Various plant extractions (lophoro williamsii and others)

No. King James version is the one I am familiar with. It would be good to compare it to a modern (competent) translation from the Greek. Too many translators embellish ancient Greek so it sounds more modern to our ear. I prefer a raw, literal translation. Ancient Greek was a much simpler language than modern English, and a literal translation will show a lot more word repetition, for example, as the Greeks did not have a lot of synonyms adopted from other languages as English does.

I asked, Sep 26, 2006, 12:48 PM' Culture, if you are an atheist, please define atheism for me. Culture answered At last! Thanks, Culture, for being an atheist with courage enough to define what it means to be one. Feel free to flesh out more of what it is you believe, and why. Keep in mind that monotheism does not say, "There are gods..." It says that there is only one god, God. What do you say to this?

I presume that, by now, you have figured out that I, too, strongly feel that traditional theism is on the wrong track. However, because I am not sure what atheism is, and because it is based on a negativity, I am not attracted to atheism.

I am also willing to accept that most theists believe that what they say IS true. In other words, most theists are not frauds. I know that I tried not to be at least, when I was a "semi-theist?" and looking for some kind of evidence about "God?"

It now annoys me quite a bit when theists, without one shred of evidence, speak of "God" as if he is a superman kind of person, a "he" who "in the beginning" created all that is, who willed and wills, who spoke and speaks, saw and sees, heard and hears, protected and protects us, knows all things--past, present and future--directed and directs and who does this that and the other thing, and will in the future. All we need to do is pray, and obey and HE will take care of the rest. In a way, I only wish life was as easy as that.

THEISTS, ARE YOU THERE?
Culture, it would be interesting to know: Do we have any truly traditional theists in this forum? If so, it would be interesting to know how they would respond to your questions, and mine? Let us test the waters. I will begin by asking: Monotheists, do you really believe that God is a person?

Your inquiries might be better suited in another thread, Lindsay, as this one presumes a deeply disturbing connection between Religions and Psychosis.

Trojan, I very much liked your post.

I also wanted to add some personal thoughts on the matter.

First of all, as a psychology major with a great deal of interest in religion and spirtuality (senior year), I have thought about this a great deal. I have always noted the similarities between the words of diagnosed schizophrenics and those of supposedly enlightened individuals. Often these individuals will say and do many of the same things. The main difference lies in their culture, how they are perceived and the methods by which they came to their conclusions. Their educatoin level, socioeconomic status, and ability to articulate their ideas also have an effect. Often I have speculated that schizophrenics may be individuals who have an intense mystical experience and are unable to assimilate this experience into their world view. They are then met by individuals in their environment who tell them that these experiences are invalid, wrong and "pathological."

I also wanted to note that in many of these posts both religion and psychosis have been called irrational and wrong. I am confused by this. Religion is the attempt to answer unanswerable questions. It is often based on real, direct experiences. If not, it is based on imbedded cultural views, learned views or inferences. This is how we learn everything and how we develop any underlying worldview. I find it highly rational, especially when based in direct experience. Psychosis is also based in such experience often, or on certain environmental factors (or genetics). With these factors in place, the activities of these individuals could actually be seen as rational. You just have to taken their worldview and all of the factors into account.

Finally I want to remind people that we don't know what's real. The chair I'm sitting on is just the result of sense data that is being formed in my brain. It doesn't really exist. It seems like a lot of these posts are judging as unreal or irrational things that are just as real or rational (if not more so) than the things we take for granted in everyday life.

One of the advantages that Religion enjoys is that it is - to a point - socially acceptable or, at least, tolerated by society. This, depending on the society.

"Psychotics" have fewer friends.

Further, a "cult" is only a "cult" until it enjoys a large-enough membership.

AB, how does the above interesting argumentum ad hominem fit in with the definition of 'dialogue'?

BTW, I presume that you are aware that the article in Wikipedia is a compilation. I think my contribution was simply to introduce the concept and to point out the history of the word, which is in all the major dicitionaries. Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pneumatology where the historic connection between pneumatology and psychology is mentioned.

At this point I am not advocating any specific doctrine of The Spirt of God, or of spirits, as being universally true; I am simply advocating that the whole phenomenon be studied. If it can be demonstrated that physical reality, materialism, is the only reality, so be it.

Pave, as to your comment, I agree: Freud was right when he described religion as the "universal neurosis" (In his book FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION). Much of it IS neurotic, even psychotic. But even he did not call it a "psychosis". He even agreed that the benevolent kinds of religions did serve the purpose of giving people a kind of sense of security, even of belonging to a heaven bound family. This feeling, he admitted, real or imagined, often prevents people from becoming self-destructive and absolutely psychotic.

Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Some sick religions do act as such. But long before the age of social revolutions were the religionists who gave their lives to end slavery under some kind of opiate? Are the Christian laity and clergy, like the late Bishop Romero, in South America on opiates when they risk their lives, daily, to fight poverty? I await your answers, please.

Doesn't it just boil down to a question of the right number of gods, 0, 1, or many? If you let the number go to infinity, you have pantheism, which is really the same as zero gods, because effectively, god is then smeared out through the universe where it is undistingishable from mass-energy.

Zero gods is the better answer because it meets the test of Occams Razor: it's simpler. Hence, antitheism.

Yes, religion and schizo are both coping mechanisms. More specifically, they are adaptive mechanisms, just like almost everything else in life. Life is adaptive. Either you adapt or suffer pain. But that's about the extent of the similarities between religion and schizo, unless you argue that they both involve falsehoods, which many things do and which is open to debate.

I may have made a similar comment earlier, Lindsay, but I suppose it will bare the repeat.

