GENIUS FORUMS

Two questions that have weighed heavy on my mind for many years. I'm not loking for an intellectual battle of who can condensend the other person the most here... please keep that in mind when you post your responses,

Reason I mention it (otherwise I wouldn't bring it up) is that I feel like even I myself have engaged in too many negative war of words lately, and truly hope that many of you will provide personal, insightful, and not intentionally condemning responses toward one another or myself while presenting opinions.

We don't have to agree, but perhaps some standard in not approving of another individuals thoughts should be set early on. I hope this small disclaimer accomplishes that before getting to my actual post.


Two questions with numerous related inquiries.

1. Does god, or the universe look after me? I often feel in life, events, dialogues, and many experiences that I am introduced to ideas or situations to provide me with "exactly" what I need to develop my own understanding of the world. It seems that in hindsight I realize that my own bias opinion sometimes prevents me from being receptive to these moments, but I find that they do occur frequently and often provide insight into the problems I face "today," as if something out there acknowledges my pains or confusion and is trying to help me rise above them.

Also... I feel as if fate or co-incidence guides me from tragedy often, I come so close to it, yet never seem to be consumed by it.

Does god balance my life as such, or is that just a wise mind narrowly evading societies stray bullets? I guess that question is truly deep and will welcome many different thoughts concerning religion, but I spacificly want to know if this following statement/s could be considered true.

God created me as he wanted me to be, and I have since lived my life as he likely intended me to. But, if this is true for myself, then it must be true for all other people in the world. And if it is true... Wouldn't our societies' diversity in opinion merely be a stage to a deeper and more primal understanding of reality? And being we are still here, existing in choas, is it safe to presume that none of us have likely obtained this "all defining" insight?

If an individual were to achieve a clarity in all things, who's to say our own ignorance wouldn't destroy any possibility of providing such a perspective to the world without being tainted by those who choose not to see the potential insights fate tries to provide us with every day?

Wouldn't that imply god equally created just as many counter productive individuals, ultimately hindering mankind's chances of evolving into a more a wise and accomplished race?

I can concede I am ignorant and do not have all the answers in life, I am not always right, and I do not always choose the right paths in life...

But if the people who run society are wrong, and they are unwilling to see that, did god create that reality by presenting the world with that individual? Knowing this would happen...

Or, is he just letting all this crap play out while silently evening the odds because "this is the way it has become," and even if it was man's free will that placed us here, he understands one man does not speek for a race of people.

Does god have sympathy for our society run amuck? And more importantly, would free will really need to be sacrificed for us to become a part of a greater and more stable existence, it seems that god's lack of direct intervention may imply that... but I'm just not sure.

If he cares so much, then why all the foreplay when it comes to us becoming more complete and satisfied in life through random events brought to us by mere coincidence?


Whow... I was really going off with that one.


2. People... Tonight I spent time with a group of individuals I usually never socialize or aquant myself with (I'm picky, even if being picky keeps me at home when I should be "out there" living my life more than I do.)

I listened to many people tonight. The group I found myself with consisted of a couple refusing to commit to one another (even though they exclusively mate with one another 90% of the time), a young girl that is blessed with beauty but not patience, and a very thoughtful woman that has been forced to live in what most of us would call ghetto society.

I realized that many of them were inteligent even if not educated, but were prey to they're emotions, and as a result, often left the statements they made open for much interpretation.

It was amazing to watch two intelligent minds get caught up on something they were angry at, and then find themselves stuck to dwell on a thought that was currently consuming them.

They would both argue valid points, yet somehow not hear a word the other was saying.

Is that ego? Pride? A need to be acknowledged for having a valid opinion?

What causes that? Stupidty? I don't think any of them, save a handful, were stupid... Just confused, consumed, unguided.

What prevents any of us in seeing that and rising above it?

What keeps us all from getting on the same page?

Is our race so diverse and divided that we can't find some standard of truth and a way forward?


A lot of vague if not wide variety of thoughts, I don't expect anyone to respond to all of them, I'm just at a failure to understand why we all can't have a moment of clarity and truly put the pieces together.



