #352:
"Oh, Blinding Light... Oh, Light that blinds... Look out for me... I cannot see."
Or then again B.F. you could be psychotic and just imagining it all. Psychotics know that who-doos sit on their beds and sing ragtime every Friday night. But don't worry. We know that you believe that you know. (But then maybe we just have too much static on our neuro-transmitters. So maybe you had better worry after all.)
After reading a few of the posts from the past couple of days, here's a few more passing thoughts ... make of them what you will. (Geoff, they'll do that anyway - you don't need to give them permission) ... Isn't there an element of belief in accepting scientific evidence and theories as being 'solid proof'? How solid is it? (as the hooker said to the ...) The history of science shows that theories evolve and change. In an area like relativity theory or quatum mechanics, who actually understands the theories anyway? The 'man in the street' lacks the mathematical background to evaluate the theories for himself so there is an element of trust involved ... Not to mention the fact that even among the 'experts' there is far from universal agreement. Besides which, the very idea that scientific 'proof' is th only way of knowing something for 'certain' originates from locking yourself into one way of looking at reality. Maybe the key is to unlock yourself. :) I'm far more interested in the question of how to get more people to experience the proof. You'll just have to trust me on this but there are levels of consciousness where the very idea of 'proof' simply dissolves. How to get to these levels? Well, I got there through 17 years of a wild, psychotic ride but there are safer paths. That is the purpose of any true meditation or spiritual practice - to access these levels personally. I mean we could sit around the forum for the next 20,000 lifetimes discussing the nature of truth and proof ... and that might be fun ... on the other hand ... I think there's a story about a man who goes to a teacher and says he wants enlightenment and the teacher sticks the man's head under water until he is struggling for air and then says something like "Come back when you want enlightenment as badly as you wanted that gasp of air". Someone may have a better memory of the tale than I do. The implication being that many people say they want to be enlightened but how much are they prepared to let go of to experience it. G'day, Hadi. How's it going, mate? :) Hi TO, How old is any of us? That depends on how 'real' you believe time is. :) Dave, I can't hand you all the answers on a plate. That would spoil the movie. I hate it when someone tells me the ending half way through. It ruins the fun. :) I'll check out your link and get back to you ... Also great questions about the origin of those human qualities and where do they 'go' when a person dies. Well, the way I understand it, it is only the body which dies and since those qualities are aspects of the soul they accompany the souls wherever it goes. Even the idea of 'going' is a concept based on our everyday experience of time and space. Other realms of existence are spaceless and timeless and our imaginations boggle to even get a glimpse of what that would be like. :) But a good question to consider - if there is reincarnation then just WHAT is it that reincarnates? The personality? The capacity for love, kindness etc? The gift for music or literature or healing? ... excellent question to meditate on ... The point is we do not generally experience reality directly. We experience it through a number of filters. Ideas. Generally we adopt other people's ideas. The specific ideas any person adopts depends on their conditioning to a large extent - the social environment in which their upbringing takes place. For example, a person living in a Native American tribe a few hundred years ago would not have any of the 'scientific' ideas about the world that a modern citizen of a western civilisation and thus would perceive and experience 'reality' in a fundamentally different way (I'm not saying 'better' or 'worse' - that's a judgement call :) Not quite sure where I was headed with all this ... anyway the aim of meditation is to peel away the filters. Meditation is a technique - in itself it requires no specific belief. All it requires is effort and concentration and a method to examine and probe the contents of your own consciousness. And nobody can do it for you. Just like nobody can 'make you happy' if you are determined to be miserable. If anyone had told me less than 2 years ago that I would get heavily into meditation one day I would have laughed in their face. Life is full of surprises. Unless you're omniscient - thank God I'm not! :) And, like that question Peggy posted a while back ... IF I could transfer 'my' experience into 'your' head via some kind of telepathy ... would you want that or would it rob you of discovering it in your own unique way? I can't give you MY experience in such a way that it becomes YOUR experience. Can someone let me know if this makes ANY sense at all ... :) I suppose the answer can be summarised in two words - Let Go. "Let go of what?" you may ask. :) "The farther you go into truth, the deeper it is." – Zen master Bankei
Isn't there an element of belief in accepting scientific evidence and theories as being 'solid proof'? How solid is it? (as the hooker said to the ...) The history of science shows that theories evolve and change. In an area like relativity theory or quatum mechanics, who actually understands the theories anyway? The 'man in the street' lacks the mathematical background to evaluate the theories for himself so there is an element of trust involved ...
Not to mention the fact that even among the 'experts' there is far from universal agreement. Besides which, the very idea that scientific 'proof' is th only way of knowing something for 'certain' originates from locking yourself into one way of looking at reality. Maybe the key is to unlock yourself. :)
I'm far more interested in the question of how to get more people to experience the proof. You'll just have to trust me on this but there are levels of consciousness where the very idea of 'proof' simply dissolves. How to get to these levels? Well, I got there through 17 years of a wild, psychotic ride but there are safer paths. That is the purpose of any true meditation or spiritual practice - to access these levels personally. I mean we could sit around the forum for the next 20,000 lifetimes discussing the nature of truth and proof ... and that might be fun ... on the other hand ...
I think there's a story about a man who goes to a teacher and says he wants enlightenment and the teacher sticks the man's head under water until he is struggling for air and then says something like "Come back when you want enlightenment as badly as you wanted that gasp of air". Someone may have a better memory of the tale than I do. The implication being that many people say they want to be enlightened but how much are they prepared to let go of to experience it.
G'day, Hadi. How's it going, mate? :)
Hi TO, How old is any of us? That depends on how 'real' you believe time is. :)
Dave, I can't hand you all the answers on a plate. That would spoil the movie. I hate it when someone tells me the ending half way through. It ruins the fun. :) I'll check out your link and get back to you ... Also great questions about the origin of those human qualities and where do they 'go' when a person dies. Well, the way I understand it, it is only the body which dies and since those qualities are aspects of the soul they accompany the souls wherever it goes. Even the idea of 'going' is a concept based on our everyday experience of time and space. Other realms of existence are spaceless and timeless and our imaginations boggle to even get a glimpse of what that would be like. :) But a good question to consider - if there is reincarnation then just WHAT is it that reincarnates? The personality? The capacity for love, kindness etc? The gift for music or literature or healing? ... excellent question to meditate on ...
The point is we do not generally experience reality directly. We experience it through a number of filters. Ideas. Generally we adopt other people's ideas. The specific ideas any person adopts depends on their conditioning to a large extent - the social environment in which their upbringing takes place. For example, a person living in a Native American tribe a few hundred years ago would not have any of the 'scientific' ideas about the world that a modern citizen of a western civilisation and thus would perceive and experience 'reality' in a fundamentally different way (I'm not saying 'better' or 'worse' - that's a judgement call :) Not quite sure where I was headed with all this ... anyway the aim of meditation is to peel away the filters. Meditation is a technique - in itself it requires no specific belief. All it requires is effort and concentration and a method to examine and probe the contents of your own consciousness. And nobody can do it for you. Just like nobody can 'make you happy' if you are determined to be miserable. If anyone had told me less than 2 years ago that I would get heavily into meditation one day I would have laughed in their face. Life is full of surprises. Unless you're omniscient - thank God I'm not! :)
And, like that question Peggy posted a while back ... IF I could transfer 'my' experience into 'your' head via some kind of telepathy ... would you want that or would it rob you of discovering it in your own unique way? I can't give you MY experience in such a way that it becomes YOUR experience. Can someone let me know if this makes ANY sense at all ... :)
I suppose the answer can be summarised in two words - Let Go. "Let go of what?" you may ask. :)
"The farther you go into truth, the deeper it is." – Zen master Bankei
Nej! Nej! Det er ikke sand!
There is basically no difference in the awareness of the person who knows and knows that he knows, and the awareness of the person who knows not and knows not that he knows not.
Dear Pain, we posted the same story at the same time! Your version is much better and I am happy to see it in its full form! Bob, I have no problem with either your "harshness" or your expression of your beliefs. I'm inedible.:-) Mr. 1, what happens if I know that Mr. Rajneesh was wrong??? :-D
Mr. 1, what happens if I know that Mr. Rajneesh was wrong??? :-D
Peggy - I was composing while (1) was posting the great Sri Aurobindo story. It says in much better words what I was trying to convey. I know what I know and it is not just belief.
Peggy - I was to harsh (mea gopa) - just annoyed at the time by what I considered "blindness" and "continual skepticism" to what I have come to know as "the truth". Your input of "expressing our beliefs as opposed to our knowledge" makes sense and I should probably phrase future posts in that context. My problem is that I know through direct experience (not science) that we manifest everything, that we are Spirit, etc. They are just as concrete to me (and many others here) as your example of "Washington was the first President of this country. (fact -- a matter of knowing)". Truth be told, they are more concrete and factual to me because I have directly experienced the Spirituality versus having to take someone else's word that Georgie was our first president.Carol - You are beautiful as always and as always (so far at least) I agree with everything you have said. We should set a time and place in our next lifetime to meet and go out on a date - from my standpoint, you would make a great soul mate!TO - You are right - battle is laborious and tiresome but beautiful at the same time. Everything is beautiful all the time!Peggy again -You said "A starving child is not manifesting his starvation". My belief is that he is! My belief is he is burning off some karhma from a previous lifetime and his Spirit knows exactly what is happening an why.Dick Skep - You are right, I have found my trying to beat what is right into people has a limited success rate. However, it does work sometimes and I have even had people say thanks because they say they wouldn't have paid attention otherwise.Dance/Dance/Dance
My problem is that I know through direct experience (not science) that we manifest everything, that we are Spirit, etc. They are just as concrete to me (and many others here) as your example of "Washington was the first President of this country. (fact -- a matter of knowing)". Truth be told, they are more concrete and factual to me because I have directly experienced the Spirituality versus having to take someone else's word that Georgie was our first president.
Carol - You are beautiful as always and as always (so far at least) I agree with everything you have said. We should set a time and place in our next lifetime to meet and go out on a date - from my standpoint, you would make a great soul mate!
TO - You are right - battle is laborious and tiresome but beautiful at the same time. Everything is beautiful all the time!
Peggy again -You said "A starving child is not manifesting his starvation". My belief is that he is! My belief is he is burning off some karhma from a previous lifetime and his Spirit knows exactly what is happening an why.
Dick Skep - You are right, I have found my trying to beat what is right into people has a limited success rate. However, it does work sometimes and I have even had people say thanks because they say they wouldn't have paid attention otherwise.