Those who participate in altruism and "good works" could do the same out of a respect for humanity, the common good, clearly-acceptable Values and because it feels good to do so without any Religious affiliation at all!

This makes the affiliation rather superfluous.

If someone needs the affiliation to either motivate them or justify the behaviours, they ain't participatin' fully.

Superfluous? Is it now? Yes, it is possible to live alone, like Robinson Crusoe. But given the choice, how many of us would be content to live in solitary confinement, or on a desert island, with no kind of affiliation, or association?

What about fellowship? I am part of a fellowship called Pathways. It is much like having a live chatroom. And it does have an online chatroom for affiliates, or associates. If it is neurotic for me to enjoy this fellowship, I choose to be neurotic.

One of my first lessons as a Boy Scout was that it is almost impossible to start a fire with one log, or one lump of coal. We learned that two logs may burn; three logs will burn. Four or more logs and you've got a real fire.

Atheists will probably like the definition of 'theology', which I came across. It is, "an effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms of the not worth knowing." H.L. Mencken

I believe quite strongly there is no god (of the creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent type) because of the problem of evil and lots of other reasons. I doubt the existence of a creator god with no moral aspect because I would expect to see more indication of its existence. I could, of course, be proved wrong on either.

"a difference that makes no difference is no difference"? I think that was Mill. If there is no difference between a fictional God and a God beyond our ability to observe in any way, then a God beyond our ability to observe is a fictional God.

I strongly agree with you. This is why I think of myself as a UNI-theist. In my opinion, GØD IS the ultimate omni.

I yoke with GØD--the goodness, order and design of the universe--with every breath I take. I yoke with GØD as I do with gravity, with space/time and with every thought I think, word I speak and action I take.

God and Science are the same unique human force, both propagate based on belief. Both seek to understand the Universe. I cant say there is no divine presence in the Universe, because something is driving it. Some hold the Universe as finite, which means something is containing it, and that then means there is a system in place larger than the Universe. Kind of makes the definition of Universe unreliable.

As for Evil in the world meaning there is no creator/omnipotent being or whatever, as soon as we come up with the concept of Beauty we have Ugly, as soon as we think something is Good there is automatically Evil.

We need to have polar opposites that are complimentary for reactions to take place. Without it there would be no kinetic energy in the Universe and probably no time either.

I dont believe in Heaven and I dont believe in Hell, except as human constructs. But I do believe in electromagnetism which is reliant on polarity, and I do believe in gravity which is what causes the Universe to form into spherical influences like Stars and planets. These hidden laws are the movements of "God", but belief that they are an anthropomorphic person is ignorance that was and is peddled to the masses.

Psychosis is simply the confusion of reality, and this is down to chemical imbalances and a persons historical life.

Belief is central to both psychosis and religion, only difference is religion can be a good cohesive force within society, although often the opposite is true because it is mixed up in politics.

A lot depends on who throws out the "psychotic" diagnoses - and who is being diagnosed.

Here's what I do find interesting, though.

None of the Major Media outlets are having this discussion!

I mean, nobody interviews the President and says "Sir. About this "Christian" thing. Are you nuts!?"

Beliefs that can't be demonstrated - other than in the behaviour of the Believer - are no more than constructs.

The rub is in the fact that when a lot of people can be brought to the position where they also believe, you gots yourself a dandy little dynamic that can be manipulated like crazy.

It's true! It works! It's in all the papers!

If I were GWB I would respond: "I never answer a question which already contains the answer...BTW, what have you got against nuts? They are tasty, aren't they? And a good source of protein, too."

But seriously, I suspect that many reporters hold back on asking the hard questions because, knowing the power of those they question, they fear the repercussions which could follow. Attacking well-known powerful and public figures is not a safe occupation. Many a brave--or is it foolhardy?--investigative reporter has lost more than his job for trying to uncover the truth.

For example, who, especially a Catholic reporter, would be brave? enough to ask the Pope at a papal audience: Why don't you apologize for claiming that you are infallible, when, in the light of your recent faux pas, obviously you are NOT?

And while you are at it, don't you think it is rather offensive to non-Christians to claim that Christianity is the one and only true religion? Does this not imply that all other religions are false?

Religion and Psychosis are intresting, however the truely magnificent work is done in philosophy, when you are a philosopher you become somewhat immune from being claimed Psychotic because as a Philosopher you have a free license to contimplate anything and everything to your hearts desire whilst still being in the acceptance of society. You are free to play with the bounds of reality as you wish, for society see's you fit to do so when you are a philosopher. I find this most intresting, because most of what many of us do (some of us screw with reality alot) could be seen as psychotic, when it is genuinly scientific. Religion is a philosophy, yet religious people are not philosophical, for they are set to one dogmatic idea and bury their heads in the sand with it. Psychosis is a persons perception of you, nothing more.

Still wrapped up in the personal Lindsey?
And you said you could learn something new..... You have to have the ears to hear and the eyes to see before you can learn anything.

Being co-dependant is not the same as being "Self" absorbed in the God experience. Stable and without the need of others to be an example of stability.

"Let the thieves create an institution and let the teachers walk amongst the world" -Brahmananda-

Those that are making a choice from need create a superfluous/illusionary entity that is the lifeline to their strength, and do not stand as examples of inner stability and strength to serve without the attaching chord that must be plugged into the power supply.
You defended yourself and your choice because you didn't hear what Pave said. You heard what you wanted to hear based on what YOU are all about and the threat you felt against the identity you have of yourself and your choices.

