GENIUS FORUMS

David wrote:

For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

Actually the truth of this is probably unknown, and perhaps is unknowable. For instance, there may be multiple dimensions in which a person -- or rather parts of a person -- lives simultaneously. Or, if there is literal reincarnation of a person's essence, that person would live multiple lives concurrently across the spectrum of time -- time being the illusion that it is.

Brokenhead wrote:If the turnips were invisible, how would you know they were small? Eh? I've got you, there.

Revelation from God, would be the standard religious answer.

That's the answer Christians give when you ask them how they know that their God is good rather than evil. "He says that he is good."

A more truthful answer from them would have been, "I had no intention to create an evil one."

Carl wrote:

David wrote:For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

Actually the truth of this is probably unknown, and perhaps is unknowable.

You would say the same thing about the fact that a square is not a circle.

A square is not a circle by definition. It's not something that can be doubted or questioned.

Likewise, a person can't be in two places at once, because of the way we define a human being.

It's clear that you haven't come to terms with what it means to be a human being, since you show here that you have no clear idea of what a human being is. I suspect that you are happy to exist in that unknowing.

Kevin Solway wrote:

David wrote:For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

Actually the truth of this is probably unknown, and perhaps is unknowable.

You would say the same thing about the fact that a square is not a circle.

A square is not a circle by definition. It's not something that can be doubted or questioned.

Likewise, a person can't be in two places at once, because of the way we define a human being.

It's clear that you haven't come to terms with what it means to be a human being, since you show here that you have no clear idea of what a human being is. I suspect that you are happy to exist in that unknowing.

Haha! A person can't be in two places because of the way you define a human being? That's rich!

I haven't come to terms of what it means to be a human being? Haha! Since I have no clear idea of what a human being is? What a laugh! Do you? You suspect I am happy to exist in that unknowing? Give me a fucking break, Kevin. Really. You've amazed me!

A few random thoughts:

- Since all there is is my mind, I will have all the thoughts there ever were, ever are , or ever will be in my mind, right now.

- What does philosophy really have to do with the understanding I'm seaking?

- Something without a face, something before thinking tells me what a thing is. I don't first measure relative to others and rank it to figure out what it is. It is what it is first, then I rank and categorize to explain the experience. Is this true for everything, or have I mis-generalized? And what is this faceless thing?

- In another thread I think it was Shah who said, "I like the drunk Dan more." My comment on that is, "Probably because he stimulates you more."

- It doesn't bother me that I don't know for a fact if "full enlightenment" exists, because its reasonable to take time, explore, and find out.

- Finally, my mission statement as of today (adapted from Think and Grow Rich):

By the 15th of May, 2012, I will have attained a maturity and reason so advanced and unique that none, living or dead, will be be able to match it. I will be The Best.

In return for being The Best Reasoner, I will give a better quality effort for its attainment than any before me by consistently using my clearest and brightest energy, and pouring it into the examination of reality.

I believe I will be a sage of the highest rank. My faith is so strong that I can now see my enlightenment before my eyes. I can touch it with my hands. It is now awaiting transfer to me at the time, and in proportion to the energy I intend to give in return for it. I am awaiting a plan by which to attain this enlightenment, and I will follow that plan when it is received.

- I'll race any of you there, but just so you know I'm probably gonna win. :)

Carl G wrote:A person can't be in two places because of the way you define a human being? That's rich!

If we're going to talk about human beings, then we need to define what a human being is. If we don't, then it's like talking about God without defining what it is we're talking about.

We could define a "human being" to be several different places at once if we wanted to; for example, a "human being" could indeed be on Mars, on Earth, and in another galaxy, all at the same time, provided that "human being" was defined to be something like space - which exists in all three places at once. But that's not how we normally use the term "human being".

Rather, we use the term "human being" to indicate a thing which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics).

I haven't come to terms of what it means to be a human being? Haha! Since I have no clear idea of what a human being is? What a laugh! Do you? You suspect I am happy to exist in that unknowing? Give me a fucking break, Kevin. Really. You've amazed me!

