posted April 16, 2013 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
Anyway whats the use for theories that are left untested?
How can we know they are true?

---

Many scientific theories have survived through countless tests and remain theories, despite the insistence of the public that they are proven facts. Gravity and evolution, according to the scientists who study them, are theories, not facts. I subscribe to them, but in the full knowledge that they are not proven facts.

Your question, though, is based on the assumption that we are working with untested and untestable theories. I would refer you to the conscientious labors of numerous mystics, all through history, who have put certain theories to the test, and provided convincing evidence of their effectiveness. No, we are not talking about so many of the dogmas and exoteric religious claims which most atheists and agnostic like to point at and mock. We're talking about something much deeper.

First of all, when the mystics speak, they are not usually attempting to put forward a host of facts and theories. They are providing a symbolic framework which has been found useful for centuries, for the purpose of generating the most immaculate virtues and the most ecstatic experiences. They repeatedly urge us not to take their words at face value, but with a grain of salt. It is not that what they are saying is untrue, but, rather, they are attempting to communicate truths which transcend our powers of articulation. If we focus on the words, the surface, then it is easy to mock. But, if we read them as they were intended to be read when they were written, and focus on what the words are indicating -- which is not themselves -- then we may begin to perceive realities which require no further proof.

Let me ask you,

Do you believe in kindness?
Is it a theory or a clear reality?
Is there merely evidence? Or proof?

Most people would say they believe, and that they have seen evidence. Many would say it is proven, if not by the acts of others, then by feelings they have personally experienced and acted upon for no other motive than to express what they were feeling; to express kindness; to be tender; to comfort and uplift, etc. Most scientists would label this "anecdotal evidence" and consign it to the scrapheap, if they hadn't experienced it themselves.

Next question:

Do you suppose kindness has limits, or do you believe a person can be so inspired and overwhelmed with kindness that they may be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of expressing and imparting that kindness?

There are distinctions of degree, and distinctions of type, but, often, we give different names to things, seemingly distinguishing them by type, when only the degree has changed. When does a cluster become a pile, or a pile a mound? Or a mound a hill? Or a hill a mountain? At some point, maybe an arbitrary point, we say, "That's not a hill. That's a mountain." But, shave one inch from the top, and it is a hill once more.

Well, what about a mountain of kindness? Some would say, "That's not kindness. That's love." So maybe love is only a greater concentration of kindness? Still, there are many things we call love, despite the fact that they have considerable limits. At some point, we start to talk about "unconditional love". We don't change the word, we just add another one. But the distinction between some forms of love, and those forms which we call unconditional is at least as remarkable as the distinction between a mound and a mountain.

You step out of your house and are met with all sorts of advertisements and all sorts of expressions. You see a sign calling a hamburger "incredible". Somebody says to you, "Listen to this song. It's amazing." But, if the hamburger is incredible, and the song is amazing, then what words are left to describe experiences more wonderful than these. Can you use the same word to describe a peak experience that you used to describe a hamburger? I believe you will naturally reach for more grandiose terms. You will not think it an exaggeration to say that the moment was "mind-blowing", despite the fact that your head is firmly planted on your shoulders. You will say, "That was magical," even if you are a man loyal to the most cold-blooded scientific calculations. Even if you don't believe in magic, and are using the word metaphorically, nevertheless, you cannot imagine a more fitting expression.

It appears to be a fact of life, that people who believe strongly in goodness, -- and not merely goodness, but greatness, -- tend to be idealists. When they imagine love, they think mountains, not molehills. They experience feelings of expansiveness, and refuse to reduce those experiences to numbers, statistics, and manageable terms. They don't want to make things smaller which, to them, are larger than life. They find themselves, almost unconsciously, using metaphors in order to indicate the greatness, the overwhelming size, of what they are feeling. They become poets, who do not live in their imaginations, as lunatics do, but who allow their imaginations to impregnate reality with a level of significance which plain language cannot begin to express.

Even if you cannot bring your imagination to life,
you can still bring life to your imagination, --
and maybe, after all, that is the finer thing.

The greatest poets tend to become mystics. I don't mean the most talented or intelligent, but the most idealistic. It's something of a paradox, since the mystic is really more practical than the poet. It's just that his dream is so big, it cannot possibly be channeled onto the page, -- it must be lived! Does it matter, whether the things he imagines are products of his own unbridled fancy, arising from the depths of his own ecstatic heart, or, if his imagination, like a sublime antennae, has taken hold of some transmission outside of himself? Even if we could prove one or the other, what difference would that make?

Not convinced? Sit tight, I ain't done yet.

One day, your girlfriend is telling you she "loves" you, but, then, the very next day, she breaks up with you. Did she stop loving you in a day? Of course not. She assures you that she still loves you, and maybe she does love you, but not the way she used to. You see older couples, still together, holding hands, gazing into each other's eyes, and you start to wonder, "Was that real love? If she really loved me, she would have been devoted to me. She never would have left."

Next question:

How powerful does love needs to be, in order to be "real"?

