Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Does God Have NPD?
January 23, 2006
9:32 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
151sp_Permalink sp_Print

zinnia,

{I wish it were possible to have a conversation about "God" without Christian fundamentalists turning it into one of their circular debate platforms.}

You must be talking about me, as I'm the only Christian still on this thread. Don't worry; I'm about to exit this thread. You can discuss God all you want w/o this "fundamentalist". I am not good at logically explaining religion -- in my opinion, it can't be done very well because you can't prove it by logic, and I get impatient with too much philosophy. I get too easily flustered, get rushed for time, and don't think very cool-headedly.

But I will finish answering Tez's questions to me before I go. This time, though, not with the fundamentalist bent. And more level-headedly. But it will take me a few days to reply.

BTW, I've never been accused of being a fundamentalist. I generally don't say much about religion in "real" life. Maybe I sound like one here, though.

January 23, 2006
9:33 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
152sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

I'll answer all your questions later. I won't have much time till the weekend, and I want to drop the dogmatic bent. I need time to formulate a decent reply.

Take care.

Seeker

January 23, 2006
9:37 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
153sp_Permalink sp_Print

Lolli,

You make an interesting point -- Tez's religion is about as logical/illogical as Christianity, if I understand you correctly. I don't want to say much more, but I'm glad you chimed in, and I think you made a good contribution.

Take care, Seeker

January 24, 2006
12:35 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
154sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thanks seeker, but before I get or accept credit for making an interesting point, we need to hear back from Tez to see if I understood correctly.

Sometimes Tez...you can be really difficult to follow. :o)

Love,
Lolli

January 24, 2006
1:26 pm
Avatar
garfield9547
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
155sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thanks Lolli

I feel much better. That is why I asked him to explain things in 'normal' English.

I really felt dumb. I know I am not English and I must say his second post made more sense (language wise) than all the others.
Normal for me is not 'street' language.

If you talk 'piss' 'sandwish' etc I can follow.

When reading some of his other threads I got the feeling of typical N writing in a way.

I know he would not feel offended as he is incapible of this.

I have to learn how to feel emotions and could gather (if I'm correct) that he has not much either.

Like my husband always says : Africa is not for sissies.
HaHAHa

January 25, 2006
7:03 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
156sp_Permalink sp_Print

lollipop3

On the 23-Jan-06 you wrote:

"If I got this right....you believe that nothing exists except for what exists in the mind. There are no trees, animals, buildings, governments, religions, wars, computers, stores, etc. etc."

I perceive that you see your 'mind' as being inside your head and everything outside your head is exactly as you perceive it to be. I further perceive that you think that everybody sees exactly the same objects as you do. Am I right in this observation?

Do you know that we actually see trees upside down and that the mind corrects the image by inverting it?

Do you know that white light containing many frequencies of radiant energy that reflect of the tree. The reflected energy waves impinge on sensors in our eyes - sensors that have a very narrow band width? Much radiant energy is thus excluded.

From the limited raw data that our eyes transmit to our brain much processing is done to create a mental image, a mental object. Blurred vision is corrected without our realizing it. Color 'correction' and 'linearization' also takes place.

After all that processing if the tree is the object of interest then, our mind excludes everything around the tree by differentiating it as being not-tree. The mind then believes that the tree is a discrete object with real boundaries and is separate from all else. But the mind has drawn the boundaries around the image like a pencil tracing around the image of a tree in a picture image and called it an object tree.

How do you think a bee sees a tree? Do you think that the image in the bees mind is the same? Science tells us a very different story. The bee having a multifaceted matrix of sensors very different from ours would definitely construct a very different tree in its tiny brain. Is the bee's image of the 'tree' object, incorrect and ours the correct view of the 'tree' object? Our image of the tree object is very subjective to the characteristics of our eyes and the preconditioned processing in our brains.

Imagine if you will that you could shrink yourself down to the size of a few molecules and still retain your same faculties. What sort of a tree would you see then? What if you were located right next to the tree/not-tree boundary? What would you see? Would you see a clear demarcation line of that which is tree and that which is not? No. You would see a blur of orbiting electrons, atoms of all different elements combined in different patterns. You would see molecules moving in some complex interchange between what we know as the 'air', the 'ground' and the 'tree'. What would the air and the ground look like?