Actually I mistook your post as one written by brokenhead, in which case I imbued your words with more delusion than they probably had. I interpret brokenhead's words as simply trying to weazle out of any kind of logic at all.

In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time. If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.

skipair wrote:- I'll race any of you there, but just so you know I'm probably gonna win. :)

Im already there ;-)...

If you 'think' you still have further to go, then you do.

amandaxxx

David Quinn wrote:You may laugh, but your own religious views are just as comical. A religious person is essentially a buffoon who believes all other religious beliefs are laughably insane, apart from his own.

You have not understood my views, but that's unsurprising, as you have never tried to, being as convinced as you are that you are some king in a palace, laughing at paupers outside the gates.

Most "religious" people I have met do not think all other religious beliefs are laughably insane. In fact, I can't think of any who does think that way, apart from commenting on Scientology, perhaps. To make a statement such as you do here makes you rather buffoonish. IMO, of course.

DQ wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

Okay. Let's be blunt. What fucking evidence would you consider "credible"?

As far as spiritual and philosophic truths are concerned, the only credible evidence is logical evidence which is intrinsically impossible to deny.

You are maddeningly repetitive.

You are saying the only "credible" evidence is logical evidence. You go on to say "which is impossible to deny." I already knew that you consider "logical" evidence to be impossible to deny. But you never say what would constitute such evidence.

I'll type slowly so you can understand. Read it slowly. It is not possible to logically prove that anyone's conception of god is true. I am asking - and you are a bright guy, so you know what I am asking - what experiential evidence would you consider "credible"? If a 100-foot tall apparition of Jesus Christ manifested to you and zapped your house to ashes because you are such an infidel, would that be "credible" evidence of anything?

You must be aware that not a single person who believes that God exists - a personal God, which as you know does not mean a God who exists just for and is tailored just to an individual person - believes it because he has deduced it logically. Some combination, which differs from person to person, of experiential evidence and mentation is involved.

So I am asking, what would constitue an experience that would make you reconsider your entrenched, and quite frankly, mummified, views? If nothing would, then if I were you, I would at least reconsider what you could possibly consider buffoonish.

Just so we're clear, David, I am not trying to get you to believe anything, but rather asking you what it would take to get you to believe something, anything.

It would serve you right if your personal God - the 100-foot one that appears to you - turns out to be Moe Howard instead of Jesus Christ. "Parlour tricks?!! Why you imbecile, I'll buffoon you!"

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You may laugh, but your own religious views are just as comical. A religious person is essentially a buffoon who believes all other religious beliefs are laughably insane, apart from his own.

You have not understood my views, but that's unsurprising, as you have never tried to, being as convinced as you are that you are some king in a palace, laughing at paupers outside the gates.

Most "religious" people I have met do not think all other religious beliefs are laughably insane. In fact, I can't think of any who does think that way, apart from commenting on Scientology, perhaps. To make a statement such as you do here makes you rather buffoonish. IMO, of course.

Then it means that their minds are so addled with their own irrational beliefs that they can no longer distinguish sanity from madness, or else they have a conscience about it and realize that it is inappropriate to laugh at another's madness when the same madness exists inside themselves.

Of course, most of the mainstream religions are all but identical in that they believe in a vague, invisible, humanity-loving higher power of some kind. So in that sense you are right. The religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, are different in outer forms only. At their core, they are all the same religion with different garbs on.

Being all but identical, they can get on rather well and laugh together at the lunatic fringe cults like Scientology.

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:

brokenhead wrote: Okay. Let's be blunt. What fucking evidence would you consider "credible"?

As far as spiritual and philosophic truths are concerned, the only credible evidence is logical evidence which is intrinsically impossible to deny.

You are maddeningly repetitive.

You are saying the only "credible" evidence is logical evidence. You go on to say "which is impossible to deny." I already knew that you consider "logical" evidence to be impossible to deny. But you never say what would constitute such evidence.

Any logical truth which is necessarily true in all possible worlds, such that it can never be falsified under any circumstances, would qualify. A=A is an example. "All things lack inherent existence", is another.

I'll type slowly so you can understand. Read it slowly. It is not possible to logically prove that anyone's conception of god is true.

