IS this not enough?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]

If this guy is wrong, what IS the point of religion?

Fantastic.

Yeah, what a hoot.

That said, that I think he’s right, I also think he goes a bit to far to the other side. It is natural, and necessary, to want to make our peace with death. Yes, revealed religion is a red herring, but the universe, Creation, is mysterious enough to spur our curiosity, and even hope.

Whatever floats your boat!
We will all be dead soon and so does it matter?
Why get passionate about something that will cease?

I immediately thought of this drug inspired video (beautiful).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlY-JlE5ZCo[/youtube]

I spent many nights literally out of my mind listening to this song.
Curled up in a ball while holding a knife to my own throat.

Enough or not enough… It will soon be over … and the war will never be won… In a few more decades we will be dead.

I say – lay down your weapons (your razor sharp tongues) and do whatever floats your boat.

All that you touch. All that you see. All that you taste. All you feel. All that you love. All that you hate. All you distrust. All you save. All that you give. All that you deal. All that you buy, beg, borrow or steal. All you create. All you destroy. All that you do. All that you say. All that you eat. And everyone you meet. All that you slight. And everyone you fight. All that is now. All that is gone. All that’s to come and everything under the sun is in tune but the sun is eclipsed by the moon. “There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it’s all dark.”

That was a wonderful video, med. I love the cosmic god’s eye view of things from the pov of the “ordinary man,” as they sing, with all those floating monoliths and eggs. (Those horns were great, too, with the psychedelics, btw.) I think it might have been inspired a bit by 2001: A Space Odyssey (same astronaut in both, great touch don’t you think?) And I just love the way Strauss’ Zarathustra schusses right into the other Strauss’ Beautiful Blue Danube. That never fails to set my mystical goosebumps on end.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-iNOdM9AsY[/youtube]

I actually hate the guy.

Because it is… all that is… what it is, that is. :cry:

Awesome beyond nameless.

But what if my razor sharp weapons sink and float my boat, at the same time? I’d be pretty fucked, wouldn’t I?

[size=150]All that you touch. All that you see. All that you taste. All you feel. All that you love. All that you hate. All you distrust. All you save. All that you give. All that you deal. All that you buy, beg, borrow or steal. All you create. All you destroy. All that you do. All that you say. All that you eat. And everyone you meet. All that you slight. And everyone you fight. All that is now. All that is gone. All that’s to come and everything under the sun is in tune but the sun is eclipsed by the moon. “There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it’s all dark.[/size]”
Beautiful. But matter is made of light. Ask Farsight.

In the physical reality we have many objects of knowledge and in order to navigate in the physical world we need this knowledge. This is very simple logic.
Obstacles will come up in the physical world and these obstacles need physical solutions.
It is a great mind of wisdom that understands this and can apply knowledge in order to solve problems.

But we also have our internal world of experience/emotion and experience/emotions are not physical realities. There is a physical basis for their existence but they are not realities in themselves.
As an example the mind of love does not have a physical reality- it does not exist outside the mind.
I can communicate in order to express my love but I at no stage can I give my love in a physical sense.

So from this it is easy to conclude that the basis for emotions/experience is internal.
Love, fear, anger, hate, happiness and suffering only exist in the mind and not outside the mind.
They are states of mind.

In the external world there are obstacles which prevent us from achieving something.
In order to achieve this we need to overcome these obstacles.

Likewise, in the internal world of the mind there are internal obstacles that prevent us from achieving something.
If we want to achieve that thing then we need to overcome the internal obstacle.

There is a relationship between the internal and external worlds but this is a very weak relationship.
We can check this through our own observations.

If we acknowledge, that states of mind are internal experiences and only exist in the mind then the obstacles and solutions must also exist in the mind (not outside).

This is a mind of wisdom that can see the distinction between the physical world and the world of experience/emotions.

The purpose of a spiritual life is not to resolve external realities but to resolve internal realities.
The purpose of the spiritual life is to transform the mind.

But, we so often believe, that through the manipulation of external realities we can, at the same time, manipulate our internal realties.
Or, to put it another way… “The world would be a better place without such and such people in it!”

Would it?

Or would we simply find another group of people to despise and then not be satisfied until we rid the world of them.