Just some thoughts... you may not agree, but I'm curious to see what many of you may think about such things.

protilius,

1. Does god, or the universe look after me?

Go stand in front of a bus as it thunders towards you, and see if god looks after you, or consume a high quantity of a toxic chemical. The will of god is the will of cause and affect, which is indifferent to the suffering and fate of human beings. Moreover, when Jesus was hanging on a cross for speaking the truth to ignorant humans, was god looking after him there? clearly not.

I feel as if fate or co-incidence guides me from tragedy often

Your own intelligence guides you, some people are very poor guides of their life because they have very poor intelligence.

Does god balance my life as such, or is that just a wise mind narrowly evading societies stray bullets?

You balance your own life based on how you define balance for yourself.

Wouldn't that imply god equally created just as many counter productive individuals, ultimately hindering mankind's chances of evolving into a more a wise and accomplished race?

Evolution is imperfect and has no plan, as evolution is not a conscious process, it is an unconscious process, and therefore humans must consciously do the work of evolution with empirical science.

did god create that reality by presenting the world with that individual? Knowing this would happen...

the will of god, which is the will of cause and affect creates all the appearances of imperfection that you see around you. However, humans shouldn't just go with the flow, as we can consciously change the world based on our own values.

Does god have sympathy for our society run amuck?

There is no ‘god’ as such; there is only you and I cooperating together with a certain degree of rationality/irrationality. That is god. And we are born into an indifferent world of cause and affect that doesn’t care about our personal suffering.

What causes that? Stupidty? I don't think any of them, save a handful, were stupid... Just confused, consumed, unguided.

Stupidity and the ego are always travel buddies, and a heated argument with lots of emotion is a movement of ego, a movement of stupidity.

People have a difficult time transcending the ego because the ego unconsciously protects its own existence, and it also has a difficult time seeing that it is an fiction. It is a very difficult predicament to be in: An unstable irrational ego trying to see that it is unstable and irrational. It would be like trying to remove a razor blade from your eye with the very razorblade that is stuck in your eye. It has its challenges.

One brand of enlightenment is discussed here. To get into a more spiritual essence, look into sorcery or shamanism (seers, etc).

Protilius,
"God" is omnipresent consciousness, including what we erroneously and posessively call yours and mine. God's body is the whole cosmos, and we humans, like the stars and galaxies, are body parts, manifest locally on all these varios scales.

So you and I are local manifestations of God, physically, and *identical with God* (as in one Identity in all) as consciousness itself creating our lives locally.

You seem to be caught up in the duality "God out (up) there and us humans down here (me, in here."
Non-dual awareness is awakening into the unity of the One Consciousness in all forms. (see my site, http://www.consciousunity.org)

Note to R.R.: That would be "cause and effect." Affect is emotional valence or mood. (Not that I'm a great speller, but the error here, in context stands out like a sore thumb.)

Ryan Rudolph wrote:protilius,

1. Does god, or the universe look after me?

Go stand in front of a bus as it thunders towards you, and see if god looks after you, or consume a high quantity of a toxic chemical.

This is not a test of God looking after you. It is more a test of whether or not God will counteract your deliberate act of self-destruction. Different.

The will of god is the will of cause and affect,

You will appear wiser if you cease habitually misspelling the word "effect."

which is indifferent to the suffering and fate of human beings. Moreover, when Jesus was hanging on a cross for speaking the truth to ignorant humans, was god looking after him there? clearly not.

Despite your pronouncement this is not a "clearly not." It is possible to imagine scenarios whereby this would be God's will and Jesus' will coinciding. Besides, to begin with, does your example even describe an actual event? We do not know.

mikiel,

do you believe that consciousness is mortal or immortal? or are you uncertain? Meaning do you believe that consciousness somehow survives the death of the material brain? And what empirical evidence do you have to back up either position with absolute certainty?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:mikiel,

do you believe that consciousness is mortal or immortal? or are you uncertain? Meaning do you believe that consciousness somehow survives the death of the material brain? And what empirical evidence do you have to back up either position with absolute certainty?

Ryan, I think you need to work on your presentation. For example, why do you frame the question as though the only two choices for consciousness are mortal (assuming you mean dies with the body) or immortal (lives forever)?

Secondly, establishing anything with absolute certainly requires not empirical evidence, per se, but proof.

Third, regarding what happens to one's consciousness upon death of the body, what sort of evidence -- leading to proof -- do you think is possible for anyone, yourself included, to establish certainty either way? I don't think so.