Dance/Dance/Dance
From another website: Steve said, "I read a story about a Zen seeker who goes to the master and sits across the table at tea time. The Zen master holds a stick in his hand and he says, 'If you drink your tea, I will hit you with this stick. If you don't drink your tea, I will hit you with this stick.' So what do you do? Well, I think I figured it out. Take away the stick.
Steve said, "I read a story about a Zen seeker who goes to the master and sits across the table at tea time. The Zen master holds a stick in his hand and he says, 'If you drink your tea, I will hit you with this stick. If you don't drink your tea, I will hit you with this stick.' So what do you do? Well, I think I figured it out. Take away the stick.
Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick In the deserts of Sudan And the gardens of Japan From Milan to Yacatán Every woman, every man Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! Je t'adore, ich liebe dich Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me slowly, hit me quick Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! In the wilds of Borneo And the vineyards of Bordeaux Eskimo, Arapaho Move their body to and fro Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! Das ist gut, c'est fantastique Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick It's nice to be a lunatic Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit... In the dock of Tiger Bay On the road to Mandalay From Bombay to Santa Fé O'er the hills and far away Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! C'est si bon, {indecipherable} Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick Two fat persons, click, click, click Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! Je t'adore, ich liebe dich Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me slowly, hit me quick Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
In the wilds of Borneo And the vineyards of Bordeaux Eskimo, Arapaho Move their body to and fro
Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! Das ist gut, c'est fantastique Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick It's nice to be a lunatic Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit...
In the dock of Tiger Bay On the road to Mandalay From Bombay to Santa Fé O'er the hills and far away
Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me! Hit me! C'est si bon, {indecipherable} Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me with your rhythm stick Two fat persons, click, click, click Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Sri Aurobindo was asked by a philosopher, "Do you believe in God?" and he replied "No." The philosopher was, for a moment, shocked. He had come a long way, believing that this man had come to know God, and this man says, "I don't believe in God." For a moment he could not gather the courage to ask anything alse. The he said, "But I thought that you had seen God." Sri Aurobindo laughed and said, "Yes, I have seen, that is why I say I don't believe. 'Belief' is out of ignorance. I know! I don't 'believe'." And remember it: you have to know, you are not here to believe. My help is available for you to know. Belief is a trick of the mind. Without knowing, it gives you the feeling that you have known. ~ Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
And remember it: you have to know, you are not here to believe. My help is available for you to know. Belief is a trick of the mind. Without knowing, it gives you the feeling that you have known.
~ Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
Get me my zen stick! "This is a Zen stick!" The master said laying it in front of the student. "If you call it a Zen stick, you are attached to it. If you don't call it a Zen stick you are denying it. Quick! What is it? Answer, or I'll hit you with it!" the student slapped the floor in front of the Zen stick. "Is that your answer?" the student nod. "Are you sure of that?" "May I see it?" the student asked. The Zen master nod and hands the student the Zen stick. The student looked it over, then tossed it away over his shoulder. "What are you doing with my Zen Stick!?!" the Master cried out. "Who's attached to it now?" the student asked.
Get me my zen stick!
"This is a Zen stick!" The master said laying it in front of the student. "If you call it a Zen stick, you are attached to it. If you don't call it a Zen stick you are denying it. Quick! What is it? Answer, or I'll hit you with it!" the student slapped the floor in front of the Zen stick. "Is that your answer?" the student nod. "Are you sure of that?" "May I see it?" the student asked. The Zen master nod and hands the student the Zen stick. The student looked it over, then tossed it away over his shoulder. "What are you doing with my Zen Stick!?!" the Master cried out. "Who's attached to it now?" the student asked.
Geoff, what can I say. You are a soul. I love it. Your post reminds me of one of my fave quotes, I think it comes from Einstein - "There really are only two ways to live: as if everything is a miracle or as if nothing is."
carol, this LINK gives me grounds to be skeptical when it comes to your version of the truth. i would love to hear your many examples where negative reinforcement is effectively used to teach spiritual knowledge. you're not a catholic school teacher are you?
Forgot to mention...if you are interested in the newsletter....go to www.egroups.com and search CreatingaBetterWorld...thanks!
Just came back to post a quick thing and noticed my last post was not the best in terms of language use. I said --"I think you are right (my belief ;-)) that expressing what we share here as what we believe vs as what we know is a good idea...it is more respectful to others in that it doesn't imply by default that our beliefs are wrong." I meant to say that it doesn't imply by default that their beliefs are wrong :-)Anyway, what I came here to post was that I have started a newsletter called Creating a Better World that I'll send about once a week. Here is a sample:TIP: CONSIDER NON-MATERIAL GIFTS FOR ALL GIFT GIVING OCCASSIONS This helps cut down on consumption and resultant energy use (for production) and garbage. Gifts of time, or assistance or entertainment are fun for both the giver and the recipient! My kids like to give such gifts. They present them as "coupons". A good way to teach and learn that the intangibles in life are so rewarding! THE BRIGHTER SIDE: There are so many organizations and people out there doing wonderful things! One such group is called USAID, Lessons Without Borders, which helps share the best solutions to common problems in community development. They can be contacted and accept ideas at USAID, Lessons Without Borders 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20523. See related story in the book Stone Soup for the World. QUOTE: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow." Dwight Eisenhower DISCLAIMER: This newsletter is a casual, relaxed sharing of information based largely on facts as I remember them, or on things that I have read. I may or may not always have the sources to back up what I'm saying, so feel free to doubt me :-) MOTTOS: (if you think about these and apply them to your lives everyday...Wow!) Reduce, reuse, recycle. Think globally, act locally. In our every deliberation, we must consider the effects on the next seven generations. It is our duty as men and women to behave as though limits to our ability do not exist. We are co-creators of the universe.--Teilhard de Chardin I just thought I'd put it out there for anyone's who's interested...there are a lot of such things on the web, but one advantage from my view of my newsletter (tho I do think there are others like this) is that it comes to your email box vs your having to browse a site (something I rarely do). Take it or leave it :-)Cathy
"I think you are right (my belief ;-)) that expressing what we share here as what we believe vs as what we know is a good idea...it is more respectful to others in that it doesn't imply by default that our beliefs are wrong."
I meant to say that it doesn't imply by default that their beliefs are wrong :-)
Anyway, what I came here to post was that I have started a newsletter called Creating a Better World that I'll send about once a week. Here is a sample:
TIP: CONSIDER NON-MATERIAL GIFTS FOR ALL GIFT GIVING OCCASSIONS This helps cut down on consumption and resultant energy use (for production) and garbage. Gifts of time, or assistance or entertainment are fun for both the giver and the recipient! My kids like to give such gifts. They present them as "coupons". A good way to teach and learn that the intangibles in life are so rewarding!
THE BRIGHTER SIDE: There are so many organizations and people out there doing wonderful things! One such group is called USAID, Lessons Without Borders, which helps share the best solutions to common problems in community development. They can be contacted and accept ideas at USAID, Lessons Without Borders 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20523. See related story in the book Stone Soup for the World.
QUOTE: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow." Dwight Eisenhower
DISCLAIMER: This newsletter is a casual, relaxed sharing of information based largely on facts as I remember them, or on things that I have read. I may or may not always have the sources to back up what I'm saying, so feel free to doubt me :-)
MOTTOS: (if you think about these and apply them to your lives everyday...Wow!) Reduce, reuse, recycle. Think globally, act locally. In our every deliberation, we must consider the effects on the next seven generations. It is our duty as men and women to behave as though limits to our ability do not exist. We are co-creators of the universe.--Teilhard de Chardin
I just thought I'd put it out there for anyone's who's interested...there are a lot of such things on the web, but one advantage from my view of my newsletter (tho I do think there are others like this) is that it comes to your email box vs your having to browse a site (something I rarely do). Take it or leave it :-)
Cathy
Carol Thanks for the funny stuff :-)PeggyI think you are right (my belief ;-)) that expressing what we share here as what we believe vs as what we know is a good idea...it is more respectful to others in that it doesn't imply by default that our beliefs are wrong. You may know that something is true, but someone else may know it's opposite to be true...as for quantum physics and proof...I think it supports a metaphysical outlook...but I do concede that it's not unequivocal...and maybe never will be--where's the mystery in that? ;-) Maybe Spirit/God will defy being completely provable?? Anyway, I think that what we talk about here is all individual (that is individual emmanations of the divine ;-)) process and so to recognize that what we understand or think is a personal thing is the most compassionate way to share. Now I know some of you might be thinking just meditate and you'll see for yourself :-) But there are other paths to God that can be revealed in other ways, in my opinion...so don't discount them :-)Blessings! Cathy
PeggyI think you are right (my belief ;-)) that expressing what we share here as what we believe vs as what we know is a good idea...it is more respectful to others in that it doesn't imply by default that our beliefs are wrong. You may know that something is true, but someone else may know it's opposite to be true...as for quantum physics and proof...I think it supports a metaphysical outlook...but I do concede that it's not unequivocal...and maybe never will be--where's the mystery in that? ;-) Maybe Spirit/God will defy being completely provable??
Anyway, I think that what we talk about here is all individual (that is individual emmanations of the divine ;-)) process and so to recognize that what we understand or think is a personal thing is the most compassionate way to share. Now I know some of you might be thinking just meditate and you'll see for yourself :-) But there are other paths to God that can be revealed in other ways, in my opinion...so don't discount them :-)
Blessings! Cathy
"Me""a source of insignificant criticism."
"a source of insignificant criticism."
Namaste' Carol???????? (Love it! :))
Carol???????? (Love it! :))
Peggy You asked about sharing basic beliefs...here are mine:Life is goodLife is eternalWe are one with our source, and our source is the source of it allThings are not always what they seemBeing one with our source, we all--though not necessarily consciously--create our realities The previous fact/belief does not negate the value of compassion and helping and loving each other"My only wisdom lies in knowing that I know not"That's the basic stuff...the details get confusing for me :-)I think that understanding where we are each "coming from" in our posts might be helpful...though I know I could never remember what everyone said! There are always the archives :-)It was also a nice "exercise" to sit and write out my beliefs...thanks for asking! Peace!Cathy
You asked about sharing basic beliefs...here are mine:
Life is good
Life is eternal
We are one with our source, and our source is the source of it all
Things are not always what they seem
Being one with our source, we all--though not necessarily consciously--create our realities
The previous fact/belief does not negate the value of compassion and helping and loving each other
"My only wisdom lies in knowing that I know not"
That's the basic stuff...the details get confusing for me :-)I think that understanding where we are each "coming from" in our posts might be helpful...though I know I could never remember what everyone said! There are always the archives :-)It was also a nice "exercise" to sit and write out my beliefs...thanks for asking!
