My apologies, IC. My example was not in the least addressed to you personally. I only later figured that it might be seen in that way because of your nick.idlecuriosity wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:25 pm > On the surface we may say "Oh, I want to know all the secrets, I'm a curious person." But even though our deeper being is our true self, from the surface of our intellect it seems so alien that it stands as an independent being. To meet the Guardian means to align ourselves with its spiritual perspective, to see reality and ourselves from that perspective.
You are making a ton of assumptions about me.
Let me put it differently, since peeking in another being's consciousness sounds not too right. What is your view on thoughts and feelings affecting another being 'wirelessly'? Or humans can only affect each other through physical interaction (that is anything that enters through the senses)?idlecuriosity wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:25 pm I like how you presume there could be such a framework when your ideology is predicated on the idea we're able to incur sneak peaks of sensations and feelings experienced by others
It would be dogma if it comes in such a way that things are presented as Divine revelations by authorities and others simply have to choose whether to believe them or not. Everything that is here spoken, even though not immediately provable, requires nothing but thinking which is willing to trace the threads of logic to their conclusions. My example from the other forum thread was fairly clear. If we assume for a moment that our subconscious world has certain living spiritual structure, would it be justifiable to believe that just any random combination of these unknown processes is equally conductive as any one else? If our physical body is so sensitive to the type of nutrition it receives (there's great difference between water and poison), what makes us so certain that just any random thoughts, feelings and actions will always lead to beneficial results for ourselves and everyone else. These things are not supposed to be believed but thought about.idlecuriosity wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:25 pm My issue with all of this is that this place is starting to sound a little too much like a church spinning dogma and although you might have came across a good deal you're sure of, it's difficult to assume you are not projecting your own earthly conceptions of morality upon whatever it is we actually are and that idealism wouldn't suffer pitfalls in eliminating control bias from it's aspirant practitioners because of (if nothing else, science/philosophy takes a lot of time) it's inherently idealistic nature. Perhaps more pressingly, in lieu of the haphazardous nature of experimentation and the amount of attempts it takes to falsify something, you're exhibiting monolithic arrogance to assume your interpretations so far are even 100% certain.
This is gross misunderstanding. No one is telling what others have to believe in. As already said, these things are first and foremost to be thought about - from as many different angles as possible. Everything becomes clear if we think about all other menu options that we would like to be able to choose from (that is, the ones that we don't see presented in the menu provided). Progress is made when we understand the reasons why some things are absent in the menu.idlecuriosity wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:25 pm You do not need to tell someone any of this if they're going to approach their analysis on an objective step by step basis and go looking within proximity to wherever you have. You are not handing the menu and saying where to order; this is making the choice on the menu apropos of no input from me and telling me what to believe
If I'm to learn rock climbing and decide to do it in the safe way, I'll go to learn from somebody (or from books, videos, etc., although it wouldn't be as wise). He'll present me with some equipment - ropes, carabiners, harnesses and so on. In addition to that I'll be shown many types of knots and techniques. General fitness workouts will be suggested. Now I may say: "this begins to smell as dogma to me. You're practically telling me what to do, where's my freedom?". I think every reasonable person can spot the fallacy here. The most important thing is that there's no need to accept these things as dogma. Everything can be thought about. There are reasons for the existence of all these tools and techniques. These reasons can be understood by thinking. I can easily understand why I have to use the special ropes instead of sewing thread.
We can look at similar examples from any sphere of life. Yet quite interestingly, as soon as we approach the questions about the deeper strata of reality, all the methods and techniques that have been perfected by Initiates in the course of millennia, are seen as church dogma. We are actually very fortunate that we live in an epoch where all the Initiatic methods can be completely understood by sound thinking. This hasn't always been the case. In the past only those could approach the deeper secrets who because of Karma had the needed predisposition. So in these ages we can somewhat justifiably say that the disciple had to have some level of sacred trust in the authority of the Initiate. But in the exciting times we live in, things stand differently. We can now understand with thinking the reasons behind the methods and the recommendations of higher development.
It's not needed that everyone should pursue higher development (although it is vitally important that humanity at least thinks about what is being revealed in this way - if catastrophic downfall is to be prevented). But since you asked about it, I'm just telling you what kind of carabiners and ropes are needed for things to go in the proper way. If you're interested in freeclimbing, that's fine - I'm not trying to sell anyone my gear. That's why my very first response to you was about your deeper motivation. Now there's no need to accuse these disciplines of dogmatism, you just have to think for yourself and at least understand what higher cognition is about. It's thousand times better that one thinks things through deeply and realizes that he's simply not interested, that he imagined higher cognition to be something else, rather than convict the discipline in dogmatism.