And if you had an experience of love which utterly obliterated and put to shame everything else you had previously called "love", what would you call it? What word could you find, big enough to express that word? You might be the most skeptical man in the world, but I'll bet you anything you would not object to calling it "God"; metaphor or no metaphor. You might even start talking like these holy fools, speaking in grandiose terms, employing metaphors left and right. When love becomes so real to you, it seems to be present and alive. In spite of yourself, you may try speaking to it, or listening for it, as though it might have something to say. Have you ever listened for love? Or imagined what Love might say, if love were a person?

How many people do you meet in a day who seem unconscious or fake? They may not be literally sleeping, yet they are unconscious. They may not be made of plastic, yet they are fake. But, no, this is all metaphor! This is madness. We can't speak this way! Of course, they are real; they are people. You can almost touch them.

Perhaps the power and reality of love is only limited by the heart's capacity. Somewhere, someone may be transmitting songs more beautiful than any we can hear on our radios, since, if a frequency is high enough, no antennae can receive it. Does that mean it does not exist?

If the equipment is not fit to contain it, a powerful charge of electricity will fry it like a mosquito in a lightning storm. Is that level of voltage good for nothing, just because we have yet to build a capacitor which can harness it?

Edison made thousands of attempts to invent a lightbulb. He said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Eventually, he got it to work. Later, Nikola Tesla found a way to make it work in every home. Now, what about the millions of people who burn-out, trying to invent God, or trying to create in themselves a mind capable of harnessing the light of God? Are they failures? Or have they succeeded in showing us millions of ways not to make a "lightbulb"?

The truth is, history is full of enlightened people; people who got it done. It's not difficult to see and bask in their light. There's no need to reinvent the "lightbulb", only learn how it works, and build it for yourself. Build it out of yourself.

posted April 16, 2013 06:10 PM            

This is the sort of dismissiveness which I find thoroughly unconstructive. Not to mention rude. With all due respect, if you have not even bothered to read what I have written, then you have no idea what I am saying, and no leg to stand on. Please, leave your conditioned responses at the door, and come with an open mind.

God Bless,
Valus

ps.
"The Science of Religion" was written by a man who taught the science of Kriya Yoga, and has been hailed as an Incarnation of Divine Love. We're talking about spiritual masters, not webmasters. Pull up a chair and you might learn something.

posted April 16, 2013 06:43 PM            

Here is why, mankind either acknowledges we are metaphysical and actual beings, or we do not.

Simply put, to state that science, itself a system of measurements of outcomes based upon thesis, is under the same mitre as a Creator, to me always struck me as a non starter.

If one's heart and conscience is dead to a Creator, then it will take intervention from the Most High to change that state of being.

Logic alone does not suffice HSC, never has, as logic can dispel one of the needed ingredients..conviction.

posted April 16, 2013 07:00 PM            

I'm not trying to prove a creator.

I'm providing arguments to explain and support the appropriate use and interpretation of religious terminology, as evidenced in the works of countless men and women, whose saintly lives provide the real proof of the effectiveness of contemplative prayer (or meditation).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:
Logic alone does not suffice HSC, never has

---

posted April 16, 2013 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Anecdotal evidence is not science. Both good and bad people exist in all religions. Just as there are atheists who do many good works. If you are going to make such declarative statements, you shouldn't get upset when they are challenged.

---

Difference being is that Faith separates the individual from the mass of both good and ill.

posted April 16, 2013 07:51 PM            

I used to have a membership on a very different forum, and this sort of discussion was not unusual.

A friend of mine is an engineer and his view was that as creations of a Creator we are supposed to discover how the universe works.

In essence, mankind is designed to seek out the mysteries of the universe simply because we are created as we are created.

To go to Biblical terms, one of the reasons why the Tower of Babel was broken is simply b/c mankind did not have wisdom enough to collectively (as in scientifically) implement our abilities without just dreadful things happening.

From my pov, I can see it, in the 19th and 20th centuries have rolled along, how many times has that collective knowledge been turned to the simple destruction of others?

posted April 16, 2013 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Anecdotal evidence is not science.

---

I never said it was, but neither is it something to disregard. Most of what I've explained here can be understood without recourse to spectacular demonstrations. As for the rest of it, those who practice this science are unanimous in the assertion that the only way to prove the reality of which they speak is to practice it. We're not talking about how to get the soul under a microscope, but how to get the scientist out of the lab and into the silence of his own heart.

quote:

---

Both good and bad people exist in all religions.

---

Absolutely. It's the same in all fields, isn't it? People like to point fingers at religion, but every ideology can be twisted, and the masses are the first to get duped. The Communists were fierce atheists, and they killed more people than the Nazis.

quote:

---

Just as there are atheists who do many good works.

---

I agree. How about quoting something I actually wrote, rather than setting up and knocking down these straw men? The fact of the matter is, tens of thousands of people have devoted themselves to the cause of love, and allowed themselves to be martyred in order to exemplify love. Not just for their friends, but for their enemies. There are far too many to list. Can you name a single atheist who has done the same?

quote:

---

If you are going to make such declarative statements, you shouldn't get upset when they are challenged.