I hope that you can now see how deceptive our mind is in creating a 'tree' object from very complex interacting patterns of energy constrained by subatomic quantum 'forces'. The mind then believes that the tree is as we imagine it to be.

How much more deceptive is the mind in its creation of what it believes is the 'self'!

That which can be broken down into interdependent component 'parts' that create the whole cannot be an independent, permanent object. It can only be a collection of interacting parts. A motor car is not an independent object. It is a collection of parts that when conditions are right forms what we call a motor car.

The car's fuel injector is not an independent object. It can be broken down into several parts. Even a part of the injector can be broken down into molecules, atoms, electrons and subatomic particles. Even subatomic particles are not discrete independent objects made of a mass. Einstien showed that even mass as small as a subatomic particle can be broken down releasing much energy. What about energy? Isn't it confined by quantum fields into forms that we call mass!

What is this thing called a quantum field? Is it a discrete object? NO!

All of the above is a very logical dissemination of a so-called object into 'energy' constrained by 'quantum fields' neither of which are discrete entities either.

Since quantum physics clearly states that the observed is not independent of the observer at a quantum level, I logically believe that the mind underpins the quantum fields that constrain the energy into patterns that define the shape of the mass that defines form of the 'object' that the eye sees that produces the raw data that the brain processes into visual form that the mind comprehends as an object that it calls a tree.

The tree is not the tree that we think it is exactly because it is a tree of the nature that it is! That nature is the true nature of our mind - that is Mind.

January 25, 2006
7:07 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
157sp_Permalink sp_Print

I apologize to you all for not responding to all those other excellent post.

I am flat chat at the moment with other more mundane commitments.

But as big Arny Swartzeneggar says: "Oil be bak"

January 25, 2006
10:28 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
158sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

I think it's safe to say that a tree is exactly what it is -- no matter how a person, a bee, a tiny human, or anything else perceives it.

Are you tlaking, then, about being careful to not confuse perception with reality?

Seekerw

January 26, 2006
7:46 am
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
159sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

I hear what you are saying and without rehashing everything you said and picking out specific quotes, I will agree with you from a scienfific standpoint.

However, to me, it's not quite as "deep" as it is made out to be here.

Yes, I know that we see things upside down.....I learned that in 7th grade science class. And yes, bees see a tree differently than humans do, I will agree with that as well, but I think it has less to do with philosophy and more to do with the fact that is just how our minds work.

It is not that we are "deluded" and "create" boundaries.....it is just how the human brain processes information. And yes, if I was a fly, I would have 18 eyes and would probably not see things the same way, but I am not a fly, I am a human being. If I was a crab, I would walk sideways too, but the fact that I walk straight doesn't make me deluded or out of touch with reality.

Finally, yes, a car fuel injector has many parts. However, I am really not interested in when it's a bolt and when it becomes a functioning fuel injector. I have enough to worry about.....The only thing I am interested in is... does it work and if not...where can I get it fixed.

Love,
Lolli

January 29, 2006
4:51 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
160sp_Permalink sp_Print

lollipop3
26-Jan-06

"The only thing I am interested in is... does it work and if not...where can I get it fixed."

Yep and this is what the Buddha was all about. If you like the suffering that life dishes out then please enjoy.

If you don't enjoy suffering then this is where the Buddha, the ultimate mechanic, had a great way to "get it fixed".

No pie in the sky voodoo 'shinnanikins' - nothing like that. Just good old psychology of how the mind causes suffering for itself and what can be done about it.

January 29, 2006
4:55 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
161sp_Permalink sp_Print

seekerw
25-Jan-06

"Are you tlaking, then, about being careful to not confuse perception with reality?"

Certainly - precisely.

The question is what is 'real' reality and not fantasy.

January 29, 2006
5:15 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
162sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

I agree that in many instances we "choose" to suffer and it is our own behavior and thinking that fuels that suffering.

However, I still feel that is a far cry from "creating boundaries" and "creating language" to describe those boundaries when referring to a tree (your example).

I do not believe that we all wander around in some never,never land....seeing only what exists in our own minds.

Of course, it's not for me to believe or not believe.
If it gets you through the day...have at it.

My only point is that, to me, it sounds no more rational than Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, or people "begatting" children at the ripe old age of 163.

