Philosophy Discussion Forums

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 10:08 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 7:01 am

I also notice that in your final paragraph you mention Satan. It is probably important that the problem of evil is not overlooked. The idea of Satan may represent evil symbolically but the literal existence of a being called Satan is another matter. Of course, in traditional religious views the idea of the fall of Lucifer and the angels as described in the Biblical account of Genesis is taken concretely. Certainly my own understanding of the Biblical account is that it is mythical rather than literal.

"The Fallen One" keeps things in Balance. That's why God spared him inspite of locking him up or killing him and gave opportunity to tamper upon non-believer souls, so can cause destruction and keep things in balance. At the time of death, if one is true believer of God, then "you-know-who" cannot touch that soul and one returns to God. He can touch only the non-believers but not others.

In Vedic, he is called as 'Kala' with 'Asura Disciples'. Here, it is said as a Karmic Balancing work done by Destroyers. Or else, One will always indulge to think about Material things and never care to think about God.

You know what, if you have the desire to End Sufferings totally nd attain God/Peace, you don't worry about Mystical/Literal and can understand the meaning of words clearly as it is ment to be said. The Mystical vs Literal, is a way people use to defend one's Egoistic Needs, but for one who upon Truth, no need of such differentiation between Mystical vs Literal.

In this reply, please read Mystical as Mythical.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 7:01 am

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 11:01 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 1:11 pm Just as the dominance of men over women was often unchallenged.

Woman's nature is made up of much desire-possessiveness upon material things, compared to Men. Woman fall to nature's beauty ignorantly (like ornaments, fragrance, cosmetics, clothes, etc.) at high level, when compared to Men. If Woman comes out of Kitchen/House, more desire grows. Also Woman have to accept whatever husband does. She can advice her husband good deeds. But should not order. If they start to order, Ego will grow, then they cannot step out of it like Men's nature. It's like Preventive and Curative. Man can be cured even if they fall to many things. But, for woman, it's very very tough, and so Preventive Measures. Nowadays, Woman don't advice her husband and places order, also easily divorces Husband and seeks another guy. Woman don't adjust with Husband, whomever Husband shall be. Even a Wife of Ravana, can attain Peace/Enlightenment, by advicing Ravana and also remain as his wife and acts according to her husband desires.

The only aim of Religion is to curb the material desires and never suffer and put an end to rebirth. Let Woman be a wife of Good Rama or Evil Ravana. Their desire should not be upon world, but only upon God. In India, many Brahmanic Wife lived that way. Man can easily cut off the material desires, but for Woman it's really tough. And so, Shariah framed to make woman study only Quran and nothing else, so desire don't grow on mind and only seek God.

But, the good thing about Women is, they have insightful concentrated Mind, and if they seek God, they are the one easily attains and understand subtle things than Men. And so, using their insightful concentrating Mind, if used upon worldly things, they cannot get to God, but if seeked God they can attain Peace very easily compared to Men.

That's why I again and again stress that, to understand any aspect of Religious practices, one must have the aim to End Sufferings and attain Peace. Or else, they should not be allowed to question ny religious aspects, and either follow it, or resign from it and go with whatever way they want to live nd create a own law of living for themselves/their group like SATAN.

I am not sure what part of the world you are living in because your ideas of the differences between men and women seems at odds with the thinking of the twentieth first century. Your description includes gross overgeneralisations, like 'Women fall to nature's beauty ignorantly'. It is indeed questionable to suggest that women are more materialistic. What about men and cars and 'boy's toys'. What about the cultural aspects of gender and the way people are influenced by stereotypes?

I also notice that in your final paragraph you mention Satan. It is probably important that the problem of evil is not overlooked. The idea of Satan may represent evil symbolically but the literal existence of a being called Satan is another matter. Of course, in traditional religious views the idea of the fall of Lucifer and the angels as described in the Biblical account of Genesis is taken concretely. Certainly my own understanding of the Biblical account is that it is mythical rather than literal.