---

posted April 17, 2013 01:35 AM            

question 1:

you seem to have turned the definition of "god" is a symbolic being meaning to represent unconditional love yet its also given a life of its own (while love is an emotion even in its greatest heights)

I myself have experienced kindness,tenderness and love and believe in them yet comparing the existence of human emotion and the actions that lead to them as a fact for the existence of a higher controlling being is far from reality.

kindness is not a theory but an existing that was researched' seen as everyday phenomena by many non-biased sources and rooted in larger theories that are tested constantly for new information and proof.

question 2:

kindness is unlimited as any emotion yet it is mutable and people might stop quite easily following certain events.

also there would be a huge difference if we did know which one of the two it is.

if its plain imagination its a theory at best and again must be tested for any truth it might contain.

if it was a connection to higher forces then we need to identify these forces and explain how only one person has managed to contact them...since a single person "being contacted by someone" is often a reason to throw him into the mental ward.

love , like any other emotion, is differing and is mutable.

your kindness might push you to do great things for other and someday you would just be willing to do certain thing...are you unkind? no but the actions your kindness pushes you to do are now different.

posted April 17, 2013 01:43 AM            

what is "real" in love? is it fixed love that doesn't change? since it does not exists since emotion is never fixed unless idolized and turned into a god ( )

love is an emotion and even though I would enjoy its greatest heights, I would see no reason to speak to it since it's an emotion and an internal experience.

the songs might exist but unless heard and identified at the source they are a floating theory supported only by faith as religion always does.

since the light bulb is a by product of scientific research while god was only imagined in the mind of its followers to be applied only as emotional support and self control...which in the end does not prove its existence.

posted April 17, 2013 06:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lexxigramer:
doommlord
It is hard to think of you as so young because your thoughts are often so very wise.

---

thanks lexxi

posted April 17, 2013 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

well I have answers.

---

Bless your heart!

quote:

---

question 1:

you seem to have turned the definition of "god" is a symbolic being meaning to represent unconditional love yet its also given a life of its own (while love is an emotion even in its greatest heights)

---

I'm not the first to use the term symbolically, or as a symbol for love. In fact, I believe that all the best mystics understood it that way. At the same time, I never meant to suggest that love, even boundless love, is sufficient to define "God", which encapsulates so much more.

quote:

---

I myself have experienced kindness,tenderness and love and believe in them yet comparing the existence of human emotion and the actions that lead to them as a fact for the existence of a higher controlling being is far from reality.

---

I never said anything about a higher controlling being. I have only sought to personify these noble emotions, or their utmost manifestations, with the metaphor of "God". I do however claim that these emotions, in their purest form, possess a kind of independent existence while, at the same time, they are more intimately linked with ourselves than anything we are aware of. The human system is an imperfect receptor for energies transmitted internally and elsewhere. In our deepest nature, we are identical with God, and so is everything else. Divine nature is mitigated and distorted by the soul which clothes it, and even further by the body which clothes the soul.

quote:

---

kindness is not a theory but an existing that was researched' seen as everyday phenomena by many non-biased sources and rooted in larger theories that are tested constantly for new information and proof.

---

I believe biologists are studying effects, while they believe they are studying causes. They pinpoint certain chemical reactions in the brain which they argue are the source of human emotion and behavior. This would be like pinpointing electrical reactions inside a radio and determining them to be the cause of the music. Really, the radio is only receiving transmissions from elsewhere. Of course, every metaphor is imperfect -- that's why it is a metaphor. The transmissions we receive from "God" come from the deepest core of being; including our own. But, as I said, they are distorted. Our radios are imperfect. Even the ones I call saints were imperfect, but they were "state of the art".

quote:

---

question 2:

kindness is unlimited as any emotion yet it is mutable and people might stop quite easily following certain events.

---

What we experience as unenlightened persons is mutable, and subject to changes of circumstance, yes, but the depth and degree of kindness we are speaking of is constant. I may cease to feel kindness, but somewhere in the world another person is still feeling it. Moreover, I believe that, deep within, I am also still feeling it, more than I ever consciously felt it.

Taoist masters have discovered something about the power of attention. They placed attention on their internal organs and learned to be conscious of them, and of the subtle workings of those organs. Think of it: We tend to be highly conscious of our hands. They are extensions of our minds and wills, and it is easy to place our attention on them, and to experience them as parts of ourselves. Writers, painter, sculptors, craftsmen, and anyone who works with their hands has experienced this to a significant degree. Biology is already discovering that awareness applied to the body results in the germination and development of new nerve-endings, increasing the subtlety of perceptions. We can do this within ourselves, in our bodies, but also at levels which transcend the body. We can develop "spiritual nerve endings", capable of sensing parts of ourselves which extend beyond the physical body, and the physical world.

quote:

---

also there would be a huge difference if we did know which one of the two it is.

---

This is why it is necessary to distinguish between the ultimate presence, which I call "God", and our own imperfect perceptions of the ultimate presence. Even our intuitive flashes do not perceive God in his true essence. How much less so, our attempts at extrapolation and analysis? So, we must remember that our perceptions are not merely prone to distortion, but are always distorted. Nevertheless, there IS something pure trying to break through.