Something that makes this whole idea of the ad hominem and personal attacks such a convenient idea. One can assume they are being attacked by an outside source rather than being in the right place at the right time to actually be a part of creation and learn how to be a part of it rather than a victim to it, which takes the conscious awareness of Being That.
To actually unite with creation and accept and work with it rather than make egoic claims that separate ones self from it, is the difference in the way the ego manipulates its environment to separate God from evil or the anti-God and to "Yoke" with Creation.
It All seems very democratic I suppose to agree to disagree and then to divide and maintain division, but God is not bound by democratic process nor the complaints of the self righteous to change because they don't like feeling or experiencing what they see and feel.

I am this ... I do that ... see my website ... see me ... see what I do ... see what I am...
Personally I think without all the claims you make and wear as a badge, you wouldn't know who you are.
You yoke with everything that is seen as being something you identify with yet you still have not become it, and you won't until you lose the judgment and the attachments.

You can stand outside it, point at it, and say I'm with that....But anyone can make a claim to be something.
What can be known by the "works" of one is not measured by examples of self supported ideals, nor perceived by a mind trapped in illusion of identity.

You can throw as many logs on the fire as you wish, but it only represents by illusion the self projected pieces of the underlying immesurable reality of God that cannot be contained or labeled without limiting ones Self/self and experience, to an idea in and amongst an endless supply of ideas that can never stack up to the reality of the infinite.

Rather than creating God in your image why not let go, and let God. Let go of your concepts and beliefs which are the attachments to the ego so that you can actually hear what is being said by the holy spirit rather than what is being reflected according to your needs in the projections of a limited concept of yourself and the idealization of humanity.

Intresting, you talked alot about definition of the self, now although you said the things that dont define a person, what is your opinion about what does define the self?

The ego defines the Self/self.
There is a saying, "Consciousness recognizes Consciousness"
There are different natural laws that support the levels of conscious awareness as they are described by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutra's.
Each state of consciousness is distinct subjectively and objectively. The inner experience and the metabolic rate are different in Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping and in expanded states beyond waking dreaming and sleeping such as described by Patanjali as awareness of the infinite, perpetual awareness of the infinite, exalted conscious awareness and Unified awareness of the infinite.

For example: the familiar states of measurable conscious activity are waking, sleeping and dreaming.
When the brain is monitored by connecting an EEG to the frontal lobes the physical measurements of brain activity are different in sleeping dreaming and waking activity.
In expanded states of awareness when the awareness includes the absolute, say during meditation, there is a coherence that permeates the first three giving way to a 4th state of consciousness which is awareness of the absolute.
When you expand it permanently into the awareness it stabilizes the subtle coherence in the other states of consciousness without the process of meditation.
As the meditation process continues and the awareness is taken deeper it opens up the awareness to greater perception of the Self/self breaking boundaries and past impressions forming new impressions on the brain of reality, rewriting old and obsolete fear based programs returning the mind to a more innocent state of awareness open to new experience without dragging the past into the present and projecting into the future what the "I am" is.

The idea of innocence is not to be mistaken with stupidity or lack of wisdom.
The typical child is less restricted by useless programs that are maintaining beliefs of what is difficult and not difficult and can absorb complex languages must faster than the typical adult.
Because of the adults programs of itself, it has identified with many ideas and beliefs of what it is and what it is capable of.
The typical approach of the child in innocence is of wonder and an open-ness to learning.
Most Europeans are multilingual just by being in the presence of many different languages yet the typical american adult that has learned only english will struggle as an adult to learn a new language, and many still have a difficult time with english.

Freeing the mind from the internal programs of limitations frees the mind from the identities of the self and so allowing for continual expansion of the self into a state of becoming in the manifest experience but beyond even that in the experience of the absolute.
The mind that does not live in fear is by its nature moving in expanded waves of bliss and does not feel threatened by ideas of fear and expiration. There is no rush to prepare for death and get what you can for each moment is experienced as a child would enjoy play. The mind is fully present.

Ever read the book "A stranger in a strange land"? IF you haven't read it. IF you have then you might know what I am talking about when I say "innocence".
The protagonist would say,"I am only an egg". Very significant really, because he would not settle for being only what he experienced and or the totality of his experiences. His mind being a flowing or fluid mechanism would not stand in any idea of itself for any period of time.
Being fully cognisant of itself it was aware of its being and of its awareness.
The people who experienced him were automatically drawn toward him and his presence because it was perfectly stable in something that lived without fear and exuded pure potential power.

Anyone can idealize themselves and the perfect world but if you could create what you idealize how long would it be before you had a thought that would change your idea and your mind?

Joe, when in addition to a whole pile of AH's, you, speaking subjectively, assure me are you saying that I, metaphorically speaking, do not have eyes and ears? In addition to this is I am "judgmental" and "don't know who you are". If so, how could I, without the basic learning tools, possibly learn anything? You'll just have to give up trying to convert me to a personal God and other theism claims.

BTW, I am sure that Pave will affirm that he and I are congruent about a whole lot of things, and that we have fun disagreeing, agreeably, about things about which we differ.

I'm quite sure you are comfortable with the way you perceive life. That comfort does not suggest an open mind.
What I refer to is the voice of God not Pave's voice.
He posted something very significant and I'm also sure you can agree and disagree comfortably, but, those that hear and see don't seek to find agreement in illusions of disagreement. focusing on surface appearances is what the waking state of reality is based on, what leaves you to identify with your self.


No I didn't say you didn't have (metaphorically) eyes and ears. I did suggest that they are not attuned to a level of awareness that allows you to go beyond your programs of reality which you wrap around yourself in the identity of God and Union.

