I have seen truth, have others?
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’…. I think that the most seemingly "profound" moments in our lives come when we are aware of something that we realize we have always known. Religions have pointed this out, over and over and in a number of ways, by promoting the idea that one can be "enlightened", by proper practice and study. Something is suddenly seen as "true" when we experience also some kind of epiphany at its realization. The relative profundity is perhaps related more to a person’s past spiritual experience than anything else. It is a very personal experience. Scott I think rather than being personal experiences these might be part of
the collective consciousness or even the zeitgeist of an age. We are after all just pieces of impure cytoplasm in a measureless universe, however, through the practice of chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo one can actually live every moment in a higher life condition. Partial realizations are useful but the problem with them is that they are only partial and one needs the whole thing.LOL — Before you buy.
Response:
It is all relative to the individual’s perceptions, and a person’s
perceptions are a free choice made by that person to interact with the world around them. If one wishes to exist in a world of Jung’s collective conscious, or a world of maya, or a world of sin, then that is what the world is. The only reason a "higher condition" is perceived to exist is because the preceptor believes it to be so. These are spiritual matters, and spiritual beliefs are intimately personal. One can offer insight only into one’s own feelings, not into another’s. Scott No. Subjectivity is just empty without fusion with objective reality. What you are saying is that relaity exists due to perception, but objective reality is beyond individual perception. You are confusing individual perception with Objective reality. Seeing reality as it is includes much more then you think. dc
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think that the most seemingly "profound" moments in our lives come when we are aware of something that we realize we have always known. Religions have pointed this out, over and over and in a number of ways, by promoting the idea that one can be "enlightened", by proper practice and study. Something is suddenly seen as "true" when we experience also some kind of epiphany at its realization. The relative profundity is perhaps related more to a person’s past spiritual experience than anything else. It is a very personal experience. Scott I think rather than being personal experiences these might be part of the collective consciousness or even the zeitgeist of an age. We are after all just pieces of impure cytoplasm in a measureless universe, however, through the practice of chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo one can actually live every moment in a higher life condition. Partial realizations are useful but the problem with them is that they are only partial and one needs the whole thing.LOL
It is all relative to the individual’s perceptions, and a person’s perceptions are a free choice made by that person to interact with the world around them. If one wishes to exist in a world of Jung’s collective conscious, or a world of maya, or a world of sin, then that is what the world is. The only reason a "higher condition" is perceived to exist is because the preceptor believes it to be so. These are spiritual matters, and spiritual beliefs are intimately personal. One can offer insight only into one’s own feelings, not into another’s. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is all relative to the individual’s perceptions, and a person’s perceptions are a free choice made by that person to interact with the world around them. If one wishes to exist in a world of Jung’s collective conscious, or a world of maya, or a world of sin, then that is what the world is. The only reason a "higher condition" is perceived to exist is because the preceptor believes it to be so. These are spiritual matters, and spiritual beliefs are intimately personal. One can offer insight only into one’s own feelings, not into another’s. Scott No. Subjectivity is just empty without fusion with objective reality. What you are saying is that relaity exists due to perception, but objective reality is beyond individual perception. You are confusing individual perception with Objective reality. Seeing reality as it is includes much more then you think.
Well, my answer to that is that your perception of "Objective reality" (your capitalization) is mistaken. Everything is subjective, or everything is objective, it all means the same thing. It is what you want it to be. There are no absolutes, either in Christanity, Buddhism or any other system. This is the mistake made as an a priori assumption with nearly all religions — that there is a Truth, and only through my system can you come to know it. The truth is, there is no Truth. Scott – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Miller, is that true? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – to know it. The truth is, there is no Truth. Scott
Response:
I guess it takes a leap of faith to believe anything is true! Scott
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Miller, is that true? to know it. The truth is, there is no Truth. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is all relative to the individual’s perceptions, and a person’s perceptions are a free choice made by that person to interact with the world around them. If one wishes to exist in a world of Jung’s collective conscious, or a world of maya, or a world of sin, then that is what the world is. The only reason a "higher condition" is perceived to exist is because the preceptor believes it to be so. These are spiritual matters, and spiritual beliefs are intimately personal. One can offer insight only into one’s own feelings, not into another’s. Scott No. Subjectivity is just empty without fusion with objective reality. What you are saying is that relaity exists due to perception, but objective reality is beyond individual perception. You are confusing individual perception with Objective reality. Seeing reality as it is includes much more then you think.
