romansh

 

cf earlier post.

These are the relevant posts regarding Truth for you that I found:

... about a Way to be and I think there is only one Way to be and become Human.

​So if I do not think the way as you do I will not be Human, I will remain just human? This is the Truth^©?

​I hope you understand that I might just be a little skeptical of this world view.

There is only one way to be Free, to (choose and act to) become and be truly Human

Some of us see freedom as an illusion ... dependent origination in Buddhist terms or interbeing (intrabeing). A recognition that there is only one way I can be is an interesting world view. That I can see other world views I might have donned should is also interesting. Having said that I was driven to choose my world view.

This freedom is also Truth, a lived Truth

​As you probably can tell - I don't think so.

... colors were not the important part of the discussion, so it has been a bit lighthearted and, perhaps, avoidance - as it does not really pertain to Truth.

​Yes I can see why the workings of how our "simple" perceptions might mislead us to our grander perceptions of the Truth^©​, and might really pertain to certain world views and in turn, might give us pause for further deliberation.

Personally your Truth is completely in the opposite direction to what I perceive as the evidence. Interbeing for me did not imply freedom. Science does not give hope for freedom from cause. (And with respect to Soma, quantum phenomena appear to be caused and are causes themselves). This leaves us with an evidentiary position that is somewhat akin to the not-self in Buddhist terms.

 

I think the atoms defense is avoidance of the larger Truth. But that too is OK.

And precisely what is this larger truth or Truth?

 

The first part of your response is a bit too cavalier for a serious response.

 

As for the rest:I have no problem acknowledging the 'programming' throughout the evolutionary process but it is that programming that keep us safe from................things that can ruin our day, cripple us, kill those we love and on and on. Simply, people refer to these and other such 'things or occurrences' as natural evils. And if it was programming that put the fight or flight into the European response to Hitler, here we have an example of what people call man-made evil. The perception matched the reality as Hitler's atoms were out to get others (kill, conquer, dominate, extinguish), some fled, others fought and that pile of atoms laid itself to rest.

OK ... for the first part ... next month our son of sixteen years died ten years ago from a debilitating form of epilepsy ... a seizure we did not catch in time. It never occurred once to me to think of it as evil. Heart wrenching at times yes; but evil no ... that is a particularly Christian concoction.

Now how is one pattern of atoms more evil than another?

I'll go with Yellow, that way I know the light will soon turn Red and I won't harm or kill others. I'll take the perception, recognize the color as indicating something real, live another day, access the Truth and see its Reality in experience.

 

While others will still be sitting in traffic pondering the pixels, unable to move forward for fear they are illusory or might be misleading

 

Fine, this is a pragmatic view point. But it continues the place itself in my avoidance box. Confounds pragmatism with the truth. But that is OK.

As I mentioned Rom, colors were not the important part of the discussion, so it has been a bit lighthearted and, perhaps, avoidance - as it does not really pertain to Truth.

 

And, I couldn't see it because it was non existent. Although if I could, I would say pixel less Yellow is my favorite color.

While I believe in truth or The Truth^© even; I believe I have limited access and the access I have is perhaps misleading. Colour and our perception of it is a classical example of how limited our perception is and how it can be illusory.

 

Not sure how your rejection of evil would play with all those who have suffered from natural or man made evil over the history of man.

Ah well I will let all those that have suffered speak for themselves. But as I am talking to you, you can explain to me what makes some patterns of atoms (etc.) evil and others not. Hint - it is your perception that has been informed by your environmental programming.

 

so far I haven't had to do that so any response would be theoretical

Actually any response you give is a result of cause and effect. We put them in boxes ... yours is theoretical, and for me I might put yours into avoidance. ( )

Did you see the non existent yellow? (note I am not saying photons that give a yellow perception don't exist ... just that they don't exist on your monitor).

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

 

Tariki

Here we wander awfully close to free will ... how do we choose anything (never mind between illusory good and evil)? Regarding acceptance ... generally I am accepting of something or not. I suppose I can find my self choosing to go through the motions of acceptance I don't seem to have much freedom here. Perfect love? In the eye of the beholder?

I reject the concept of evil and as such can do no evil. But this is true for good too.

Being able to track blood in grass based on the reflective and adsorptive properties of photons is/was a useful trait don't you think thormas ... at least when it comes to the survival and reproduction of your progeny?

 

so did it evolve differently and to what end is green an evolutionary advantage over red?

You are skirting around the philosophical point thormas. Regardless the degree of colour blindness each of us experiences, the object does not possess the colour we think it has. We are comparing reality versus perception. Our perception is a useful trait especially when it is working "properly".

If you see yellow your equipment is functioning perfectly. Yet there is not a single yellow pixel on your screen

 

......and so the equipment malfunctions if it makes one think it is green?