Most of your attention is on where you are according to the road you've travelled.
With all those pictures you carry in your mind accompanied with the experiences you have had, what you post on this board is mostly reruns of who you think you are, who you associate yourself with, websites of your church, almamater, sources of information, dalogue of your persopnal vacations and victories etc. etc. Pretty much all about you.
Your awareness is dedicated to the picture of yourself and the God you Yoke with, which is just another series of pictures you carry.

There is nothing wrong with that but there is obviously more if you really wanted to see it and hear it.

Joe, you comment There isn't? Then how come you fixate on it? Meanwhile, I am interested in hearing about who you are and what are your interests. At this point I know zero.

Why the silence? Tell us. I assumed that this forum is about communication with one another? You go on I open all my five--or is it six--senses. Tell us more.

Indeed, I would be quickly overwhelmed in a conversation about theology with a theologist; in a conversation about philosophy with a philosopher and in a chat about small-block Chevy hop-ups with a mechanic.

But, I can speak to models and manipulations of subjective experience.

Further, as Science confirms the different levels of consciousness and unconsciousness, the forum opens to the implications.

For example, I am personally more accepting of, say, Lindsay's model of that of a Unitheist because it includes the possibilities and potentials of a vast, hardly-describable Universe. I am less accepting.....No. I reject the model of all organised Religions which insist on a singular explanation for....oh, ..I dunno....uh....everything! and at the exclusion of all other Religions - bottom line. The "tolerance and acceptance of others" is just a political, albeit: moronic manipulation.

Other than the introduction of scientific support - a contemporary dynamic - I have to wonder if sages through the ages have not been keying on a Universality-of-sorts and many levels of consciousness all along.

Only when the "psychotics" got a hold of the messages and twisted them to fit their own geo-political realities of their day, did "Religion" go for a dump.

And in the dumpster it remains.... with all the other toxic waste.

Meanwhile - and this could be an incredible leap of logic, it appears to me for there to be significant movement in the arena, people - before they criticise, malign, slander or attack another's Religion - will have to give up their own!

No you missed the point entirely.


You asked me to teach you something. But you're too defensive and prideful to step outside of your box.


You mean you want me to tell you a story about myself that relates to what you can grasp.
I believe I've left a trail that is easily interpreted and misinterpreted.


Then everything you have said to me is based on an assumption. Now we are getting somewhere.


Open yourself up and hear what is being said. If, This board is about communication, maybe your unable to hear more than what you have determined is communication.
Spiirtually if you are seeking to Yoke with God then you are seeking to yoke with yourself. You can look inward for all the answers and get much more than what is changing in the experiences of personal opinions and the changing values of spiritual sciences.

Let me ask you a question. Is knowledge of reality made up, learned or cognized?
If it is learned then from what authority and where does the knowledge come from?
If the wheel was invented by the discovery of physical properties then was the invention waiting to be manifest from the knowledge discovered? (in which case the knowledge existed before the learning and the discovery) Or did the physical properties of the wheel come about with the invention of the wheel?

If you are opening all senses to the knowledge that already exists then you are saying I am waiting but it isn't available to me because the universe does not give what I want, or I have 5 senses that do not cognize truth and knowledge.
Must man wait for someone or something to come and give knowledge or is it available for the taking?
Is one man more predisposed to discover the reality through congnizing it than another?
Is it the open-ness or innocence of the mind to absorb and the desire to know and create that gives one the ability or is it genetic makeup? Is intelligence inherited or developed in life?
Your own belief is what determines how you absorb the truth.

If someone has it and you don't and you accept that then what you believe has an affect on the way your mind accepts the reality of the universe.
Hypnotists seem to be able to affect the senses and the mind by temporarily bypassing certaiin programs to give one a different experience of themselves and their surroundings with just a suggestion.
How much of who you are has been suggested and what programs have been implemented and ignored due to the suggestions you entertain about yourself?

When you share yourself over and over and over how much programming are you actually reinforcing about who you are and what you are?


Science then becomes the authority for right action and reality of conversation and subject.

Will you wait for science to tell you what is right to feel and follow and ignore all other inspiration?

A gynecologist once told me that a young doctor came up with a way to test all women for the presence of cancer cells that might cause vaginal cancer, to predict it and prevent it before it became too late to treat it.
When he proposed his idea to the scientific community they laughed him off of the podium at the scientific convention.
The young doctors name was Georgios Papanikolaou and his test is now used world wide in the prevention of cervical cancer and is known as the "Pap smear" or "Pap test".

I think that if you need to qualify yourself and the expression of yourself strictly by the authority of the known standards of acceptance or democraticly by majority of thought you may miss what is available in knowledge and wisdom that abounds around you and may limit yourself to scientific or social dogma.

I only offer portions of the scientific model to those who require it. And because science is making inroads into what was only speculation a few decades below.

To be sure, much can be considered, modelled and tested without any corroborating "scientific" evidence and much of the material for these discussions would fall into this "not-even-testable-yet" category.

Categorization is always relative to some standard, and any union of individual standards are subject to change.
But its nice that you have a system.

Change defines time, thus without change there would be no life, everything would be eternally still. If you could create the world that you idealize, then enjoy the world that you have created. If you change those ideals, then so be it, for it simply makes your world all the more entertaining to be in.

Lindsay, what I think Joesus is saying is that A. You dont have an open enough mind, you are reading the words he has written but your not understanding them or putting enough effort in to understand their meaning. B. He feels even if he did explain it to you, it wouldnt make a diffrence because you would simply read the words he has written, but you wouldnt get the ideas behind the words.

How open is "enough". Too open and my brains will fall out.

Max, if you understand what Joe is trying to say, you have more insight than I do. If he is trying to tell me that I am a close-minded braggart (about my schools, etc.,) we'll just have to agree to disagree, agreeably. I am an open-minded braggart. I am proud of some of some of the things I have done and, especially, my alma maters.