Peace!
It would be helpful, I think, if we expressed our beliefs as opposed to our knowledge. Somehow, that makes it a little easier to accept. This isn't to say that people don't know things. But it might help to keep some of us less defensive. Examples: Washington was the first President of this country. (fact -- a matter of knowing Washington was our greatest President. (opinion or belief) Washington was our sixteenth President. ("false fact" -- a matter of not knowing) Although I may disagree with someone's beliefs and express my disagreement, it is only the "false facts" that I will kick and scream about. I dislike the casual presentation of misinformation.
Examples: Washington was the first President of this country. (fact -- a matter of knowing
Washington was our greatest President. (opinion or belief)
Washington was our sixteenth President. ("false fact" -- a matter of not knowing)
Although I may disagree with someone's beliefs and express my disagreement, it is only the "false facts" that I will kick and scream about. I dislike the casual presentation of misinformation.
Good morning, Lennie! Hi, Carol! Funny stuff! I also liked your posts which explain some of your beliefs. It would be interesting to know the basic beliefs of others too.
Hi, Carol! Funny stuff! I also liked your posts which explain some of your beliefs. It would be interesting to know the basic beliefs of others too.
Carol,I love it .that was hilarious
since my subtle, poor attempt at humor, yesterday, didn't seem to work or help to lighten things up here is a blatant, poor attempt, heh! hope everyone has a nice restful Sunday, Namasté All!We all know those cute little computer symbols called "emoticons", where :) means a smile and :( is a frown. Sometimes these can be represented by :-) and :-( also. Well, how about some "assicons"? Here goes: (_!_) a regular ass (__!__) a fat ass (!) a tight ass (_*_) a sore ass {_!_} a swishy ass (_o_) an ass that's been around (_x_) kiss my ass (_X_) leave my ass alone (_zzz_) a tired ass (_o^^o_) a wise ass (_E=mc2_) a smart ass (_$_) Money coming out of his ass (_?_) Dumb Ass
We all know those cute little computer symbols called "emoticons", where :) means a smile and :( is a frown. Sometimes these can be represented by :-) and :-( also.
Well, how about some "assicons"? Here goes:
(_!_) a regular ass
(__!__) a fat ass
(!) a tight ass
(_*_) a sore ass
{_!_} a swishy ass
(_o_) an ass that's been around
(_x_) kiss my ass
(_X_) leave my ass alone
(_zzz_) a tired ass
(_o^^o_) a wise ass
(_E=mc2_) a smart ass
(_$_) Money coming out of his ass
(_?_) Dumb Ass
to diminish any misunderstanding, i do not personally advocate aggression or beatings in any form. but i do recognize the fact that many govt's, organizations and individuals do.
actually, i could enter here many examples of beating the students, and the Zen example is only one.and to be more accurate, while Bob said he is not Leo he stated that many of his planets were in Leo.
and to be more accurate, while Bob said he is not Leo he stated that many of his planets were in Leo.
you know, Dick, the truth of the matter is that many masters did beat the truth into their students. have you never heard of the Zen stick where the Zen Masters would hit their students with the stick if they did not respond properly. the reason i asked Bob if he is a Leo (tho many here does not give astrology any credence, but it is a source i have considered and find that our personalitites do seem to correlate to much of the teachings of astrology) is that his tecnique seemed to reflect one of that sign. he confirmed for me that he is and it does, indeed, explain a lot to me. it seems that it his nature to respond the way he does and that to criticize him his to criticize his nature. while, i do wish that the disagreement between him and Peggy did not happen, i do somewhat understand why it did. i hope that he can learn to subdue his personal nature somehow and to remember his supreme nature of bliss so that in communicating with others he will be more successful.
the reason i asked Bob if he is a Leo (tho many here does not give astrology any credence, but it is a source i have considered and find that our personalitites do seem to correlate to much of the teachings of astrology) is that his tecnique seemed to reflect one of that sign. he confirmed for me that he is and it does, indeed, explain a lot to me. it seems that it his nature to respond the way he does and that to criticize him his to criticize his nature. while, i do wish that the disagreement between him and Peggy did not happen, i do somewhat understand why it did. i hope that he can learn to subdue his personal nature somehow and to remember his supreme nature of bliss so that in communicating with others he will be more successful.
hi Jidduh - you said all gurus are phoney. by reading much material over the years, and incidently, a large collection of Rajneesh' work, and i also read from many sources and have a rather large library, (in storage now) i have come to realize that every statement is half true. therefore, imo, your statement is true but the other side of the coin is that all gurus are not phoney. i would consider guru meaning any individual that exists and each and everyone of us has the capability to be real and phoney in any given moment.
great post, Tom. and thanks 1 i love the Rajneesh post, too.
hi Dave - i scanned your article and saw the similarities between the Rajneesh post and the article. the main disagreement i would have about man becoming a machine is that i have become to feel (some time ago) that man's body is and has always been a machine. not one of metal but one of flesh & bones, a far superior model, over any machine i have ever seen. if you ask me how this came to be i would have to say i don't know but this awareness has helped me to realize that we are more than the machine that we abide in. i don't know if this will be considered exploring the article to you but this is my attempt.
The "artist formerly known as Hadi" posting about egolessness. Now that's funny!
Sorry for the weird spelling at the end of my post. Was rushing due to a big storm here and wanted to post before the power and/or phone went out.
Absolutely beautiful post, Tom!!
Code: Descartes, the father of Western philosophy says, "I think, therefore I am." His own meaning is very different because he is not a meditator, but the statement is beautiful. I give it a different meaning. "I am only if I think". I f thinking disappears, the I also disappears. "I think, therefore I am". This I-amness, this self-conscious heart is nothing but a continuum of thoughts. It is not really an entity, it is a false entity, an illusion. It is just like taking a torch in your hand and if you revolve the torch in the air you will see a circle of fire which is not there. But the torch is moving so fast that it creates an illusory circle of fire, it creates the illusion of a fire circle. It is not there. Thoughts are moving so fast that they create the idea of "I". One has to move from ego to egolessness, one has to move from self to no-self. The self is the manifest part - tiny, very small, gross. The unself is the unmanifest part - infinite, eternal. The self is a temporal phenomenon, born one day, will have to die one day. The unself, what Buddha calls "anatta", no-self, is part of eternity, never born and never going to die. It abides for ever. That original quality is still alive within you, vibrating... It is within you, it is your reality. To taste it is to become immortal, to taste it is to be golden. Then dust is transformed into the divine... The goal of alchemy is to transform the lower metal into gold. ~Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh boggle. ...;)
Descartes, the father of Western philosophy says, "I think, therefore I am." His own meaning is very different because he is not a meditator, but the statement is beautiful. I give it a different meaning. "I am only if I think". I f thinking disappears, the I also disappears. "I think, therefore I am". This I-amness, this self-conscious heart is nothing but a continuum of thoughts. It is not really an entity, it is a false entity, an illusion. It is just like taking a torch in your hand and if you revolve the torch in the air you will see a circle of fire which is not there. But the torch is moving so fast that it creates an illusory circle of fire, it creates the illusion of a fire circle. It is not there. Thoughts are moving so fast that they create the idea of "I".
One has to move from ego to egolessness, one has to move from self to no-self. The self is the manifest part - tiny, very small, gross. The unself is the unmanifest part - infinite, eternal. The self is a temporal phenomenon, born one day, will have to die one day. The unself, what Buddha calls "anatta", no-self, is part of eternity, never born and never going to die. It abides for ever.
That original quality is still alive within you, vibrating... It is within you, it is your reality. To taste it is to become immortal, to taste it is to be golden. Then dust is transformed into the divine... The goal of alchemy is to transform the lower metal into gold.
~Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
boggle. ...;)
Ok, I've been running this post through my mind since reading here this morning. Just checked back in before I write this offline to see that Mr. Skep has already addressed one of my points. "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Though this phrase has become a cliché, it is very true in my case. A few years ago, I was a hard nosed Athiest. I had come accross a philosophy called Neo-Tech, which rejects all forms of mysticism. Instead of becoming more prosperous and happy as they claimed would happen, I became more miserable. A series of coincidences around five years ago led me to make a 180º turn around in my thinking. Deepak Chopra was the first author I read after these coincidences, which faciliated the change, but he is not my final authority on the subject. I read from lots of sources, and have even started reading the Bible, something I would have never thought I'd do those few years ago. I now feel that as a human being, I need and want some mysticism in my life. I still feel there are valid concepts to the Neo-Tech philosophy, especially this concept below: **********Neo-Tech Advantage #80 INITIATORY FORCE -- THE PRIME EVIL Force, coercion, threat of force, or fraud[ 42 ] initiated against any individual for any reason by any individual, groups of individuals, societies, or governments is morally wrong. That is the only categorical moral statement possible. That statement must, by its nature, be the categorical, irreducible, and fundamental standard for all conscious beings, always, everywhere. That statement is the moral axiom upon which every Neo-Tech/Psychuous Concept rests. The initiation of force and fraud among conscious beings is not only the basic moral wrong and evil, but is the primary tool used by all professional mystics and neocheaters to survive through value destruction. No exceptions to the immorality of initiatory force exist. No matter how "noble" the ends, they never justify the means of initiating force, fraud, or coercion against any individual. Any government or activity that depends on or uses initiatory force, threat of force, or coercion is immoral and destructive. Therefore, all taxation backed by force, all conscription backed by force, and all laws that regulate or control by force or coercion are immoral.********** This is just the first two paragraphs of "Advantage #80," to read the whole concept, click here. Now, I'm not implying that anyone that posts here is evil, I'm just trying to say that when you try to "beat it into" someone, you're just going to get met with more resistance. Look at how our government didn't learn from their alcohol prohibition and are now creating criminals and violence through the "war on drugs." I sometimes feel a bit of spiritual elitism around here when someone tries to convince another where they're right and the other is wrong. After reading things this morning, I sat down for my meditation, where I remembered an experience at the Chopra Center last year when I attended a free Satsang. I called ahead of time to find out the proceedure in attending. I was told to show up at least two hours early. Numbers are handed out and they determine if you get into the actual event. I arrived a bit earlier than the recommended time, to find that there were already six or seven people ahead of me. While waiting in line, I passed the time by repeating a mantra as the line eventually stretched behind me to the end of the block. When they finally passed out the numbers, though I was 8th in line, I got #35! The lower numbers were saved for friends and regulars that the people knew. We were told to come back an hour later, at which time we would be admitted. When they started letting people into the tiny meeting room, the first people called were names from a VIP list, they didn't even have to stand in line for a number. After the thirty or so names were called, they started calling out the numbers in groups of 10, in numerical order of course. I did eventually get in, but being 8th in line at the start of this, I was quite disappointed in the seating. The majority of the empty chairs left were reserved with the names of VIP's who hadn't shown up yet. I was left with the option of sitting on the floor or way at the side, almost behind the presentation area, which I took. At the angle I was sitting at, I could barely see the video that was played at the beginning of the lecture. As Elwood Blues says, "What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?" The point of all of this is that I feel a better example is made and more people may listen when favors aren't handed over to those of an inner circle and the unlearned aren't looked down upone becaues of their perceived ignorance or forced to see the light that seems so obvious to another.