No

still seems one has to look at the equipment...........as over 'eons' or so we have developed the equipment that sees red........unless the eyes are not working to what they evolved to.

Or has equipment been developed that thinks it sees red?

"I still haven't found what I'm looking for." Hopefully, one of these days on my journey of life, I will.

Welcome and if I may be so precocious, can I suggest you have found it ... all we have to do is ...

 

But why is red the 'truth' Thormas - because that's how the majority see it? Why is somebody's equipment 'flawed' because they don't see it the same as the majority? Maybe it's the majority who are flawed and the truth is how the minority see it. If in fact if the majority were what we call colourblind, then the truth would be green I believe. Colour-blindness is considered a reduction in 'normal' vision, but normal is just the majority view.

It is the concept of something being red that is flawed. It has nothing to with the equipment being flawed or popularity or axiomatic definitions. This is an advantage of science as a process. It won't tell you (over eons) what is true or what is the truth, but it will highlight flaws in our perceptions or our truths.

Having said that the flawed concept of red has increased the replication rates of certain systems, mostly biological.

I have both observed and partaken in balloon-release ceremonies (wedding and funeral). Whilst it is a beautiful gesture/exercise, it is so wasteful and damaging to the environment (where does the waste end up?). I hope we can find better ways because the earth simply can't cope with balloons being released at every funeral (+150,000 people die each day).

Waste of perfectly good energy to make the helium.

Also the released balloon always makes me sad. Its all a fad ... :-)

This is it. It unfolds, but is always just as it is, it does not point beyond itself to some transcendent reality that gives it birth. Pure acceptance of what IS is the catalyst of all potential for unfolding.

 

Musing, thinking aloud, seeking clarity of mind.

Seems reasonable to me in my non-Buddhist way.

It would be nice for my death to celebrated in some way that reflects my life.

I suppose people would have to attend with a squash racquet in one hand and a drink in the other and spout philosophical nonsense all afternoon (and evening if it is a good wake).

If they did it would mean my life had some effect and if they didn't it would mean my life did not have the effect that I currently had confabulated a hope for.

Either way it is fine.

if there is nothing more to learn, I would suggest finding a teacher and allowing them to push you into the abyss.

 

Steve

If there is nothing more to learn ... I would suggest try teaching. Learning may be accomplished, understanding will start.

Welcome Mertonia

I will repeat, here's my take ... Jesus likely existed. How much of what we find in the New Testament can actually be ascribed to Jesus (if anything) is a completely different matter.

When does it matter? If we were to take a literal or partially literal view of the scripture in question, then it matters.

If we treat it as metaphor it then becomes what did the later scribes mean by their stories or what they thought history actually meant.

"One has many kinds, two have no duality". Now THAT is "sexy"!.

Not sure Tarik, the parts that make up the universe see this duality.

I like Sagan's quote ... we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. Not just the astronomical bits, I suspect.

Rom is clearly a Rom-eranian. A religion of one-ness. It even has only one adherent.

 

He would be less contentious and much happier if he believed as I do and became Burl-esque.

I caught a snippet on CNN on the History of Humour (without the u probably). It highlighted the difference between burlesque and vaudeville. I have to admit I am more aligned with burlesque without the hyphen. Looking forward to Burl's burlesque it will make a change from the vaudeville.

 

Rom,

 

(anointed?) Probably some of the time. Other times not so much.... perhaps i would say not when you get lost in your mind.

 

In my eyes, you can be a Christian or whatever label you wish to attach to yourself BUT IF i were you, i might avoid the Christian label as it doesn't sync well with what i perceive is your choice of words. And then again i could be wrong.

 

Joseph

I think that is about right Joseph. But I am sharply aware that my mind (even when I get lost in it) is a reflection of the universe.

If I become aware of the room I am in am I less lost?

I look out the window ... less lost?

I could go on. :-)

I leave that to the critical scholars and have not found a (many/any?) serious scholars who questions the existence of Jesus.

 

 

To me, the word Christ in Christian means to be (anointed) as in being smeared together with the Allness of creation or God.

Joseph

 

We are all smeared together with the universe whether we want it, realise it or not. Starting something with an upper case eg Allness, God, Being, One etc. is just sexing it up ... at least for me.

So am I anointed or not? I understand you will try and pass the buck, so in this sense (in your eyes) am I Christian?

One can certainly be a good man or woman, even one of the exceptional human beings that we at times witness in history - if they have never heard of Christianity, Christ or Jesus. This seems obvious.

 

However, being a member of any religion seems to suggest an introduction into or a decision to 'join,' agreement with its major tenets and participation in it.

So one can't be a good Samaritan without being an inhabitant of Samaria ... fair enough.

edit

So being a Christian is a little like being in a club and adhering to a dogma of sorts?