Theists and atheists: Reluctant bedfellows

Signal

yes

The hierarchy is more about what platform of intelligence we act according to default.

For instance a person may hear that smoking causes cancer and stop smoking?
Another may stop after seeing a relative acquire cancer through smoking.
Another may stop after acquiring the cancer.
And someone may require a pallitive carer to place cigarettes in their tracheotomy opening.

IOW it indicates more where "some one is at" in relation to a given act, rather than whether one should avoid them or whatever.

In the analogy of the chariot as the body, the mind is seen as the reins (of the 5 senses) and the intelligence (often portrayed as blindfolded in conditioned life) is the driver.

To the degree that you are not completely purified, karma is going to take you for a ride.

Understanding this point is probably a good foundation for "spiritual intelligence"

even the BG (2.41)too

In short perfection is connected to teleology or purpose (or "why" questions). Empiricism has an infatuation with "what" questions, so it lacks the necessary tools of navigation to broach the idea.

It becomes difficult to approach ideas of perfection (such as BG 2.57, 4.19, 6.47, .... and most of all 9.2) without working out of some framework of teleology.

I think a big missing component from many people's attempt at theistic learning is the "practical". IOW they may hear, but it doesn't appear "do-able" (for a variety of reasons) and thus the whole learning process is curtailed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, but my point is that a person's level of intelligence directly ties in with the social implications this has for the person.

It's hard for some of us to understand that a person can be still influenced by karma while on the spiritual path.

I'll have to study that.

Agreed. It is said sometimes that spiritual life begins with the recognition that we are not our bodies. While still identifying with the (this) body even philosophically, performing any austerities that don't seem connected to bodily welfare doesn't seem doable.




You didn't say anything to my point on justification, where I said -

Justification is a big issue for me. I feel that unless I defeat all counterarguments (from other people or from my mind), I am not entitled to act in a particular way; and if I do act that way, but without defeating all those counterarguments, then I get a lot of criticism (both from people and my mind).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And where did stars come from?

Why is it necessary or worth to find out the why and how of things?

Why couldn't saying 'it's a higher power' be understanding?

It 'has been proven false'? So the how and why of things are already known, and there is nothing further to search for?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hydrogen collecting into gravitational wells after it was created from matter condensing after the big bang.

Now your turn. Where did god come from?

It allows one to understand and work with them.

Because it doesn't actually provide any answers. It just shifts the question.

 

Just keep telling yourself that in prison.

With your skill at getting points I wouldn't suggest bending over often.

nope.

Read the definition again.

 

swarm

or alternatively, you can tell yourself that in the padded cell

ad homs are generally an indication that the opposition wants to concede

meh

yet for some reason we require a flashdrive (as opposed to a single a4 sheet) to record all the details that determine the principle of right from wrong in law courts

well I assume that you don't celebrate the birthdays of your next door neighbor's children with such vigor as your own, particularly if they are not in good standing with you
:shrug:

 

Signal

Inasmuch as social implications follow action and action follows intelligence. Consider how an unintelligent person can remain unnoticed for as long as they remain silent (IOW if you stop the action of being unintelligent the social implications remain unfostered) .

Sometimes there is mention of a green mango. IOW the only thing that separates it from ripeness is time (and trying to eat it prematurely simply results in sourness)

Or the comparison of a sick person in a hospital ward compared to an equally sick person on the street - The difference in situations (or how they apply themselves) makes for a marked distinction, even though they may be qualitatively identical.

Its arguable that even coming to the point of understanding that one is not one's body requires an element of successful application.

yes

lots of quotes are there about the the benefits of being armed with knowledge.

The three different level of practitioners (kannistha, madhyama and uttama) reflect the different degree they are armed (and hence they all have different scopes of action)

 

I thought you had a long time ago.

I celebrate with the same vigor all I celebrate. Why would you do less?

