It's like a circus over here - send in the clowns. How can you believe that Fred Lenz was "the last incarnation of Vishnu" unless someone told you that or you read it in a book? Is it because Rama told you that he was Lord Vishnu? Apparently you read a Buddhist scripture and now you believe in Buddhas and that they are enlightened? Go figure.
You're not even making any sense today! Is there any "truth" to your belief in Fred Lenz, Vishnu and Buddha? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Aha. FINALLY, JR is able to admit what he believes, and why. I'll riff on it below. From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 11:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Could it be...Satan? Xeno, I'm a truth seeker. Based on what you say here, John, I would suggest that you are NOT a "truth seeker." What you seek is someone TELLING YOU what is "truth." That is why you rely on books from the past and what you were told by teachers like Maharishi. Non sequitur. There was a valid reason why the rishis and prophets of the past have written books like the Bible, BGita and Srimad Bhagavatam. IMO, they were conveying their realization of truth through their meditation and contemplation. THIS is what I have been trying to get you to admit, and to realize about yourself, John. You believe that certain books are "true" or "truth" for no other reason than that you were TOLD they are. Non sequitur. Similarly, you admit to a belief that "truth" can be based on the "realization of truth through meditation and contemplation." Bzzzzzzt. Science tells us that NO SUCH THING EXISTS. Humans have a near-infinite ability to deceive themselves. We can't even be sure that people are reporting the "truth" when they give first-person testimony in court about things that they see in real life. Based on studies that have shown how easy it is to "implant" false memories or "lead" witnesses into changing their testimony, there have been serious discussions in the legal system about abandoning the entire concept of first-person testimony, because it cannot be relied upon. Non sequitur. Now look at what you believe. Given the fact that science tells us we cannot rely on the truth or accuracy of things we perceive in the real world with our senses, you're trying to tell us that we should believe in things we "see" only in our heads? Bzzzzzzt...does not compute. Yes, *of course* people can have "visions." But they are NOT "truth." They're just something you see -- or, more likely imagine -- in your head. So any of these "seeings" that form the basis of "scriptures" are -- according to science -- not to be believed. Non sequitur. The other assumption you seem to make is that when a person *claims* to have had a subjective experience that they interpret as enlightenment or holy revelation, we should believe them. Bzzzzzt. If spending a few years on Fairfield Life and having encountered bozos like Ravi, Jim, Robin and others should have taught you anything, it would be that people have a near-infinite ability to fool themselves (and others) about their supposed states of consciousness. What makes any of the so-called enlightened "seers" or authors of these "scriptures" you rely on any different? Why couldn't *they* have been fooling themselves just as much as the pretenders to enlightenment on FFL were able to? Non sequitur. Some stories in the Bible, like the Garden of Eden story, can be understood as a metaphor. But there is a message in that story in many levels that the reader and the seeker need to unravel and understand to appreciate its wisdom. "Need to?" Bzzzzzt. People who enjoy that sort of thing "can" read these made-up stories as metaphor if they'd like, and they "can" try to convince themselves and others that they have learned something from them. But "need to?" That's just religious fanaticism. No one "needs" to read any of these fairy tales to become "wise." They can do that just by living, interacting with other human beings, and paying attention. Non sequitur. The basic essence of the message is the importance of human consciousness and its capacity to cognize the truth. Here is the point we differ on, John. Human consciousness does NOT have the ability to "cognize truth." That is something that religious fanatics choose to believe because it makes them feel more important. But science tells us that no such ability exists. The "message" you cling to is a LIE. Non sequitur. This can be done with human reason and the element of faith. Without them, one cannot perceive the truth that the rishis and prophets were trying to convey. Do you even *know* that reason and faith are different things, and the polar opposite of one another? Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth." Non sequitur. As it says on the home page of the forum you are writing to: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : JR might be a literalist. I certainly am not. I have encountered Christian groups that interpret scripture metaphorically and speak of consciousness rather than entities such as Moses or Jesus who are going to save your ass if you believe in them. Some people just seem to be unable to interpret things metaphorically. Perhaps they could try writing poetry. To me a spiritual system is a collection of carefully crafted lies that will, if practised properly, eventually allow you to see they are lies. And then you are free of them, and the tendency to fall back into belief. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jason_green2@...> wrote : Semitic religions, that is Judeo-christian-muslim worldview is basicaly literalist. Most of what is written there are interperted literaly. Eastern religions, that is Hindu-Buddhist philosophy is more metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic and figurative. This leads to confusion and misunderstanding, when both groups read each other's literature. Could it be JohnR is a literalist? --- <anartaxius@...> wrote : Religious scriptures can contain some mention of facts, but usually they seem to be on the order of say the mention of the Kennedy assassination in the Illuminatus! triology of Shea & Wilson, where there is quite a lot of mention of historical people in an otherwise unbelievable story. There is more historical information available for Pontius Pilate than for Jesus. JR's view of the world does not seem to rest much on factual data, and seems to lack an underpinning of basic logic. Religious scriptures and apologetics basically just want to convince you of something, and there is nothing I see wrong in that, but buyer beware. Our societies tend not to give us the tools to think critically. The Netherlands has been a place where free thinking has had a better hold than in most, but I am ignorant of how well that is holding up currently. --- <turquoiseb@...> wrote : I am aware of the problems with establishing the historical existence of many religious figures, Xeno, but that isn't what I was getting at with JR. I have noticed in him a tendency that I doubt he is aware of -- or, if he is, he probably sees nothing wrong with. When claiming to believe in the existence of Krishna or similar figures from religious myth here in the past, he has cited as proof "scriptures" such as the Gita. Bzzzzzzt. Thanks for playing, but no win. Religious scriptures are NOT factual, no matter how many people believe they are. Scholars often don't even know the *century* many of them were written in, much less who wrote them. Best to consider them creative fiction written with the intent to inspire IMO. The only *other* mechanism by which JR can claim to have "done research" on the question of whether someone like Krishna existed in real life or not is "seeing" -- meaning some kind of subjective realization or vision or intuition. While I admit that such things exist -- subjectively -- I do NOT admit that any of these "seeings" have anything to do with fact. If they did, more people who claim to be able to see the future would be millionaires. :-) I was just hoping to see JR try to actually posit and then defend some mechanism by which he thinks "proof" could be offered of Krishna's existence. If he actually tried, it might wake him up to the fact that the only reason he *does* believe in such silliness is that someone he holds as an "authority" said so. In other words, his only "proof" is the word "Maharishisez." Now, as for Schroedinger's cat, I for one have no problem with someone being both alive and dead at the same time. Just look at Keith Richards -- the guy has looked like death on a stick since the 1960s, yet he still manages to tour and play some pretty good guitar. If that's not an example of Schroedinger's paradox, I don't know what is. :-) As for the answer to "What's in the big pink box, man?" that is as much of a koan as it was when posed in the movie "Buckaroo Banzai." Me, I kinda doubt it's enlightenment. :-)