Well, my answer to that is that your perception of "Objective reality" (your capitalization) is mistaken. Everything is subjective, or everything is objective, it all means the same thing. It is what you want it to be. There are no absolutes, either in Christanity, Buddhism or any other system. This is the mistake made as an a priori assumption with nearly all religions — that there is a Truth, and only through my system can you come to know it. The truth is, there is no Truth. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality. dc
Response:
Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality. dc
I think I understand what you are saying. My point of view sorta stands yours on its head, however. I believe that what you refer to as objective reality exists only becuase it is percieved. Without perception, there is no objective reality, hence, all reality is objective in the sense that it requires some sort of perception to exist in a meaningful way. But the perception itself is a subjective act of free will by the perceptor, so in this sense, objective reality is dependent on a subjective experience. The act of perception is what objective reality is. Reality is not a "thing" that is discovered by an observer, be the observer man, god or spirit. Being creates reality. Being is not dependent on reality, it IS reality. Scott – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Well, Buddha said that the truth is the one thing that doesn’t
change. That’s pretty damn absolute. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh please! "Truth" in buddhism is Reality itself as it is, without the subjective interpretation. A correct subjectivity perfectly matches realityas it is. In Buddhism when the Subjective perception actually matches the Objective reality then that is Kyochi Myogo…Fusion of Subject and Object. This is not a head trip, this is a real life state. One cannot get to that kind of fusion by intellectualizing. Instead strip away the nonsense roof brain chatter and then see reality as it is and become one with that. Thoughts inbetween you and reality will just block "truth," because it is the "truth beyond distinction." No perceptual distinction is involved. And when you quote the Buddha Shakymauni you better quote the Sutra. dc
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is all relative to the individual’s perceptions, and a person’s perceptions are a free choice made by that person to interact with the world around them. If one wishes to exist in a world of Jung’s collective conscious, or a world of maya, or a world of sin, then that is what the world is. The only reason a "higher condition" is perceived to exist is because the preceptor believes it to be so. These are spiritual matters, and spiritual beliefs are intimately personal. One can offer insight only into one’s own feelings, not into another’s. Scott No. Subjectivity is just empty without fusion with objective reality. What you are saying is that relaity exists due to perception, but objective reality is beyond individual perception. You are confusing individual perception with Objective reality. Seeing reality as it is includes much more then you think. Well, my answer to that is that your perception of "Objective reality" (your capitalization) is mistaken. Everything is subjective, or everything is objective, it all means the same thing. It is what you want it to be. There are no absolutes, either in Christanity, Buddhism or any other system. This is the mistake made as an a priori assumption with nearly all religions — that there is a Truth, and only through my system can you come to know it. The truth is, there is no Truth. Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality.