Do you know one thing?
For me, every experience and words "literally implies Myth". Not just Story of "The Fallen One" but the Story of Viswa/etc., has no actual presence but literally implies Myth. When this story of Viswa/World, taken to be literal, then it's Ignorance, but if understood as Myth then just God and GOD alone presence.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 1:11 pm Just as the dominance of men over women was often unchallenged.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 11:01 pm Woman's nature is made up of much desire-possessiveness upon material things, compared to Men. Woman fall to nature's beauty ignorantly (like ornaments, fragrance, cosmetics, clothes, etc.) at high level, when compared to Men. If Woman comes out of Kitchen/House, more desire grows. Also Woman have to accept whatever husband does. She can advice her husband good deeds. But should not order...

Clarification: you are a man, yes?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 6:14 am Do you imply the nature of woman is caused by woman's inherited biology, or is she taught to be as you describe her by the family and society that reared her?

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 7:22 am If one is a follower of Christianity, they shall just leave it to Jesus/Father and never have to find the reason behind it.

But, if one is a deep inquirer, and willing to take up many Eastern Religious for finding out the answer, then Previous Life Karma is the only conclusion and nothing else.

I can only echo Belindi's comment:

Belindi wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 7:34 am It's sign of conceitedness and vanity to be "sure about it".

To be sure about anything is to stop inquiring, to stop wondering. Why would we inquire about something we *know* to be true? But, if we stop and think, we find that little, if anything, is 'certain'. This is my experience, anyway.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 11:01 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 1:11 pm Just as the dominance of men over women was often unchallenged.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2023, 11:01 pm Woman's nature is made up of much desire-possessiveness upon material things, compared to Men. Woman fall to nature's beauty ignorantly (like ornaments, fragrance, cosmetics, clothes, etc.) at high level, when compared to Men. If Woman comes out of Kitchen/House, more desire grows. Also Woman have to accept whatever husband does. She can advice her husband good deeds. But should not order...

Clarification: you are a man, yes?

I think it is Viswa's gender which you are wishing for clarification about. It is interesting to think what one's gender is has an influence on one's ideas. The experiences of being embodied and culturally a member of one gender alters the experience of social life and beliefs. However, it is probably less of a critical issue in Western liberal society where men and women are free to live in a similar way mostly, such as in work and in education. This was probably so different a hundred years ago.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 11:01 am
Clarification: you are a man, yes?

Nope. I AM GOD. (The meaning of God is "Capable of doing Everything but actually does nothing").

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 11:06 am To be sure about anything is to stop inquiring, to stop wondering. Why would we inquire about something we *know* to be true? But, if we stop and think, we find that little, if anything, is 'certain'. This is my experience, anyway.

It's not my own words, but of religious scriptures and it's understandable.

But, as you say, "if we stop and think, we find that little, if anything, is 'certain'", then why to inquire/think about nothing including God/etc.,? Let we stop discussing anything and deactivate this forum, as nothing can one be come to full certainty. Why do we then inquire about anything?

u

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 8:02 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 7:01 am
I am not sure what part of the world you are living in because your ideas of the differences between men and women seems at odds with the thinking of the twentieth first century. Your description includes gross overgeneralisations, like 'Women fall to nature's beauty ignorantly'. It is indeed questionable to suggest that women are more materialistic. What about men and cars and 'boy's toys'. What about the cultural aspects of gender and the way people are influenced by stereotypes?

I also notice that in your final paragraph you mention Satan. It is probably important that the problem of evil is not overlooked. The idea of Satan may represent evil symbolically but the literal existence of a being called Satan is another matter. Of course, in traditional religious views the idea of the fall of Lucifer and the angels as described in the Biblical account of Genesis is taken concretely. Certainly my own understanding of the Biblical account is that it is mythical rather than literal.