Max You got that right.

Are you saying that I put a negative spins on what other posters write. Other than I feel that he wants me to conflict with him--which I refuse to do--I have no idea what Joe believes and why.

Let's try this: Before the 1960's, because of the pain and suffering I observed, all around the world, I became a luke warm monotheist on my way to atheism.

In the early 19060's, instead of becoming an atheist, with the help of my reading and research/practice in psychology/pneumatology and the like, I began my journey towards unitheism/panentheism.

I am no longer a traditional theist--one who believes that there is a personal god/God separate and apart from things and us. I think Pave and I are congruent on much of this new kind of theology--way of thinking about the meaning of god/GOD? How say you Pave?

All readers of this post: Feel free to tell me where you stand, theologically. Let's see where we are congruent in our thinking, and where we are not.

I may ask for some evidence which shows that what you believe is true, but If anyone, including atheists, finds me judging you, negatively, or making argumentum ad hominems--you are this, that and the other thing--for your sincerely held faith (opinions) and ideas, please let me know. I will immediately apologize.

No im not saying you put a negative spin on things, what im saying is that your not understanding the ideas and concepts Joesus has tried to convey to you through his posts. Quite simply you dont understand what he has been trying to teach you, see his words are simply links to larger thoughts and ideas, try looking at the ideas rather than the words. You are jumping to conclusions and reading into things to quickly, just sit back, relax and read over his post again. Dont try to interpret, simply read and reflect, all the required information is there. You just need to take your time and go over it, this time without presuppositions, read with a blank mind. Simply clear your head of all thoughts, read the post, then try to understand it rather than interpreting.

It could be (entertaining that is) if one could let go of any one idea or all of them to allow the next idea or any next idea, but that isn't often the case. Until the attachment to one idea is satisfied to a point, most obsess or even fight to the death to protect the one idea that is inevitably going to change anyway.
Being one pointed is not necessarily going to have the benefit of fluidity unless the one pointedness is on the neutral point of support for all ideas at the same time. What is referred to as unconditional love, or the hand of God.
Judgments while living with a mind that recycles thought, come from projecting the past into the present. Experiencing something without the interference of thoughts from the past creating an influencing factor in the experience, the mind cannot be totally present or expanded in possibility, instead it is contracted, surrounded by impressions and often a reactive mind defending its self from fear of intrusion by the opposing thought.
As a result of living this way, the intuitive resonance to omniscience is mentally closed and knowledge is left to the collection of data projected from the sources of belief created in the democratic process of throwing logs as Lindsay put it, or ideas on the fire and those that burn with the hottest brightest flame become the standard or point of reference, or authority.
Those fires become the link to superfluous affiliation of belief systems rather than the resonance of the omniscient heart.
Feelings then become the lead horse and very few remember when truth and resonance took them beyond their feelings to do what they knew was greater and far beyond what any emotional attachment could.

Thanks for your interest? Am I right in assuming that you are trying to be a kind of moderator, here--which I welcome, BTW-- that you want to help posters to truly communicate with one another and thus be of help the whole forum to help all of us become more creative?

Can you recall any of my posts where I let my passions--I admit to being passionate about the ideas I accept as valuable and true--get away from me and overide the need to bring in reason in the form knowledge (science) and wisdom (philosophy) to guide the process?

I am already appreciative of the practical, working reality of people making their distinctions and coming to thier conclusions based on what they know - at any given time. That's an easy observation as it allows for everyone's subjective experience. I also appreciate that "knowing" is an extremely relative term.

Given that, questions arise, then, about the utility of these individual positions.

For example: As I know less about dentistry than my dentist, I go to him for pain and wallet-relief. Now, if there are "psychic" dentists out here, I don't know about them, so it is unlikely that I will be going elsewhere the next time.

Thus, for me, this is something I "know" and.... that's it. It will take an external of some power and consistency to convince me otherwise.

Yet, when we get to the matters being discussed here, we have little corroborating evidence of anything and are put in a position where we are invited, if not obliged, to consider making some - what seems to many - illogical leaps.

To what end, it could be asked, is a person invited to give up a belief in a One True God - to the exclusion of all others?

That's one tough piece 'o jerky. And the benefits, to many, would seem pretty wispy.... at best.

Now, Lindsay's history demonstrates that he has made some leap of faith and come to another conclusion and a portion of the justification of that conclusion lies in a more contemporary scientific model which is, itself, based on more modern observations.

That others have travelled elsewhere in their own considerations and gone further "out" and further "in" - in terms of relative levels of consciousness - is, practically, a description of the territory they are exploring and the Map they are using.

The questioning hope is: that these explorations will add to the progress, stabilty and continuity of a just species - us.

Religions - at their extremes, however and to my mind, stop way short of supporting these explorations and, indeed, go out of their way to inhibit them.

That's "nuts".

You said "at their extremes", but I think the part about, "in my mind" reveals where you hold your attention or the impression you choose to maintain that defines religion as you see it.
As long as you maintain this position with the excuse of not being able to think otherwise without the influence from an outside source, or as you put it."It will take an external of some power and consistency to convince me otherwise" Then you maintain that you have no choice in this matter but are victim to circumstance/obliged to see it one way.

Religion deals with mans seeking for the eternal, the sources of truth and joy, and particular formations are but approximations of the unutterable (that which cannot be contained in any belief system or identity).

Here is another example I would like to use since you have so appropriately provided the material for thought.

andand
This is interesting because Lindsay has been demonstrating the same type of thought which is why you are both as he says congruent in your thinking regardless of what each of you believes.