And what sort of proof do you think is possible to find, to establish with certainty whether or not one's consciousness is immortal? I don't even think logic could help you help you here.

Thus your questioning seems to me incoherent.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:mikiel,

do you believe that consciousness is mortal or immortal? or are you uncertain? Meaning do you believe that consciousness somehow survives the death of the material brain? And what empirical evidence do you have to back up either position with absolute certainty?

What Carl said, for openers.

Yet there is a dimension, known to mystics as gnosis, which is found in the a-priori branch of epistemology, direct knowing by identity-resonance. This is resonance of the part with the whole transcending individual form, realizing the One (omnipresent) Identity. This is not even in the realm of empirical evidence addressed in the a-posteriori branch of epistemology.

In this realm of knowing, I know (without evidence or proof, as above) that Consciousness is eternal... the un-caused Cause of all Creation. It is not dependent on individual forms. It creates them (us) sustains them and dissolves them when their particualr lifespan is over. Yet the materials/energy are not "lost." They just change form. ( This applies alike to humans, stars, galaxies, and the whole cosmos, as it cycles through from the one primordial mass (or the series of consecutive balls of matter at center) into all the diverse cosmos, and back again.
All forms "die"... explode or dissolve back into component elements. Consciousness does not. There is no "my consciousness" or "your consciousness." This is a false concept of boundaries created by ego, the false self, in vain hope of "personal survival."
None of these bodies get out of this alive!
Yet Consciousness Itself *can not die.*

Carl

And what sort of proof do you think is possible to find, to establish with certainty whether or not one's consciousness is immortal? I don't even think logic could help you help you here.

Exactly, which is why I believe the below statement is false. Carl, you are quick to criticize without realizing what I’m up to.

mikiel,

Yet there is a dimension, known to mystics as gnosis, which is found in the a-priori branch of epistemology, direct knowing by identity-resonance. This is resonance of the part with the whole transcending individual form, realizing the One (omnipresent) Identity. This is not even in the realm of empirical evidence addressed in the a-posteriori branch of epistemology.

false. You are talking about interpreting subjective experiences in such a way to conclude that consciousness is immortal. no good. It is too much of a leap of faith in my opinion. Scientific research has demonstrated that when certain areas of the brain are stimulated, the result is euphoric transcendent experiences, that patients deem as spiritual and profound. Gnosis proves crap, other than the fact that you seem to fear death.

In this realm of knowing, I know (without evidence or proof, as above) that Consciousness is eternal... the un-caused Cause of all Creation. It is not dependent on individual forms. It creates them (us) sustains them and dissolves them when their particualr lifespan is over. Yet the materials/energy are not "lost." They just change form. ( This applies alike to humans, stars, galaxies, and the whole cosmos, as it cycles through from the one primordial mass (or the series of consecutive balls of matter at center) into all the diverse cosmos, and back again.
All forms "die"... explode or dissolve back into component elements. Consciousness does not. There is no "my consciousness" or "your consciousness." This is a false concept of boundaries created by ego, the false self, in vain hope of "personal survival."
None of these bodies get out of this alive!
Yet Consciousness Itself *can not die.*

I agree that there is only one rational consciousness, but we have no way of knowing with certainty whether or not that consciousness is mortal or immortal. It is very possible that consciousness is extinguished with the death of the material brain. There is actually a 50% chance that this is the case, according to my estimates. I fundamentally disagree with your position that subjective experiences can lead one to believe that consciousness is immortal. Subjective experiences are totally dependent on what is happening in the material brain. One could actually make the argument that transcendent experiences have served a certain evolutionary purpose in the brains of developing humans. Moreover, the military leader or the village mystic who could invoke group transcendent experiences during calamities would actually increase the livelihood of the community surviving the challenge. Whether it be floods, fires, droughts, or attacks from other tribes. You seem to have bought into the above system of knowledge, which guarantees your own immortality, but it is simply knowledge that you believe, Moreover, perhaps your ego is simply clinging to this as a means to appease an unconscious fear of death that you have.