When I went to some evangelical churches in my student days there was so much talk of Satan. I was told by someone that I should stop reading Carl Jung's writings as it was the work of Satan. Also, I remember some people who were convinced that a lot of rock music was Satanic and if listened to backwards contained specific Satanic messages. One often mentioned was that the Led Zeppelin song, 'Stairway to Heaven' played backwards contained the words, 'Satan is God'. I found all this fear provoking and such extreme ideas were the reason why I chose to question religious thinking so much.

Shall I ask a question here?
What makes you feel that "Don't have to offend Rock Music in case of religious practices? Don't you feel it is not peaceful?
You may ask "War is not peaceful too", but for economical level to live - war is necessary to stand against greedy one.
But, in case of Rick Music/related, there is no reason for one have to lose peace. If one couldn't leave sensual inclination to music for God, but also in other hand wants to hold on to God, then Devotional/Soft-hearted Music aids it. But not Hard-natured songs. Deriving Pleasure from Hard-Natured songs, only makes one to be not Peaceful and takes one away from God.

I do think that it is worth choosing carefully the music one listens to for a balanced state of mind. As it happens, I grew up listening to rock, punk, indie and alternative genres as my favourite tastes. I try to get the right balance and don't like music which is all about hatred. However, I generally see how I treat and respect others in outward ethics as being more important than what choices of music I listen to. I would prefer to work on angst and negative emotions in the privacy of my bedroom rather than act them out in actual behavior. Of course, inner work is important but it may not be neat and tidy because it is about processing thoughts and emotions. Mindfulness of emotional experiences involves living with the light and dark aspects. Some religious systems are extremely dualistic, with that which is taboo or feared being projected onto the devil or Satan. This can be a source of war and conflict when those who are seen as the 'enemy' and 'evil' are viewed with hostility to the point of belief that such 'evil' ones should be destroyed.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 12:19 pm
I do think that it is worth choosing carefully the music one listens to for a balanced state of mind. As it happens, I grew up listening to rock, punk, indie and alternative genres as my favourite tastes. I try to get the right balance and don't like music which is all about hatred. However, I generally see how I treat and respect others in outward ethics as being more important than what choices of music I listen to. I would prefer to work on angst and negative emotions in the privacy of my bedroom rather than act them out in actual behavior. Of course, inner work is important but it may not be neat and tidy because it is about processing thoughts and emotions. Mindfulness of emotional experiences involves living with the light and dark aspects.

From this, I only understand that, people don't want to "Be with God" truly, just want to use the name of "God" to desire anything.
Religion never speaks about living, just a way of living to surpass life-death. There is no light/Darkness in Being with God. But, if it is desired, then all the best "desiring" to tackle negative emotions, inspite of understanding the reality of life/world and enjoy and mostly suffer.
If that's what peeps want, "so be it". I'm signing off again. I feel I tried all way out, and reaching anywhere I could and also from pointing out many religious words. This time I leave it to Jesus for "The Second Coming" (or Vishnu or many avatars/Sages/Buddha/etc.) and leave it to your heart.

Have fun.
Take Care.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 12:55 pm From this, I only understand that, people don't want to "Be with God" truly, just want to use the name of "God" to desire anything.
Religion never speaks about living, just a way of living to surpass life-death. There is no light/Darkness in Being with God. But, if it is desired, then all the best "desiring" to tackle negative emotions, inspite of understanding the reality of life/world and enjoy and mostly suffer.
If that's what peeps want, "so be it". I'm signing off again. I feel I tried all way out, and reaching anywhere I could and also from pointing out many religious words. This time I leave it to Jesus for "The Second Coming" (or Vishnu or many avatars/Sages/Buddha/etc.) and leave it to your heart.

Have fun.
Take Care.

From what you have written, you seem to be a little adrift, like a shipwrecked sailor on a raft somewhere in the ocean. You've been everywhere, seen everything, you have no illusions, but you are out there on your own. You sound resigned to the fact.