Easier to say that reality is in a state of constant change. Our subjective perception of permanence is the error. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -dc
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality. dc I think I understand what you are saying. My point of view sorta stands yours on its head, however. I believe that what you refer to as objective reality exists only becuase it is percieved. Without perception, there is no objective reality, hence, all reality is objective in the sense that it requires some sort of perception to exist in a meaningful way. But the perception itself is a subjective act of free will by the perceptor, so in this sense, objective reality is dependent on a subjective experience. The act of perception is what objective reality is. Reality is not a "thing" that is discovered by an observer, be the observer man, god or spirit. Being creates reality. Being is not dependent on reality, it IS reality. Scott
So you belong to the school of thought "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, it doesn’t fall." Interesting. So if we did not exist, the universe would also not exist? We create the universe by existing? Then how did we arise? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Oh boy. Look. Buddhism is the Middle Way. Stop the flip-flopping in your mind. Buddhism teaches dependent origination. It is just simultaneous cause and effect. (Inga Guji). You can’t do a "what if" scenario because life already contains all causes and effects so this kind of logic you are trying to use will not work to see Reality as it is. My impression so far is that Buddha did not deny reality or imply
that we create it by being. It seems he was trying to point out that events and things are transient, ever-changing, not that they did not exist. Please correct me if I am wrong.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Everthing is always changing and the law behind it is unchanging but both sides are inseparable in the past, present and future. Buddhism teaches the Three Phases of life which is best understood as a seed, the tree inherent in the seed and the tree itself. These three aspects are always one and the Middle Way is like the seed that possesses both the inherent manifestation and the manifestation itself which produces more seeds. dc
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality. dc I think I understand what you are saying. My point of view sorta stands yours on its head, however. I believe that what you refer to as objective reality exists only becuase it is percieved. Without perception, there is no objective reality, hence, all reality is objective in the sense that it requires some sort of perception to exist in a meaningful way. But the perception itself is a subjective act of free will by the perceptor, so in this sense, objective reality is dependent on a subjective experience. The act of perception is what objective reality is. Reality is not a "thing" that is discovered by an observer, be the observer man, god or spirit. Being creates reality. Being is not dependent on reality, it IS reality. Scott So you belong to the school of thought "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, it doesn’t fall." Interesting. So if we did not exist, the universe would also not exist? We create the universe by existing? Then how did we arise? My impression so far is that Buddha did not deny reality or imply that we create it by being. It seems he was trying to point out that events and things are transient, ever-changing, not that they did not exist. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I certainly will not speak for the Buddha, or Christ or anyone so wise (although I may have questions about what they meant). But you are essentially correct about what I think of "reality" (whatever that is!). However, as far as the old "tree falls" koan-like puzzle, if I was asked the question, I would say that since you have already told me that the tree has fallen, then it did indeed fall, and make a sound. My perception of your information gives me the right to make some assumptions. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, Buddha said that the truth is the one thing that doesn’t change. That’s pretty damn absolute. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Oh please! "Truth" in buddhism is Reality itself as it is, without the subjective interpretation. A correct subjectivity perfectly matches realityas it is. In Buddhism when the Subjective perception actually matches the Objective reality then that is Kyochi Myogo…Fusion of Subject and Object. This is not a head trip, this is a real life state. One cannot get to that kind of fusion by intellectualizing. Instead strip away the nonsense roof brain chatter and then see reality as it is and become one with that. Thoughts inbetween you and reality will just block "truth," because it is the "truth beyond distinction." No perceptual distinction is involved. And when you quote the Buddha Shakymauni you better quote the Sutra.
I am sorry, but there are so many responses and re-responses in this thread that I am loosing track of who is responding to whom. In the above post (whoever it belongs to), I would say that the idea of fusion between subject and object is not material. From an abstract intellectual or psychological standpoint, there may be something of interest here, but for me, fusion is not necessary because subject and object are really the same, always have been, always will be. This is apparent to me, at least. I am still not clear on what Buddhism has to say on it. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Objective reality is there whether there is any subjectivity at all. IT is like saying causation is objective and regardless what subjectivity perceives it, the reality is still manifest. Perception arises from a collection of transient components made of the the fabric of Objective reality. dc I think I understand what you are saying. My point of view sorta stands yours on its head, however. I believe that what you refer to as objective reality exists only becuase it is percieved. Without perception, there is no objective reality, hence, all reality is objective in the sense that it requires some sort of perception to exist in a meaningful way. But the perception itself is a subjective act of free will by the perceptor, so in this sense, objective reality is dependent on a subjective experience. The act of perception is what objective reality is. Reality is not a "thing" that is discovered by an observer, be the observer man, god or spirit. Being creates reality. Being is not dependent on reality, it IS reality. Scott
yes, this is a good description of Bishop Berkeley’s ‘Esse est Percipi’. (‘to be is to be perceived’) formulated in a slightly different way by the Buddha in his observation that ‘reality’ is essentially a co-dependent relationship. (‘dependent co-arising’) ultimately, the distinction between ‘objective’ and ’subjective’ is found to be artificial, at the subtler scales of existence. iykwim 
Before you buy.
