Ziran

Member
  • Content count

    524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Ziran

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
  • Gender
    Male
  1. The earliest examples I'm aware of used the human body as a microcosm of reality, and the constellations as a macrocosm of reality. Then, the individual would become inspired, intellectually awestruck and full of wonder. When this awe-and-wonder are assigned an external locus of control, it naturally produces religious cognition. Faith, hope, etc... bound to the... beyond. Assuming that the individual is successful, consistently, then they have discovered a religious practice. It's the success which determines whether or not the method attempted ( past tense ) was successful. Because of this the successful method becomes a "religion practice" retroactively. It all depends on whether or not the method actually worked. If so, it's a religion. You're very welcome to bring your own definition.
  2. If so, how is awareness distinguished from oblivion?
  3. In the same manner that the religion is invented today. Religious people re-invent their religion every time it's sincerely practiced.
  4. The semantics here need to be precise. I'm not trying to be difficult, but, I'm choosing words carefully to prevent re-explaining. At that hypothetical moment, if there was only one person involved, the "person" is not directly experiencing it. It's still being abstracted through the microcosm of the physical realm. There aren't extant records of this, the very first religious experience. However, the earliest that I'm aware of used either the human body as the microcosm, or the constellations as a macrocosm. ETA: Primitive people directly experiencing reality falls in the category of Shamanism, not religion, imo.
  5. I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the objection. The first person, assuming there was only one, would necessarily utilize the same technique(s) to investigate some "thing" beyond the material realm.
  6. I like to distinguish between awareness ( which is declaring ) and curiosity ( which is inquiring ). YMMV
  7. The totality of experience includes "Let-Down". If the intention was "peaking", seeking a "peak experience", then there will naturally be a let-down when that peak experience ends without an opportunity to ascend higher to a new peak.
  8. Agnostic-Atheism
  9. A religion is necessary if the target of investigation is 100% different from any "thing" in the material realm, assuming there's more than material, of course. Lacking any similar "thing", one would need a linkage, a conduit, a medium, a vessel. It's like making tea. Fire and Water can't tolerate each other without a kettle between them. Religion is the "kettle".
  10. Making a ritual is like making a layered birthday cake, where each and every layer is highly significant and reinforces the other layers. The key is purity of intention, not perfection. Lacking this purity the significance becomes diluted, and the ritual is weak.
  11. "and" sequentially, or, "and" simultaneously? If it's sequential that may be an obstacle. ... because your awareness is sequential? When awareness is directed to the material form and its birth it's difficult to deny them?
  12. IOW: Supra-rational and the source of life? yup "... come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly." She's a brick... house. LINK she makes me feel alive what makes you alive is the pulsing, the rising-and-falling, of the human soul. Chaos is built in to the system
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
  14. IF so, big if, there will be multiple contributing constituents. No singular root cause. This is difficult for the mind to comprehend which is accustomed to linear sequential cognition. Instead, the condition is "felt", rather profoundly. The heart "understands", in plural, what the mind cannot. Further, on inquiry of the complex, the mind is uniquely disadvantaged in regard to troubleshooting the condition. As it polls the possible root causes, one at a time, it will find no contributing constituents are independently responsible. If there is motive, good reasons, for the mind to avoid considering the complex in total, it will easily default into an avoidant posture or attitude. Which can present in a number of ways. Best wishes, good luck on exams