What if one conceives of God as being Nature - i.e. utterly everything?

I am asking - and you are a bright guy, so you know what I am asking - what experiential evidence would you consider "credible"? If a 100-foot tall apparition of Jesus Christ manifested to you and zapped your house to ashes because you are such an infidel, would that be "credible" evidence of anything?

It would be credible evidence that I was experiencing something unusual, but that's about it. The experience wouldn't resolve for me, for example, that the apparition wasn't the devil in disguise, or an alien from another planet. Nor could I be sure that the experience wasn't an hallucination of some kind. Etc, etc.

But more importantly, such an experience wouldn't even begin to touch on the deeper realms of understanding which I am fortunate enough to have access to.

You must be aware that not a single person who believes that God exists - a personal God, which as you know does not mean a God who exists just for and is tailored just to an individual person - believes it because he has deduced it logically.

I'm fully aware of that. That is precisely the problem - that in the act of affirming the existence of such a God, logic is abandoned.

Some combination, which differs from person to person, of experiential evidence and mentation is involved.

Suspect experiental evidence. Revelatory evidence is alway suspect in nature, no matter how real it appears to the person in the throes of it.

So I am asking, what would constitue an experience that would make you reconsider your entrenched, and quite frankly, mummified, views? If nothing would, then if I were you, I would at least reconsider what you could possibly consider buffoonish.

There is nothing that could occur which could change my core perception of the nature of Reality. That is what having a transcendent, timeless, endlessly deep understanding means. One has gone to the heart of all things, and thus beyond all the effects and implications of experiential phenomena.

-

skipair wrote:- Finally, my mission statement as of today (adapted from Think and Grow Rich):

By the 15th of May, 2012, I will have attained a maturity and reason so advanced and unique that none, living or dead, will be be able to match it. I will be The Best.

In return for being The Best Reasoner, I will give a better quality effort for its attainment than any before me by consistently using my clearest and brightest energy, and pouring it into the examination of reality.

I believe I will be a sage of the highest rank. My faith is so strong that I can now see my enlightenment before my eyes. I can touch it with my hands. It is now awaiting transfer to me at the time, and in proportion to the energy I intend to give in return for it. I am awaiting a plan by which to attain this enlightenment, and I will follow that plan when it is received.

Wow! That is what I call ambition! That's the sort of commitment and faith a person needs to succeed at the highest level. Even to formulate the vision in one's mind requires courage.

I can't wait to see it unfold. All the very best to you. May the cards fall in your favour.

-

BTW, what is the significance of 15th May 2012? Is that when you turn 30?

elderwoodxxx wrote:

skipair wrote:- I'll race any of you there, but just so you know I'm probably gonna win. :)

Im already there ;-)...

I'm glad you winked.

If you 'think' you still have further to go, then you do.

amandaxxx

Very true. On the other hand, if you don't think you have further to go, then you're either a perfect Buddha with limitless wisdom, or a very deluded individual lost in a fantasy world.

-

David Quinn wrote: brokenhead:
You are saying the only "credible" evidence is logical evidence. You go on to say "which is impossible to deny." I already knew that you consider "logical" evidence to be impossible to deny. But you never say what would constitute such evidence.

Any logical truth which is necessarily true in all possible worlds, such that it can never be falsified under any circumstances, would qualify. A=A is an example. "All things lack inherent existence", is another.

brokenhead wrote:You must be aware that not a single person who believes that God exists - a personal God, which as you know does not mean a God who exists just for and is tailored just to an individual person - believes it because he has deduced it logically. Some combination, which differs from person to person, of experiential evidence and mentation is involved.

Actually I believe because i deduced it. I have belief through understanding and logical reason..but to explain that here would take a while.. just thought you might like to know that.



amandaxxx

David Quinn wrote:Very true. On the other hand, if you don't think you have further to go, then you're either a perfect Buddha with limitless wisdom, or a very deluded individual lost in a fantasy world.

definately not the latter. Wisdom is heard by those who can hear it...

amandaxxx

Brokenhead: Most "religious" people I have met do not think all other religious beliefs are laughably insane. In fact, I can't think of any who does think that way, apart from commenting on Scientology, perhaps. To make a statement such as you do here makes you rather buffoonish. IMO, of course.