As I said before, you don't need to convice me. I am perfectly content with my own belief system and I am more than happy to just agree to disagree.

Take care,
Lolli

January 29, 2006
10:36 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
163sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

What did Buddha have to say about suffering, and how can the mind alleviate that suffering?

Seeker

January 30, 2006
8:59 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
164sp_Permalink sp_Print

Lollipop3
On the 29-Jan-06 you said:

"As I said before, you don't need to convince me."

I never even felt the urge - sorry. I simply responded to what you wrote as I saw it.

You believe exactly what you like. That's your undeniable prerogative.

January 30, 2006
9:03 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
165sp_Permalink sp_Print

seekerw

Onthe 29-Jan-06 you said:

"What did Buddha have to say about suffering, and how can the mind alleviate that suffering?"

Phew! The Buddha over 45 years of his life after awakening gave so many discourses on this that an unenlightened one such as myself can barely contemplate how to begin answering that question.

I'll give it my best - though inadequate - shot off line and come back with a 'cut and paste' answer later on.

January 30, 2006
11:05 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
166sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

Sounds good! I'll await your reply.

Seeker

January 31, 2006
12:29 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
167sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Tez,

No need to apologize mate...it's all good.

Love,
Lolli

January 31, 2006
7:13 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
168sp_Permalink sp_Print

Seekerw

On the 29-Jan-06 you said:

"What did Buddha have to say about suffering, and how can the mind alleviate that suffering?"

Firstly the Buddha said that human existence involves dissatisfaction and suffering.

Secondly, he said that dissatisfaction and suffering has a cause.

Thirdly, he said that there is a cure for dissatisfaction and suffering.

Fourthly the Buddha said that the cure is living life in accordance with the 'Eightfold Path'.

Just reading about the seemingly simple steps in the eightfold path is very likely to lead to trivializing them.

Extensive study is involved in understanding the mind, how it generates suffering, and how it therefore can stop doing that!

That is primarily what the Buddha's teachings are about. Buddhism is more of a psychology of the mind than a religion. But it is also a philosophy of how to live life and how to attain ultimate bliss. It is also very spiritual. Such compartmentalizing of Buddhism is so non-Buddhist. Yet it serves some purpose.

The Buddha whilst using human language to communicate with us, also points out that words are but symbols representing something else.

Therefore all words are in that sense give only guidance in how to know that which underpins all and that which is our true compassionate nature.

Finding out how our minds work and what underpins them frees us from continuing to generate the causes of future suffering for us and for others. In addition, an added benefit is that we can thus deal more effectively with present suffering that is caused by past mental conditioning.

As I said earlier, dissatisfaction and suffering is caused by our attitude to our physical, mental and emotional pain.

As anoverly simplistic example, I recently received an injection from my doctor. I suffered very little from the pain. If someone in the street came up to me and inflicted exactly the same injury on my upper arm with exactly the same needle, in exactly the same way but with either a malicious purpose or one completely unbeknown to me, I would probably suffer greatly!!!

I would probably imagine the worst possible scenario - AIDS you name it. Thus my attitude to exactly the same pain because of my different perception of the context, would be very different and one that would cause me great suffering for exactly the same amount of physical pain.

Thus "the mind is its own place and in it can create a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven."

The Buddha teaches our minds how to have a healthy attitude to this life on earth. 🙂

How? By learning the truth from his teachings about:

1. Impermanence,

2. Emptiness(NOT non-existence) and

3. Nirvana(NOT some illusive kind of 'heaven' somewhere else than where we are and where we need to go - but a way of being our true 'selves' in this world in the here and now). 'The Kingdom of Heaven is already amongst you only you cannot see it' or words to that effect - JC

... ... and much much more fascinating down to earth stuff!

That's just for starters and I apologize to the Buddha for presenting just a part of his message so badly.

January 31, 2006
7:19 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
169sp_Permalink sp_Print

lollipop3

Thanks cobber - cooeeee. 🙂

You are a fair dinkum shiela aren't yah?

January 31, 2006
9:16 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
170sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

Thank youuuuuu.

I had to look it up....but I like to think so.....LOL

Love,
Lolli

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
36
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111138
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
OsbornWebb, alpino12, Warnisses, degastro, kojuyu, NathanielClark
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information