"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
Though this phrase has become a cliché, it is very true in my case. A few years ago, I was a hard nosed Athiest. I had come accross a philosophy called Neo-Tech, which rejects all forms of mysticism. Instead of becoming more prosperous and happy as they claimed would happen, I became more miserable. A series of coincidences around five years ago led me to make a 180º turn around in my thinking. Deepak Chopra was the first author I read after these coincidences, which faciliated the change, but he is not my final authority on the subject. I read from lots of sources, and have even started reading the Bible, something I would have never thought I'd do those few years ago. I now feel that as a human being, I need and want some mysticism in my life.
I still feel there are valid concepts to the Neo-Tech philosophy, especially this concept below:
Neo-Tech Advantage #80 INITIATORY FORCE -- THE PRIME EVIL
Force, coercion, threat of force, or fraud[ 42 ] initiated against any individual for any reason by any individual, groups of individuals, societies, or governments is morally wrong. That is the only categorical moral statement possible. That statement must, by its nature, be the categorical, irreducible, and fundamental standard for all conscious beings, always, everywhere. That statement is the moral axiom upon which every Neo-Tech/Psychuous Concept rests. The initiation of force and fraud among conscious beings is not only the basic moral wrong and evil, but is the primary tool used by all professional mystics and neocheaters to survive through value destruction.
No exceptions to the immorality of initiatory force exist. No matter how "noble" the ends, they never justify the means of initiating force, fraud, or coercion against any individual. Any government or activity that depends on or uses initiatory force, threat of force, or coercion is immoral and destructive. Therefore, all taxation backed by force, all conscription backed by force, and all laws that regulate or control by force or coercion are immoral.
This is just the first two paragraphs of "Advantage #80," to read the whole concept, click here.
Now, I'm not implying that anyone that posts here is evil, I'm just trying to say that when you try to "beat it into" someone, you're just going to get met with more resistance. Look at how our government didn't learn from their alcohol prohibition and are now creating criminals and violence through the "war on drugs."
I sometimes feel a bit of spiritual elitism around here when someone tries to convince another where they're right and the other is wrong. After reading things this morning, I sat down for my meditation, where I remembered an experience at the Chopra Center last year when I attended a free Satsang.
I called ahead of time to find out the proceedure in attending. I was told to show up at least two hours early. Numbers are handed out and they determine if you get into the actual event. I arrived a bit earlier than the recommended time, to find that there were already six or seven people ahead of me. While waiting in line, I passed the time by repeating a mantra as the line eventually stretched behind me to the end of the block.
When they finally passed out the numbers, though I was 8th in line, I got #35! The lower numbers were saved for friends and regulars that the people knew. We were told to come back an hour later, at which time we would be admitted.
When they started letting people into the tiny meeting room, the first people called were names from a VIP list, they didn't even have to stand in line for a number. After the thirty or so names were called, they started calling out the numbers in groups of 10, in numerical order of course.
I did eventually get in, but being 8th in line at the start of this, I was quite disappointed in the seating. The majority of the empty chairs left were reserved with the names of VIP's who hadn't shown up yet. I was left with the option of sitting on the floor or way at the side, almost behind the presentation area, which I took. At the angle I was sitting at, I could barely see the video that was played at the beginning of the lecture.
As Elwood Blues says, "What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?"
The point of all of this is that I feel a better example is made and more people may listen when favors aren't handed over to those of an inner circle and the unlearned aren't looked down upone becaues of their perceived ignorance or forced to see the light that seems so obvious to another.
Even though I stumbled across Religion Online & Techno-Spiritualism in that search for data on Descartes, I would urge each person participating in this forum to read, as carefully and intently as possible, what this writer has to say about something we can all share with some sense of conviction.The very fact that we are using this medium (the Internet) to communicate our own opinions and beliefs, is strong evidence that if we were to focus instead on the contents of this article, and exchange our own persuasions of what it means, we could be operating from a much closer to common ground than the one(s) we have been getting hung up on.If we can at least acknowledge that each of us is living right square in the middle of this topic, and that it has its effects on each of us, I believe we can use the considerable mind-power of the regulars here to explore this topic with some real vigor.I would *love* to explore this with all of you!
The very fact that we are using this medium (the Internet) to communicate our own opinions and beliefs, is strong evidence that if we were to focus instead on the contents of this article, and exchange our own persuasions of what it means, we could be operating from a much closer to common ground than the one(s) we have been getting hung up on.
If we can at least acknowledge that each of us is living right square in the middle of this topic, and that it has its effects on each of us, I believe we can use the considerable mind-power of the regulars here to explore this topic with some real vigor.
I would *love* to explore this with all of you!
Finally I have located a link that supports what I was recalling at this site where there can be found this statement:"This imaginal relationship between man and machine was a long time coming. The ground was laid by the mechanistic cosmologists of ancient Greece, and it really seized the imagination when tinkerers like Heron started building those fanciful proto-robots we call automata -- mechanical gods, dolls, and birds that fascinated ancient and medieval folks as much as they fascinate kids at Disneyland today. The elaborate clocks that decorated medieval churches were often outfitted with mechanical sinners, saints, grim reapers, and beasts, mimicking our passage through time. The notion of a mechanistic universe, which these clocks helped engender, eventually landed us at the philosophical doorstep of Descartes, who adopted the revolutionary notion that bodies were not animated by spirits of any kind. The difference between a living being and a corpse was nothing more than the difference between a wound-up watch and a spent automata. The Catholic Church recognized the threat to religion that Descartes' new mechanistic philosophy posed, but was satisfied with the philosopher's dualistic solution: simply divide the res cogitans, the realm of the mind, from the res extensa, the spatial world of bodies and objects and insist that never the twain shall meet."In looking through these web pages to locate this specific thing, the commentary in these linked pages has proven to be quite useful in considering these latest issues at this forum.
"This imaginal relationship between man and machine was a long time coming. The ground was laid by the mechanistic cosmologists of ancient Greece, and it really seized the imagination when tinkerers like Heron started building those fanciful proto-robots we call automata -- mechanical gods, dolls, and birds that fascinated ancient and medieval folks as much as they fascinate kids at Disneyland today. The elaborate clocks that decorated medieval churches were often outfitted with mechanical sinners, saints, grim reapers, and beasts, mimicking our passage through time. The notion of a mechanistic universe, which these clocks helped engender, eventually landed us at the philosophical doorstep of Descartes, who adopted the revolutionary notion that bodies were not animated by spirits of any kind. The difference between a living being and a corpse was nothing more than the difference between a wound-up watch and a spent automata. The Catholic Church recognized the threat to religion that Descartes' new mechanistic philosophy posed, but was satisfied with the philosopher's dualistic solution: simply divide the res cogitans, the realm of the mind, from the res extensa, the spatial world of bodies and objects and insist that never the twain shall meet."
In looking through these web pages to locate this specific thing, the commentary in these linked pages has proven to be quite useful in considering these latest issues at this forum.
"All gurus are phony"
When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Unless your teacher is Bob F. Then you'll just get it beat into you, like it or not. Helluva teaching philosophy....not very effective I would imagine. Must be a case of bliss blindness.
Unless your teacher is Bob F. Then you'll just get it beat into you, like it or not.
Helluva teaching philosophy....not very effective I would imagine. Must be a case of bliss blindness.
Here's an even lengthier article on Descartes' contributions to the separation of mind and body in our Western philosophies.Whether Descartes should get credit or blame for this dichotomy is a matter of personal taste and persuasion. But at least it can help us see the historical context for how our *paradigms* have been formed.Breaking or shifting those models for belief is no easy task when that's how we get taught how Reality works. Undoing those systems of belief does require serious scrutiny of the principles involved and weighing them against alternatives. But unless we are at least willing to ask the questions (in my own opinion) of *both* sides of the argument, I don't see how we can come to an informed answer. That's the hard part of not just buying in to one position or the other. It does take some effort.
Whether Descartes should get credit or blame for this dichotomy is a matter of personal taste and persuasion. But at least it can help us see the historical context for how our *paradigms* have been formed.
Breaking or shifting those models for belief is no easy task when that's how we get taught how Reality works. Undoing those systems of belief does require serious scrutiny of the principles involved and weighing them against alternatives. But unless we are at least willing to ask the questions (in my own opinion) of *both* sides of the argument, I don't see how we can come to an informed answer. That's the hard part of not just buying in to one position or the other. It does take some effort.
Although this specific article and associated links isn't exactly what I recall, those interested in the idea might find this additional reading of some value.
Terry, you asked "Dave after 54000 posts you're still questioning, how in hell can the "man on the street" GET it?"First, I don't want full credit for 54000 posts. Some of those are yours.The fact that I'm still questioning should indicate that I don't have answers that satisfy me yet. I don't really expect to get all the answers, since as soon as I get a good answer, another question pops up. I suspect it will be that way until I'm no longer able to ask questions.As for the "man on the street" (your words; mine were "person on the street" and I recognize that there are females asking the same sorts of questions) "getting it" (again your words) it's my position that those people are not being presented with acceptable answers either.Now, as to who should shoulder the blame for that, I do believe the "person on the street" needs some motivation to look for those answers. In that area, there needs to be some incentive for the "average person" to look beyond the everyday world. Many do, I think. Many do that in ways that would amaze the self-appointed "enlightened ones" if they only bothered to "get outside themselves" now and then.Then it should also be a role of the ones who claim to have "gotten it" to make their experiences with "it" understandable to "the person on the street" in words that relate. Codewords and mumbo-jumbo rarely work to capture such people's attention. Both Science and Religion traffic in codewords and mumbo-jumbo. It's not working -- at least as far as I can see.
"Dave after 54000 posts you're still questioning, how in hell can the "man on the street" GET it?"
