For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So basically what happens to a theist when they become an ex-theist atheist.Walker wrote:Awakening is not an act of addition. It is a description of loss. Renunciation is not a doing, it is a description of what can no longer be done leading up to awakening. To awaken is to lose the comfort found in delusion. Awakening happens in a moment though the drum-roll may be extended.
To simply lose something is not to awaken. You may lose your car keys when you’re drunk, but that doesn’t equate to awakening. You may lose a concept or two, may lose an “ism” or an “eist,” maybe even lose a notion or two, but that doesn’t equate to awakening. In fact, awakening is non-conceptual. Awakening can even happen while sleeping in bed at night, or during an afternoon nap.Arising_uk wrote:So basically what happens to a theist when they become an ex-theist atheist.Walker wrote:Awakening is not an act of addition. It is a description of loss. Renunciation is not a doing, it is a description of what can no longer be done leading up to awakening. To awaken is to lose the comfort found in delusion. Awakening happens in a moment though the drum-roll may be extended.
Just as the man who became Buddha sat down and said I will not move until I awaken and thus discovered the motive-force of the universe … when without choice the mind cannot stray attention from the same awaken-or-die mentality.Arising_uk wrote:"To awaken is to lose the comfort found in delusion"?
Nothing you said before doesn't accurately describe the ex-theists awakening into atheism.
No he didn't, he sat down to discover why suffering and how to avoid it.Walker wrote:Just as the man who became Buddha sat down and said I will not move until I awaken and thus discovered the motive-force of the universe … when without choice the mind cannot stray attention from the same awaken-or-die mentality. ...
What do you mean by 'attention'?In that sense one is uncontrollably possessed until one awakens and is free from that undeviating focus. And since ego is no longer in control it has no choice but to tag along and discover that the body is merely a conduit for the energy that fuels consciousness, consciousness undistracted from attention due to renunciation dropping off all those chunks of ignorance, and the ego witnesses that it was in fact limiting the live-wire's capacity.
Your Buddha has a very narrow range of interest. Such a limited Buddha, and indeed, such a limited man before Buddha.Arising_uk wrote:No he didn't, he sat down to discover why suffering and how to avoid it.Walker wrote:Just as the man who became Buddha sat down and said I will not move until I awaken and thus discovered the motive-force of the universe … when without choice the mind cannot stray attention from the same awaken-or-die mentality. ...What do you mean by 'attention'?In that sense one is uncontrollably possessed until one awakens and is free from that undeviating focus. And since ego is no longer in control it has no choice but to tag along and discover that the body is merely a conduit for the energy that fuels consciousness, consciousness undistracted from attention due to renunciation dropping off all those chunks of ignorance, and the ego witnesses that it was in fact limiting the live-wire's capacity.
Well he was only The Buddha so I suppose he couldn't live up to the theist's fantasies.Walker wrote:Your Buddha has a very narrow range of interest. Such a limited Buddha, and indeed, such a limited man before Buddha.
And this is what you wish to lose? "The act or power of carefully thinking about, listening to, or watching someone or something", I can well believe it.
Let’s put it this way. Some effort and time has gone into what has been written. Your responses so far could have been made by a robot. So what is appropriate now, in civil discourse on a philosophy forum, is that you display some evidence that you have considered what is. And what is, is what has been written.Arising_uk wrote:Well he was only The Buddha so I suppose he couldn't live up to the theist's fantasies.Walker wrote:Your Buddha has a very narrow range of interest. Such a limited Buddha, and indeed, such a limited man before Buddha.And this is what you wish to lose? "The act or power of carefully thinking about, listening to, or watching someone or something", I can well believe it.
And yet many of the more complex animals never kill each other and only kill others for food?Nick_A wrote:Respect for life and the love of life itself is not an animal emotion. ...
This is anthropomorphism at its worst. Dogs are exactly condition by pack life and if your dog is bad with other dogs then you are not the pack leader you should be.A dog may have unconditional love for its owner but not for other dogs. ...
I take it you're a vegetarian?Respect for life is a higher emotional awareness that higher consciousness opens us to. ...
