Still, I’m just wondering how anyone can just so flippantly deny it.
I mean the question seems to come from the line of reasoning of where did we come from and tracing that all the way back to the beginning of the universe, so in a sense you ARE the universe. That this sense or idea of separate beings is in our heads and that there is no “one” or self inside your head pulling the strings.
Because it is a deeply stupid question deserving nothing but derision.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Can you explain your reason, much of the devotees who think so (and who did the meditation I linked) say that unless you have done all the levels then you don’t really understand or can’t comment about it.
I just want to know the reason WHY it is dumb. Like I said in the above I think it has to do with the line of reasoning about where did X come from and tracing that all the way back.
Because a part of a thing contained within a thing is not the whole thing. Do you think that you are Florida? Do you think that you are The United States? Do you think that you are the planet Earth? Do you think that you are the Milky Way Galaxy? Do you think that you are the Local Group? Do you think that you are the Virgo Supercluster? Do you think that you are the Pices-Cetus Supercluster? The question is complete and utter gibberish and the “devotees” are a bunch of pathetic, deluded, superstitious ignoramuses. You might as well be asking “Is my dog Tuesday?” or “Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?” It is not even wrong.
You don’t like it when what you’ve said is dismissed and derided as dumb, but you sort of did the same thing to me when I gave you a serious reply. :dubious:
Read more fiction.
You need to develop a bullshit detector and calibrate it.
I’m guessing they are referring to there being no essence to a thing in that something cannot exist independently of anything else. Like how without trees, oxygen, plants and animals we would not be able to exist and that without the Earth we wouldn’t exist. That without the elements prior to Earth the Earth would not exist and so on and so forth. Or as they told me, before you there was the universe, which seems much like this line of reasoning.
But you gave me just a bunch of questions and not really an explanation of why you aren’t it. It does sound similar to Buddhism about how nothing exists independently of anything else.
All that means is that religious experiences are merely just rewiring the brain, there isn’t anything supernatural or insightful about any of them (though people will think otherwise). It would be like saying other brain states are the “true” reality, and again the mystics and sages of the past could not have know the profound effects the brain has on our lives so they believed such experiences to be divine or whatever.
I did explain it, you just appear to be congenitally incapable of understanding simple English.
Because all you ever DO here is ask us a bunch of pseudo intellectual riddles and post a bunch of philosophical nonsense. Did you ever think about talking to a therapist?
You’re so obsessed with all of this. It’s not helping you.
And I explained why your explanation was not it and how they are referring to something akin to dependent origination like in Buddhism.
Therapy doesn’t help because the problem is the content being said.
Like I mentioned I above he didn’t really refute the point they make but just ask a bunch of questions. Later when I likened it to Buddhist concepts of no-self or dependent origination they still said it was nonsense. I can’t just reject something because someone says it’s nonsense. My guess is that the you are the universe is rooted in the Buddhist parts of dependent origination, in that nothing exists independently of anything else but is enmeshed and connected to everything. Nothing would exist without everything else around it. That to suggest an “I” would be to suggest some kind of core or self that doesn’t truly exist.
Therapy doesn’t help if you don’t go to a therapist.
And any advice given doesn’t work if you are driven to finding problems and not solutions.
Because it’s a scam. You’re going to start by paying some relatively modest sum for some knowledge or information ( whether it’s the true nature of the universe or how to get rich investing in real estate.) Then once you’ve done that, you find that you can ONLY get the secret by paying a somewhat less modest sum for the next level or next course.
Then you’ll just get more teasers and maybe some peripheral information, because the REAL secret will be revealed in the next level, which is even more expensive.
It’s a psychological trick to keep drawing you into the scam. And the people that have already consumed the Kool-Aid, as it were, are going to encourage other people to follow in their footsteps. Because it validates their own decisions.
Well for the broward meditation it is for sure, it’s taking me some time to see that. But I was referring to things like this:
“The “inevitable” demise is the illusion itself. There limitation of having only those “options” is the illusion - the notion of “utility” is what is samsara/maya. When the man realizes that he is neither the doer of action, nor the enjoyer of the strawberry, has no volition nor efficacy and that he is the tiger himself as well as the strawberry as well as the man - then he has metaphorically climbed up and killed the tiger. You are right in the sense that it is not an “option” - killing the tiger is the reality, the true reality, beyond the “options.” It is scary because it is not meant for the faint hearted, However, on a tangible non spiritual level you are correct, however if after reading this you still believe that you exist as an individual conscious being in between birth and death and have to get “the most you can” out of “life” then I have not done a good job with this, and have failed you. Truth is you don’t need the strawberry, never did - and yes you can “win” against the tiger. But don’t take my word for it, try it yourself.”
Based on the story linked here about the Tiger and the Strawberry: https://anandbhatt.skyrock.mobi/3289760168-The-Most-Misunderstood-Buddhist-Story-The-Tiger-and-the-Strawberry.html?success=1
I have been going to one for years, he can’t help with these questions.
And as I thought there wasn’t a good rebuttal to their claim about being the universe.
Things that can’t be explained, and don’t make sense, don’t need to be refuted.
I am not the universe. There is a reality outside me. I have models in my head, that match to things in that universe, to a better or worse degree. If they don’t match, I modify or abandon them. But that’s because there is something outside my head to which they can be compared, and seen to match or not match or partially match. If I try to abandon all my models, that doesn’t affect the outside universe at all. All it does is cause me to be unable to process or interact with the universe.
The models aren’t the universe. The universe exists outside the models. The stuff you have quoted doesn’t mean anything - that is, there is nothing in the universe that it is a good model of. So it doesn’t need to be refuted - just recognize that it has no meaning, and that the people who are pitching it are trying to get over on you and get your money.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think it’s a grab to get money. But then again the only thing that link has is a story, his interpretation of what it really means, and another story about not chasing experiences and focusing on “liberation”. But the bits about being immortal and suffering not being real are just his say so, and even BUddhist tales are just that tales. They are told to confirm a point of view in a sense. As for being the universe the only evidence they gave me was that before me there was the universe. By that I guess it means that I don’t exist independently of anything else, that I came from it and therefor am it. The most I can buy is being a part of the whole, but that’s it.
What I find curious is how many paths claim to have the ultimate truth and a way to get it, while atheists I speak to just tell me that this is what we think based on the evidence, but we can’t be 100%. It’s by far the most honest and refreshing approach I know.
I think in response to you “if it doesn’t make sense”, some of these Eastern paths make a note of going beyond logic or the human conception of what we believe things to be. I usually don’t have an answer to that. There is also some claim as to there being no self and that neuroscience is getting close to that.