Response:
yes, this is a good description of Bishop Berkeley’s ‘Esse est Percipi’. (‘to be is to be perceived’) formulated in a slightly different way by the Buddha in his observation that ‘reality’ is essentially a co-dependent relationship. (‘dependent co-arising’) ultimately, the distinction between ‘objective’ and ’subjective’ is found to be artificial, at the subtler scales of existence. iykwim
From the little reading I have done about Zen and Buddhism in general, I do not think there is alot in any dogma that disagrees with my viewpoint on reality. But in reading responses here, I was wondering if I had misread something into Buddhism, due to my own previous philosophical leanings, which some may have noticed, tend toward existentialism. As you point out, there is really not much of a conflict here. It depends how one looks at it. Two sides of the same coin, as they say. Of course, I have to point out that one also freely chooses which side of the coin to look at! Thanks for your observations. Scott
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, Buddha said that the truth is the one thing that doesn’t change. That’s pretty damn absolute. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Oh please! "Truth" in buddhism is Reality itself as it is, without the subjective interpretation. A correct subjectivity perfectly matches realityas it is. In Buddhism when the Subjective perception actually matches the Objective reality then that is Kyochi Myogo…Fusion of Subject and Object. This is not a head trip, this is a real life state. One cannot get to that kind of fusion by intellectualizing. Instead strip away the nonsense roof brain chatter and then see reality as it is and become one with that. Thoughts inbetween you and reality will just block "truth," because it is the "truth beyond distinction." No perceptual distinction is involved. And when you quote the Buddha Shakymauni you better quote the Sutra.
I am sorry, but there are so many responses and re-responses in this thread that I am loosing track of who is responding to whom. In the above post (whoever it belongs to), I would say that the idea of fusion between subject and object is not material. From an abstract intellectual or psychological standpoint, there may be something of interest here, but for me, fusion is not necessary because subject and object are really the same, always have been, always will be. This is apparent to me, at least. I am still not clear on what Buddhism has to say on it. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Above, you are merely conceptualizing subjectively, what fusion of subject and object is. That is only intellectualizing and is just subjective ideas. A concept of fusion of subject and objective is not actual fusion of subject and object. dc
Response:
Well, Buddha said that the truth is the one thing that doesn’t Above, you are merely conceptualizing subjectively, what fusion of subject and object is. That is only intellectualizing and is just subjective ideas. A concept of fusion of subject and objective is not actual fusion of subject and object. dc
The idea of a fusion of concept and subject is an abstract one, you have to think of the two as "things" that are separate in the first place in order to allow a fusion. All opinions, whether about philosophy, religion, science, objects or subjects, are subjective, else they would not be opinions. The fact that one "takes a stand" on something makes it THAT person’s subjective opinion, call it opinion, truth, or what you will. So of course my "conceptualization, is subjective. So is yours, so is everyone’s. That is all that I am saying. It is very simple, really not very subtle, it just is. It does not take any great leap of faith or intellect to see that what is, simply IS. But we CHOOSE to see what we see, and "know" what we know. We may call it law or Truth or Science, but it is because we say it is. If I am "only intellectualising", that may be your way of dismissing a view that is not your own. But I do not say my view is right or wrong, just that it is MINE — as your’s is YOUR’S. Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – yes, this is a good description of Bishop Berkeley’s ‘Esse est Percipi’. (‘to be is to be perceived’) formulated in a slightly different way by the Buddha in his observation that ‘reality’ is essentially a co-dependent relationship. (‘dependent co-arising’) ultimately, the distinction between ‘objective’ and ’subjective’ is found to be artificial, at the subtler scales of existence. iykwim From the little reading I have done about Zen and Buddhism in general, I do not think there is alot in any dogma that disagrees with my viewpoint on reality. But in reading responses here, I was wondering if I had misread something into Buddhism, due to my own previous philosophical leanings, which some may have noticed, tend toward existentialism. As you point out, there is really not much of a conflict here. It depends how one looks at it. Two sides of the same coin, as they say. Of course, I have to point out that one also freely chooses which side of the coin to look at! Thanks for your observations. Scott
