The Marks of Indoctrination

Originally posted by whodey
Explain love scientifically. Sure you can clumsly say it is a set of complex reactions in the brain, but so what? How is that relavent to me? In fact, how is science relative to me? Sure, science may find ways to make us live a little longer or better etc, but the bottom line is that it is for the most part like playing trivial pursuit. What really matte ...[text shortened]... studying science but live an unfulfilled and relatively empty life without loving relationships.

What is this thing called love? Cole Porter iwrote that back in 1929 believe.

Love, like any emotion or feeling stems from our control centre. The brain. Here's a little ditty for you -

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

How is science relative to you? You tell me, what a strange question. Surely that's something you have to work out for yourself?!

Originally posted by whodey
Your options are that life created itself seperate from intelligent thought or intelligent thought created us. I will ask again, what could be a third scenerio?

Well okay. Erm.... The universe, and life, has always existed. Life spreads via hardy micro-organisms on space rocks.

I bet if we tried we could come up with some other possibles too. My point, as I said before, is that you don't have to believe anything. And that seems to me to be the wisest position to take.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps the reason it all sounds like gobledegook is that it is!!

When you get tired of the gobledegook and the trivia perhaps try giving a shot at a meaningful relationship with your Creator.

We create our own meanings and I am my Creator, warts and all.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We've all been indoctrinated!?

How do you work that one out whodey?

That's a common justification for extremists on both ends of the political spectrum for the blatant political manipulation of children and the masses.

"It's ok because everyone else does it."

Originally posted by black beetle
If you continue to hold onto arbitrary conceptions as to your own selfhood, your conceptions will cling onto something that is non-existent. This is the case with all arbitrary conceptions of other selves, living beings and, of course, with the arbitrary conception of the so called universal self. These are all expressions of things that they do not exi ...[text shortened]... end up hooked on shunyata. And, hooked on shunyata, you suffer of a moving mind oh the horror😵

Indeed, the very emptiness of even the concept of emptiness. When the paths that hold to a "self/Self" try to define the Self, e.g, Brahman etc, the totally ungraspable, indefinable nature of that Self, begins to look very much like a Non-Self. And when the non-Self mob start explaining, "self" generated words betray us from the start.

Bit like that cherry tree, "neither self nor non-self nor....." etc.
Forgive my trait of facetious/oblique expression.. Being too definite goes against the grain.

Regards.

Originally posted by Taoman
Indeed, the very emptiness of even the concept of emptiness. When the paths that hold to a "self/Self" try to define the Self, e.g, Brahman etc, the totally ungraspable, indefinable nature of that Self, begins to look very much like a Non-Self. And when the non-Self mob start explaining, "self" generated words betray us from the start.

Bit like that cherry ...[text shortened]... t of facetious/oblique expression.. Being too definite goes against the grain.

Regards.

No; since one has to know what s/he knows and what s/he ignores, being too definite is anyway forced. The confusion arises when one is not sure about what exactly s/he knows and what exactly s/he does not know -and this happens when your mind is not trained and ready. Sooner or later one ends up at a dead end for there is no way to know for sure what exactly lays beyond the veil, and since there is no "because" to that specific "Why?" the answer is forced, and it is definite:
-- "I don't know!"

Thus I have heard: when I don’t see, why do you not see what I do not see? If you argue that you see what I do not see, that is of course not what I do not see. If you do not see what I do not see, then it is quite natural that it is not a Thing.

Therefore, solely
If you understand non-existent emptiness
And you understand existent emptiness
And you understand ultimate emptiness,
You understand emptiness
😵