Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

They aren't separate that they need to be merged.

 

I would disagree. No one can deny that they have been separate for a long time in history.

 

Basically every scientist who ever existed would disagree with you. As well as inumerable clergy and lay believers who consider their spirituality to have scientific merit.

Here's a quotation from antiquity that also flies in the face of your premise that spirituality and science are separate. It may be a bit dry for you so I can explain if need be.

-Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha), ~2500 years ago

The only "spirituality" which does not agree with science is wishy washy unexamined shite that passes as "new age" and such; ie, crystal healing, Magick, astrology, etc. These do not go well with science because they are closer to dogmatic religion; "believe in me, but do not examine me, for there lies error/sin"

 

There are some similar ideas but the video you posted would be like trying to get all Tails in Harris analogy. There is no mention of objective measures of the amgydala, cortisol levels, etc.

Harris is a physicalist by the way...

 

well everyone's got their own emphasis, guerrillabedlam. The point is that they are talking about the same thing. So what if he didn't get scientific about it? He's not a scientist.

Once again, this vibe that "well he's not talking scientifically, therefore he's jaded"...

 

Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that view, I am saying they are not exactly saying the same thing as you suggested.

 

Yes, Writer, Magick and Astrology are sooo wishy-washy and dogmatic and not based on subjective experience.

I thought your whole premise about Astrology is that it was too subjective. Well apply the Sam Harris video to that statement.

And yes, Magick and Astrology are also sooo New Age. It's not like they stem from Ancient Egypt or anything...

Were you ready to give me your information so I can give you a real Astrology reading?

 

They ARE saying the exact same thing. How are you missing this? What the Scientist is talking about regarding self-transcendence at the end of the video is the exact same thing that Adyashanti talks about in every one of his videos. Same with Eckhart Tolle. Same with countless spiritual teachers throughout all the ages.

However, how many times have Scientists up to now said those very same things?

Don't try to tell me that Science has been very Spiritual since the Scientific Revolution because it's not fucking true at all.

 

I think you are confusing "objective" and "subjective". Astrology and Magick are only subjective; they have no measurable outcomes in the world, their predictions fail, and their basis is in ancient "magical" thinking.

What will you do with my reading? You said to go on a website to give you my chart, I did. I also read the website's reading, one of DOZENS I have read in my life, and it was indeed wonderfully accurate. unfortunately it is accurate for a great many people who do not share my birth place or date. You said with much confidence that you could give me a reading that would blow me away. Upon giving you my chart, you immediately retracted and said you are actually quite a weak astrologer, and it will have to be your ex girlfriend. Red flag. Now your ex needs to copy and paste various metrics about me into some website, Red Flag, (which you could just link me to), in order to get a reading. At what point does it become permissable to just tell you to fuck off with your bullshit?

Do you remember our gigantic discussion on Magick specifically, which culminated in you finally being in a position to offer up your 7 years of explorations into the matter, only for you to immediately retract (see a pattern?) and say that unfortunately, further discussion of magick would be far too personal. Yet you require various personal metrics of mine to give me some java-scripted hooey about how "sex is important to me" and "I value friendship".

It's clear you are very, very young in your search for knowledge. I'm just going to let you spin away here as more and more people lose interest in you and you can keep posting random youtube videos where you misunderstand the point, as "proof" of your "2012" conjecture.

Enjoy your ride, I hope you don't waste too much time on it.

 

Funny thing is nobody seems to be ignoring me nor these threads that I played an integral part in creating. Seems that you keep begging for me to disappear from the spotlight. Kind of sounds like you want the spotlight. Kind of sounds like an ego thing to me.

You're simply wrong regarding the objective and subjective aspects of Magick. And I'm not about to share the details of that with someone who would bet their life on its non-existence. How is that for the "confirmation bias"? How is that for dogma?

My ex-girlfriend has the astrology program, not website, on her computer. Giving her a random chart is like giving a scientist some random chart with no explanation of the data. She needs the information to put into her program because she doesn't know what house and node system is being used.

No, I said that I could tell you some things about yourself with the chart, but also said that I'm a pretty poor astrologer but I wanted to give it my best shot. But then I read somebody else's and they weren't impressed so I'm sure I wouldn't impress you. Hence, getting my ex-girlfriend, who's a thousand times more experienced with Astrology than me.