The way I see it is the Middle Way, away from all extreme philosophical positions: not objectivism, not subjectivism, not dualism, not monism. And I don,t replace it with another "…ism", because it is beyond all views, all conceptualization, all dualities. All views are flawed. All views are empty of inherent existence, even this one. Gileht http://www.geocities.com/gileht/index.html Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, Buddha said that the truth is the one thing that doesn’t change. That’s pretty damn absolute. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Oh please! "Truth" in buddhism is Reality itself as it is, without the subjective interpretation. A correct subjectivity perfectly matches realityas it is. In Buddhism when the Subjective perception actually matches the Objective reality then that is Kyochi Myogo…Fusion of Subject and Object. This is not a head trip, this is a real life state. One cannot get to that kind of fusion by intellectualizing. Instead strip away the nonsense roof brain chatter and then see reality as it is and become one with that. Thoughts inbetween you and reality will just block "truth," because it is the "truth beyond distinction." No perceptual distinction is involved. And when you quote the Buddha Shakymauni you better quote the Sutra. I am sorry, but there are so many responses and re-responses in this thread that I am loosing track of who is responding to whom. In the above post (whoever it belongs to), I would say that the idea of fusion between subject and object is not material. From an abstract intellectual or psychological standpoint, there may be something of interest here, but for me, fusion is not necessary because subject and object are really the same, always have been, always will be. This is apparent to me, at least. I am still not clear on what Buddhism has to say on it. Scott<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Above, you are merely conceptualizing subjectively, what fusion of subject and object is. That is only intellectualizing and is just subjective
ideas. A concept of fusion of subject and objective is not actual fusion of subject and object. dc
I like that. The way I usually present (following Nagarjuna) this is to say: they are not separate (or different) but still not the same. This means that I do not support dualism, but I also do not support monism (oneness) in their literal sense. It is sort of in the Middle, but, because it is inconceivable, we use imperfect conceptual expressions to try to point to "it". In other words we can say what it is not, not cannot say what it is. So when we say "to become ONE" it really means "not to see it as two separate things", but still does not mean that they are exactly the same. The difference is very subtle. Gileht http://www.geocities.com/gileht/index.html Before you buy.
Response:
Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’ (pleural) and emptiness (more like why emptiness must be understood to see past the illusion or delusion) just to name a few. From what I have read, even Buddhist Masters to have epiphanies of this level can often take many years of meditation and yoga practice.
no doubt true, in many cases. but it is quite random, so dont feel too special. at least those Buddhist Masters who awaken after many years of practice, dont have the awkward and embarassing problems of ’spiritual inflation’ to deal with, that beset the spontaneously blessed/afflicted. I also have an awareness of what HPB refers to as the "truth". It seems, as of recent, there has been a quickening of these epiphanies, almost a doubling of my knowledge every month (sometimes quicker.) I would like to go into greater detail, but it would fill many books if I were to write all the truths I have seen.
indeed. HPB and L Ron Hubbard have filled a few libraries of their own. get to it! My worldview is changing rapidly (i.e. Moving away from materialism.)
I guess I am looking for people to talk to who has similar knowledge of what I am experiencing.
understandable, but ultimately a futile craving. which disappears with full enlightenment. (so i hear, heheh) And as odd as it may sound, I feel that I am destined to become fully aware or enlightened. I am sure that I will be flamed by some for this posting and most will either not understand or not believe me.
of course not. It really doesn’t matter to me, you can believe every word of what I say or totally dismiss it as absolute fansasy if you desire.
dismiss what? But if anyone would like to speak to me about this, it would be greatly appreciated.
sure. sit down, have a cup of tea. how ’bout them niners, hey? Thanks for your time,
hang in there! Before you buy.
Response:
Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’….