Because the scientists tell us we depend upon it?It isn't the result of science but rather the result of higher consciousness influencing our psyche making it more human. Without awakening to respect for life, why would anyone care about the food chain?
What's one of these when its at home?Nick_A wrote:... our collective consciousness that want to remain asleep. ...
For someone who wishes to have a 'higher consciousness' you have a very low attitude to others.Consider the following story. Most want to remain chickens unaware of their conscious potential to be eagles. So people die as chickens. ...
Do you consider Psychology a science, if so you are wrong.Nick_A wrote:... Some are drawn to this struggle for reasons science cannot explain. ...
When?Quite true. Only a minority “make it.” However good seed asleep in the body of the Christ in whtever for it takes is not lost. It can be planted again.
But not to actually 'know thyself' then?There is no reason to leave everything and go into the mountains. A person has to become free of foolish attachments and the need to express all sorts of negativity which blocks out the light. Does one really have to go to the mountains to struggle with foolish attachments and the pleasures of negative emotion which deny consciousness? A person can appear to be living a normal life to you but their inner life and inner freedom is something without practice is impossible to understand. As I’ve said I am also in Plato’s cave. My advantage is in admitting it and opening to what is meant by “know thyself.”
Take the Buddhist path and suffer not.Doubt is normal. If one doesn’t doubt they are usually just expressing blind belief and escapism. However there are some “old souls” so to speak who have experienced enough in their lives both current and previous so as to be able to believe. I still suffer doubt.
Unassisted flight? Being taller? Running faster than Bolt?Mark 9: 23 Jesus said to him, “If you can believe,[a] all things are possible to him who believes.”
No it doesn't. Find a good NLP trainer and achieve your goals. Or at least clearly identify them, what you need to do to achieve them and how you would recognize when you've got them.Nick_A wrote:...It takes real need and courage to leave the chicken coup.
But I was responding to what you said?Walker wrote:Let’s put it this way. Some effort and time has gone into what has been written. ...
No they couldn't.Your responses so far could have been made by a robot. ...
And what has been written was by you and as such I responded to it. And still nothing you said could not be applied to the awakened ex-theist.So what is appropriate now, in civil discourse on a philosophy forum, is that you display some evidence that you have considered what is. And what is, is what has been written.
Easy, there's two people and only one is still suffering. Otherwise what you say is a logical contradiction and as such is always false.To focus your attention, you may want to ask yourself how suffering can simulataneously exist and end, because that is the way of things.
Ever thought of trying to speak plain English?And though the evidence of your consideration may not be that specific topic, it will be evident if it's there.
Neither do you apparently?Nick_A wrote:Arising, you simply don't know what awakenng means. ...
Might be for you but I have a whole suite of tools to examine the external world, not least being reason, logic and philosophy.You deny it with such dedication that you will only ever experience it by accident. Awakening refers to a change in states of being. What we normally call being awake is simply conditioned responses to external stimuli. ...
You talk much so give me an example of how you use this conscious self-awareness in the world?Sometimes we are aware of it but usually we just react on automatic pilot. Conscious self awareness is not necessary for our everyday lives. We are primarily governed by habits.
But only 33 did out of the 1000 who died there and that was because dying was not preferable to living.A person may have been conditioned to believe Jim Jones is God and joined a cult to worship this god. Then for some reason the cult loses its hold and a person escapes to freedom. ...
Just your opinion. For the atheist they have awakened to a whole new universe of opportunity and choice.Later, depending upon circumstances they may avoid even the thought of God and become an atheist. The person didn't awaken. ...
No he didn't. He saw suffering and provided a philosophy to avoid it.For some reason new influences entered their psyche and their conditioning changed. The same conditioned level just adapted. Adaptation isn't awakening. Awakening refers to the conscious experience of levels of reality of which we are a part but asleep to. Buddha saw past lives from higher consciousness experiencing the lower in the flow of time we call human existence. This is an experience normal for a change in the state of being that includes conscious self awareness: the conscious higher experiencing the mechanical lower.