You point out one danger, but there are many, many pitfalls in the spiritual life, which a thorough study of the works of spiritual practitioners can help us to prepare for and deal with as they arise. Their writings are the condensed substance of their life experience, and we can add to our own experience by reflecting on theirs. As David Hume wrote, "A man acquainted with history may, in some respects, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every century."

quote:

---

if its plain imagination its a theory at best and again must be tested for any truth it might contain.

---

"The proof is in the pudding," as they say.

We must abandon, to a large extent, the methods of excavation, dissection, analysis, and deconstruction which have become the obsessions of the western mind. We must consider the simple evidence of lives infused with purpose and sensitive to mystery.

"It was not my intention in this study to pass judgment on the truth of their claim to have received revelation, nor to solve the enigma of prophecy by means of psychological or sociological explanations, nor yet to discover the conditions of its possibility or suggest means of its verification. The intention was to illuminate the prophet's claim; not to explain their consciousness, but to understand it... What I have aimed at is an understanding of what it means to think, feel, respond, and act as a prophet. It was not part of the task to go beyond his consciousness in order to explore the subconscious or reach out to the antecedent conditionings and experiences within the inner life of the individual. A surmise of what lies beyond and below the threshold of the prophet's consciousness can never be a substitute for the understanding of what is displayed in consciousness itself."
~ Abraham Heschel, THE PROPHETS

quote:

---

if it was a connection to higher forces then we need to identify these forces and explain how only one person has managed to contact them... since a single person "being contacted by someone" is often a reason to throw him into the mental ward.

---

Nearly every exemplar of spiritual accomplishment in history, had they been alive today, would be drugged into a stupor and locked inside a mental ward. The quote you read by James Hillman already explained how our modern psychology seeks to eradicate the extraordinary, by labeling it the abnormal, and by interpreting any deviation from the ordinary an obvious symptom of deviant pathology. The fact is, we are not speaking of isolated cases, but of a historical movement composed of tens of thousands of mystics, all having the same experiences, and all being transformed into men of exceptional sensitivity, charity, compassion, integrity, and purpose.

quote:

---

love, like any other emotion, is differing and is mutable.

your kindness might push you to do great things for other and someday you would just be willing to do certain thing...are you unkind? no but the actions your kindness pushes you to do are now different.

---

This is similar to a previous answer you gave. Higher emotions wax and wane according to our capacity to maintain them. Even to differentiate between noble emotions like tenderness, courage, or devotion, is to fragment the pure white light of God into an entire spectrum of color, as the human eye perceives it. As independent souls, we receive, process, differentiate, and respond in unique and various ways to the divine light, but that light does not change; it is only broken up and projected differently.

quote:

---

question 3:

what is "real" in love? is it fixed love that doesn't change? since it does not exists since emotion is never fixed unless idolized and turned into a god

---

I maintain that it does exist, if only as an ideal; and an ideal is not the same as an idol. Whether or not we are speaking of an imaginary, mythical being, we may yet be speaking of something which has the potential to be profoundly useful. Let us not be so caught up in this obsession with discovering what is real, and consider for a moment what is useful. The mating habits of some subspecies of insect may be an indisputable fact, but what significance can they have for human life? Yet, scientists will spend their entire lives studying such inconsequential details, and publishing papers on them, in order to contribute to our endless stock of knowledge. The pertinent fact is this: What we can imagine has the potential to be more significant than what we can know. A dream can infuse our lives with meaning and purpose, motivating us to achieve our fullest potential. What can the fact, or the knowledge of the fact, of an insect's mating habits do?

quote:

---

love is an emotion and even though I would enjoy its greatest heights, I would see no reason to speak to it since it's an emotion and an internal experience.

---

That is your choice. You can leave it there, and wait for it to come again, in time, when some external influence triggers a new experience of love. Or, you can consciously reflect on love, call love to mind, and potentially attune your mind to be receptive to the slightest stirrings of love in your heart, in the hearts of others, and (who knows?) in the heart of God. Speaking to love, as though it were a conscious entity, is one way to call love to mind. By utilizing the power of imagination, love can become very real to you. It is enough to dwell upon persons of the highest virtue, who have been altogether possessed by love. These people, because they love us, are easy for us to love. When we think of them, and their love, it is not difficult to awaken feelings of love in ourselves. Imagining that they are present with us, and imagining what they might say, is a powerfully effective way to conjure love. Is that love real? Now that we feel it? Even if it was awakened by an effort of imagination? Yes it is. This technique is simply a way of drawing out, from your own unconscious mind, an archetype of love, and letting that archetype speak, so that you may become more conscious of its existence and its nature.

quote:

---

the songs might exist but unless heard and identified at the source they are a floating theory supported only by faith as religion always does.

---

I have done my best to show that religion is capable of so much more, and that, when skillfully practiced, has provided a mountain of evidence for its effectiveness. In order to awaken the most inspiring and exalting feelings of tenderness, a man has only to muster up the faith to approach an image of a holy person and allow himself to contemplate it with an open heart. The icons of the saints are windows into spiritual states, if we will look through them, and not at them, or away from them.

quote:

---

since the light bulb is a by product of scientific research while god was only imagined in the mind of its followers to be applied only as emotional support and self control... which in the end does not prove its existence.