I think that the conversation you had was full of misunderstandings, especially other failed to understand where you were coming from, but occasionally I had the feeling that you weren't certain either. Perhaps I'm right, but perhaps not, only you will know ...

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 11:43 pm
I think that the conversation you had was full of misunderstandings, especially other failed to understand where you were coming from, but occasionally I had the feeling that you weren't certain either. Perhaps I'm right, but perhaps not, only you will know ...

I don't know whether I'm resigned to the fact or not. Maybe, by trying to communicate, I might/should be resigned and got attached with the other person.

It's not about who is right. But, now as I wish to learn, can you please point me why you feel that my conversation is full of Misunderstandings? May you please point me out which words/reply make you feel so, so that I shall bring up the reason upon the table, and we shall look at it together, then I'll see where I'm misunderstood - and I will learn and change myself.

Also, Can you mention what kind of certainty you are talking about? Like when I said "I'm sure about it", peeps say "nothing can be certain but only little". If I say "I feel", peeps say like "Are you certain or just a possibility?". It looks like the Nasruddin, Son and Donkey story.

But, I am willing to learn whatever misunderstanding pointed out.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 1:43 am I don't know whether I'm resigned to the fact or not. Maybe, by trying to communicate, I might/should be resigned and got attached with the other person.

What I meant is that you seemed resigned to the fact that you are “out there on your own” on the raft. I took it from your statement, “I feel I tried all way out, and reaching anywhere I could and also from pointing out many religious words.”

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 1:43 am It's not about who is right. But, now as I wish to learn, can you please point me why you feel that my conversation is full of Misunderstandings? May you please point me out which words/reply make you feel so, so that I shall bring up the reason upon the table, and we shall look at it together, then I'll see where I'm misunderstood - and I will learn and change myself.

The exchanges that you had jumped to whatever examples well-meaning people brought to the table, and they seemed to try to explain the purpose or the meaning of those things, but I noticed that you were on writing a different level, and you passed each other in the dark.

The example of music was one where Jack said it was helpful for “a balanced state of mind” and didn’t mention God, but you answered with, “From this, I only understand that, people don't want to "Be with God" truly…” From my perspective, we have to understand that God is what we are, that in which we “live, move, and have our being,” and reaching a balanced state of mind can help us locate the door that has to be opened to access that.

I recently heard of John Paul Flintoff's book, Psalms for The City, one of his poems there called Parables, which exemplifies that:

I like The Parables.
We're walking along together talking and splash,
A story plops into the water we didn't even know we swam in.
Not just any old story, hardly a story at all.
A puzzle, extended metaphor, plug for a different socket,
Coin for a different slot, key to someone else's front door.
You take it, jiggle it about, baffled, annoyed,
And then somehow you find a way to make sparks fly
Hit the jackpot, fling the door open.

You also wrote some things about women, but you only described some women, and overlooked that women are as diverse as men are. They are different, true, but why do you think that the story was told about Martha and Mary? The one who was diligent, hardworking and the other who sat at Jesus’ feet. “Martha, Martha,” the Lord replied, “you are worried and upset about many things. But only one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, and it will not be taken away from her.” This doesn’t fit with your examples.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 1:43 am Also, Can you mention what kind of certainty you are talking about? Like when I said "I'm sure about it", peeps say "nothing can be certain but only little". If I say "I feel", peeps say like "Are you certain or just a possibility?". It looks like the Nasruddin, Son and Donkey story.

But, I am willing to learn whatever misunderstanding pointed out.

I said you weren’t certain where you were coming from, which is exemplified in “Jesus for "The Second Coming" (or Vishnu or many avatars/Sages/Buddha/etc.),” which I understand to a certain degree, because I am also a “universalist.” I have found, however, that it is helpful to know many things but only use one thing at a time. This would be my advice.

“Certainty brings ruin” was one of the three Delphic maxims inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with “Know thyself” and “Nothing to Excess.” It sounds like good advice to me, and contradicts the way knowledge is portrayed, especially in your statement, “I never trust Experiences as Trustworthy (most importantly material world), but only Knowledge.”

