romansh

This is true Thomas ... but then again we can believe all sorts of things. But it is about evidence ... show me evidence of this "more" that is not dependent on chemistry or perhaps physics. You cannot prove I don't have fairies under my garden shed, but of course that is not any reason for me to believe in said fairies under my garden shed. Science does not deal in proof!

I like the little bit of Batchelor I have read too. I occasionally go to his website to see what is new. I have not read any of his books though.. I have read Buddhism for Dummies ... my general impression was so close but no cigar. It almost got it "right". And that is for Buddhism rather than the book. And it assumes the book is a reasonable reflection of the various flavours of Buddhism. I think this enlightenment thingy should boil down to acceptance ... this emptiness business while in some sense might be true it is irrelevant at least for my brain chemistry.

So there is knowing, believing etc. etc. Well I have my doubts that they are actually there as 'perceived'. Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain. Because this chemistry forms different patterns we see them as somehow different. Yet I am forced into this duality by using words ... or at least this is what my chemistry seems to be dictating. Anyway if we are not getting it we can grok it instead. Or our chemistry can.

I agree ... I can have a reasonable understanding of chemistry ... and still fall in the trap that it is the chemistry that drives me and not realize it. I was under the impression that you had panentheist leanings Thomas. Did I miss something? I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs In my book it is the recognition that there is nothing to be saved (or need for forgiveness).

There I added the smiley. Sort of ... I (and by inference we) are not what we seem. I would delete the definite article between the ARE and story. We are story. Ultimately there no separation between you, me, other, animate and inanimate. On topic ... the general idea behind this thread is agnosticism and what we can say with certainty. The 'benefits' of doubt and certainty. cf my byline from Douglas Adams. While I do find that topics do wander ... one outcome of keeping them "on topic" is a particular idea can be explored more coherently but on the other hand my might not go to interesting places. Also ... Stephen Batchelor argues strongly that Buddhism is agnostic in nature.

A bit of context for dragons

No problem Tariki ... everything is interrelated at least to some minimal degree. But sometimes Joseph likes to keep things on topic. You said observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and here taken in context with a Christian story ... I don't see the must or thou shalt. The universe is unfolding and we in it unfold too.

This in no way a 'counter' ... There appears not to be a need to slay dragons with Thou Mayest written on the underside of their scale. Unless we take on certain interpretations of our religious texts. So any story that resonates is OK? Fair enough. Thou may resonate .. with anything you want Thomas. But "choosing" what you want is a little more difficult.

Thomas there nature of choice is not what it seems. See you on the free will thread.

Tariki I found your post less than your usually careful circumspection ... but then that is my problem not yours. The atheistically minded that rail against a God that does not exist are in my experience are primarily recent Christian apostates. But I think you a referring to those that object to the fall out [withholding medication to loved ones, being against abortion, against euthanasia, etc] of believing the God that does not exist. The second point that is highlighted ... must I become the story? Really? I am reminded of Nietzsche's dragon with the golden scales. On the underside of each scale is written thou shalt. I could argue this is the story ... might we become dragon slayers? Why must we become this Christian story? Whose interpretation of the story should I align myself with? Why not my own story? As far as I can tell I am writ large in the substance of the universe. This I think is my story.

I pray to God to be rid of God While not overly familiar with Eckhart I do like his sound bites. This one made me smile ... there is a deep irony here. At least for me. But I find it interesting the different writing styles of those participating in this discussion as we discuss a new reformation. There seem to be varying degrees of certainty expressed by the various authors. Interesting.

Tariki Your poem speaks to (at least for me) to Hanh's Interbeing. Now I agree with that all is interconnected. Do I know this? No. What I do observe there is an interconnection ... consequently I live my life accordingly. Do I "need" the prayers, dogma, ceremony, rituals etc that can be associated with this observation? No; or at least I live my life without them.

Thomas Like I said I can't tell whether you know or have the answers. I sort of agree with that we forced to make decisions, have descriptions that describe our other patterns of behaviour and we have to act on these descriptions and decisions. That some of these actions are successful and keep being successful until they are not, is just fine.

This I find a fairly typical response amongst those that have not thought deeply about science. Frankly this includes a good number of scientists. Science is ultimately a description and as we see more our view changes. It changes over decades centuries and even millennia. It does not deal in answers per se. We use its method to sort the wheat from the chaff at least in terms of descriptions. Unlike some modern forms of faith. Our understanding of our place in the cosmos is continually being refined. Soma (re:The method I use is if the passage rings a bell, sometimes I will reread a passage seeing the bell, but not hearing it and it will ring, but many times there is nothing there.) While I am as intuitive as the next person regarding my beliefs; I do have this perception, however false, that some corroborative evidence does not go amiss.

Having answers? A plug for agnosticism. Do I have any answers? As being agnostically inclined I might answer in this way: Do I think I know? I don't think so. Do I know? No. Do I think anyone else knows? No not really. Does anyone else know? I have no way of telling. I could and sometimes go on here. But I think we get my drift here. So do any religious texts have the answers? Well some claim they do. But the question for me is not whether the texts and the interpretations have answers, they plainly do. It is the veracity of these answers and interpretations that are of interest to me. And also the method of sorting them out. How do we sort out the accuracy (I have given up on the veracity) of these supposed answers? I think all of us use the scientific method (if not science itself) to some degree. What varies is how rigorously we apply the method.

For me ... Christmas [and religion] is like training wheels on a kiddie's bicycle. I have managed to let go of religion ... but I am rather attached to the paraphernalia associated with Christmas. It helps me be aware with the connection with my fellow beings and the unfolding universe in general.

So where does a person end and the rest of the universe begin?

Joseph ... the issue is not fairness. The rules are clear they might not be equitable but they are the same for everyone ... assuming they can rustle up enough enthusiasm amongst the population. In a workplace, at least a workplace I would want to work in, the management would not put up with belligerence and lies ... a bully in fact. In the US, the management, ostensibly the voters, are willing to put up with Trump's behaviour. The current Trump protests, at least the way they have gone down, while understandable will ultimately be counterproductive. My "beef" is with the management (or at least a large portion of it) that endorsed Trump's behaviour.

What's the difference between the universe and Being?

I must admit I am having trouble understanding this thomas. What exactly do you mean by Being? From my point of view we have existence; there is no separation in that existence. The I in I am is an illusion. And there is no need for an upper case letter at the beginning of existence or the present participle of to be.

I am OK with Trump too. Only because I have no free choice. But I know this, if I worked in a place that 50% of the workers condoned Trump's behaviour, lies and belligerence I would not work at that place. Because I do have a choice, it might not be free but it is a choice. And in the USA ... the voters are the bosses and they just condoned that behaviour.

If we believe in free will, morality, a need for forgiveness then we don't quite have the hang of dependent origination. And your comment it is about me ... belies this dependent origination.

While your speed is not completely independent of the stars, it is more of a function of the car, road, your attention, where you are going and how important the destination appears to you. Of course there are a whole of others that also can be 'large" proximate causes. And yet Christians (and to a lesser extent Buddhists) believe in free will. While Christianity may acknowledge dependent origination Christians in my experience by and large don't.

When I say chemistries ... it is more of a personal term. Which refers to things like, quantum chemistry, biochemistry, thermochemistry, electrochemistry ... no doubt I could include a few others. Next time you are going too fast ... go easy on yourself and the cop giving you the ticket. I can only refer you to the Buddhist's concepts of not self and dependent origination every time you think I AM. Before the Big Bang? I am not sure how some uncertainty that long time ago is going help explain how you could make decisions other than those you did make? Function at a higher level? Oh dear? More complexity perhaps.