David Quinn: Then it means that their minds are so addled with their own irrational beliefs that they can no longer distinguish sanity from madness, or else they have a conscience about it and realize that it is inappropriate to laugh at another's madness when the same madness exists inside themselves.

For a genius, you sometimes betray a curious lack of understanding. The "explanation" you give in this quote is oddly rancorous. Are you having a crappy day or something?

Of course, most of the mainstream religions are all but identical in that they believe in a vague, invisible, humanity-loving higher power of some kind. So in that sense you are right. The religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, are different in outer forms only. At their core, they are all the same religion with different garbs on.

Why do you think that is, David?

brokenhead wrote:

Brokenhead: Most "religious" people I have met do not think all other religious beliefs are laughably insane. In fact, I can't think of any who does think that way, apart from commenting on Scientology, perhaps. To make a statement such as you do here makes you rather buffoonish. IMO, of course.

David Quinn: Then it means that their minds are so addled with their own irrational beliefs that they can no longer distinguish sanity from madness, or else they have a conscience about it and realize that it is inappropriate to laugh at another's madness when the same madness exists inside themselves.

For a genius, you sometimes betray a curious lack of understanding. The "explanation" you give in this quote is oddly rancorous. Are you having a crappy day or something?

Just cruising along as normal.

brokenhead wrote:

Of course, most of the mainstream religions are all but identical in that they believe in a vague, invisible, humanity-loving higher power of some kind. So in that sense you are right. The religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, are different in outer forms only. At their core, they are all the same religion with different garbs on.

Why do you think that is, David?

Most people have the same values and share the same kind of egotism.

-

Actually I believe because i deduced it. I have belief through understanding and logical reason..but to explain that here would take a while..

Well, Amanda, you have never been averse to long posts.

BH

You must be aware that not a single person who believes that God exists - a personal God, which as you know does not mean a God who exists just for and is tailored just to an individual person - believes it because he has deduced it logically.

Not a personal God, no, but the existence of God is a point of logic.

David,

It never has any objective existence, regardless of whether it is seen or not. Yet it is absolutely real because, like all things, it is a direct manifestation of reality.

What does it mean, to have an objective existence? Why are we going in circles?

Consciousness is like anything else. It is a localized phenomenon that appears when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then, like a cloud disappearing in the midday sun, dissolves when it is time to do so.

If, as we once agreed, the entire universe is the body of God, then there is no reason that body cannot have a mind, which is aware of all.

Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaninfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task.

I respect your admission, but yours is then a profoundly incomplete philosophy, and it is incongruent for you to mock others who may think that consciousness is primary, or what have you. When people ask what caused the big bang, they are told the very thing you have just said. Asking what could have been the cause and source of such a stupendous output of energy is meanngless, because before the Big Bang there wasn't time or space, so the question can't be asked. How paltry! And so unsatisfying.
We have no way of resolving the matter you say, yet you don't believe in a consciousness outside of meat brains, and also don't believe matter or forms can appear without consciousness.

Actually I believe because i deduced it. I have belief through understanding and logical reason..but to explain that here would take a while..

Well, Amanda, you have never been averse to long posts.

BH

You must be aware that not a single person who believes that God exists - a personal God, which as you know does not mean a God who exists just for and is tailored just to an individual person - believes it because he has deduced it logically.

Not a personal God, no, but the existence of God is a point of logic.

David,

It never has any objective existence, regardless of whether it is seen or not. Yet it is absolutely real because, like all things, it is a direct manifestation of reality.

What does it mean, to have an objective existence? Why are we going in circles?

Consciousness is like anything else. It is a localized phenomenon that appears when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then, like a cloud disappearing in the midday sun, dissolves when it is time to do so.

If, as we once agreed, the entire universe is the body of God, then there is no reason that body cannot have a mind, which is aware of all.

Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaninfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task.