First, I don't want full credit for 54000 posts. Some of those are yours.
The fact that I'm still questioning should indicate that I don't have answers that satisfy me yet. I don't really expect to get all the answers, since as soon as I get a good answer, another question pops up. I suspect it will be that way until I'm no longer able to ask questions.
As for the "man on the street" (your words; mine were "person on the street" and I recognize that there are females asking the same sorts of questions) "getting it" (again your words) it's my position that those people are not being presented with acceptable answers either.
Now, as to who should shoulder the blame for that, I do believe the "person on the street" needs some motivation to look for those answers. In that area, there needs to be some incentive for the "average person" to look beyond the everyday world. Many do, I think. Many do that in ways that would amaze the self-appointed "enlightened ones" if they only bothered to "get outside themselves" now and then.
Then it should also be a role of the ones who claim to have "gotten it" to make their experiences with "it" understandable to "the person on the street" in words that relate. Codewords and mumbo-jumbo rarely work to capture such people's attention. Both Science and Religion traffic in codewords and mumbo-jumbo.
It's not working -- at least as far as I can see.
Terry, here's the best I could locate online on peanut gallery but the dictionary (Random House, by the way) also has how it's used in signifying "a source of insignificant criticism." Take your pick.
Bob said: "Your attitude always seems to be 'I will believe it only when I see it' and then you close your eyes and refuse to look. You are one of the biggest skeptics that grace these pages and you don't want to hear the truth." Bob, you seem to me not to have read my posts carefully. I am a skeptic only when it comes to scientific claims. Skepticism is part of the scientific process and is appropriate. Please pardon my self-indulgence in re-explaining some of my beliefs that I have addressed here over the years.: All of creation is ONE on an ultimate level of reality. Not everyone is aware of this level but all are part of it. Being aware does not make us in any way superior. I experienced an awakening to this level of awareness approximately twenty years ago. We are conscious within other levels of reality. One of these levels is the one in which we live our day-to-day lives most of the time. Human beings are imperfect on this (the day-to-day) level of reality. All of the world's "great religions" are paths to understanding but are flawed. Christianity is an Eastern religion. There are other paths besides religious ones. God is Omnipresent. Positive thinking and attitudes are helpful in attaining our goals. A starving child is not manifesting his starvation. We cannot interfere with the dharma of another. Whatever happens is the only thing that could happen. We are responsible for caring for all of creation and are instruments through which good is accomplished. Good things can also come from negative experiences and even "mindless chit chat." :-) When we are bigoted, sexist, racist, or even merely unkind, we contribute to the universe the same sort of evil that the Nazi's (et al) did and do. Our spirits survive beyond the death of the body. Extra-sensory perception is natural, not supernatural. Some have developed this sense more than others. Science may someday prove a connection between spirit and quantum physics. It doesn't matter to me whether science ever proves this connection or not. It doesn't matter to me whether others disagree with my beliefs or not. I do, however, enjoy exploring beliefs. False statements concerning matters of science annoy me, especially when they come from people who should know better. I am the only authority on what I believe. You are the only authority on what you believe. People are "eaten" only when they allow themselves to be. I am not so inclined.
"Your attitude always seems to be 'I will believe it only when I see it' and then you close your eyes and refuse to look. You are one of the biggest skeptics that grace these pages and you don't want to hear the truth."
Bob, you seem to me not to have read my posts carefully. I am a skeptic only when it comes to scientific claims. Skepticism is part of the scientific process and is appropriate.
Please pardon my self-indulgence in re-explaining some of my beliefs that I have addressed here over the years.:
All of creation is ONE on an ultimate level of reality. Not everyone is aware of this level but all are part of it. Being aware does not make us in any way superior. I experienced an awakening to this level of awareness approximately twenty years ago.
We are conscious within other levels of reality. One of these levels is the one in which we live our day-to-day lives most of the time.
Human beings are imperfect on this (the day-to-day) level of reality.
All of the world's "great religions" are paths to understanding but are flawed.
Christianity is an Eastern religion.
There are other paths besides religious ones.
God is Omnipresent.
Positive thinking and attitudes are helpful in attaining our goals.
A starving child is not manifesting his starvation.
We cannot interfere with the dharma of another. Whatever happens is the only thing that could happen.
We are responsible for caring for all of creation and are instruments through which good is accomplished.
Good things can also come from negative experiences and even "mindless chit chat." :-)
When we are bigoted, sexist, racist, or even merely unkind, we contribute to the universe the same sort of evil that the Nazi's (et al) did and do.
Our spirits survive beyond the death of the body.
Extra-sensory perception is natural, not supernatural. Some have developed this sense more than others.
Science may someday prove a connection between spirit and quantum physics.
It doesn't matter to me whether science ever proves this connection or not.
It doesn't matter to me whether others disagree with my beliefs or not. I do, however, enjoy exploring beliefs.
False statements concerning matters of science annoy me, especially when they come from people who should know better.
I am the only authority on what I believe. You are the only authority on what you believe.
People are "eaten" only when they allow themselves to be. I am not so inclined.
I have difficulty figuring out how I read one message and comprehend one thing, but others read it and comprehend another. Interpretation is a powerful force, eh? Bob, be careful that you do not set up "straw men" (or "straw women") in your attempt to beat "IT" into the unwashed. Perhaps that is your tip-off that you still have that area to work on, the dregs of your aggressive past.
Carol - You are close, I am Aries with a lot of planets in Leo. It explains a lot doesn't it.TO - I too wish some one would figure out how to get the man on the street to "GET IT". My trying to beat it into them sure doesn't work.I need to keep remembering to work on myself and let the rest of the world do its own thing. It is just that the world is so wonderful once you "GET IT" that you want everyone to experience "IT". A wishful dream that may come about some day.
TO - I too wish some one would figure out how to get the man on the street to "GET IT". My trying to beat it into them sure doesn't work.
I need to keep remembering to work on myself and let the rest of the world do its own thing. It is just that the world is so wonderful once you "GET IT" that you want everyone to experience "IT". A wishful dream that may come about some day.
I think it's a race between science and the spiritual community, and hopefully they'll continue to grow together........the trend seems to be more toward society being a bunch of medically "altered states of consciousnes".
Another "method" of experiencing the "truth" is taking our own consciousness as an object, and running down where "what" it thinks came from. Einstein admitted to this one.
Einstein admitted to this one.
Once again Geoff I'll ask......... how "old" are you? (just kidding)
Dave after 54000 posts you're still questioning, how in hell can the "man on the street" GET it? I sincerely wish SOME-ONE would as this one-on-one crap is sure slow/laborious/tedious, but at the same time---beautiful, wondrous, exhilarating. BTW, if anyone has any influence with a person or corporation, the Hunger Site needs sponsors.
I sincerely wish SOME-ONE would as this one-on-one crap is sure slow/laborious/tedious, but at the same time---beautiful, wondrous, exhilarating.
BTW, if anyone has any influence with a person or corporation, the Hunger Site needs sponsors.
Namaste' Peanut gallery reporting in. (Dave, where'd that come from---peanut gallery?) (tiger) Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat discussion going on.More "duality" huh Dick? We're either going to freeze or burn. Love it!
Peanut gallery reporting in. (Dave, where'd that come from---peanut gallery?)
(tiger) Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat discussion going on.
More "duality" huh Dick? We're either going to freeze or burn. Love it!
Somewhere I've read or heard that our dilemma about the nature of *soul/mind/spirit* stems from the period when Descartes made his pronouncements about "I think, therefore I am" and how this caused a bargain to be struck between Science and Religion, and that Science would leave the business of Soul to The Church. (I'll try to find some source material to support what I'm only remembering.)However, if there's any validity to this notion, and if Science has felt obligated to keep its side of the bargain, it might help to explain why the research into this area of the non-material has gone so slowly. It wasn't until recently that Probability and Statistics (heavily endorsed these days by the scientific community) were elevated from witchcraft status to being reliable in scientific exploration. Who knows what arcane and *occult* methods might have also risen to respectability if the stigma hadn't been placed on them to begin with?Chris has said some important words when he mentions that *bias* plays a big role in not just *how* we look at things, but also in *what* we're willing to look at.But I personally favor a bias that includes the big question "Does it make sense?" in an everyday way. If the person on the street can't understand the answer, and adjust the way that answer is put to use in everyday life, then, in my opinion, the answer is not adequate.Some part of the solution to this problem obviously has to do with educating the person on the street to a place where abstract reasoning, and examination of both sides of an argument, is possible. People can use electricity and internal combustion and Quantum Physics without having the least notion of what they are and how they work. I believe we need similar ways of *using* what we know about Soul and Mind and Spirit. If Science could be more persuasive and involved in educating the "common person" about what Science is actually doing in these areas, then claims that are being made by people who have no clue would be much easier to assess and dismiss.For me, critical thinking is the key to this. And if adults can't demonstrate they have this ability, how can they expect their children to be taught such a thing?
However, if there's any validity to this notion, and if Science has felt obligated to keep its side of the bargain, it might help to explain why the research into this area of the non-material has gone so slowly. It wasn't until recently that Probability and Statistics (heavily endorsed these days by the scientific community) were elevated from witchcraft status to being reliable in scientific exploration. Who knows what arcane and *occult* methods might have also risen to respectability if the stigma hadn't been placed on them to begin with?
Chris has said some important words when he mentions that *bias* plays a big role in not just *how* we look at things, but also in *what* we're willing to look at.
But I personally favor a bias that includes the big question "Does it make sense?" in an everyday way. If the person on the street can't understand the answer, and adjust the way that answer is put to use in everyday life, then, in my opinion, the answer is not adequate.
Some part of the solution to this problem obviously has to do with educating the person on the street to a place where abstract reasoning, and examination of both sides of an argument, is possible.
People can use electricity and internal combustion and Quantum Physics without having the least notion of what they are and how they work. I believe we need similar ways of *using* what we know about Soul and Mind and Spirit.
If Science could be more persuasive and involved in educating the "common person" about what Science is actually doing in these areas, then claims that are being made by people who have no clue would be much easier to assess and dismiss.
For me, critical thinking is the key to this. And if adults can't demonstrate they have this ability, how can they expect their children to be taught such a thing?