---

Try to understand: All we are claiming, and all we are trying to prove, is that the idea of God can be utilized to encourage emotional support and self-control. You have just agreed with us. We have proven its existence and its effectiveness. You have agreed.

posted April 17, 2013 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
I believe biologists are studying effects, while they believe they are studying causes. They pinpoint certain chemical reactions in the brain which they argue are the source of human emotion and behavior. This would be like pinpointing electrical reactions inside a radio and determining them to be the cause of the music. Really, the radio is only receiving transmissions from elsewhere. Of course, every metaphor is imperfect -- that's why it is a metaphor. The transmissions we receive from "God" come from the deepest core of being; including our own. But, as I said, they are distorted. Our radios are imperfect. Even the ones I call saints were imperfect, but they were "state of the art".

---

well you are free to think and believe all you wish it does not change the theories that stand as current scientific norm but feel free to try and revolutionize the field.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
What we experience as unenlightened persons is mutable, and subject to changes of circumstance, yes, but the depth and degree of kindness we are speaking of is constant. I may cease to feel kindness, but somewhere in the world another person is still feeling it. Moreover, I believe that, deep within, I am also still feeling it, more than I ever consciously felt it.

---

well if you are talking about the universal existance of certain emotionas then yes they are fixed in a way but when related to a single person one can move between different intensities of emotion and different emotions across ones day.

that fact you believ ean emotion is currently existing in you does not mean it is truly in you during that moment....unless of course your faith is strong enough to convince yourself otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

Taoist masters have discovered something about the power of attention. They placed attention on their internal organs and learned to be conscious of them, and of the subtle workings of those organs. Think of it: We tend to be highly conscious of our hands. They are extensions of our minds and wills, and it is easy to place our attention on them, and to experience them as parts of ourselves. Writers, painter, sculptors, craftsmen, and anyone who works with their hands has experienced this to a significant degree. Biology is already discovering that awareness applied to the body results in the germination and development of new nerve-endings, increasing the subtlety of perceptions. We can do this within ourselves, in our bodies, but also at levels which transcend the body. We can develop "spiritual nerve endings", capable of sensing parts of ourselves which extend beyond the physical body, and the physical world.

---

i have yet to hear about any "spectral nerves" in biology so i guess its a theory you believe in as part of your spiritual structure.

in order to prove such a theory is right we need access into this "other world" to be able to understand what it is and for us to be able to understand how the focus manages to cause development beyound the physical world.

such a theory might be true and might be false....it can be supported by certain phenomena like phantom pains but in the end untill we have identified a source we have no grounds on which we can build a working theory and believing that one can focus himself into munipulating a world whose existance is in question eventually bases the entire theory on faith as none of it has been proven... so unless you are willing to try to find a way to tap into such forces and research what you said is greatly in question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

This is why it is necessary to distinguish between the ultimate presence, which I call "God", and our own imperfect perceptions of the ultimate presence. Even our intuitive flashes do not perceive God in his true essence. How much less so, our attempts at extrapolation and analysis? So, we must remember that our perceptions are not merely prone to distortion, but are always distorted. Nevertheless, there IS something pure trying to break through.

---

since the only record we have of god is that of humans and since you claim human to have problematic perception then isnt the whole idea of god is wrong? didnt we see only distorted parts of the messege and turned into something that is not the truth?

and from where do you know that there is something pure breaking through? and that its god? isnt that just one of distorted perception that a human can easily mistake for truth?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
You point out one danger, but there are many, many pitfalls in the spiritual life, which a thorough study of the works of spiritual practitioners can help us to prepare for and deal with as they arise. Their writings are the condensed substance of their life experience, and we can add to our own experience by reflecting on theirs. As David Hume wrote, "A man acquainted with history may, in some respects, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every century."

---

reffering back to the previous quote one might not know if the teachers are in fact teaching truth or only what they see as truth with their distorted perception.

same thing about purity here....since one might not be able to really understand the messege they are just creating their own distortion of it to worship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

"The proof is in the pudding," as they say.

We must abandon, to a large extent, the methods of excavation, dissection, analysis, and deconstruction which have become the obsessions of the western mind. We must consider the simple evidence of lives infused with purpose and sensitive to mystery.

