The danger in identification with a belief system.

[metwinn]

The bible and other religious books make next to no sense and have fairly consistent contradictory statements throughout when read by the materialist. The materialist fails to see that the paradigm that he/ she has been operating under is nothing more than a belief system that he/ she likes to hold as ultimate truth. To a materialist the lack of evidence for something is equated with non-existence. However, when you step outside this paradigm you can ask yourself the question of: where is the evidence that something can only be true if there is evidence? Why can it not be that some things are only verifiable through intuition and awareness of the thing itself, through a direct understanding of the matter, not necessarily an intellectual one. The idea that something can only be true if comprehensible with the human mind and can be explained using what you call logic and reason, is an idea is that you merely assumed. We need to start questioning our own views before we start attacking these religious books, and by questioning I don't mean questioning through our own paradigm but instead begin to question these things epistemologically.

A lot of the confusion surrounding these religious texts only exists because most readers are completely unaware of the grip that their current belief system has on them. Greater study into these books is required before we start attacking them. A shift in paradigm is needed. You can do all the research you want but if you are unable to step outside of your own belief system and look at these things from a new perspective, without any preconceived notions of what makes a thing true and what doesn't make a thing true and actually study these systems themselves its pretty much as good as useless. Paradigms themselves need to be studied before the content inside the paradigm is argued against. Who are we to question others beliefs if we fail to look far enough into the belief systems that surround them. This is not a problem of what is true or false, but more a question of what makes something true or false and why this is the case. Then and only then can we begin to answer such questions. How can we ever expect to agree on so called "objective truths" if we never ask these deeply epistemological questions such as: what actually makes an objective truth true? It seems whenever such a question arises it's met with: "because my belief system says so" and it says this without actually explaining its belief system and without explaining the validity of the paradigm itself.

[robdl]

Questions, even deeper epistemological questions, can be a trick of the mind to perpetuate itself.  Questions perpetuate the "questioner" and the "questioner" perpetuates questions.  The questions and the questioner are of one and the same movement. 

So belief systems are certainly dangerous, as any belief is a movement of thought-fear/thought seeking security/permanence in an abstraction. A belief is a movement away from what-is.  It's thought in escape/seek mode, and thought thrives on this escaping/seeking action.

But (epistemological) questions of the intellect, too, are equally dangerous, as they nourish the movement of thought-self.  Questions arise out of knowledge frameworks/memory, and so where questions are asserted, knowledge (i.e. the past) is being perpetuated/invoked.   Thought uses questions/philosophical problems to perpetuate its own movement/perpetuate the past.

There is thinking about questions/problems and there is insight into the whole nature of thinking/the movement of thought-self; and the former will never be the means to appreciate the latter.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

9 minutes ago, robdl said:

Questions, even deeper epistemological questions, can be a trick of the mind to perpetuate itself.  Questions perpetuate the "questioner" and the "questioner" perpetuates questions.  The questions and the questioner are of one and the same movement. 

So belief systems are certainly dangerous, as any belief is a movement of thought-fear/thought seeking security/permanence in an abstraction. A belief is a movement away from what-is.  It's thought in escape/seek mode, and thought thrives on this escaping/seeking action.

But (epistemological) questions of the intellect, too, are equally dangerous, as they nourish the movement of thought-self.  Questions arise out of knowledge frameworks/memory, and so where questions are asserted, knowledge (i.e. the past) is being perpetuated/invoked.   Thought uses questions/philosophical problems to perpetuate its own movement/perpetuate the past.

 

There’s that self feeding loop ⭕️

Well said friend. Excellently put indeed. 

13 minutes ago, robdl said:

There is thinking about questions/problems and there is insight into the whole nature of thinking/the movement of thought-self; and the former will never be the means to appreciate the latter.

 

Holistic insight. Intelligence sees the whole. The intellect sees in fragments-parts. 

@robdl??

[robdl]

15 minutes ago, Feel Good said:

@robdl

The I cannot get rid of the I using itself? 

Only "holistic" understanding is enough?

There's an inherent contradiction in thought using thought to end thought.  Thought can "think" it can achieve that, but it will only be thought's self-deception.   Thought is partial, limited and can't see the whole.  Holistic understanding means that the total thought-self movement/loop is observed.   To not observe from within the loop, which is to be caught in it, but to see the loop itself. Observation free of the influence of the "me."

Or as @Faceless puts it so eloquently:

Quote

Holistic insight. Intelligence sees the whole. The intellect sees in fragments-parts.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, robdl said:

There's an inherent contradiction in thought using thought to end thought.  Thought can "think" it can achieve that, but it will only be thought's self-deception.   Thought is partial, limited and can't see the whole.  Holistic understanding means that the total thought-self movement/loop is observed.   To not observe from within the loop, which is to be caught in it, but to see the loop itself.

Indeed robdl

The only way to see the whole of ⭕️, is to step out of the loop itself, so to speak. 

Which means freedom without all the inherent implications of that loop. 

 

[Nahm]

@metwinn Ya. You’re on the right track, keep rockin. Follow it through to what are all beliefs? What is validity, really?

[Nahm]

@Feel Good There is as much of a point in tying your shoes as saving the world. 

[Faceless]

17 minutes ago, Feel Good said:

So what happens when freedom is obtained? 

Is Freedom an object to attain within the field of time?

Time being a movement of will-volition-desire. 

Freedom is timeless, is it not? 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

@Feel Good

Then all the implications of time ceases to manifest and influence action. So action is no longer incomplete. Action is then complete, whole, no longer fragmented, mechanical, which is the cessation of fear-time as the i ends.

In this the movement as time,(psychological becoming), no longer perpetuates it’s own movement as (experience, knowledge, memory)...this is explained in the thread I posted earlier. The veil that blankets BE-ING. 

This dualistic movement of the i, (Identification-desire), no longer fuels its own fire. The complulsive self feeding loop is cut off from its supply, (recognition, registration, identification through memory. Thought functions when necessary for practical purposes. But when there is no need for thought to function it simply remains dormant by default. 

Then perhaps comes into being (WHAT IS), (THE HAPPENING), (HEADLESSNESS).

Living as an art. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Faceless