External solutions to internal problems simply do not work (yes, there is a small relationship).

meditation wrote:

What an excellent insight. You never know who the next face of God is going to be. It could be the one who really gets on your nerves and challenges all your basic assumptions. It’s not always that perfect soulmate who you get along with in every way. At least that’s what I keep hearing from spiritual masters who seem to know about these things. As for me, I just keep learning from the school of hard knocks and butting up against brick walls that have this odd manner of not wanting to move and get out of my way. lol But there must be something to dazed and confused as a constant state of being when life is so good and enjoyable, hey maybe there’s a new philosophy in it even. Hmm… :wink:

The question of whether or not the world present before us is enough should be divorced from the question of what one believes to exist, and more tightly connected with what one values. I, for example, very much believe there is more - much more - of the world than we can see (or sense) or that our sciences expose to us - but that doesn’t mean I value that which exists outside the domain of empirical experience and science more than what exists within it. Indeed, there are some who value the former so much that they are willing to believe that the latter is illusory, that it isn’t even real, let alone that it might coexist with the former; that, in my opinion, is a scewing of valuation taken to the extreme.

Hey Jonquil, sorry for not replying to some of your other posts but I find this whole forum thing a bit hard. I am not very good at multitasking and managing multiple posts / discussions. I end up not knowing if I am Glen or Glenda (it is very confusing).

Yes, the school of hard knocks is a very good school and it gives me many lessons - but I often do not do my homework. :slight_smile:
Often, when we experience hardship in our lives we try our very best to get out of this hardship.
Some time later, maybe years later, we think in hindsight “I am glad I went through that, it has made me a better person”.
The trick is to bring that hindsight into the present moment and not have to let several years pass to appreciate it.
It would be fantastic for us to think “I am glad I have this problem now. This is the perfect opportunity to learn. Bring it on”.

As far as life being so enjoyable - the motivation then becomes “All things are impermanent and subject to change”
With every up there is a down and with every down there is an up.
Knowing that the enjoyment will end means that we need to be prepared.
We can be like a traveller who, in a frenzy, spends all his saving in the first 2 days of a 2 week holiday.
Or we can be like a traveller who budgets and has enough money for the holiday.
Each to their own.

Gib, I hear ya and your opinion is very valid.
Again, would the world be a better place if these people did not exist.
If we look at our lives honestly we would find that pretty much most of it 99.9999999% is illusory from an experiential point of view.

When we are angry at someone we are angry at something they did in the past (a few years ago, a day ago, an hour ago, or a minute ago).
The past has ceased to exist and yet we hold this anger. We remember the event and we bring it to life every time we think of it.
Is this experience real?

When we think of the future - does this future exist? We day dream about lots of things and we create fantasy worlds of experience that don’t exist.

When we use our imagination - does this imagination exist outside of the mind?

So, where do we spend most of our time? In our own minds or in the real world out there?
The nature of the world we live can generally be described as to where I spend most of my time in.
If I spend most of my time in Canada then the nature of my experienced world is Canada.
If I spend most of my time in Latvia then the nature of my experienced world is Latvia.
If I live in Russia then the nature of my experience is Russian (and not American).
If I spend most of my time in my mind then the nature of my world is my mind.

So… I would conclude that things exist but they do not exist in a way in which we experience them.

Things are only extreme because they are on the opposite end of the spectrum of what our opinion is.

I think it is extreme for people to watch television. People sit and get drawn into fantasy worlds on the TV. People cry, laugh, get exited, get angry, develop lustful thoughts, and at what? At an electronic box which does not have real people in it and is a reproduction of people “acting” and who, in effect, are lying to us. But we still experience a wide range of emotions despite the fact that we know it is all fake… We get great enjoyment from this fantasy world. This, to me, is “so” extreme such that it is no longer funny, but it is only extreme to me as I think TV is crap and I personally do not own a TV. For millions of people, owning and watching a TV is perfectly normal and they think it is extreme not to own one (which I am told constantly). For millions of people this fantasy world is fun and they derive great pleasure from it… Even though I do not own a TV, its crap is forced down my throat every time I talk to someone… Would I be a better person and happier if these people with their extremist views gave up television? …

Each to their own, I can be happy in a world despite the fact that people have extremist views and force their views down my throat. I just smile and say “each to their own”… and poof, in a puff of smoke, their views are no longer extreme – they are just human views like my own. These views are fake and do not exist outside of my own human experience. These veiws do not coexist with the real world, they are fake and have no basis in reality. I am happy, I smile and I simply enjoy my own fake world.

