Qualified Observation and Spirituality

[Rick O'Shez]

But the evidence is not in conceptual understanding, it is subjective evidence which comes about from developing the intuitive faculty whereby one learns what and who one really is in non-conceptual apprehension.

So could you describe this subjective evidence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So could you describe this subjective evidence?

".....in non-conceptual apprehension." What does 'non-conceptual' mean to you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

".....in non-conceptual apprehension." What does 'non-conceptual' mean to you?

Without thought. Like in meditation for example. But what is your subjective evidence for soul / spirit?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Without thought. Like in meditation for example. But what is your subjective evidence for soul / spirit?

Yes..without thought...an unbroken timeless state in which what is...is...when uninterpreted by the human conceptual mind. When one begins thinking again, the state of unity is replaced by the state of the normal conceptual mind, which was not present and did not experience it, and therefore is in no position to even attempt to describe it...but it can understand that the spirit of the religious tradition exists...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes..without thought...an unbroken timeless state in which what is...is...when uninterpreted by the human conceptual mind. When one begins thinking again, the state of unity is replaced by the state of the normal conceptual mind, which was not present and did not experience it, and therefore is in no position to even attempt to describe it...but it can understand that the spirit of the religious tradition exists...

But ideas about soul and spirit are conceptual, they are beliefs, assumptions based on an experience. I'm not questioning the validity of the experience, what I'm questioning is the assumptions people make about the experience, in some cases elaborate belief systems which the experience itself doesn't support. It's like the experience is a vacuum which people have to fill with ideas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Name something you're sure of....and can't prove it.

There is very little I'm sure of.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But ideas about soul and spirit are conceptual, they are beliefs, assumptions based on an experience. I'm not questioning the validity of the experience, what I'm questioning is the assumptions people make about the experience, in some cases elaborate belief systems which the experience itself doesn't support. It's like the experience is a vacuum which people have to fill with ideas.

But those who have the subjective experience..for example..Socrates, Siddartha, Jesus, Muhammad, they never wrote a word....all the world gets to hear about are conceptual interpretations by those who did not have the subjective experience.

What I have learned from the second hand message is that the truth will never be found in concepts of the mind....but subjectively within as an actual reality.

Iow, sfaiac, you can take this to the bank....the existence of Spirit/Soul/ God/Allah/Nirvana/Tao/Brahman/etc., is only a mystery to those whom do not make the effort to solve it... it is not hidden...but still impossible for the profane to ever know.... Absolutely beyond contemporary earth scientific technology to know objectively....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Iow, sfaiac, you can take this to the bank....the existence of Spirit/Soul/ God/Allah/Nirvana/Tao/Brahman/etc., is only a mystery to those whom do not make the effort to solve it... it is not hidden...but still impossible for the profane to ever know....

But those are all conceptual descriptions of an experience, around which are built a whole raft of assumptions and beliefs. Naming the experience and making assumptions about it inevitably takes one further away from the actual experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But those are all conceptual descriptions of an experience, around which are built a whole raft of assumptions and beliefs. Naming the experience and making assumptions about it inevitably takes one further away from the actual experience.

I had edited the last post before I was aware that you had responded,,,but I doubt it makes a difference to your position.

I need some rest so will get back to you on this...but this is not a pedantic exercise on my part...so I trust you are sincere in your questions...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I love your topic guys. Forgive the native in this terminology, do you think that peoples beliefs, mine included, are hidden under a fancy name....in reality, they are just aspects of the mind?

For example, applying that my deceased grandmother had saved me from getting hit by a car would be not only forms of grief (psychology) to comfort me in her forever existence?....the car almost missing me (true story the car that is) also because I was in shock and couldnt "explain the incident for truth" because of lack of explanation, I and many others resort to supernatural causes?

Lack of evidence for an event the human mind cant comprehend is then settles by supernatural causes?
--

Also, believers could be having these delusions but using analogies (say Jesus walks on water) to describe what we thing is basic psychology (etc) but they rather or can only see it through analagies which usually are fabricated stories based on reality.

