neuralzen

Since everything we ever experience is only ever in our own minds and not external, that means that everything we perceive is a symbol of the real event, as we can never perceive strictly objective truth. It's a very complex symbol, but ultimately a symbol, a concept that represents what we are interacting with.

Since this is true, this means that when we get upset at something, in reality we are getting upset at the symbol we perceive and not the objective truth. Therefore, any emotion that we direct at any event/phenomena in life is actually only ever represented in our own minds. My getting angry at you would actually only ever direct the anger at the *concept* of you,which in actuality is composited of fragments of my self. So getting angry at you just piles on B.S. emotional associations and turmoil onto fragments and concepts that are directly apart of me and my identity.

Is it not, therefore, urgent to respond to things compassionately, as it ultimately reflects on the self?

Since evil can be boiled down to suffering, or causing suffering, why don't we look at good and evil in these terms instead? That way there aren't evil people, there are only those who suffer and conduct others to suffer as well.

Doing good is just being compassionate: alleviating the suffering of others.

To me, this absolves the conflict of duality over good and evil into manageable terms. There isn't evil in the world, there is suffering in the world. God didn't create evil, he created impermanence, which is what causes suffering if we don't adapt, and help each other to adapt.

Thoughts? Comments?

The Pope recently said in a closed door conference that evolution is undoubtedly real, but that it does not invalidate the Christian faith simply because it does not explain the First Cause.

Given that Christianity splintered from the Catholic Church and have inherited the Christian legacy from them (the Bible, for example), does this effect your stance on evolution? If it doesn't, it seems strange to me as it would be essentially saying "This thing you told me, the Bible, I accept as true, but this other thing you told me, that evolution is true, I do not." Which is picking and choosing truths based on what you like and dislike. To me, it seems to not trust the statement from the Catholic Church would mean you also cannot trust that the Bible is true since they were passed on from the same source. Thoughts and Comments? Thanks!

Sorry if this is a bit wordy, no coffee yet...

MSNBC article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Since the more people there are that witness something, the more distributed the meaning becomes in that everyone has some unique perspective that can be summed to surmise a true event, with increasing new details and depth of meaning with increased witnesses.

Since Cheney is claiming to be not apart of the executive branch, congress is threatening to cut his funding, since it is only for the executive branch. If they do, could he finance his staff and operations, or would that be bribing public officials, thus very very illegal?

Basically, the idea that all religions are trying to understand the same thing, and these deep ideas were rendered in different cultural icons and symbolism depending on the social context they formed in. Each culture is like a colored lens; the western culture sees Jesus and the middle east sees Muhammad, and Moses, and the East sees Vishnu, Buddha, Taoism, and Shintoism. Or like Cheese going through different cheese graters. It is the same cheese, just different slice patterns.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth for the monomyth according to the late Joseph Campbell, a world class Myth expert.

These symbols make sense to you because they have cultural significance and personal experience. But we all feel the same things. We all feel anger, rapture, joy, love, dullness, disgust, bliss, etc. and we have images and symbols based on personal experience to label and interpret these feelings in our minds.

If you don't think that this could be true, do you see how I might?

How did all of the current living animals, 20 billion animals (10 billion species on earth x2 for mating), and all of the extinct ones (Dinosaurs, ???, etc.) fit on the ark? My cat, for example, is about 10 lbs in weight and about 18" long, 8" wide, and 10" tall, which is roughly 1440 cubic inches. I know there are larger and smaller animals, but if there were supposedly dinosaurs on the ark, I think using my cat as the average is a conservative estimate. So, not even accounting for "leg room" that would come out to be 200,000,000,000 pounds (100,000,000 tons) of weight and approx 2,400,000,000,000 cubic feet of space. Standing surface alone must be (using 18"x8" *20bil) 240,000,000,000 square feet, which is about 47,058,823.5 square miles, or 23% of the earths surface(196,935,000 square miles). This doesn't even approach logistics of feed and excrement. How could the ark story be possibly true? Why not simply interpret it as a metaphor? Thoughts? Comments?

Everything you see, hear, feel, smell, taste, think, and know is all in your head. When you sense (see, hear, whatever) another person and hate them for whatever reason, you are in reality directing your emotions to the *concept* of that person in your head. That concept is modeled with abstract facets of your own psyche; your own experiences and parts of yourself. So just remember, when you hate or are angry at someone, not only are you directing that crap at yourself, but you spend time suffering instead of trying to find beauty and contentment in the moment. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Whatcha think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons

Since emptiness is the "canvas" on which we, and everything, are all painted and without emptiness there would be no structure or order, is God emptiness; the lack of all "becoming"?

Science HAS shown that frequent insight meditation does thicken the neocortex with glail cells, enhance memory, happiness, lower blood pressure, and conceptual skills. Has there been any findings from the so-called bliss states? Their attributes are described as being aware only as the "knower", the "doer" is quieted, and extreme bliss and joy. The state is also accompanied by super-concentration when emerging from the state (usually more then an hour after entering it) and a diminished feeling of bliss that lasts for hours. I would love to see some fMRI data on this...