Hell no. As you know, their existence adds to that favorite thing in the world of mine - qualitative diversity :slight_smile:.

I’m going to argue with you on this one, med, for my views on experience (and they are very particular) are that things are real because they are experienced. I believe in something like Berkeley’s esse es percepi, but also that this makes the reality of things relative and transient (i.e. not absolute).

I would say it is, but like I also said, it’s relative and transient - which means subject to our control (to a degree). If it angers me, then relative to me there is a wrong that has yet to be redeemed, but if you’re not angered by it, then relative to you there is no wrong to be redeemed. It is also transient because the reasoning you bring to bear on this - i.e. that it is in the past - might actually work to quell my anger. I would be brought from believing there is a wrong needing to be redeemed to believing there is no such wrong. The wrong was real at the time but then ceased to be real.

I would bring similar reasoning to your other examples… all except the imagination, for that is the one experience which, by definition, is characterized as mental through-and-through - but I say there must be at least one experience that underlies the mental characterization of things - that is, something whose real form must be the mental itself - for without it, we wouldn’t know the mental at all, let alone as something real (i.e. we have real minds).

Like I said, this all has to do with a very particular theory I hold about experience and what it is. Among other things, an experience, I say, is such a power as to become the thing it manifests as. I call this “projection”. The visual sight of a tree, for example, projects and becomes the tree itself - physical and out in the world. An emotion like anger projects and becomes an attribute of the person you are angry at - they become “mean” or “guilty” (of some wrong-doing). Or, sometimes, anger can project as an attribute of the situation or the world - as in an “injustice” or “unfairness”. Thought and belief typically project as truth and fact. But the relativity and transience of all this allows for one to change their reality by way of changing their own mind - that is, affecting how they experience the world.

There is much more to my view than this, of course, but these are the points most relevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to read more about it, I have a website: mm-theory.com - but I must warn you: be prepared to read 500 pages worth :slight_smile:.

Hence the importance of mentioning “in my opinion”.

Not owning a TV is probably one of the sanest and healthiest things one can do. If watching television for more than 4 hours a day and becoming emotionally wrapped up in it is a product of our modern times, then the extremism is with our society as a whole. As far as each TV addict in our society is concerned, he/she is no different from the next TV addict, and from that point of view is not so extreme… but still certainly in a questionable state of mental, and perhaps physical, health.

Lol. I hear you. So many interesting posts on different threads. I find I can’t keep up with them all, either. I know I must be missing some great ideas and comments, but that’s how it goes.

Now that is interesting. True here too. I tend to act on impulse way too often for my own good, but even after all the knocks and bruises, I always learn - something - .

There is great wisdom there. It’s not always so easy to follow, especially when your new guide or teacher is a huge pain in the butt or drives you crazy with whining or talking about mundane life stuff when all you want to do is explore the deep questions of life and use your mind. I find I have little patience for boring externals these days. However, if I do my homework so to speak, I come to realize that this is at least in part my own fault, though sometimes I feel that things get set up that way too. If there’s one thing I’ve learned … the hard way of course … it’s that life will move you on to the next step even if you resist it or have conflicts over it. Might as well go with the flow, I suppose, and just enjoy the ride… if it doesn’t destroy you first. O:)

It’s a mystery to me how life can be so good now. I would never have predicted this back in the day. :confused:


I found these questions and ideas compelling. My question is: when is the nature of the world not in my mind? I just don’t see how they can be separated out. In fact, I don’t think they can in any sense at all, to the point that I now feel that nothing can be separated out. I’m an inveterate holist, I guess.

“Every thing that lives is holy.” – William Blake

I think of holy as whole, its essential root. I also think of “every thing that lives” as everything, literally all of existence.

There are many points of religion.
From the point of view of the social sciences, it appears that religion makes it possible for large groups of people from diverse cultural and genetic (familial) backgrounds to work together in a social order or civilization.
In spiritual terms, religion enables individuals to know their purpose and gives guidance on how to achieve that purpose.
In philosophical terms, religion provides the basis of ethics and answers to many of life’s difficult questions.
Finally, in political terms, religion can provide a basis for just governance of a population.