Geoff, I've read, but not thoroughly digested, all of your post about "proof for souls" (my words, not yours) and can easily agree that these aspects of our condition do point to something about our physical form that defies a "randomness" in our makeup. When I say "physical form" it implies that these attributes you cite all relate to living human beings. Whatever it is (and you can supply the name you like best for that quality) is less a matter for debate about its existence than it is a debate about what it really means about dead human beings.It's almost pointless to deny that the vast majority of *functioning* human beings have some, if not most, of the qualities you listed. But it seems to me to be a worthy point of discussion if dead human beings share those traits. And if they don't (my suspicion) then where do those traits go after death? And if they don't, where did they originate?It is when we get to this problem in the "nature of soul/mind/spirit" that I suspect we fall back to some form of belief, or personal persuasion, or other explanation that defies *proof*.Again I will say that I long for a day when we can have some real evidence, one way or the other, to deal more effectively with that component of our lives. It may come from some blending of what we use, in everyday language, to mean "science" and "religion" or "logic" and "faith" or "knowledge" and "belief." I would anticipate some easing of the tensions many people seem to have in allowing those apparent opposites to merge. Some "scientists" and some "religionists" are already poking into this area. Some may even feel they have made progress in dissolving those barriers that separate the modes of thought.But I personally believe that as long as we treat things as either/or we will continue to be looking in the wrong places for answers.
It's almost pointless to deny that the vast majority of *functioning* human beings have some, if not most, of the qualities you listed. But it seems to me to be a worthy point of discussion if dead human beings share those traits. And if they don't (my suspicion) then where do those traits go after death? And if they don't, where did they originate?
It is when we get to this problem in the "nature of soul/mind/spirit" that I suspect we fall back to some form of belief, or personal persuasion, or other explanation that defies *proof*.
Again I will say that I long for a day when we can have some real evidence, one way or the other, to deal more effectively with that component of our lives. It may come from some blending of what we use, in everyday language, to mean "science" and "religion" or "logic" and "faith" or "knowledge" and "belief." I would anticipate some easing of the tensions many people seem to have in allowing those apparent opposites to merge. Some "scientists" and some "religionists" are already poking into this area. Some may even feel they have made progress in dissolving those barriers that separate the modes of thought.
But I personally believe that as long as we treat things as either/or we will continue to be looking in the wrong places for answers.
that's a week's worth, right?
The Law of Dharma Everyone has a purpose in life...a unique or special talent to give to others. And when we blend this unique talent with service to others, we experience the ecstasy and exultation of our own spirit, which is the ultimate goal of all goals. Discover the Higher Self List Unique Talents Serve Others
Everyone has a purpose in life...a unique or special talent to give to others. And when we blend this unique talent with service to others, we experience the ecstasy and exultation of our own spirit, which is the ultimate goal of all goals.
Discover the Higher Self List Unique Talents Serve Others
Geoff, Onederful!! :)Bob F - are you a Leo? ;)Hi Peggy - you sure do get a lot of attention, heh! i'm jealous. hi Hadi! :)and everyone else that has posted recently, thanks for sharing. the posts have been great reading.
Bob F - are you a Leo? ;)
Hi Peggy - you sure do get a lot of attention, heh! i'm jealous.
hi Hadi! :)
and everyone else that has posted recently, thanks for sharing. the posts have been great reading.
wonderful discussion and i love the passion. just try to be kind to each other and that is all the proof you will need. hope everyone has a great weekend, Namasté
hope everyone has a great weekend, Namasté
Dick Skep - Unfortunately, I was incarnated this go around without knowing anything about meditation. With outside guidance, I learned the technique and "saw the light" (halleluja !!!!) Without the guidance, it would have been very unlikely that I would have stumbled into meditation and gone within to find that so much is self evident.Then again, I may be the confused one and you may be right on the money - just leave me in my bliss and do not burst my bubble!!
Then again, I may be the confused one and you may be right on the money - just leave me in my bliss and do not burst my bubble!!
Peggy - I recognize my impatience / aggression and it is something I am working on. You should have seen me 10 years ago before I started meditating - I lived life to win in corporate business in NYC and ate people who got in my way. I am improving and there is still hope.I have no need for scientific proof because I am experiencing of what I speak first hand - we manifest everything, we are only Spirit (not our minds or our bodies) and we are God. I only toss out the science as proof for those coming from the western brainwashed environmental mindset because that is the only "proof" such individuals will ever accept.Your attitude always seems to be "I will believe it only when I see it" and then you close your eyes and refuse to look. You are one of the biggest skeptics that grace these pages and you don't want to hear the truth. What you choose to ignore and take pot shots at rather than explore with an open view is of no concern to me - it just wears on the human side of my patience. I am not into mindless chit chat.All of the above is my problem since I am the one it bothers. You wanted to know so there it is. But again, as I have said many times, don't take me to seriously because I don't take myself seriously. After all, it is just a game we create for our own amusement.Namaste in the truest meaning of the word, Bob
I have no need for scientific proof because I am experiencing of what I speak first hand - we manifest everything, we are only Spirit (not our minds or our bodies) and we are God. I only toss out the science as proof for those coming from the western brainwashed environmental mindset because that is the only "proof" such individuals will ever accept.
Your attitude always seems to be "I will believe it only when I see it" and then you close your eyes and refuse to look. You are one of the biggest skeptics that grace these pages and you don't want to hear the truth. What you choose to ignore and take pot shots at rather than explore with an open view is of no concern to me - it just wears on the human side of my patience. I am not into mindless chit chat.
All of the above is my problem since I am the one it bothers. You wanted to know so there it is. But again, as I have said many times, don't take me to seriously because I don't take myself seriously. After all, it is just a game we create for our own amusement.
Namaste in the truest meaning of the word, Bob
On Friday, October 20, 2000, Bob F ()@63.81.160.135 said: Dick Skep It is a fine line we walk - do we speak or stay silent. If we stay silent, people will have to stumble forward on their own with no guidance. Without guidance, I would still be contemplating my navel and without further guidance, I will probably be locked at this stage of awareness for many lifetimes. What is one to do? On Friday, October 20, 2000, Bob F (The Proof is in the Pudding)@63.81.160.135 said: "...you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need..." On Thursday, October 19, 2000, Bob F ()@63.81.160.175 said: My experiencing it cannot be conveyed to you - it is something you have to do on your own. So which is it Bob?? Do I look somewhere "out there" for guidance or do I "go within"? I'm so confused. Or maybe you are.
On Friday, October 20, 2000, Bob F ()@63.81.160.135 said: Dick Skep It is a fine line we walk - do we speak or stay silent. If we stay silent, people will have to stumble forward on their own with no guidance. Without guidance, I would still be contemplating my navel and without further guidance, I will probably be locked at this stage of awareness for many lifetimes. What is one to do? On Friday, October 20, 2000, Bob F (The Proof is in the Pudding)@63.81.160.135 said: "...you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need..." On Thursday, October 19, 2000, Bob F ()@63.81.160.175 said: My experiencing it cannot be conveyed to you - it is something you have to do on your own.
Dick Skep It is a fine line we walk - do we speak or stay silent. If we stay silent, people will have to stumble forward on their own with no guidance.
Without guidance, I would still be contemplating my navel and without further guidance, I will probably be locked at this stage of awareness for many lifetimes. What is one to do?
On Friday, October 20, 2000, Bob F (The Proof is in the Pudding)@63.81.160.135 said:
"...you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need..."
On Thursday, October 19, 2000, Bob F ()@63.81.160.175 said:
My experiencing it cannot be conveyed to you - it is something you have to do on your own.
So which is it Bob?? Do I look somewhere "out there" for guidance or do I "go within"?
I'm so confused. Or maybe you are.
GeoffWell, I'm convinced :-) You are such a card...your posts not only make a lot of sense, they are offered in such a happy and open way...you are a gift (well, I guess we are all gifts...but you're the fun kind ;-))Thanks for being here!PeggyFor what's it's worth, I find your posts pretty straight-forward and clear...certainly as much as mine--which isn't saying much--hee hee ;-)I admit that I don't have as much time to ponder over what is written here that much, and therefore might have overlooked some inconsistencies...but heck, ask me the same question on two different days, and you might get two different answers :-)Probably not, but you might. Consistency is not always a "good" thing.LMHBest of luck in your trying circumstances---you would probably figure this out, but to save you some time, Deepak does not really participate in this forum...I have no idea how to contact him directly :-)DickThe hell freezing over story was cute :)Cathy
Well, I'm convinced :-) You are such a card...your posts not only make a lot of sense, they are offered in such a happy and open way...you are a gift (well, I guess we are all gifts...but you're the fun kind ;-))Thanks for being here!
Peggy
For what's it's worth, I find your posts pretty straight-forward and clear...certainly as much as mine--which isn't saying much--hee hee ;-)I admit that I don't have as much time to ponder over what is written here that much, and therefore might have overlooked some inconsistencies...but heck, ask me the same question on two different days, and you might get two different answers :-)Probably not, but you might. Consistency is not always a "good" thing.
LMH
Best of luck in your trying circumstances---you would probably figure this out, but to save you some time, Deepak does not really participate in this forum...I have no idea how to contact him directly :-)
Dick
The hell freezing over story was cute :)
FIRST, I WISH TO EXPRESS MY SINCERE GRATITUDE FOR MR. CHOPRA'S DECISION TO SHARE HIS INSIGHTS AND SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC. I HAVE FOUND GREAT PERSONAL ENCOURAGEMENT, AND SPIRITUAL GROWTH THRU THE STUDY OF HIS PHILOSOPHY. PRESENTLY, I AM EXPERIENCING A RATHER CHALLENGING PERIOD IN MY LIFE. I CAN DEFINE MYSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE "SANDWICH GENERATION"; A PARENT OF TWO PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN, AND THE DAUGHTER OF A WIDOWED ALZHIEMERS PATIENT. I AM SEEKING MR. CHOPRA'S INSIGHT INTO HANDLING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL, EMOTIONAL, AND PERSONAL CHALLENGES THAT THIS SITUATION PRESENTS. IF HE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE, I WOULD APPRECIATE HIS ADVICE. THANK YOU.
That award should have Dick's name on it!
Clang! Clang! Clang! Clang! QUADRUPLE SNORT AWARD!!!
QUADRUPLE SNORT AWARD!!!
One of the "Friends of the Forum" is a houseguest with us this weekend. She was a little bit frightened by my fangs and talons and my fire-breathing abilities must be a little intimidating. At the moment she has barricaded herself in her room. But she will have to come out for grub and a little Bailey's eventually...heh, heh, heh... Hi, Hadi! Glad to see you posting again!
Hi, Hadi! Glad to see you posting again!