A question arises and the mind/ego says ,"This is an unkown, it would behoove you to remain safe and stick to what you know.
Furthermore the exploration of the unknown is necessarily threatening to the known so we will not change our position of the known until sucn a power that exists beyond my control comes about to change reality to allow me to step gracefully without risk of being wrong and having to give up the safety of my position.
Any threat imposed by anothers train of thought to my position will be ignored and the world will continue as I have agreed.
This I will agree to and agree to disagree with those who do not meet the criteria of my personal programs of identification."

Now the ego uses words like reasoning and utility to measure the knowns against what it insists fits. That which fits is by habit arranged according to the minds past impressions of experiences and understanding.
Anything that is not understood is either intensely scrutinized and for a time manipulated to fit into the box or immediately ignored. Often the mind doesn't recognize it at all.

I don't know if you've ever heard of the story of the ship of european conquerors who arrived at the primitive island, but the story goes that there was a a small group of wooden ships that were cresting the horizon of a small primitive island of peoples who had never had any contact with anyone outside of their own little island. The first person to notice the ships was the tribes Shaman/Priest. As the ships approached and eventually arrived to drop anchor the captain of the lead ship had its crew fire the cannon to signal arrival and to drop all anchors.
Now the story continues to describe the fact that because the natives had never seen ships before did not notice the sails on the horizon which by itself doesn't seem significant, but what stretches the mind is the story states that the natives did not hear the cannon fire because it was beyond anything they could fit inside of their mindset or box that made up their reality.

Ezek 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

The phrase above regarding the rebellious house refers to the closed mind, a mind that refuses to accept what does not fit into the realm of normal, normal being those logs thrown on the fire that burn according to agreement and those logs that burn because they are expected to burn.



The above quotes clearly state tha the perception Lindsay has is all his. He says he doesn't know what I believe or why I say what I do but he feels I want to conflict with him.

Perception is in the control of the knower. Lindsay has the choice to decide whether I am threatening his ideals which he has decided, and he refuses to see it any other way until the threat (that'd be me) changes/is understood or explained so that I would fit into the box he can accept.
Now he also said if his mind was any more open his brains would fall out, but that was a defensive move to use humor to cover the threat he feels.
Acttually his mind is already made up, he said so and he has since posted not to seek what Max suggested in rereading my post to see and experience more, but to look back on himself and look to see if what he has done in the past conforms with the rules he has made for his universe by asking for recognition and acceptance. (CYA or the Cover Your Ass move to interject some of my own humor)
This is what I experience as the ego measuring itself because the self worth programs are built on false supports of belief that conflict with the individuality of other perceived self designed programs. Where one agrees to disagree as long as one can also agree to disagree there is no threat.

Where someone might choose to see an ad hominem or personal attack another might see constructive criticism or wisdom mixed with compassion to say, "Hey you have a booger hanging from your nose," and risk embarrassing the student at the expense of his becoming aware of something he probably would want to be aware of if his pride doesn't keep him from cutting himself off from the addiction he has maintained in preserving that which has meaning to him (self made images) and the need to prevent any thought of failure, or lack of self worth from entering that space.

Most people who are getting along in their years like to talk about their past. generally its a need to (as some psychologists suggest) retain the vitality of their youth and the strength of power felt when the mind was closer to the innocent potential one felt when their internal programs were few and far between the daily experiences and desires to create in life.
Habit is piled upon habit and innocence is lost to the accumulation of successes and failures determined by the subjective beliefs of the individual.

No one has the power to make anyone change. That power is in the choice one has to accept or reject reality according to the system of measure built within them.
An open mind is one that rejects nothing but still can make a choice. Choice is determined by personal likes and dislikes as well as that which expands conscious awareness permanently.
(Follow your Bliss-Joseph Campbell-)
Sometimes what expands conscious awareness is not pleasant but that is also subject to interpretation, what is pleasant and not pleasant. One mans pain is another mans inspiration.

So the determining factor is intuitive resonance. That which accepts reality is what is layered upon the heart in the beliefs of the waking state or in expanded states of consciousness that which resonates at a level with the absolute potential of creation and its underlying presence in the layers of belief and attached feelings associated with past experience and the running programs of ego identification.

In the development of the intuitive or cognizant aspect of ourselves we open doors to a greater understanding and the experience of reality through the absolute and its relationship with the manifest reality.
Once the absolute becomes real in both intellectual understanding and experience and as the “One True Reality” we can turn our attention towards rapid growth from this new foundation. We always have a Choice.
We have a choice to focus our attention on the truth. Unless we do this our mind will wander in the experiences and the habits of impression followed by desire and then action; without a firm foothold on the Truth of reality the senses lead us away from our True self rather than towards it.

Couple the absolute awareness with Focus, a choice to bring the absolute awareness into every experience and it becomes not a belief but a construct of the minds desire and free will to experience the absolute Self. This is called Resonance.

These three things, Focus, resonance and absolute Consciousness are what lead consciousness to expansion and into Exalted Consciousness, and Unified Consciousness, the sixth and seventh states of consciousness. Together they constitute a process which is called samyamah, "the Bestower of Union."
It should probably be observed now, and again later, that samyamah is absolutely a waste of time without Perpetual absolute Consciousness being established first. More correctly stated: samyamah is impossible without Perpetual Consciousness, for without the stabilized experience of the Absolute, the most important part of the triad is missing.