I believe that, in its early stages, each religion has provided these positive points in response to the abuses of the previously established religious order.

In later stages of the cycle of religion, it has also led to the opposite of all of these:

Groups that have formed around one religion have created conflict with groups that have been united around another religion.
Religious leaders have introduced perverted ideas of human purpose and means to achieve same so that said leaders can achieve some perceived benefit.
Religious leaders have also twisted ethics, for example by emphasizing the trivial and ignoring the truly heinous, while the answers to life’s questions have been reduced to superstitious claptrap.
Finally, politics within religion have led to tyranny and gross injustices being perpetrated on populations.

I think it is very profound and life changing if we contemplate the idea that it is not the world that exists but instead it is that we experience the existent world.

This is a very balanced and centred view and one which involves participation in life.

It naturally follows from this logic, without effort, that if I change my experience of the world then the world will also change.

If I follow the logic that the world exists independently of my experience of the world then I am stuck.
I am stuck in a world of problems that exist and are unchangeable.

But problems are clearly internal experiences and not external ones.
Problems do not exist outside of the mind (just like love, happiness and suffering).

In the OP post video we have a person who perceives problems to exist outside of his own mind.

This is the very nature of our human existence.

Some claim that the afterlife is a complete fabrication but then strongly believe problems exist outside of the mind.
They claim that God does not exist - but strongly hold onto the notion that their problem with God exists.
It is the same as saying “your imaginary friend is not real but my imaginary friend is very real”.
It is logically inconsistent.

We experience the world and by its very nature this experience is fabricated.
By fabricated I refer to the fact that experience only exists in the mind and not outside of the mind.
There may be a basis for this experience but the experience itself is still fabricated.

Does good and evil appear to the mind of quantum of energy?

Religion attempts to resolve the fabrications of human experience (which are unavoidable).

These are good comments and questions.

But we have to be careful not to let solipsism pull us so far inside our heads that we ignore the pain of others or fail to take action when someone is in danger or trouble. This of course means that I have no idea where to draw the line between that experience of the world that is in my mind and the world I see out there that appears to exist independently. How do you reconcile that problem?

What problem?

If I experience pain then the experience of pain is real.
If I experience joy then the experience of the joy is real.
But the pain and joy do not exist outside the mind.

There is no thing to reconcile as this is the way reality exists.

If a person disagrees with this then show me love, joy and pain outside of the mind (how much does it way, what is its color, smell, texture).

If I have a corpse and chop its leg off then the corpse does not experience pain.
So chopping legs of fleshy bodies does not produce pain.
If that corpse has a mind then pain is experienced.
So, I can conclude that pain only exists in the mind not in the flesh.
There is a relationship between internal and external.
The location of external is in the external.
The location of the internal is the internal (feelings do not exist outside the mind).
If I experience something then this experience is necessarily internal.
My own experience cannot exist outside of my own mind.

If a person experiences pain then that experience of pain is real.
If a person experiences joy then that experience of joy is real.
Acknowledging that experiences are internal does not reduce our love or compassion for another.

Actually, by acknowledging that experiences are internal means that we can empathize with others more and feel greater love and compassion.
We can then focus not so much on external conditions but rather internal ones.

Sorry if this annoys anybody with it’s fascility, but…

Tim Minchin=Legend

You are lucky that you were exposed to him if you wouldn’t otherwise have been.

I was trying to figure out a way to account for the pain or experience of others in a way that would take it outside of my head. If it were only inside my mind, why would I be inclined to want to help or do something about it? Isn’t there some sort of shared world out there that we all experience alike? That’s what I’m getting at.

We could blah blah blah forever the external/internal debate and go nowhere. The issue isn’t the what’s and how’s. It isn’t the “law”, it is the spirit, it is our intent. Storm isn’t about “why that?” but THAT. See directly, act directly. Authenticity isn’t in the abstractions, it is letting go of them.

There are no abstractions and I have let go - have you?

Jonquil,

How can we have a shared experience? An experience is internal.
You cannot experience my emotions, feelings, etc but can only empathize with them and draw a conclusion by drawing from your own.
There is a shared world out there but not a shared experience of that world - we are all different.