"It was not my intention in this study to pass judgment on the truth of their claim to have received revelation, nor to solve the enigma of prophecy by means of psychological or sociological explanations, nor yet to discover the conditions of its possibility or suggest means of its verification. The intention was to illuminate the prophet's claim; not to explain their consciousness, but to understand it... What I have aimed at is an understanding of what it means to think, feel, respond, and act as a prophet. It was not part of the task to go beyond his consciousness in order to explore the subconscious or reach out to the antecedent conditionings and experiences within the inner life of the individual. A surmise of what lies beyond and below the threshold of the prophet's consciousness can never be a substitute for the understanding of what is displayed in consciousness itself."
~ Abraham Heschel, THE PROPHETS

---

he could never have known actually if it can never be a substitute since he never searched.

it the very problem that faith brings to people....their ego grown and they presume to know all the answers and all the right paths.

in the end dropping scientific minds for ignorance is not what will help humanity to try and save itself from the hole it dug for itself....and analysus never changes what is there...instead of just letting it be it unravels the very principals of its existance and allows entrence into a much more complex and illuminating world than to the one who wishes to settle with skin-deep explanations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

Nearly every exemplar of spiritual accomplishment in history, had they been alive today, would be drugged into a stupor and locked inside a mental ward. The quote you read by James Hillman already explained how our modern psychology seeks to eradicate the extraordinary, by labeling it the abnormal, and by interpreting any deviation from the ordinary an obvious symptom of deviant pathology. The fact is, we are not speaking of isolated cases, but of a historical movement composed of tens of thousands of mystics, all having the same experiences, and all being transformed into men of exceptional sensitivity, charity, compassion, integrity, and purpose.

---

on one hand...tyou might never know if those people were mentally healthy or not....ones mental health is no reason for one not be inspired by ones words.

and if truly mystics are just madman trying to bring people to faith that will only damage them in the end since their perception are distorted?

and cant crazy people still be kind and help humanity? does their help say anything about their mental health?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
his is similar to a previous answer you gave. Higher emotions wax and wane according to our capacity to maintain them. Even to differentiate between noble emotions like tenderness, courage, or devotion, is to fragment the pure white light of God into an entire spectrum of color, as the human eye perceives it. As independent souls, we receive, process, differentiate, and respond in unique and various ways to the divine light, but that light does not change; it is only broken up and projected differently.

---

divine light is only a theory with no true proof of it being shown....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
I maintain that it does exist, if only as an ideal; and an ideal is not the same as an idol. Whether or not we are speaking of an imaginary, mythical being, we may yet be speaking of something which has the potential to be profoundly useful. Let us not be so caught up in this obsession with discovering what is real, and consider for a moment what is useful. The mating habits of some subspecies of insect may be an indisputable fact, but what significance can they have for human life? Yet, scientists will spend their entire lives studying such inconsequential details, and publishing papers on them, in order to contribute to our endless stock of knowledge. The pertinent fact is this: What we can imagine has the potential to be more significant than what we can know. A dream can infuse our lives with meaning and purpose, motivating us to achieve our fullest potential. What can the fact, or the knowledge of the fact, of an insect's mating habits do?

---

believing in unconditional love might be usefull...untill one faces the cold ans harsh reality that humans dont own such capacity to love and thus have to depend on higher sources that can be imaginary or not for such unconditional love (aka god) yet its bot the faith that causes the controversy its the by product of it.

also the research of insects mating habits is done always with a certain goal in mind and faith in that much more than the goal to be found....this research can effect ecology'our abitily to understand certain insect liform and possibly benefeit humanity if for example certain pheromones in such mating insects can increase human recivery speed from injury (just a theoretical example)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
That is your choice. You can leave it there, and wait for it to come again, in time, when some external influence triggers a new experience of love. Or, you can consciously reflect on love, call love to mind, and potentially attune your mind to be receptive to the slightest stirrings of love in your heart, in the hearts of others, and (who knows?) in the heart of God. Speaking to love, as though it were a conscious entity, is one way to call love to mind. By utilizing the power of imagination, love can become very real to you. It is enough to dwell upon persons of the highest virtue, who have been altogether possessed by love. These people, because they love us, are easy for us to love. When we think of them, and their love, it is not difficult to awaken feelings of love in ourselves. Imagining that they are present with us, and imagining what they might say, is a powerfully effective way to conjure love. Is that love real? Now that we feel it? Even if it was awakened by an effort of imagination? Yes it is. This technique is simply a way of drawing out, from your own unconscious mind, an archetype of love, and letting that archetype speak, so that you may become more conscious of its existence and its nature.

---

now here lies the good stuff
in the end if i will call out to love from my internal mind it will still be either by a mind picture of a man whose existance is real and i imagine his love to me (or recall it if we are truly lovers) or i could make a new mind picture of certain ideal traits that also awaken a feeling of love within me since it is a perfect creatin....yet in the end it is still a picture of mind and does not exist no matter how hard i want it to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
I have done my best to show that religion is capable of so much more, and that, when skillfully practiced, has provided a mountain of evidence for its effectiveness. In order to awaken the most inspiring and exalting feelings of tenderness, a man has only to muster up the faith to approach an image of a holy person and allow himself to contemplate it with an open heart. The icons of the saints are windows into spiritual states, if we will look through them, and not at them, or away from them.

---

funny thing is that i never doubted the effectiveness of religion and its contribution to humanity.

i do doubt heavily of the existance of the beings religion usually worships (or at least the god/gods worshipping religions) since they cant only be a picture of the mind made seem real by our own desires and our own distorted perception.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
Try to understand: All we are claiming, and all we are trying to prove, is that the idea of God can be utilized to encourage emotional support and self-control. You have just agreed with us. We have proven its existence and its effectiveness. You have agreed.