As the mind focuses on a single appropriate object the fluctuations of thought naturally settle into the One, the Absolute. As the mind thus stills, the ability to cognize the full range of the meaning of the object naturally blossoms in the mind. Every object has a gross level of reality and a subtle level of reality. The subtle is typically not known because of absorption in the gross. But as the mind becomes familiar with the three aspects of one-pointedness, (The knower, the Known and the Process of Knowing) it learns to cognize an ever-deeper level of experience. This is the mechanics of the growth of consciousness from Perpetual Consciousness to Unified Consciousness.
"Vibrates to the One" means that all thought begins to be in perfect harmony with the Absolute. In the Waking State of Consciousness, thought is often out of harmony with the fundamental forces of natural law the gunas, and with their Lord, the Ascendant/Transcendant/absolute one. This leads to disharmonious thought, feeling, desire and action, which in turn leads to pain, suffering, illness, unhappiness, lack of success in every area of human concern, and eventually to death.

When, through meditation/discipline of focus or turning to face the subject absolute, the mind learns to function in perfect harmony with the Universal Source of All That Is, all of Nature serves to bring greater happiness, health, success and fulfillment to every area of human concern.
As one naturally rises in this perfect harmony, all of life starts developing and progressing towards fulfillment.
How is this done?
By removing stress from the nervous system , (from the perspective of the body) or from expansion of consciousness/conscious awareness to the Infinite (from the perspective of the mind).
Either leads to perfect harmony with the One Absolute; and from perfect harmony comes success and power.
Consider the example of the laser -- all the photons march together in step -- this leads to great power. A 75 watt beam of laser light can be bounced off of the moon. Seventy-five watts of random, diffused light will scarcely travel a few miles. This is an analogy of the difference between the incoherent functioning of the Waking State and the coherence of Absolute Consciousness. This difference is measurable by the EEG -- the Waking State is characterized by a chaotic admixture of brain waves, almost randomly flowing through the cortex. During the experience of the Fourth state of consciousness and their corresponding higher states, however, the brain exhibits perfect orderliness -- the brain waves vibrate in perfect harmony with the One. This is a measurement of the subjective experience of the perfect silence and peace of Absolute Consciousness



As one practices the progressive refinement of consciousness thru meditation, memory, the subtlest and most important movement of consciousness is quickly purified. There is no stress that can withstand this wholly natural and beneficial process. When memory is purified, one no longer judges objects by past impressions; everything is seen as it really is.
In this second stage, the mixture of word and meaning has sufficiently separated so that meaning appears as it truly is. Since it is no longer colored by previous impressions, the meaning shines forth in its own brilliance. This is not the highest stage of growth to full realization of Absolute Consciousness -- when the mind has fully reached its Source, there is no perception whatsoever of other meanings. But it is a distinct stage of progress -- the knower is beginning to separate from his/her identification of the Self with meaning. And this is true no matter what the meaning is -- thoughts, bodies, girl friends, houses, universes -- in short, all that keeps the awareness divided and bound and therefore gives life to the ego's dominance in the Waking State. So this is a significant stage of progress. It is still confused, however, for the knower has not yet discovered fully what the Self is.
The True Form of the Self is still absent -- Absolute Consciousness has not yet fully dawned -- but at least the dream-like admixture within is beginning to separate into distinct realities. The knower, known and process of knowing must first separate their illusory union in order to unite in the Absolute.
In this stage, the Self is experienced as if it were a void. Absolute Consciousness, awareness with no thought moving, is not empty, it is not a void, it is the state of complete fullness, of Being, the Source of everything. Words cannot adequately describe the experience, but saying it is like a void is a fairly close approximation.
Patanjali's use of "as if it were a void" is quite significant for other reasons as well. The Self can never in reality be away from its True Nature. Regardless how deep the confusion of the illusory mixture of knower, known and process of
knowing, still the reality remains, hiding just beneath the surface of the waking
dreams. The Self can never be devoid of its True Nature, but it can believe that it is -- and this is exactly what gives life to the Waking State with its myriad of bizarre beliefs about the nature of life and death. Fortunately, illusions do not become real simply because of belief.
"All meaning shines forth clearly" means that in this state of Absolute Consciousness, any object that is held in the attention reaches the level of
rtam bhara prajna (Which means, "the level of consciousness that is filled with Divine Truth" and "the level of consciousness that praises Divine Order.")
When this happens, its entire meaning and purpose is instantly and fully known. In other words, by curling back onto the Self with any object of attention rtam value of its existence is understood. This becomes the primary tool for the development of consciousness beyond Perpetual Consciousness, for it is precisely by understanding the full range of meaning of the senses and the process of knowing that one experiences Exalted Consciousness, and it is by understanding the full range of meaning of the known that one rises to complete consciousness in Unified Consciousness. Thus this development is the by-product of being able to hold any object of attention one-pointedly in the mind while simultaneously experiencing the Absolute.
This is not only difficult in the Waking State, it is simply impossible. Firstly, there is no clear experience of the Self, so there is no clear experience of the Absolute; therefore, Absolute Consciousness is dysfunctional. Secondly, the mind does not vibrate strictly with the One, as it is continually swayed by previous impressions. As these distort its calm mirror, it moves continually from object to object, from thought to thought, in the vain effort simply to be happy, Resonance, is dysfunctional. And thirdly, there is no possibility of Focus either, because consciousness is too scattered to be stable on a single point. Without the maintenance of one-pointed attention in Absolute Consciousness there is no possibility for rtam to function efficiently or consistently, and therefore the purpose and meaning of anything cannot be known with certainty. In Perpetual Consciousness, on the other hand, the Self is established in the Absolute; the mind vibrates in harmony with the One; and the intellect is one-pointed. Thus the last three limbs of Union/Yoga function in perfect harmony; this leads to the capability of cognizing the full value and purpose of anything and everything.