Bob said: "Consequently, here goes - you really should engage your brain once in a while before you type. At least Dick Skep is consistent, has a point of view which he/she defends and he/she does not ramble on with endless babble." I'm glad that you feel better, Bob. It is only slightly disconcerting to note that aggression, as opposed to assertiveness, makes you feel good. What I hear you saying is that I am God and I am inconsistent, babbling, and stupid. Since I have criticized others here, I would like to be open to your criticism of me. I have probably been inconsistent. Most human beings are. But I would appreciate it if you would point to some of these inconsistencies. I think that we are probably the last to see this trait within ourselves. Perhaps it is my mixed feelings about Deepak that you see as inconsistent. I do have a point of view which I defend. I am sorry if I have been unable to convey that to you. If I do not engage my brain before I type or if I babble and ramble endlessly, then I need to know the truth of it. But I will have to be told by a friend and not just someone that I simply disagree with. You are a good example of one of the reasons that I have become cautious about believing everything that I read by Deepak Chopra. I sincerely hope that you are able to recenter yourself and draw upon those beliefs that you espouse. I do not believe that your judgment of me is necessarily a bad thing. And although I am puzzled by your apparent anger, it doesn't trouble me.
"Consequently, here goes - you really should engage your brain once in a while before you type.
At least Dick Skep is consistent, has a point of view which he/she defends and he/she does not ramble on with endless babble."
I'm glad that you feel better, Bob. It is only slightly disconcerting to note that aggression, as opposed to assertiveness, makes you feel good.
What I hear you saying is that I am God and I am inconsistent, babbling, and stupid.
Since I have criticized others here, I would like to be open to your criticism of me. I have probably been inconsistent. Most human beings are. But I would appreciate it if you would point to some of these inconsistencies. I think that we are probably the last to see this trait within ourselves. Perhaps it is my mixed feelings about Deepak that you see as inconsistent.
I do have a point of view which I defend. I am sorry if I have been unable to convey that to you.
If I do not engage my brain before I type or if I babble and ramble endlessly, then I need to know the truth of it. But I will have to be told by a friend and not just someone that I simply disagree with.
You are a good example of one of the reasons that I have become cautious about believing everything that I read by Deepak Chopra.
I sincerely hope that you are able to recenter yourself and draw upon those beliefs that you espouse. I do not believe that your judgment of me is necessarily a bad thing. And although I am puzzled by your apparent anger, it doesn't trouble me.
Geoff said: "I don't honestly expect this will be the sort of proof some are asking for. I'd be interested in what they would consider sufficient proof and what form it might take. I suppose in effect I would regard the above list as reminders that we are souls rather than as proof that we have souls." Geoff, I love your list! And as you noted, these are personal. They are not the scientific proof that we were discussing. I don't need scientific proof. (That's what I thought I had explained in a previous post.) I have my own experiences and beliefs that serve me well. There is not yet scientific proof that "we manifest everything." If you are asking what scientific proof I would require, I would like a link to a reputable scientist who describes her or his hypothesis ("We manifest everything"), describes the study done using traditional scientific procedures which can be duplicated, and has published in a reputable journal about her or his proof. If this hypothesis had actually been proven, we wouldn't have to read about it in a book on metaphysics or the spirit. But I don't require scientific proof. And I don't understand why scientific proof is so important to Bob.
"I don't honestly expect this will be the sort of proof some are asking for. I'd be interested in what they would consider sufficient proof and what form it might take. I suppose in effect I would regard the above list as reminders that we are souls rather than as proof that we have souls."
Geoff, I love your list! And as you noted, these are personal. They are not the scientific proof that we were discussing.
I don't need scientific proof. (That's what I thought I had explained in a previous post.) I have my own experiences and beliefs that serve me well. There is not yet scientific proof that "we manifest everything."
If you are asking what scientific proof I would require, I would like a link to a reputable scientist who describes her or his hypothesis ("We manifest everything"), describes the study done using traditional scientific procedures which can be duplicated, and has published in a reputable journal about her or his proof. If this hypothesis had actually been proven, we wouldn't have to read about it in a book on metaphysics or the spirit.
But I don't require scientific proof. And I don't understand why scientific proof is so important to Bob.
First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since, there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since, there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant.
So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
I enjoyed your proof of souls post Geoff. When someone asks for proof that we have souls, it is assumed in the question that it is something that is separate from "me". It's like they are expecting to find something they can put in a test tube or detect with an instrument. It's like when physicists look for particles they see particles, and when they look for waves, they see waves. If you want to "see" souls, you have to look for them (and not for some ether in a test tube). When we us our built in "soul" detectors we see them everywhere and wonder why anyone would ask for proof. It would be almost like standing outside on a sunny day and someone asking for proof that there is a sun but refusing to look up.
Oh yes, I forgot... J
{{Geoff}} LOL!!!!!
LOL!!!!!
Geoff- Fantastic post. One of your best and they are all great.I would add that not only do we not have a soul, and that we are soul/spirit" but We are God, both individually and colletively.I am definitely having fun with my movie.
I would add that not only do we not have a soul, and that we are soul/spirit" but We are God, both individually and colletively.
I am definitely having fun with my movie.
Good morning folks. I composed the following last night before I had a chance to catch up with all the latest posts. Must fly. ******************* Warning. Large post ahead. Proceed with caution. I read the forum messages yesterday and then I went out to mow the lawn. As some of you may know, I get some of my best ideas mowing the lawn. Anyway, I was tossing over the question in my head of what would constitute proof of the existence of souls. Personally, I see the whole concept of 'proof' as being anchored to a certain way of viewing the world but let's see what we can come up with anyway. :) So, I started to mentally list those things which I regard as evidence of the existence of souls. The following kind of just grew from that little list ... Proof of the existence of souls Here is a short list of those aspects of reality and humanity which I consider to be evidence of the existence of souls: * Poetry * Music * Literature * Painting * All the other arts * The CAPACITY of human beings to be emotionally transported by all of the above * The CAPACITY of the human mind to be boggled simply by contemplating the scope of it all and being unable to wrap the intellect around certain ideas like eternity and infinity or the idea of higher dimensions and realms of existence * The existence of countless inspired or religious texts throughout the millenia * The goosebumps I regularly experience when reading such texts. * The existence of language itself and our capacity to understand it - remembering this list would mean almost nothing to a person who only speaks the Greek language * The human CAPACITY of humans to alter their own state of consciousness consciously if given enough practice and effort * The human CAPACITY to experience awe at the beauty and complexity and harmony of nature and the breathtaking variety of all forms of life on this planet * The human CAPACITY for love * The human CAPACITY for wonder * The human CAPACITY for enchantment * The human CAPACITY for compassion * The human CAPACITY for sacrifice * The human CAPACITY for random acts of kindness * The human CAPACITY for forgiveness * The human CAPACITY for gratitude * The human CAPACITY for imagination * The human CAPACITY for science * The human CAPACITY for fantasy * The human CAPACITY for optimism * The human CAPACITY for invention * Any other manifestation of the loving or creating capacity of human beings * Masturbation (more details later) * The beauty and terror of madness * Laughter (the music of the soul) * Humour * The voices of angels singing me off to sleep each night * The Chopra Forum and the souls that visit it :) * Altered states of consciousness - sleep, dreaming, LSD, mediatation, contemplation, psychosis etc * Spontaneous eruptions of joy for no apparent reason :) * Countless stories of lives being transformed from the depths of despair * The very fact that the word 'soul' exists and we have a sense of what it means * The infinite variety of personality traits in human individuals * The existence of the soft voice inside my head dictating this little list to me as I walk back from the shops. * The existence of the big questions and the almost universal urge to answer them one way or another. Those of you who know me may be shocked by this next statement after such a long list. I do NOT believe we have souls. I believe we ARE souls. I am a soul. You are a soul. (Be careful how you say that last one!). As someone recently posted, the events and circumstances of you life are like a movie role. The analogy with a movie is a useful one but not a perfect one. Take Jack Nicholson, for example. I have enjoyed his stuff since "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" for some reason. :) He has played a wide variety of roles in his career - the joker, the axe murderer, the devil, the writer, the soldier, and others I can't immediately bring to mind. He was equally convincing in each of those performances but NONE of those roles IS Jack Nicholson. He has an ongoing existence which is entirely separate from whatever role he happens to be playing at any given moment. The point of all this is that ONCE you become AWARE that your life is like a movie your spirit is watching then you can have some real fun. You can even rewrite the script if you're that way inclined. Most people go through their lives living roles written for them by those around them (otherwise known as expectations). And that's okay. That's one way to live. But it's not the only way. Okay, this is a personal proof and not a rigorous, incontrovertible proof in the conventional sense of the word but it's good enough for me. I am absolutely open to any counter-argument but it would seem the main counter-argument is to say "That's still not enough proof as I define proof". So for me the weight of evidence is overwhelming. What would constitute enough proof? Or a more interesting question to ask might be why do certain people wish or choose to believe souls do not exist and that the observable and the rigorously verifiable is the ONLY reality. One could speculate a great deal on such a question. And if you only believe in things which stand up to scientific criteria of proof, then what of love? You can't put it in a test-tube and examine it. You can study its effects on people ... I'm not quite sure where I was headed with that ... :) And I didn't even mention the really interesting stuff like ESP, astral travel, alien abduction, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, reincarnated lamas, ghosts and other 'weird' phenomena as they don't yet form part of the pool of experiences of the average joe. :) I don't honestly expect this will be the sort of proof some are asking for. I'd be interested in what they would consider sufficient proof and what form it might take. I suppose in effect I would regard the above list as reminders that we are souls rather than as proof that we have souls. For those of you wondering about masturbation being given as evidence of souls. It is one example of the capacity of human beings to create experiences or sensations using nothing but memory or fantasy which is a form of imagination. In this case physical arousal without the presence of that which is normally required to produce it. Namely the physical presence of a partner. Bet you never thought wanking was proof that souls exist. Well, you learn something every day. :) I listed science for similar reasons as the progress of science depends on the creative capacity to invent a new theory of reality and then test it out. For me, the two aspects of human beings that are the most persuasive 'proof' are our creative aspects and our loving aspects. The rest is just window dressing. Your experience may be different. I fully respect the right of anyone to believe that their very existence arose through random processes and it's really just dumb luck that we have all these unfathomable aspects to our nature. :) I also welcome any and every reply. Just nod if you agree.
Warning. Large post ahead. Proceed with caution.
I read the forum messages yesterday and then I went out to mow the lawn. As some of you may know, I get some of my best ideas mowing the lawn. Anyway, I was tossing over the question in my head of what would constitute proof of the existence of souls. Personally, I see the whole concept of 'proof' as being anchored to a certain way of viewing the world but let's see what we can come up with anyway. :)
So, I started to mentally list those things which I regard as evidence of the existence of souls. The following kind of just grew from that little list ...