Here's my reasoning - just think about how shitty life is - we are involuntarily born into a life of toil, labor and physical suffering, and we are born with imperfect bodies and minds, we have these contradictory animal urges impulses and desires, and most of us die before we can resolve any of the mess, which is our consciousness. It is just humanities luck that the material brain is also mortal, it would be the final nail in the coffin, the fact that no deeper metaphysical realities exist. Consciousness could be regarded as a fragile candle light in this universe. A candle light, which barely shines, and is easily blown out by causal factors. If I was you, I'd get really used to the idea of lights out permanently at death because an afterlife seems too good to be true given what we were born into.

Believing with confidence in the certainty of an afterlife is a lot like the child who faithfully believes in existence of Disney world characters, and dreams to visit them someday. However, when he finally meets them, they turn out to be child molesters dressed in Mickey and Goofy customs. Big let down. And I think it would be a similar let down if you feel yourself dying as an old man, and you’re prepared to be absorbed into some deeper metaphysical realm, when suddenly something doesn’t feel right, suddenly, it feels as though your brain and body is shutting down permanently, it feels as though the brain is dying, and consciousness is going with it. It could come as quite the shock if you are not ready for it, if you are hoping for eternity, and you get nothing.

Thus a perfect Buddha is supposed to have the lights out at death.

What happened to this post it was a pretty big post. Did Kevin delete it accidentally?

Anyhow reproducing:
#1)

Here's my reasoning - just think about how shitty life is - we are involuntarily born into a life of toil, labor and physical suffering, and we are born with imperfect bodies and minds, we have these contradictory animal urges impulses and desires, and most of us die before we can resolve any of the mess, which is our consciousness.

#2)

If I was you, I'd get really used to the idea of lights out permanently at death because an afterlife seems too good to be true given what we were born into.

Given #1) isn't the prospect of lights out much better than an afterlife.

In fact most of Buddhism and Hinduism is based on closing out the karmic account, otherwise there would be an afterlife, keeping one perennially in the cycle of #1). Thus a perfect Buddha is supposed to have lights out at death.

That's a sad vision, maestro, one perfects oneself so it can be lights out? No wonder I've never been particularly attracted to Buddhism. That's really their belief system?

Carl G wrote:That's a sad vision, maestro, one perfects oneself so it can be lights out? No wonder I've never been particularly attracted to Buddhism. That's really their belief system?

Yes that is the common belief system in all of the various forms of the Buddhist religion, otherwise you will be born and reborn in the six realms.

It is different in esoteric Buddhism and new age Buddhism, where the six realms are sometimes explained away as psychic states.

See this:
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art34036.asp

That you find it sad shows the power of conditioning, in the east people are conditioned to believe that life is suffering, and to have lights out at death, or merging in the void/universe is the highest attainment possible. While in the west the people find the prospect of no afterlife to be frightening.

Thus a perfect Buddha is supposed to have the lights out at death

A Buddha doesn't escape death, but he escapes life.

maestro wrote:

Carl G wrote:That's a sad vision, maestro, one perfects oneself so it can be lights out? No wonder I've never been particularly attracted to Buddhism. That's really their belief system?

Yes that is the common belief system anyways, otherwise you will be born and reborn in the six realms.

Of course it is different in esoteric Buddhism and new age Buddhism, where the six realms are sometimes explained away as psychic states.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art34036.asp

I'm pretty sure that the Buddha, when referring to realms, was originally referring to psychic states. It was only later that the weak minded and cowardly took all of Buddha's metaphors literally.

It's interesting.....people who have the courage to kill the afterlife, are often those most capable of protecting future lives on this planet. So in that sense, there is an afterlife for the atheist. On the other hand, those who cling hopefully to a literal transmigration are usually too self absorbed (deluded) and weak to have an impact which echoes with much distinction and virility.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Buddha, when referring to realms, was originally referring to psychic states. It was only later that the weak minded and cowardly took all of Buddha's metaphors literally.

I am not too sure, Buddha was simply taking the cosmology of his time and fitting in his philosophy therein. Birth rebirth and death was uncontested truth in Hinduism (as perhaps a belief in atoms or evolution is in our times). So Buddha might have actually believed in this.

maestro wrote: in the east people are conditioned to believe that life is suffering, and to have lights out at death, or merging in the void/universe is the highest attainment possible. While in the west the people find the prospect of no afterlife to be frightening.