As we progress in our expansion of consciousness the automatic response of the heart to lead us deeper towards Union awakens the senses to perception of reality. Things we never entertained before can become points of interest. This is because what was not known because of its irrelevance to the waking state now is relevant to what we now can understand and experience. This is self evident in the evolution of mankind as we learned to use simple tools for basic needs. As the world became more complex because of the needs that arose we became aware of more complex tools and the way to develop them. This will always be the case as long as we live in expanding awareness in an expanding universe.
What we intuit is often ignored for practicality of lesser related thinking however as our intellect is sharpened by the expansion of conscious awareness we are sometimes led to insights into our Self and its product which is the world around us. The sharpening of this awareness is a natural part of our evolutionary process.

If you agree with me then you are also saying that you live as if there is no god?

I don't think any respectable atheist or theist knows what "God" means, that is, if you're talking about some infinite entity that may or may not exist. Unless you are talking about definition of God with which the majority of reasonable people could agree to without capitulating that any certain God does exist.

Joseph Campbell might have said it best (and I paraphrase): "It's all metaphor. Anybody up for a pizza?"

(I am still considering the last few posts.)

It is in this concept of change, that a balance it required, something to bring harmony to the reality, its with that which fluidity and a seemingly real, reality can be formed and enjoyed. If the ideas and thoughts compliment each other, then reality becomes all the more better, likewise a conradiction causes confusion and misunderstanding, if harmony is achieved with thoughts, it will also be achieved with reality.

Lindsay, yes I suppose I am being a bit of a mediator between the two of you and im also participating, it seemed like the two of you werent getting anywhere in your understanding, so I thought I would lend a helping hand

To answer your question: Not exactly. What I am saying is that I gave up believing in the kind of god/God which I understood I was expected to believe in when I was a monotheist--the kind of God to whom I was taught to speak and say, "Our Father who art in heaven..."

For a number of years--I was ordained in 1953--I led hundreds of people in what was then called the

PASTORAL PRAYER.
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ALL THE THINGS I LED MY CONGREGATION TO PRAY FOR, WHEN I WAS A MONOTHEIST MINISTER.,

Sunday after Sunday, I led my congreation in asking God to forgive all our sins. We then thanked "Him"--He was never a Her--for "all the blessings of this life"--the list was a long one. It even included prayer to God thanking him for helping us be better than others. We also thanked God for making us more healthy, wealthy, wise than others, and for help us be the winners of WW 2.

Then we petitioned Him to bless and uphold our leaders, including the Royal Family, the members of all levels of government--"Awaken the senate" we asked--and make all our political, social and economic leaders good and true.

In effect, we asked God to make all of them moral, ethical, and courageous leaders, led by us--the ordained leaders of God's church. "O God" we prayed, "make us all willing to be humble servants in upholding the laws--moral and ethical--and thus filling the world with order, justice and peace for all".

Firmly believing--although I had my doubts--that God is our all-powerful, all-knowing, every-where-present, and all-loving heavenly father, who held "everybody in his hands" we asked Him to look after usn in all our needs.

If WE had time, we asked Him to: Heal the sick, look after all those in peril on the sea, on the land and in the air, enrich the poor, bring about justice, make wise the ignorant, chastise the wicked and save all of us from all our sins.

At the time, it never occurred to most of us to keep track of how successful our prayers actually were. However, it gradually dawned on me that this kind of praying did not get a lot of positive results. This is what led me to a new kind of theology--a new way of looking at the god-concept.

New concepts often require new words.Inspired by Orthodox Judaism--It uses G-d--and with the help of Rick, I coined the word--Or is it a symbol?--"GØD". Please do not confuse this with god, or God.

More on this, later...As we think about, as Max writes:

I am new to this forum and am very interested in religion vs. psychosis, because I have a mental illness that spawned alot of religious psychosis. I am a Christian, but have many unanswered questions.

Please pose some of your questions. It would also be helpful to know: What are you interests?

My father is actually in mania right now, and it is very easy for me to see (at least in his particular case) the connection between religion and psychosis. My dad becomes hyper religious in his manic state solely as a coping mechanism with life--he fears what is after life and is unable to accept that no one knows, thus religion. As mental illness runs in my family and I myself clearly have the tendencies I can completely understand the concept. At times when you are at a low and feel alone you can become consumed by your mind and the duality of the world--religion seems to be an effective way of coping with the duality and simplifying things to protect ones self from their own mind.

Ultimately it seems that religion is not a form of psychosis and has nothing to do with psychosis other than the fact that it provides an easy escape for the over active mind, the same reason why many people fall into the dogmatic tendencies of organized religion rather than thinking for themselvs.

I was diagnosed with bipolar I disorder in 1995. In my manic/psychotic states, I experienced hallucinations, both auditory and visual, that pertained to religious persecution within my own mind. It was very real to me, and it was very terrifying. I saw a doctor who prescribed some antipsychotic meds that knocked me out, and I became a zombie for several months. I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. I just think that certain things in the Bible, for example, the book of Revelation was written by John, who may or may not have been in a psychotic state. Now, this is just my opinion. People tend to take the Bible word for word, and do not question the visions and prophecies. Nowadays, people who consider themselves as prophets or messianic leaders are often viewed as people with a mental illness. Just my thoughts.

Sommer, the fact that you are able to use what I call your "pnuematological ability" and that you are willing to look at what is going on in and around you, psychologically and somatologically--mentally and physically--is a good sign. Do you not agree?

You say Really? You certainly believe in expressing you opinion. And, IMO, that is okay. Also, the following shows you do feel free to express your opinion.Then you add And more Thanks for your thoughts, and your opinion. The fact that you can do this means that you, your pneuma, are in control. Right?