Here is a short list of those aspects of reality and humanity which I consider to be evidence of the existence of souls: * Poetry * Music * Literature * Painting * All the other arts * The CAPACITY of human beings to be emotionally transported by all of the above * The CAPACITY of the human mind to be boggled simply by contemplating the scope of it all and being unable to wrap the intellect around certain ideas like eternity and infinity or the idea of higher dimensions and realms of existence
* Poetry
* Music
* Literature
* Painting
* All the other arts
* The CAPACITY of human beings to be emotionally transported by all of the above
* The CAPACITY of the human mind to be boggled
* The existence of countless inspired or religious texts throughout the millenia
* The goosebumps I regularly experience when reading such texts.
* The existence of language itself and our capacity to understand it - remembering this list would mean almost nothing to a person who only speaks the Greek language
* The human CAPACITY of humans to alter their own state of consciousness consciously
* The human CAPACITY to experience awe
* The human CAPACITY for love
* The human CAPACITY for wonder
* The human CAPACITY for enchantment
* The human CAPACITY for compassion
* The human CAPACITY for sacrifice
* The human CAPACITY for random acts of kindness
* The human CAPACITY for forgiveness
* The human CAPACITY for gratitude
* The human CAPACITY for imagination
* The human CAPACITY for science
* The human CAPACITY for fantasy
* The human CAPACITY for optimism
* The human CAPACITY for invention
* Any other manifestation of the loving or creating capacity of human beings
* Masturbation (more details later)
* The beauty and terror of madness
* Laughter (the music of the soul)
* Humour
* The voices of angels singing me off to sleep each night
* The Chopra Forum and the souls that visit it :)
* Altered states of consciousness - sleep, dreaming, LSD, mediatation, contemplation, psychosis etc
* Spontaneous eruptions of joy for no apparent reason :)
* Countless stories of lives being transformed from the depths of despair
* The very fact that the word 'soul' exists and we have a sense of what it means
* The infinite variety of personality traits in human individuals
* The existence of the soft voice inside my head dictating this little list to me as I walk back from the shops.
* The existence of the big questions and the almost universal urge to answer them one way or another.
Those of you who know me may be shocked by this next statement after such a long list. I do NOT believe we have souls. I believe we ARE souls. I am a soul. You are a soul. (Be careful how you say that last one!). As someone recently posted, the events and circumstances of you life are like a movie role. The analogy with a movie is a useful one but not a perfect one. Take Jack Nicholson, for example. I have enjoyed his stuff since "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" for some reason. :) He has played a wide variety of roles in his career - the joker, the axe murderer, the devil, the writer, the soldier, and others I can't immediately bring to mind. He was equally convincing in each of those performances but NONE of those roles IS Jack Nicholson. He has an ongoing existence which is entirely separate from whatever role he happens to be playing at any given moment. The point of all this is that ONCE you become AWARE that your life is like a movie your spirit is watching then you can have some real fun. You can even rewrite the script if you're that way inclined. Most people go through their lives living roles written for them by those around them (otherwise known as expectations). And that's okay. That's one way to live. But it's not the only way. Okay, this is a personal proof and not a rigorous, incontrovertible proof in the conventional sense of the word but it's good enough for me. I am absolutely open to any counter-argument but it would seem the main counter-argument is to say "That's still not enough proof as I define proof". So for me the weight of evidence is overwhelming. What would constitute enough proof? Or a more interesting question to ask might be why do certain people wish or choose to believe souls do not exist and that the observable and the rigorously verifiable is the ONLY reality. One could speculate a great deal on such a question. And if you only believe in things which stand up to scientific criteria of proof, then what of love? You can't put it in a test-tube and examine it. You can study its effects on people ... I'm not quite sure where I was headed with that ... :) And I didn't even mention the really interesting stuff like ESP, astral travel, alien abduction, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, reincarnated lamas, ghosts and other 'weird' phenomena as they don't yet form part of the pool of experiences of the average joe. :) I don't honestly expect this will be the sort of proof some are asking for. I'd be interested in what they would consider sufficient proof and what form it might take. I suppose in effect I would regard the above list as reminders that we are souls rather than as proof that we have souls. For those of you wondering about masturbation being given as evidence of souls. It is one example of the capacity of human beings to create experiences or sensations using nothing but memory or fantasy which is a form of imagination. In this case physical arousal without the presence of that which is normally required to produce it. Namely the physical presence of a partner. Bet you never thought wanking was proof that souls exist. Well, you learn something every day. :) I listed science for similar reasons as the progress of science depends on the creative capacity to invent a new theory of reality and then test it out. For me, the two aspects of human beings that are the most persuasive 'proof' are our creative aspects and our loving aspects. The rest is just window dressing. Your experience may be different. I fully respect the right of anyone to believe that their very existence arose through random processes and it's really just dumb luck that we have all these unfathomable aspects to our nature. :) I also welcome any and every reply. Just nod if you agree.
Those of you who know me may be shocked by this next statement after such a long list. I do NOT believe we have souls. I believe we ARE souls. I am a soul. You are a soul. (Be careful how you say that last one!). As someone recently posted, the events and circumstances of you life are like a movie role. The analogy with a movie is a useful one but not a perfect one. Take Jack Nicholson, for example. I have enjoyed his stuff since "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" for some reason. :) He has played a wide variety of roles in his career - the joker, the axe murderer, the devil, the writer, the soldier, and others I can't immediately bring to mind. He was equally convincing in each of those performances but NONE of those roles IS Jack Nicholson. He has an ongoing existence which is entirely separate from whatever role he happens to be playing at any given moment.
The point of all this is that ONCE you become AWARE that your life is like a movie your spirit is watching then you can have some real fun. You can even rewrite the script if you're that way inclined. Most people go through their lives living roles written for them by those around them (otherwise known as expectations). And that's okay. That's one way to live. But it's not the only way.
Okay, this is a personal proof and not a rigorous, incontrovertible proof in the conventional sense of the word but it's good enough for me. I am absolutely open to any counter-argument but it would seem the main counter-argument is to say "That's still not enough proof as I define proof". So for me the weight of evidence is overwhelming. What would constitute enough proof? Or a more interesting question to ask might be why do certain people wish or choose to believe souls do not exist and that the observable and the rigorously verifiable is the ONLY reality. One could speculate a great deal on such a question.
And if you only believe in things which stand up to scientific criteria of proof, then what of love? You can't put it in a test-tube and examine it. You can study its effects on people ... I'm not quite sure where I was headed with that ... :)
And I didn't even mention the really interesting stuff like ESP, astral travel, alien abduction, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, reincarnated lamas, ghosts and other 'weird' phenomena as they don't yet form part of the pool of experiences of the average joe. :)
I don't honestly expect this will be the sort of proof some are asking for. I'd be interested in what they would consider sufficient proof and what form it might take. I suppose in effect I would regard the above list as reminders that we are souls rather than as proof that we have souls.
For those of you wondering about masturbation being given as evidence of souls. It is one example of the capacity of human beings to create experiences or sensations using nothing but memory or fantasy which is a form of imagination. In this case physical arousal without the presence of that which is normally required to produce it. Namely the physical presence of a partner. Bet you never thought wanking was proof that souls exist. Well, you learn something every day. :) I listed science for similar reasons as the progress of science depends on the creative capacity to invent a new theory of reality and then test it out. For me, the two aspects of human beings that are the most persuasive 'proof' are our creative aspects and our loving aspects. The rest is just window dressing. Your experience may be different. I fully respect the right of anyone to believe that their very existence arose through random processes and it's really just dumb luck that we have all these unfathomable aspects to our nature. :)
I also welcome any and every reply. Just nod if you agree.
Dick Skep It is a fine line we walk - do we speak or stay silent. If we stay silent, people will have to stumble forward on their own with no guidance.Without guidance, I would still be contemplating my navel and without further guidance, I will probably be locked at this stage of awareness for many lifetimes. What is one to do?It is a quest - look for the "magic pudding". Once you find it, you will have all the proof you need. (It is very tasty as well!)And we Dance/Dance/Dance.
It is a quest - look for the "magic pudding". Once you find it, you will have all the proof you need. (It is very tasty as well!)
And we Dance/Dance/Dance.
Peggy- I am "witnessing" this and my mind knows impatience is showing but "witness" makes no value judgements.Consequently, here goes - you really should engage your brain once in a while before you type. At least Dick Skep is consistent, has a point of view which he/she defends and he/she does not ramble on with endless babble.There, my mind and body feel much better though my Karma took a ding!
Consequently, here goes - you really should engage your brain once in a while before you type.
At least Dick Skep is consistent, has a point of view which he/she defends and he/she does not ramble on with endless babble.
There, my mind and body feel much better though my Karma took a ding!
Bob, if you knew, you wouldn't have to announce that you know. Ya know? and where's this magic pudding?
and where's this magic pudding?
Dave R & Cathy - Your inputs and discussion on Quantum Physics and Manifestation were great. They were pretty much right on the money as far as we who know we know are concerned.For Skeptics - You can [a] have faith alone in what the East has been saying for thousands of years, [b] you can choose to study the West's Quantum Physics which does prove from a scientific standpoint that we manifest everything, [c] you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need that we manifest it all, or [d] you can choose to remain stagnant, keep a closed mind, do no exploration, remain in the dark and continue to show your ignorance.Geoff - Being aware of being aware equates to "witnessing", i.e. - our Spirit watching with Detachment (thank you Carol) what our body and mind are manifesting. Also, (from experience) if one "witnesses" or is "truly aware" of any of their duality, that duality dissapates more and more over time.
For Skeptics - You can [a] have faith alone in what the East has been saying for thousands of years, [b] you can choose to study the West's Quantum Physics which does prove from a scientific standpoint that we manifest everything, [c] you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need that we manifest it all, or [d] you can choose to remain stagnant, keep a closed mind, do no exploration, remain in the dark and continue to show your ignorance.
Geoff - Being aware of being aware equates to "witnessing", i.e. - our Spirit watching with Detachment (thank you Carol) what our body and mind are manifesting. Also, (from experience) if one "witnesses" or is "truly aware" of any of their duality, that duality dissapates more and more over time.
That's "some" not "so"... :-)
Comments by users are not endorsed by Random House. The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House. Privacy Policy
The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House.
Privacy Policy
web hosting • domain names web design • online games