If you don't know what a jhana is, then you probably haven't had one. ^_^

Tolerance is one of the big messages of most world religions, so why is it that most people ignore it when it suits them, whether its when they are waiting for a mocha or when they see a gay couple? Its not like you or God will forget your intolerances and misdeeds just because you felt righteous. Personally I suspect it is because deep down it is known that the person they loath is equal with themselves before the great mystery (God), and they want to be more valuable they the person they loath. Thoughts?

Every one in the world, with no exception,has some delusion about how the world operates.Some delusions are more abundant then others (that we only use 10% of our brains for example,is false).So how could you under any circumstance justify spreading beliefs that are entirely faith based? Misinformation is inarguably why the world is so chaotic today, so wouldn't it be morally obligatory to make certain the info you pass on, especially info about the The Great Mystery Of It All, is truthful? You always believe you are right, even when you think you are wrong you think you are right about being wrong.That is what delusion is, you cannot tell you are delusional.So how can possibly passing on that delusion which is established purely on a PERSONAL FAITH be justified?If you are wrong and you only harm yourself, then no problem. But if you are wrong and pass on the disinformation with enthusiasm, then all you do is hurt society by obscuring what is real,perpetuating ignorance cuz of your ego

If government officials and politicians are granted vast public powers and trust, shouldn't they be punished MORE then the common criminal who doesn't abuse or even have either of these things? With great power comes great responsibility, but why is there no incentive to hold these people accountable in a meaningful way? I mean, any aspiring criminal with half a brain will see getting into politics or government offices is safer, more profitable, and can be taken faaaaar father then a life of street crime.

In our society it is perfectly acceptable for someone to get angry if they are wronged. But science, philosophy, and introspection have all shown us that when one is angry, one is not rational and clearly thinking, not to mention the fact it does nothing to fix the problem. Because of these, rampant emotions like anger (and too many others to name) damage the outcomes of many endeavors, and in extreme instances, leading to war.

Since we know anger to not be conductive to rational thought, and thus not conducive to actualizing goals concluded from clear observation, why are such outbursts still tolerated as acceptable social behavior? If we all want a better world, that entails paying attention to the truths and facts of that world, and charting a rational and clear goal based on that analysis. Since emotions like anger are clearly a problem when infecting the minds of decision makers, why is there not a larger cultural taboo on this considering the direct ramifications of delusion?

The full quote:

Early in the museum, the visitor is given advice on the proper mind frame to have for your visit: “Don’t think, just listen and believe”. [..] Human Reason is the enemy and God’s Word is the hero. Descartes represents Human Reason, saying “I think, therefore I am”. But God tells us there no need to waste your beautiful mind, for God says “I am that I am”.

If Christians don't put any value on mans amazing ability to reason (something God would have designed, correct?) how can any reasonable person take their claims seriously? The claim is as good as saying that although we use reason via forensics to determine the past, we cannot use reason to determine our history! How could any person who stands behind this belief think they can be taken seriously? People who don't reason are classified as 'insane', which is defined by someone who is unable to learn (which you need reason for) from repetitive mistakes. How can any of the bible even be argued, cuz that requires reason!

I have, so far, found the Buddhist philosophy of no-self true, but I'd like to hear input. The idea of no-self can be broken down to a simple example:

When eating an apple, when does it stop being an apple? After the first bite? When there is a core left? When it's cut in half? When it's entirely eaten? Since there is no 'core' or 'essence' that *is* the apple, and an apple is only a concept for a mass of particles anyway, I would declare the nature of the apple to be empty.

Likewise the same applies to a person. If you remove their arms are they no longer themselves? No, of course not. We are a process, and processes change over time, just as you aren't the same person you were when you were 5, nor do you have any of the same atoms in your body as you did then. We are inherently empty of any essence.

Note, however, that emptiness doesn't mean nothingness, simply that we have no fixed or root "essence" that is a unique personality for each person. Thoughts? Comments?

And thus stop pursuing what truth is because you assume you know it? In Christianity you assume its all in the Bible, in Islam the Koran, etc.

I mean, if you want something to be true, you have a vesting interest showing it to be true (because it's easier, more comfortable, less conflict, etc.). There is personal attachment, self-identity, and greed all vested in maintaining that truth (security, feel-good feelings, etc.). If instead you are actively dispassionate about what is true, in other words accepting something as true because of contently testing its validity, you have no self-interest in its verification and can reasonably believe it and know you aren't fooling yourself, or others aren't.

Thoughts? Comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

So if deep down you always think you are correct, and you know you can make mistakes (and you don't need a book to tell you you're fallible), how can you justify any static conviction with any strong degree of certainty? You only ever convince yourself of how convinced you are of something. Why not accept something as an *apparent* truth and let go of it if it stops fitting?