 

Except when being silent is the mark of lesser intelligence ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know - and the metaphor is sometimes extend to beating the mango to make it softer, and painting it to make it look ripe. Eating an unripe and too boot beaten and painted mango is probably even worse than just eating an unripe one.

Okay. I think this is a difference that isn't readily acknowledged, though.

I suppose part of knowledge is also having some faith that having knowledge will somehow help, be beneficial, as opposed to merely being a philosophical burden.



Said earlier:

Interesting. I would sooner think in terms of 'sufficient' and 'necessary' knowledge, rather than 'perfect'.

That 'water' consists of two molecules of H and one molecule of O might not be necessary to know to relieve thirst.
But knowing whether a water is snowmelt, rainwater, seawater or well water is important for attempting to relieve thirst. Drinking snowmelt or seawater typically actually makes you thirsty.

 

because my posts, like yours, are rich with ad homs when the going gets tough, eh?

if you have a strict policy of tabooing favoritism, you certainly must be possessed of exceptional resources to participate in the birthdays of all the children within a 50km radius of your abode.

 

Signal

Its amazing how far a person can get simply by keeping their mouth shut however

therefore you find that naturally ripened mangoes command a greater unit price than artificially ripened ones

especially in a world where everyone thinks they are "perfectly ok"

well sure

personally I have very good reasons for not being familiar with postage stamps pre WW1

basically the ideas of "perfection" in knowledge are tied to the degree that it is holistic

For instance if you take BG 9.2 as the last word in the perfection of knowledge, you have the means to determine how even the knowledge that water quenches one's thirst is not completely perfect.

 

That is a very direct hint, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, it does feel fake somehow to get ahead in life without saying much - it feels as if others or luck are to take the credit, not you, which then makes you feel powerless.
While if you do speak up and talk about all sorts of things, then it feels more like you 'own' your success (and failure), as you are 'supposed to'.

Austerity in speech seems like cheating somehow. 'I don't say much, so it's hard to tell what my intellectual abilities are. If people knew how stupid I am, they would never be so nice to me. Therefore their niceness is fake, as it is a result of my cheating them.'

I guess this is why it feels like taking a considerable risk in being less talkative - as being less talkative is an attempt to trust others that their reponses to us are not controlled by us, and that we don't have to take full responsibility for how others treat us.

Agreed. For example, unless all the elements in the sentence 'Water quenches your thirst' are addressed down to their relation to the First Cause, knowing that 'Water quenches your thirst' doesn't seem really satisfactory.

 

This wouldn't let me be:

According to NoD 9, if I am understanding it correctly, if a person fully implemented their stance on a/theism, there still would be argument.

 

I disagree, but I see what he means. Its pointless to discuss religion/theism with an atheist.

صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لاَ يَرْجِعُونَ (2:18

 

That quote is more pertinent to madhyama's. (BTW don't forget for the sake of preaching or re-establishing religiousity in general in the world, the uttama comes down to the platform of madhayama). Generally if a person blasphemes in the presence of an uttama, they get destroyed quite quickly.

http://vedabase.net/cc/antya/3/213/en

 

If there was an issue that as so obvious, indubitable and essential to reality, how far would you be prepared to argue about it? (in the sense that if a person doesn't "get it", there must be some other issue at play)

Take for example the case of people working with patients who have severe mental illnesses. Even if a client has the most whacked out grip on reality, the doctor rarely addresses the issue with direct argument.

 

thats to bad really

hence why I'm for Humanity , and throwing out ALL these religions

 

what that says to me is;
if i can convince someone that i am right,then that would justify me being right,if i am right,then i am not worthless..
to put it another way
i am not worthless.i have to be right,i must convince others i am right to make me feel worth..
or IOW
if you believe as i believe then that justifies what i believe..

how it applies to me is;
i don't care if you believe as i believe (its cool if you do though)..
my worth is not dependent on your opinion of me (positive feedback helps

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
lets discuss the differences between our beliefs not make it about who is right and who is wrong..

 

humanity is what is wrong with religion..to many ppl makeing it about themselves and their own worth.