I doubt there are many in the east who eschew the afterlife. I think most of them believe in (hope for) reincarnation.

maestro wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Buddha, when referring to realms, was originally referring to psychic states. It was only later that the weak minded and cowardly took all of Buddha's metaphors literally.

I am not too sure, Buddha was simply taking the cosmology of his time and fitting in his philosophy therein. Birth rebirth and death was uncontested truth in Hinduism (as perhaps a belief in atoms or evolution is in our times). So Buddha might have actually believed in this.

Consider his original teachings,

Therefore, O bhikkhus,
as there is no self, there is no transmigration of a self;
but there are deeds and the continued effect of deeds.
There is rebirth of karma; there is reincarnation.
This rebirth, this reincarnation, this reappearance of the conformations
is continuous and depends on the law of cause and effect.
Just as a seal is impressed upon the wax
reproducing the configurations of its device,
so the thoughts of men, their characters, their aspirations
are impressed upon others in continuous transference
and continue their karma,
and good deeds will continue in blessings
while bad deeds will continue in curses.

There is no entity here that migrates,
no self is transferred from one place to another;
but here is a voice uttered here and the echo of it comes back.
The teacher pronounces a stanza and the disciple
who attentively listens to his teacher's instruction, repeats the stanza.
Thus the stanza is reborn in the mind of the disciple.

Buddha made it very clear about the notion of immortality he valued.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I doubt there are many in the east who eschew the afterlife. I think most of them believe in (hope for) reincarnation.

Hell no, I have a few Indian friends and they inform me, that (for example their religious grandparents or parents believe that) to be not born is the highest attainment possible, which one would be glad to attain even by fluke, however it is beyond the reach of mere worldly men and they are resigned to be reborn in the universal lottery.

RR,
Your post was a rambling and pathetic testimony to what you *personally* believe as a philosophy of life.
It is totally inappropriate for you to project it on the "me" (mikiel) in your mind... which (whom) is not in Truth a separate identity.

"I" got over "myself" in '94. My testimony... quite available here... is true.
m:

"Yet there is a dimension, known to mystics as gnosis, which is found in the a-priori branch of epistemology, direct knowing by identity-resonance. This is resonance of the part with the whole transcending individual form, realizing the One (omnipresent) Identity. This is not even in the realm of empirical evidence addressed in the a-posteriori branch of epistemology."

RR:
"false. You are talking about interpreting subjective experiences in such a way to conclude that consciousness is immortal. no good. It is too much of a leap of faith in my opinion. Scientific research has demonstrated that when certain areas of the brain are stimulated, the result is euphoric transcendent experiences, that patients deem as spiritual and profound. Gnosis proves crap, other than the fact that you seem to fear death. "

I told the truth of an awakened gnostic. You, an egocentric fool ,immediately labeled it "false." How could you know the truth of it without experiencing it? Yet how could you presume to label that which you have not experienced as "false", based only on your ignorance of gnosis?

Then you employ the epitome of egoic arrogance to invoke science (empirical study of brain physiology in this case) to "prove" that "gnosis is crap.") ... no clue to the whole field of a-priori epistemology.

Scientific research has demonstrated that when certain areas of the brain are stimulated, the result is euphoric transcendent experiences, that patients deem as spiritual and profound. Gnosis proves crap, other than the fact that you seem to fear death. "

So direct subjective experience is "crap" and the materialistic disclaimer is that patients are merely experiencing "euphoric transcendence"... a label disclaiming its validity as true gnosis.
(on the grounds that gnosis is crap and the materialistic explanations of brain functions as mere neural epiphenomena is the "real" explanation.
Honestly, you are a quite stupid materialistic "flatlander." (Look it up under 'integral philosophy' if unfamiliar with the term.)

BTW, I do not fear death. Upon what did you base this totally unfounded statement? "I" (as you thing of your "I') died in '94, experienced the actual death of the false (ego) "self." What wa left was the universal Self... Same One in all of us.
Get over it, dude. You are wasting my time.
(Joke. Not really! Lots of my time is spent... as my calling,addressing the misconceptions of egocentrics like you.)

Cory Duchesne wrote:Buddha made it very clear about the notion of immortality he valued.

The difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that Hinduism posits a soul which is the owner of the bank account in the universal bank of Karma, while Buddhism denies the soul (since a permanent soul does not fit their impermanence philosophy). However Buddhism still talks of rebirth of the deluded soul or ego, and it being subjected to various hardships and indignations, the soul dissolves upon death once it realizes its own nature (of conditional arising).

In fact the Buddha is supposed to have remembered his previous births and in the canon there are tales about his previous births see this one for instance.

Once upon a time, the Buddha came into the world as a Monkey King and ruled over 80,000 monkeys. He was very tall and strong and had wisdom like the sun. In his kingdom on the banks of the Ganges River, there was a mango tree as big as the moon. The 80,000 monkeys jumped from branch to branch chattering and eating the lovely fruit that was big and sweet and delicious. Sometimes a ripe mango fell into the river.

One day, the Monkey King strolled downstream and came upon a river palace where a human king lived. "Soon danger will come if the mangoes float downstream," he told the monkeys. "Pick all the mangoes and flowers on the trees and take them deep into the forest."

But one mango, hidden by a bird's nest, was left unseen by the 80,000 monkeys. When it was large and ripe, it fell into the river and floated downstream where the human king was bathing.

The human king, who was very curious, tasted the beautiful mango. "This is delicious!' he exclaimed. "I must have more. Servants, find all the mangoes and bring them to me at once!"

Deep in the forest, the servants found hundreds of mango trees. In the trees were the 80,000 monkeys. When the human king heard about the monkeys, he was very angry, "The monkeys are eating my mangoes. Kill them all!" he ordered his archers.

"Very well," said the archers and chased the monkeys to the edge of the forest where they came to a deep cliff. There was no way for the monkeys to escape. Shivering with fright, they ran to the Monkey King asked, "What shall we do?"

"Don't be afraid. I will save you," said their king. Quickly, he stretched his huge body as far as possible and made a bridge over the cliff to a bamboo grove on the other side.

"Come monkeys, run across my back to the bamboo grove," he called. And so the 80,000 monkeys escaped.

The human king watched all that happened. He was amazed, "This Monkey King has risked his life to save his whole troop! And all I'm doing is being selfish. I have learned a great lesson." Then he called to his archers, "Put down your bows. It isn't right to kill this King of Monkeys."

Forgetting about the mangoes, the human king went back to his palace by the river and ruled kindly and wisely for the rest of his life.

I think the topic of death is an interesting one. And I’m not as certain as the Buddha as far as no transcendence is concerned, as I cannot prove empirically that metaphysical realities do not exist. However, I also cannot prove that they exist either. It is an odd situation to be it, a situation where some of the answers of life are not available.

Protilius asks:

"1. Does god, or the universe look after me? I often feel in life, events, dialogues, and many experiences that I am introduced to ideas or situations to provide me with "exactly" what I need to develop my own understanding of the world. It seems that in hindsight I realize that my own bias opinion sometimes prevents me from being receptive to these moments, but I find that they do occur frequently and often provide insight into the problems I face "today," as if something out there acknowledges my pains or confusion and is trying to help me rise above them."

I think your question is more a statement about what, in your own core, you understand or know to be true.

A notion, a sense, of a God or all-encompassing consciousness that has a role in setting up this platform (life, the kosmos), and of providing guidance through the realm, is certainly not new. Yet, the idea-fact (or mistaken hope) has many different manifestations. But, the main structure of the belief is pretty constant. As the generations develop, as history goes rolling along, the God-idea goes through changes and, in the best cases, refinements.

"Or, is he just letting all this crap play out while silently evening the odds because "this is the way it has become," and even if it was man's free will that placed us here, he understands one man does not speak for a race of people.

"Does god have sympathy for our society run amok? And more importantly, would free will really need to be sacrificed for us to become a part of a greater and more stable existence, it seems that god's lack of direct intervention may imply that... but I'm just not sure."