Only three things remain. First, you have only to understand that this idea is precisely what we mean by "God". Second, you have only to perceive how an idea, if it is capable of comforting us at the deepest levels, and motivating us to attain the sheerest heights, can be holy. True, an imaginary God is more humble than "real" one, and we, too, must be humble in order to perceive him. Likewise, we must be keenly sensitive, to acknowledge how a "mere" idea can be wholly, unequivocally divine. When we have discovered divinity in the idea of God, it is only a small step from there to the third and last realization, that divinity itself is God. In other words, the Idea of God is great and holy, but the greatness and holiness of the Idea IS God.

---

i have agreed with its uses.
i never agreed there is something holy or unique in that.
i never belived that an idea of the mind can be concived as holy just becuse it brings one comfort.
and turning an idea into a living being just proves my point....its an idea and nothing else...your willingness to believe it to be a being with a mind of its own does not make it real as it is does not truly exist.

posted April 18, 2013 12:01 AM            

quote:

---

that fact you believ ean emotion is currently existing in you does not mean it is truly in you during that moment....unless of course your faith is strong enough to convince yourself otherwise.

---

The science of deep meditation has been practiced for millenia, by innumerable mystics. It is a process of disengaging our attention from the perceptions which occur on the screen of consciousness. As we withdraw our attention from the individual perceptions which flow along the surface of the mind, we cannot help but become aware of the stream itself. This process continues to deepen, and we become less and less aware of the content, less and less identified with the forms, which arise in the mind. We draw closer to the experience of pure being. The experience at these levels is more peaceful and blissful than anything you or I have ever felt.

Those who have practiced this method explain that it is not a process of imagining or even cultivating such emotions, but, simply attuning ourselves to what is taking place at all times, at the deepest levels of our being. As we learn to rest in these deeper levels, such emotions become natural and habitual to us. We become detached from the more shallow thoughts and emotions which rise and fall, like waves, on the surface of awareness. We do not hold on to them, nor do we push them away, nor do they disappear, but continue to pass without disturbing the deeper experience of being.

Words like "emptiness", "expansiveness", and "oneness" have been used to describe this experience. It is said that we begin to identify less with our personal self, and more with the whole of being. We experience our connection to everyone and everything. Selfishness evaporates and pure, selfless love takes its place. This has been attested to by thousands and thousands of practitioners. You can watch youtube videos of Eckhart Tolle and see that he is deeply grounded in this experience of oneness, or being. He is calm, patient, goodnatured, compassionate, playful, and incredibly sane. like everyone who has been anchored in the deepest levels of being, it is impossible to get a rise out of him; impossible to anger or annoy him. You could cut his arm off and he would hardly notice the pain or experience it as a loss, since he is so completely concentrated on the experience of pure being. Mystics from all religions have reported the same experiences, time and time and time and time and time again, in every nation and in every age.

quote:

---

your willingness to believe it to be a being with a mind of its own does not make it real as it is does not truly exist.

---

posted April 18, 2013 12:15 AM            

(that is not delivered in a mean spirit at all, just experience speaking!)

Doomlord, you are such a blessing to this forum!

You may even wind up convincing HSC at this rate!

posted April 18, 2013 01:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:

Doommlord..do have to say...you do remind of the Ober Dictum..never argue with a "Jew" ( I prefer Hebaru btw) as one shall never out type them!

(that is not delivered in a mean spirit at all, just experience speaking!)

Doomlord, you are such a blessing to this forum!

You may even wind up convincing HSC at this rate!

(edited to add, some folks have 2 m's in their screen name!)

---

Thank you

Im not jewish but i did learn some things from them

The 2 m's and the stupid name are just related to a memory of the past i cherish.

posted April 18, 2013 01:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
The science of deep meditation has been practiced for millenia, by innumerable mystics. It is a process of disengaging our attention from the perceptions which occur on the screen of consciousness. As we withdraw our attention from the individual perceptions which flow along the surface of the mind, we cannot help but become aware of the stream itself. This process continues to deepen, and we become less and less aware of the content, less and less identified with the forms, which arise in the mind. We draw closer to the experience of pure being. The experience at these levels is more peaceful and blissful than anything you or I have ever felt.

Those who have practiced this method explain that it is not a process of imagining or even cultivating such emotions, but, simply attuning ourselves to what is taking place at all times, at the deepest levels of our being. As we learn to rest in these deeper levels, such emotions become natural and habitual to us. We become detached from the more shallow thoughts and emotions which rise and fall, like waves, on the surface of awareness. We do not hold on to them, nor do we push them away, nor do they disappear, but continue to pass without disturbing the deeper experience of being.

Words like "emptiness", "expansiveness", and "oneness" have been used to describe this experience. It is said that we begin to identify less with our personal self, and more with the whole of being. We experience our connection to everyone and everything. Selfishness evaporates and pure, selfless love takes its place. This has been attested to by thousands and thousands of practitioners. You can watch youtube videos of Eckhart Tolle and see that he is deeply grounded in this experience of oneness, or being. He is calm, patient, goodnatured, compassionate, playful, and incredibly sane. like everyone who has been anchored in the deepest levels of being, it is impossible to get a rise out of him; impossible to anger or annoy him. You could cut his arm off and he would hardly notice the pain or experience it as a loss, since he is so completely concentrated on the experience of pure being. Mystics from all religions have reported the same experiences, time and time and time and time and time again, in every nation and in every age.