I think that the most seemingly "profound" moments in our lives come when we are aware of something that we realize we have always known. Religions have pointed this out, over and over and in a number of ways, by promoting the idea that one can be "enlightened", by proper practice and study. Something is suddenly seen as "true" when we experience also some kind of epiphany at its realization. The relative profundity is perhaps related more to a person’s past spiritual experience than anything else. It is a very personal experience. Scott
Response:
is this what you are talking about ? http://diseyes.lycaeum.org/fresh/mushmann.htm — aerospaceageinferno
Response:
Erice, Don’t go worry about Moadeeb, his/her mission in life seems to be stop cross posting on newsgroups and he/she dosn’t mind offending people in the process. In my opinion cross posting is fine, if it is relativant to several groups and I personaly welcome your post. Don’t let the nasty comments deter you from participating in newsgroups. Steve.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’ (pleural) and emptiness (more like why emptiness must be understood to see past the illusion or delusion) just to name a few. From what I have read, even Buddhist Masters to have epiphanies of this level can often take many years of meditation and yoga practice. I also have an awareness of what HPB refers to as the "truth". It seems, as of recent, there has been a quickening of these epiphanies, almost a doubling of my knowledge every month (sometimes quicker.) I would like to go into greater detail, but it would fill many books if I were to write all the truths I have seen. My worldview is changing rapidly (i.e. Moving away from materialism.) I guess I am looking for people to talk to who has similar knowledge of what I am experiencing. And as odd as it may sound, I feel that I am destined to become fully aware or enlightened. I am sure that I will be flamed by some for this posting and most will either not understand or not believe me. It really doesn’t matter to me, you can believe every word of what I say or totally dismis it as absolute fansasy if you desire. But if anyone would like to speak to me about this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, Eric Bowers
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’ (pleural) and emptiness (more like why emptiness must be understood to see past the illusion or delusion) just to name a few. From what I have read, even Buddhist Masters to have epiphanies of this level can often take many years of meditation and yoga practice. I also have an awareness of what HPB refers to as the "truth". It seems, as of recent, there has been a quickening of these epiphanies, almost a doubling of my knowledge every month (sometimes quicker.) I would like to go into greater detail, but it would fill many books if I were to write all the truths I have seen. My worldview is changing rapidly (i.e. Moving away from materialism.) I guess I am looking for people to talk to who has similar knowledge of what I am experiencing. And as odd as it may sound, I feel that I am destined to become fully aware or enlightened. I am sure that I will be flamed by some for this posting and most will either not understand or not believe me. It really doesn’t matter to me, you can believe every word of what I say or totally dismis it as absolute fansasy if you desire. But if anyone would like to speak to me about this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, Eric Bowers I have had similar experiences. Please read my posts and Email me
direct if you like. Before you buy.
Response:
Hello, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’ (pleural) and emptiness (more like why emptiness must be understood to see past the illusion or delusion) just to name a few. From what I have read, even Buddhist Masters to have epiphanies of this level can often take many years of meditation and yoga practice. I also have an awareness of what HPB refers to as the "truth". It seems, as of recent, there has been a quickening of these epiphanies, almost a doubling of my knowledge every month (sometimes quicker.) I would like to go into greater detail, but it would fill many books if I were to write all the truths I have seen. My worldview is changing rapidly (i.e. Moving away from materialism.) I guess I am looking for people to talk to who has similar knowledge of what I am experiencing. And as odd as it may sound, I feel that I am destined to become fully aware or enlightened. I am sure that I will be flamed by some for this posting and most will either not understand or not believe me. It really doesn’t matter to me, you can believe every word of what I say or totally dismis it as absolute fansasy if you desire. But if anyone would like to speak to me about this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, Eric Bowers
I think you will find others here who understand what you are going thru. If you have anything in particular to say, or questions to ask, please give them voice. Before you buy.
Response:
Hello, This is the first time I have ever posted on a newsgroup. I normally wouldn’t, but I feel the need to in this case. As of recent, I have had some VERY profound realizations about the origins of our consciousness’ (pleural) and emptiness (more like why emptiness must be understood to see past the illusion or delusion) just to name a few. From what I have read, even Buddhist Masters to have epiphanies of this level can often take many years of meditation and yoga practice. I also have an awareness of what HPB refers to as the "truth". It seems, as of recent, there has been a quickening of these epiphanies, almost a doubling of my knowledge every month (sometimes quicker.) I would like to go into greater detail, but it would fill many books if I were to write all the truths I have seen. My worldview is changing rapidly (i.e. Moving away from materialism.) I guess I am looking for people to talk to who has similar knowledge of what I am experiencing. And as odd as it may sound, I feel that I am destined to become fully aware or enlightened. I am sure that I will be flamed by some for this posting and most will either not understand or not believe me. It really doesn’t matter to me, you can believe every word of what I say or totally dismis it as absolute fansasy if you desire. But if anyone would like to speak to me about this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, Eric Bowers