To this, Pattern Chaser correctly remarked that knowledge can only come through experience, and I agree that for the most part it isn’t inherent. I believe that certain sensibilities could be there at birth, but all knowledge is gained through sensual input and physical experience. This shows me that there is a discrepancy in your thinking.

Viswa wrote:

Also, Can you mention what kind of certainty you are talking about? Like when I said "I'm sure about it", peeps say "nothing can be certain but only little". If I say "I feel", peeps say like "Are you certain or just a possibility?". It looks like the Nasruddin, Son and Donkey story.

True, it's impossible to agree with everybody. Also true, when you say "I feel" nobody can deny that you and only you have access to your own feelings. I'd go further and say you have a right to your own feelings.

But feeling is not the same as believing. While you can be certain you feel pain, or that you love God, or that women should obey their husbands, you can't be certain what caused your pain, or what God means for other people, or that women are what you feel they are.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 5:01 am But feeling is not the same as believing. While you can be certain you feel pain, or that you love God, or that women should obey their husbands, you can't be certain what caused your pain, or what God means for other people, or that women are what you feel they are.

True that I can't be certain what God means for other people. But, one can be certain of what caused Pain. If one is not serious to know what caused pain because of fear to access pain to go through that pain again, then one shall come to an ignorant conclusion that "one can't be certain what caused one's pain". But, It's always easy to find out and be certain if one wish to know that seriously.

Also, One can understand about Women too.

See, to me, One can come to certainty about Everything, if one seriously put one's time upon that to know what it is. I will reply to that three delphic maxims in my next reply, not attacking that but I can see what it truly means and explain it exactly what it implies.

Viswa_01210 wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 6:12 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 5:01 am But feeling is not the same as believing. While you can be certain you feel pain, or that you love God, or that women should obey their husbands, you can't be certain what caused your pain, or what God means for other people, or that women are what you feel they are.

True that I can't be certain what God means for other people.

Here, One can't be Certain, UNTIL the other truly shares it, or UNTIL one attains Siddhi powers and access another Thoughts/Beliefs.

I feel, there is Nothing One can't be Certain about.

Okay. I could catch now what you said, but if I misunderstood please let me know. I hereby bring out the reason about the things I said.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am What I meant is that you seemed resigned to the fact that you are “out there on your own” on the raft. I took it from your statement, “I feel I tried all way out, and reaching anywhere I could and also from pointing out many religious words.”

Yeah, that's my ignorance arising time to time. I accept it, and it shows I'm not entirely free. I feel it's not about certainty (meaning I'm totally certain with those words I said), but still caught in dreams of duality desiring it. I can see I'm "out there on my own", but also dreaming as Many and learning to cut off that dreaming desired entirely. I can see dream as not real, though I caught in dreams. Whenever I point 'you/Belindi/etc.' - I can see that they are my own imaginations, but I'm here to learn through my imaginations now to totally stop desiring any imaginations furthur.

Only because of certainty as 'no one out there - I'm on my own', I never feel angry-sufferings all these days. Even when I said "I tried all my ways, etc.," is only Love to my imaginations to put it off.
But, desires have not end, and I understand that's what you point as Certainty (like Experientially "Enlightened One").

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am The exchanges that you had jumped to whatever examples well-meaning people brought to the table, and they seemed to try to explain the purpose or the meaning of those things, but I noticed that you were on writing a different level, and you passed each other in the dark.

The example of music was one where Jack said it was helpful for “a balanced state of mind” and didn’t mention God, but you answered with, “From this, I only understand that, people don't want to "Be with God" truly…” From my perspective, we have to understand that God is what we are, that in which we “live, move, and have our being,” and reaching a balanced state of mind can help us locate the door that has to be opened to access that.

