« Why we can't rely on the Bible for social and moral progress | Main | It isn't all about us. Humans aren't special. »

June 07, 2017

Comments

If mind and awareness are different, would experiences of the mind fall under subjectivity and the things that awareness becomes aware of, fall under objectivity?

Hi Brian
You wrote
"So I wish religious believers would be clearer about what they claim to have experienced."

Why? You don't believe it.
Why does belief have to rest in experience? The point of belief, ie faith, is to believe in what has not been seen or experienced.

"The tragedy of human life is that what we see we must not love, and what we cannot see we must learn to live. "
Charan Singh.

What are your thoughts on people who claim that the experiences of the mind are subjective, but the experiences of the awareness or consciousness, objective?

-
Brian :
"" So I wish religious believers would be clearer about what they claim to have experienced. ""

This is not true
Lying . . . ( that depends of how far you modified your conscience first ( Buddha )

Because you ignore real facts about serendipities ( miracles ) and when I offered physical
proof , , which is a copy of the journal "Nice-Matin" you did not even react
probably because there is no escape from this fact


777

I dislike the term "mystical experience." Perhaps an absorption in universal oneness is more appropriate. The best description I have read was in "An Idealist View of Life," by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:

“It is a condition of consciousness in which feelings are fused, ideas melt into one another, boundaries are broken, and ordinary distinctions transcended. Past and present fade away into a sense of timeless being. Consciousness and being are not different from each other. In this fullness of felt life and freedom, the distinction of the knower and known disappears. The privacy of the individual self is broken into and invaded by a universal self which the individual feels as his own. The experience itself is felt to be sufficient and complete. It does not come in fragmentary or truncated form demanding completion by something else. It does not look beyond itself for meaning or validity.”

I met Dr. Radhakrishnan in 1962 while studying at Lucknow University on a Carnegie grant.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...