Okay, Mike.

OK, please end this thread too. These back and forths clutter up the relevant comments. This has been going on since THURSDAY!

Roger: “In truth, the point you’ve asked me to prove, about how Hubbard’s thetan doesn’t exist outside of the imagination…I have already done in the past repeatedly.”

You may have attempted to present proof of that, but I didn’t see it as proof. What I recall is that it came down to assertion, based on someone’s (or many others’) assertion of personal experience, or else it was mere belief in their assertions – which is no different from Hubbard’s (and others’) assertions of direct experience or mere belief in those assertions.

Personally, I don’t “believe” in either. If anything, what seems right to me at this point in my journey is that different people could very well be having the exact same spiritual experience but some describe it as an experience of “I am” while others describe it as “oneness with all.” With either type of experience, there is apparently no worldly identification whatsoever, which tells me it’s virtually impossible to say anything about it at all! It should actually be expected that different descriptions could conflict.

“BTW, marildi, after all we’ve been through together do you really think I would make an assertion I can’t back up and would therefore ‘cop-out’? Do you REALLY think that?”

I get that you are basically a good guy and no dummy, but I’m still getting to know you. And I honestly don’t know yet if you would be capable of being fully honest about something in your personal belief system that may put you on the spot. Serously, I think almost anything can be put into simple, relatively few words, if you really know what you’re tallking about. I’ve had to do that many times, to the best of my ability, with regard to aspects of Scientology.

No need to explain to me what a ‘cop-out’ is marildi. I am qualified to teach vedanta and what you’re asking of me is to teach principles that have considerable complexity. In truth, the point you’ve asked me to prove, about how Hubbard’s thetan doesn’t exist outside of the imagination…I have already done in the past repeatedly. I’m not going to turn this blog into a vedanta school. (It might be too late to say that!) I’ve referred you to Shining World website to acquaint yourself with the subject but you’re not interested and there’s no reason why you should be.

BTW, marildi, after all we’ve been through together do you really think I would make an assertion I can’t back up and would therefore ‘cop-out’? Do you REALLY think that? I’ll tell you who does that: Mr. Theosamides. Yeah, he took a powder on me here and last year at Tony’s when I started getting analytical. If I did that I wouldn’t be able to live in my own skin.

“You are correct that vedanta doesn’t recognize such a spiritual being as you describe. Hubbard’s ‘thetan’. Vedanta DOES explain in elegant detail how that notion is false. I’m taking a pass on discussing it further.”

That’s a cop-out, Rog. I can only conclude that you can’t back up your assertions.

cop-out
1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.
2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.
3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

“(I’m betting you were one imperious MAA!)”

Thinking at your own level, are you? 🙂

(imperious: assuming power or authority without justification; arrogant and domineering.)

An SO missionaire one time thought I was too soft. I wasn’t acquiesing to the new order of things.

Peacemaker, if you have a specific disagreement with an assertion I’ve made then let us hear it. You may disprove it with reason and if you do I will be obliged to change my mind.

As I’ve stated, consciousness cannot be studied empirically. There is no evidence of consciousness beyond your experience of being conscious. Besides, consciousness doesn’t undergo any changes so it doesn’t respond to any stimuli. Thoughts come and go creating ever-changing states of mind but the witnessing consciousness is unchanging and unmoving. Consciousness perceives thoughts but does not itself have thoughts. The mind has thoughts. Science studies the mind/brain, it doesn’t study consciousness.

I do understand where you’re coming from though and your objections are also understandable.

And with you too, Roger. 🙂

Thank you, Brian. No worries. ❤

For the poet in you, here’s an excerpt from a “poem” that speaks to our coaction:

“Why does one suffer pain in his own arm when he or she has struck another’s limb?

“Because the cruel impulse has been a break of bond with others where pledge once lived.

“The only overt act that can bring pain to self is that cruel act which then transgresses things to which we had agreed.

“Share action with a group or person in your life, agree to mutually survive by some specific code and then be cruel to them and so transgress and you’ll have pain.

“All mankind lives and each man strives by codes of conduct mutually agreed. Perhaps these codes are good, perhaps they’re bad, it’s only evident they’re codes. Mores bind the race.

“Coaction then occurs. Thought and motion in accord. A oneness then of purpose and survival so results.”

(“Clean Hands Make a Happy Life”)

Roger, I think we have to be careful about defining words in ways other than those generally understood, because then one risks falling into the sort of redefinition of words that George Orwell dealt with in his book 1984, and that Hubbard and Scientology have exploited. Referring to something as a model or theory is a way of saying that it yields understanding, without risking seeming to claim that it is ultimate unalterable truth. Enough said.

I think that your example of ramifications from MRI research does show how modern scientific advances may have some ramifications for models of consciousness, including the old hindu and yogic ones. And I think science is likely to be even more impactful in the future as the tools and techniques improve and yield more detailed insights.

Brian, I’m going to agree with you. Things are more interesting with marildi than without marildi.