---

well yet again your claims that it is a "science".

i do believe that meditation allows us access into much deeper recesses of the mind...but tapping into the unconsious is no purity.

it was already proven by advanced technology and analysis that humans dont use their brains with full consciousness and that the most is actually left to the unconscious....if one can tap into those sources and temporeraly make them conscious then he might reach such powerfull numbing states and self realisation.

this "atuning" might just be strong inner concertration into ones unconsciousness rather than outer attunment to forces outside oneself.....the belief that those are outer forces might be just the distorted perception of a mind returned to its usual limitaions and unable to fully understand the nature of the experience but only a method into evoking it.....its just like a drug user....he gets "high" but is unaware of the process and the reality of the situation.

and for future....mystics are no scientists...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
I never said I believe it to be a being with a mind of it's own. please try to hear only what I am saying. I very clearly spoke of it as a projection of my own unconscious, evoked through the power of imagination. Nor have I argued that this projection exists as anything other than a projection, although I believe the projection does reflect, or point towards, the deeper reality I have just written of above.

---

posted April 18, 2013 01:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
Thank you

Im not jewish but i did learn some things from them

The 2 m's and the stupid name are just related to a memory of the past i cherish.

To be honest im not actually trying to convice or "convert" HSC to anything since i see that he has a strong connection to faith and it would be a shame to sever it.

---

posted April 18, 2013 11:49 AM            

I don't have much time right now,
but I wanted to respond to this point:

quote:

---

"It was not my intention in this study to pass judgment on the truth of their claim to have received revelation, nor to solve the enigma of prophecy by means of psychological or sociological explanations, nor yet to discover the conditions of its possibility or suggest means of its verification. The intention was to illuminate the prophet's claim; not to explain their consciousness, but to understand it... What I have aimed at is an understanding of what it means to think, feel, respond, and act as a prophet. It was not part of the task to go beyond his consciousness in order to explore the subconscious or reach out to the antecedent conditionings and experiences within the inner life of the individual. A surmise of what lies beyond and below the threshold of the prophet's consciousness can never be a substitute for the understanding of what is displayed in consciousness itself."
~ Abraham Heschel, THE PROPHETS

he could never have known actually if it can never be a substitute since he never searched.

---

Abraham Heschel is one of the most respected intellectuals in recent history. Just because he confined his statement in that book within certain boundaries, does not mean that he has not searched.

quote:

---

it the very problem that faith brings to people....their ego grown and they presume to know all the answers and all the right paths. in the end dropping scientific minds for ignorance is not what will help humanity to try and save itself from the hole it dug for itself....

---

That is certainly true of many people, but the same can be said of so many laymen who like to think of themselves as scientists, but have never performed a double-blind study in their life. They, too, like to think they know everything and that, if something has not been published in the mainstream scientific journals, then it is not science. They fail to reflect that science, as it is practiced in our society, is not an ideal effort of objectivity, but, that it is rooted in a vast, multi-billion-dollar industry. You need to consider the entire infrastructure that determines where money for research goes. The scientific community is made up of individuals who need to make a living and support their families, and this alone provides a basis for bias. They need to publish, and they need to stay within the prescribed boundaries of their career path. When findings contradict the institutions funding the research, they are frequently dismissed and scrapped. When they challenge long-held theories, you can be almost certain the paper will not be published in the mainstream journals. Theories have a tendency to disregard anomalies. But anomalies have a tendency to add up, and undermine the theories. Every significant advance in the scientific community has arisen from the margins, and has faced powerful oppositions from the less than objective scientific community. I refer you to the Introduction of a work entitled: Forbidden Archeology

quote:

---

and analysus never changes what is there...instead of just letting it be it unravels the very principals of its existance and allows entrence into a much more complex and illuminating world than to the one who wishes to settle with skin-deep explanations.

---

We are not talking about throwing analysis in the trash, nor stopping at the surface. We are saying that it is necessary, first, to understand what the image itself is saying, before trying to determine the worth or meaning of what is said based on an analysis of who is speaking, why they are speaking, etc. We are saying that it is possible to take analysis to excess. An artist's work cannot be entirely understood and evaluated on the basis of that artist's early conditioning, or the time and place in which they were creating their art. FIRST, the work itself must be seen for what it is expressing. When you look at a painting, you take in the entire painting as a whole. First, you allow yourself to be moved by what you see. Later, you may analyze the methods. You may dissect it and try to discover which colors were added in which order, or what the deeper implications of the work may be, or why this particular artist painted the work, and not another. All of that is fine, but you have to see the surface.

I'm a Scorpio. I know all about delving beneath the surface. But I don't disregard the lessons of Aries and Taurus, which teach us to be receptive at the most basic level to what is apparent. This is the substance of the quote you summarily dismissed, what that towering intellectual who you automatically assumed "never searched" was trying to make clear.