I recently heard of John Paul Flintoff's book, Psalms for The City, one of his poems there called Parables, which exemplifies that:

I like The Parables.
We're walking along together talking and splash,
A story plops into the water we didn't even know we swam in.
Not just any old story, hardly a story at all.
A puzzle, extended metaphor, plug for a different socket,
Coin for a different slot, key to someone else's front door.
You take it, jiggle it about, baffled, annoyed,
And then somehow you find a way to make sparks fly
Hit the jackpot, fling the door open.

I appreciate your understanding. But, I have a doubt here. If God is what we are, then how can we move/live/die? How come these things actually happen, if Only One is there? If live/movement happens, then it has to be duality. Without Dual/second, no movement can happen. As One only present, there cannot be a Space to move as One is Present everywhere, so no life/death/movement can happen actually.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am You also wrote some things about women, but you only described some women, and overlooked that women are as diverse as men are. They are different, true, but why do you think that the story was told about Martha and Mary? The one who was diligent, hardworking and the other who sat at Jesus’ feet. “Martha, Martha,” the Lord replied, “you are worried and upset about many things. But only one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, and it will not be taken away from her.” This doesn’t fit with your examples.

No. It definitely fits. Mary chosen to be With God always. But, Martha was caught in desires. If Martha was very sure that "only one thing is necessary", she would have cooked herself with her thought always occupied with God, and not think about "What Mary doing/etc.". That's what Jesus implied "Only One thing is Necessary" - to never think about someother(materials/persons/etc.), but only be with God in thought-actions. Dwelling in thought of "What Mary does now? Why don't she come and help me? Am I not struggling alone here and need an helping hand?", is just moving away from "One" to "Many" thoughts.

This is my Understanding but if that doesn't suits you, It's okay. I'm not here to compel, but just not to miss pointing out.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am I said you weren’t certain where you were coming from, which is exemplified in “Jesus for "The Second Coming" (or Vishnu or many avatars/Sages/Buddha/etc.),” which I understand to a certain degree, because I am also a “universalist.” I have found, however, that it is helpful to know many things but only use one thing at a time. This would be my advice.

I can understand this. Yeah, in a way, I'm a Universalist too, because I see every action/movement is a dream of myself, and every action is connected to me. One truth which is about "One", and every action is connected with that "One", as every action is not real action but a Thought out of Ignorance.
Also, Just because I say "Jesus comes or Vishnu or etc.", doesn't mean "who will come or who not". If one has Siddhi power, one can travel in time and say that. Until Penance and the TIme comes as Karmic Effects of such Penance, I cannot know who will come. Even if I got that Siddhi power and know that, I cannot communicate to you until the time comes for you to know about that out of your Penance. It's a big Karmic Cycle, and time factor plays an important role.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am “Certainty brings ruin” was one of the three Delphic maxims inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with “Know thyself” and “Nothing to Excess.” It sounds like good advice to me, and contradicts the way knowledge is portrayed, especially in your statement, “I never trust Experiences as Trustworthy (most importantly material world), but only Knowledge.”

Ruin is Not a Bad thing. I hereby express what I understand about that Three Maxims truly implies.

The First thing one must strive to know in this world is "Know Thyself". Then, as an outcome of that Knowing, one comes to an awareness that needing "Nothing in Excess" but just "Oneself Known". Then, out of that Certainity, Every Experiences/Things comes to Ruin/Death "So Rebirth Ends". Then No dream, just Nothingness Remains because of that Certainty of "Knowing Oneself" and out of that Certainty "everythings ruin".

This is my understanding, but I don't compel you to fix to it. It's upto you. I welcome questions upon it too.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 3:40 am To this, Pattern Chaser correctly remarked that knowledge can only come through experience, and I agree that for the most part it isn’t inherent. I believe that certain sensibilities could be there at birth, but all knowledge is gained through sensual input and physical experience. This shows me that there is a discrepancy in your thinking.

No where scriptures speak about "Any Experience" (Be Spiritual/Transcental/Psychic), but only about "Knowledge". Know Know Know Know.