It sound like you are describing a definition of life, why it is happening, and at the same time asking for an affirmation, or perhaps more information. What is 'God' up to with all this? Where and why is it all taking place? What is the meaning and purpose of it at least in relation to ourselves and of course yourself. If this were the question, there are so many different ways to begin to answer it. One might be: that we appear in a play or a pastime of God. That God plays a sort of game, and through the strange show we witness, provides us with signals, beckonings. If we respond to them, if we respond with an internal shift, we move through the different 'gates' along the road we are traveling. Every religious system is an attempt to frame a definition of why we exist, and to provide idea-tools and activity-tools that facilitate a sort of movement through the world. In Christianity and Judaism, for example, the ethic is very strongly placed on activities, like helping people who are in fixes, who are trapped, who suffer, who have lost hope. In certain branches of Hinduism (the Vishnu-worshipping sects) the idea is more to set up images in your consciousness, images of God that God has a relationship to, and to 'serve' those images, to become identified with them. In a more 'primitive' magic, the idea is to identify specific material things one needs and wants and to apply a 'natural magic' to facilitate the getting of those things: to enjoy a bounty in living.

One possibility, in terms of a definition of the nature of this place, is to think of it as 'theatre', a divine show, the show of life, which is absurd, dangerous, happy, sad, tragic, joyful---all the terms you could apply to it. If one sees oneself as an actor in this show, but with a personality, a role, that is constantly changing (from episode to episode, from life-stage to life-stage, from incarnation to incarnation), one has only to identify one's role, and to play it out as best one can.

Another is a place, an 'imaginary realm, where nothing is as it seems and most everything is a sort of trap set for you (Maya), and that you have to get very clever indeed in order to avoid the pitfalls...that cause you to sink deeper and deeper in the entrapment. Perhaps you need special knowledge, special insight, into the nature of the realm so as to avoid pifalls...and move through the mine-field.

There are many different ways to frame perception. Of course, one possibility is to frame it, say, like Ryan frames it. It is still a frame, it is still a story, it will naturally involve an ethic (an ethic will emit from it). Is such a frame 'true'?

These are of course the Grand Questions...

maestro wrote:In fact the Buddha is supposed to have remembered his previous births and in the canon there are tales about his previous births

These are not meant to be taken literally. They are in fact only stories about cause and effect, out of which we are supposed to extract meaning.

One of Aesop's fables is about a Tortoise and the Hare who race each other. But it's not meant to be understood that this race literally happened. The Buddha's stories of past lives are like that.

mikiel,

the whole field of a-priori epistemology.

This field proves nothing besides the fact that the brain creates experiences that it deems as special, magical and supernatural, and then interprets meaning from them. It is a lot like a computer operating system malfunctioning from a virus and causing the computer to behave in strange ways.

BTW, I do not fear death

If you do not fear death, explain why you cling on to a belief that guarantees an afterlife. You see, I believe that you probably experienced some intense subjective states, but the belief that follows is what I disagree with. Gnosis is egotistical word in my opinion, why not use the term chemically induced altered state, it doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it? That is why I'm very weary of mystical language, it is usually quite egotistical.

you are a quite stupid materialistic "flatlander."

I rather hope so, as a flatlander sounds like a much more fashionable title than the sky-flyer that you appear to be….

I prefer to be grounded in reality on earth, rather than soaring in fantasies of the heavens somewhere.

"I" (as you thing of your "I') died in '94, experienced the actual death of the false (ego) "self." What wa left was the universal Self... Same One in all of us.
Get over it, dude. You are wasting my time.
(Joke. Not really! Lots of my time is spent... as my calling,addressing the misconceptions of egocentrics like you.)

oh come on., you don’t actually believe that do you? Did you take pictures of your awakening and put them in a photo album for your family to see too? An awakening happens over the course of ones entire life, it happens in stages, in steps of advancement. Sometimes it takes years for individuals to get over certain mental blocks in their understanding. The overcoming of imperfection takes much longer than one grandiose moment in your imagination.

You are not a perfect being, as there are holes in your reasoning everywhere. The whole idea of an awakening in a short period of time is a fraud created by many gurus to make money off gullible people, it is a scam. And all the experience “awakening” can do is incite envy in inferior minds, and cause worship, it is a very evil idea, created by an ego that wants power.

m:
"I" (as you think of your "I') died in '94, experienced the actual death of the false (ego) "self." What was left was the universal Self... Same One in all of us.
R.R.:
"oh come on., you don’t actually believe that do you?

There can be no communication after one denies the validity of another's true testimony, even denying that I "believe" ehat I am saying.
BTW, gnosis ain't about "belief."
Here's my page, "Beyond Belief":
http://www.consciousunity.org/Beyond%20Belief.HTML