Ok, writer, i'll continue being the naïve little annoying person that you want to go away so badly

I'm so young and naïve in my knowledge. You, on the other hand, you're miles ahead of me. Anyone but me see an ego shining through all of this? A big one?

What do you mean what am I going to do with your reading? I'm going to give you the reading, if you give me the information.

 

From the guru video..

"Anyone who has had even a glimpse of waking to real reality..."

This is suggesting that their is a 'divine' reality or aspect of the cosmos which we are not privy too, except under 'awakened' conditions.

That is in contrast to what Harris is saying...

Paraphrasing Harris "Self-transcendence says nothing about the cosmos, it is an experience which says something about consciousness."

He is saying that self-transcendent experience can change the perceived locus of consciousness but nothing changes in the objective reality of the cosmos.

 

What Adyashanti is implying is the same thing that Harris is implying. He's not saying that objective reality changes or that it's not there until you awaken to it. He's just saying that you see the reality of no-self. Exactly what Harris is saying.

 

I quoted guru straight from the video ChinaCat...

I don't care to stagnate on the issue, it is insightful to how you approach points of contension though.

 

No I dont agree. Conscousness is in the properties of matter itself I dont mean conscoisness as in consciousness of but that consciousness is a natural abstraction of materiality. It is an intensity of relationship between the three communal forces of matter which are absorption reflection and polarity. Particles commune with each other to form molecules of ever greater complexity. Think in terms of chloroflouridians in star wars. An atom is a simple unit of consciousness which can communicate simply by virtue of it's structure.

 

Guru has a way of saying things about waking up that are confusing which is why he keeps having to say, you know what I mean. To awaken makes you realize you live in a community of personal expressions, that we are fundamentaly conected in our experience. There is self there is just no separate self or self that is separate.

 

Science is studied observation of phenomenon. You might think it's redundant, to explain simple things as science but think about it man. Maybe that first caveman musician, (inspired by the magical fungus he ingested earlier) he's suddenly struck with the spirit and decides to lay down a groove with these rocks. But Grogs first down-beat's a wild glancing blow, smashing his thumb to a pulp. He drops the rocks and starts dancing around, screaming in pain... his buddy, (Oog, we'll call him)Oog, saw the whole thing coming, and was very entertained, but also Oog had been completely enthralled with Grog's every action, (again, the fungus lol) and had carefully observed his friends mistake... you gotta have a certain technique if you wanna jam-out with rocks and not mash your fingers! So Oog developed rock playing and everyone benefited from Oogs discovery's. Unfortunately Oog didn't have good rhythm, but still enjoyed jamming out, and teaching rock playing methods. Thanks to Oogs well thought-out, scientifically applied theories and pedagogy, mankind progressed.

In an unfortunate side note, his buddy Grog was later killed in what would have been the first discovery of spark-making when one of his prized instruments, a large hunk of pyrite, came into contact with his granite 'river-tone' rock during a heavy practice session. Grog was killed in the subsequent fire, and and because the younger, lazier, 'millenial' generation had by then begun moving on to more 'stick' based music, it would be another 100,000 years before the phenomenon would be observed again .... :mickey:

 

^ The birth of rock n roll

 

Complete with pyrotechnics.

 

So to recap for imjustfishing and to further respond to his questions.
what is thehuman frame. it is the human body which is a biological machine to us. A machine being made of two or more parts used to perform an intended action. specifically our body is a communication device. Our essential motive of experience is our breath which comes and goes from the body.. The body has it's own historically centered communication or autonomous functions consisting of a community of you might loosely say individuals that are represented by the various organs that play specific rolls in the body common and cannot in turn survive without the body in common as well the body cannot survive without its functionary which is the breath.
What we call soul or having soul is the sensattion of self in the body. When the breath goes from the body this sense of self in the body ceases to be. But the personality that is you consiting of free floating energetic intensity remains intact. From this state of free flowing intensity many iterations of personality are formed through biological reproduction to provide a platform for the sesational awareness of personality.

 

What informs you that this is the case? That this energy doesn't just disperse, like a broken string of beads and meld with the cosmos, no sense of self remaining intact.