Its like trying to discuss the analogy rather than the truth behind it, if there are any.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I love your topic guys. Forgive the native in this terminology, do you think that peoples beliefs, mine included, are hidden under a fancy name....in reality, they are just aspects of the mind?

We can say that all these experiences occur in the mind, the question is whether they have any objective resonance outside the mind. If we talk about altered states of consciousness, are these purely subjective or do they represent an objective awareness of different levels ( aspects? ) of reality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We can say that all these experiences occur in the mind, the question is whether they have any objective resonance outside the mind. If we talk about altered states of consciousness, are these purely subjective or do they represent an objective awareness of different levels ( aspects? ) of reality.

If I understand you correctly, I dont think any belief is outside the mind. If it were, it would be a fact. If I can guess, it would probably be coinsedencial events that happen to many people around the world..same event, no one knows each other to suggest influence. A lot of it is interpretation or someone else said, having subjective evidence and filling the gaps around it.

Id have to think more about it. I always felt our beliefs come from the mind. If we accept that, Im sure we dont have to question the validitt o the belief knowing that the root is in the min d not outside it.

 

[Thief]

There is very little I'm sure of.

And yet you post as if you are sure there is nothing to look forward to, beyond your last breath.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And yet you post as if you are sure there is nothing to look forward to, beyond your last breath.

My assumption is that there isn't, based on the lack of evidence. How can you be sure that there is?

 

[Thief]

My assumption is that there isn't, based on the lack of evidence. How can you be sure that there is?

7billion+ copies of a device that produces a unique person on each occasion.

For this discussion...I might assume.....
But I believe the odds are in favor...a survival for a least some of us.

Perhaps the lack of belief is fail point?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But I believe the odds are in favor...a survival for a least some of us.

Based on what though? We have no evidence of anyone surviving, so isn't it really just a case of wishful thinking based on our fear of extinction?

 

[outhouse]

But the evidence is not in conceptual understanding, it is subjective evidence which comes about from developing the intuitive faculty whereby one learns what and who one really is in non-conceptual apprehension.

There are just meaningless words cobbled together to make some abstract point only you understand. You have a habit of turning scientific statements into philosophical word salad, so your lack of all evidence means something to yourself.

 

[outhouse]

If we talk about altered states of consciousness, are these purely subjective or do they represent an objective awareness of different levels ( aspects? ) of reality.

In another words if were talking about people who practice playing tricks on their minds with different levels of consciousness.

Yes the weak mind will play tricks on them, and they will perceive things on the outside of reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But those are all conceptual descriptions of an experience, around which are built a whole raft of assumptions and beliefs. Naming the experience and making assumptions about it inevitably takes one further away from the actual experience.

Your reading comprehension skills appear to be lacking....and this exchange is going around in circles... Of course these are only conceptual descriptions...language is conceptual...anyone who has ever had a true non-conceptual experience has no option but to use conceptual language to convey to other people that it is a real. But the use of conceptual language is employed purely as an expedient to explain the intuitive apprehension of ultimate reality is non-dual, never to try and describe the experience itself...for that is an impossibility...

So.....
Now non-duality can not be translated into conceptual language...got that?
If you want proof of the non-conceptual experience of which I speak....you will need to experience a state of non-duality...go that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are just meaningless words cobbled together to make some abstract point only you understand. You have a habit of turning scientific statements into philosophical word salad, so your lack of all evidence means something to yourself.

I said....."But the evidence is not in conceptual understanding, it is subjective evidence which comes about from developing the intuitive faculty whereby one learns what and who one really is in non-conceptual apprehension."

What is the scientific statement that you claim I have turned into a philosophical one?

And in any case....this is a religious forum and if you do not have the prerequisite understanding of non-duality doctrine to comprehend what is being said in that context.... ...you should first ask for an explanation rather than blame the messenger for your befuddlement...