I respect your admission, but yours is then a profoundly incomplete philosophy, and it is incongruent for you to mock others who may think that consciousness is primary, or what have you. When people ask what caused the big bang, they are told the very thing you have just said. Asking what could have been the cause and source of such a stupendous output of energy is meanngless, because before the Big Bang there wasn't time or space, so the question can't be asked. How paltry! And so unsatisfying.
We have no way of resolving the matter you say, yet you don't believe in a consciousness outside of meat brains, and also don't believe matter or forms can appear without consciousness.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Carl G wrote:A person can't be in two places because of the way you define a human being? That's rich!

If we're going to talk about human beings, then we need to define what a human being is. If we don't, then it's like talking about God without defining what it is we're talking about.

We could define a "human being" to be several different places at once if we wanted to; for example, a "human being" could indeed be on Mars, on Earth, and in another galaxy, all at the same time, provided that "human being" was defined to be something like space - which exists in all three places at once. But that's not how we normally use the term "human being".

Rather, we use the term "human being" to indicate a thing which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics).

Ah, then "we" are not attempting to discern with complete accuracy -- I wonder if that is even possible -- what a human being actually is. "We" are then, for purposes of argument, defining human in some sort of limited way.

I haven't come to terms of what it means to be a human being? Haha! Since I have no clear idea of what a human being is? What a laugh! Do you? You suspect I am happy to exist in that unknowing? Give me a fucking break, Kevin. Really. You've amazed me!

Actually I mistook your post as one written by brokenhead, in which case I imbued your words with more delusion than they probably had. I interpret brokenhead's words as simply trying to weazle out of any kind of logic at all.

You imbued. Heh, you are human.

In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time.

I don't see this as a necessarily logical statement. I don't see how we could know this.

If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.

Again, I don't see this as being logically and provably true, except maybe by our own, self-limiting definition.

Carl G wrote:

Rather, we use the term "human being" to indicate a thing which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics).

Ah, then "we" are not attempting to discern with complete accuracy -- I wonder if that is even possible -- what a human being actually is. "We" are then, for purposes of argument, defining human in some sort of limited way.

Certainly we are. Things don't exist independently of how we perceive them.

A "human being" is whatever we perceive to be a human being, at any moment in time.

In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time.

I don't see this as a necessarily logical statement. I don't see how we could know this.

Consciousness is the process of making duality. It is the process of dividing reality into parts, into "self" and "other", and into "past" and "present", and into "here" and "there".

If you take these things away from consciousness, then consciousness no longer exists.

The idea of having two experiences simultaneously is a contradiction in terms, since "experience" is whatever we are experiencing right now. It simply doesn't mean anything to have more than one experience in any given moment.

It would be like saying that I can have two selves, which is like saying that 1 = 2, which is just plain illogic.

If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.

Again, I don't see this as being logically and provably true, except maybe by our own, self-limiting definition.

Our definitions, and the boundaries we draw, are inherent in the reality we experience.

Philosophaster wrote:From the "Beyond God and Evil" thread:

David Quinn wrote:Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

I suppose one might ask the question "Does there exist anything that isn't part of the world of appearances (which may or may not be hallucinatory)?"

Or you might take another route and boil it down to this question: "Can you ever be certain that your mind is working logically?" After all, plenty of insane people believe that they are being perfectly logical -- so how can you be sure that you aren't one of the crazy ones? And if you think you can be certain of that, why do you think so?

:-)

Great observation...

Its also the reason everyone thought Matrix was such a cool concept... No one could disprove that we weren't already in one.

Some one once told me an interesting story with a theme.

There was a man in a psych ward recieving an evaluation from one of the local Dr.s He was viably insain, had problems with communication, observation, and was unable to function like a 'normal" human being.

After a long series of questions and tests, the Dr finally asked the man if he had any questions he would like to ask him.

The man looked up at the Dr. suddenly very coherent and aware of his surroundings. "Why yes Dr.,. I do have a question. If the world were full of people like me, and you were sitting in this chair, who would be the crazy one then?"


It brings me back to the idea that accepted truth and perspective is usually based on the most popular opinion in the room, even if not actual truth, people will see it as a given and move through life with a consequently bias understanding of the world they live in.

Right or wrong... It matters not if they're reasoning was flawed, nor will most people ever go back to re-evaluate most of they're opinions until provided with a reason to do so.


Great men (not to be confused with good or intelligent men) often never ask themselves if what they think or do is right... And they surely don't ask other people (it would seed doubt in other's perception of you)... They just know they are right in they're hearts, and it is all the truth they will ever need.

And no... that was not an invitation to claim I think great men can't be good or intelligent. (Although nice guys do often finish last.)


Personally, I think there is no way any of us can ever know if our logic is flawed... If we knew it was flawed, we would likely adjust our reasoning. But instead, most of us are left to merely ask the question, and ponder the answer to no real progress in our line of thought.

This question will only seed doubt.

People with doubt in their hearts often do not go as far in life as those without doubt.

Trust your senses... its all any of us can truly do.

Having the insight to question your own logic on occasion is very wise indeed, but it can also be counter productive in the long run of things. To present the thought that anyones logic could be flawed only sabatages the potential progress that could have been made while you were being a worry-wart.

I guess in the end, you just have to hope you aren't a crazy man surrounded by sane people when you present ideas or observations that don't agree with the popular opinion.

A lot of people thought Columbus's dream of the new world was crazy... Great opinions and revelations have often been crushed by societies' ignorance throughout history... But in the end, even if burned for it, many of those ideas and opinions were indeed far from flawed.

It seems to me, a lot of popular opinions in society eventually get disproved...

Its "not" having the ability to re-evaluate our conclusions and perspectives that makes any of our logical processes flawed. So yes... actually questioning yourself on occasion can be good for you too.

I suppose it all boils down to how you want to look at this question.

Would you rather know that you are always right, even if not true, and possibly define yourself as a leader of others by doing so? Or would you rather always consider the possibility that you could be wrong, allowing doubt to linger in your mind as you formulate conclusions on the world, ultimately making you a wiser person with less confidence in what you say and do?

Would you rather be a wise guru or respected leader...? (and I only say leader because it is a proven fact that normal people often cling to those with more confidence in what they say and do. You don't have to be right, you just have to convince others that you are, and they will love you for it.)

Of course you don't have to fall into either of those categories... and some of the things I've said are obviously debatable, but I do believe that in the end, you just have to have faith in what you know in your heart and what your senses tell you.

If you don't have faith in that... then indeed... your logic may in fact be flawed.

protilius wrote:Personally, I think there is no way any of us can ever know if our logic is flawed...

Perhaps that opinion is itself flawed....

People with doubt in their hearts often do not go as far in life as those without doubt.

Depends on what you mean by going far in life I suppose. Doubt can be productive and powerful, it can open up possibilities that would not otherwise be apparent.

Having the insight to question your own logic on occasion is very wise indeed, but it can also be counter productive in the long run of things. To present the thought that anyones logic could be flawed only sabatages the potential progress that could have been made while you were being a worry-wart.

Or it could also prevent the lack of progress that springs from using flawed logic.

When the separate Self, which knows reality as separate and composed of seperate elements is let go of, transcended, there is no confusing knowledge but only Pure Awareness.

A knower of Brahman or Self as Shankara explains is a commentator..

Rangaramanuja adds, " From this knowing comes the attainment of immortality, while not knowing of it leads [one back] to samsara..

To know your Self, the Universal Self is to understand completely.

'I am' is heard where 'I am' is known..and perceived.

All religions stem from the same roots of all that IS.

We are ALL ONE.

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:All religions stem from the same roots of all that IS.

Even Scientology?

Probably in some ways they take things and change them.. but as I am not in full posession of their beliefs i cannot therefore be acurate in my understanding of it...I would have to look into it.

Amandaxxx

So maybe not "all religions" then afterall. That seems kinda prejudiced and lacking tolerance.

It sure does, Jason.

I know a good deal about Scientology, firsthand (though anything Xenu-related is definitely secondhand knowledge).

In that light, I'm willing to take Amanda up on the question of whether Scientology, like orthodox religions, "stems from the same roots of all that IS" in order to clarify what she means by it!