« Crazy or religious? Tough to tell the difference. | Main | How to tell science from pseudoscience »

May 21, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And this blog is about criticizing religion and silly beliefs? I'm confused. I've found much more profound wisdom in the books of Jane Roberts, even though she would be catagorized as 'new age' and I am an atheist and have abandoned new age philosophies. She's brilliant and insightful and I think if we could get past the supernatural part of her books, the teachings would really revolutionize society. Buddhist/Tao teachings are so ubelievably patronizing and childish in comparison. But she's not Ancient and Eastern, which seem to really dazzle the dudes in the West. Also, she's a chick.

It seems like Buddhism advocates non-surgical lobotomy in order to end suffering. Having no brain would stop 'bad' thoughts and 'attachment', but you'd also have no brain. Zombie-hood just doesn't appeal to me. Is that my selfish ego talking?

But, it's old and Eastern, so it must be really, really wise...

Grace,

"Having no brain would stop 'bad' thoughts and 'attachment', but you'd also have no brain."

---You can keep your brain. I have kept mine, seems to help with living. That said, there could be something to the term....no mind.

This Zombie-hood sounds interesting. I may need to look into that.

Grace, I don't know much about Jane Roberts, other than that she was the first, and main, channeler of a disembodied entity known as Seth. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts

How do you think we could "get past the supernatural part of her books," as you suggested, given that her books are based on what a supernatural being revealed to her? I'm confused on that point.

I can understand your attitude toward Buddhism, as sometimes Buddhists do speak as if complete detachment from the joys and sorrows of this world is the way to go. Like you said, that sounds a lot like a lobotomy.

However, in the Zen literature there is much criticism of those who try to stop their minds and become actionless, thoughtless, and emotionless.

Likewise, Taoism (which I'm attracted to more than Buddhism) is much more about flowing with life than controlling life. Be angry. Be happy. Be lustful. Be sad. Be whatever. Then move on to the next "be'ing."

I agree that "old and Eastern" doesn't equate to "really, really wise."

Regarding what this blog is about, I'm more into criticizing religion than silly beliefs. Meaning, we all have beliefs that appear silly to other people.

I believe that "24" is (and sadly, soon will be "was) a terrific TV series. My wife sees my belief as colossally misguided and can't stand the show.

Well, I don't force my beliefs onto other people. I'll tell someone that I like "24" but don't expect them to do the same. Likewise, it's great if you enjoy Jane Roberts and Seth. What I'd object to is considering them as pointing to objective reality, rather than just a like, without evidence to this effect.

Reading Wikipedia, I see that some people feel that Roberts echoes findings of quantum mechanics. OK, if that's the case, why not study quantum theory directly, rather than an echo of it, since quantum mechanics has much evidence to back it up?

Brain and mind are not the same, please. The brain is a body part. The mind is content, and is conditioned by all that you have been told or taught from outside yourself. "Lobotomy" is a poor descriptor- I think Lin Chi is just suggesting that one leave the conditioning behind. And leaving all the conditioning behind is probably the opposite of zombiehood... perhaps it is clean, efficient, unfettered

Hi! This is Grace (for some reason it would let me post normally so I used my twitter account). I know I posted my comment quite a while ago, I finally got around to see if anyone responded. I thought I was rather harsh so I was a little afraid to see if I might possibly be ripped to shreds by the Church of The Churchless folks (especially considering I was giving praises to a so-called channeller!) It actually wasn't as bad as I thought on re-reading it. :)

Blogger Brian: When I said getting past the supernatural aspects of Jane Robert's writings, Jane herself never fully accepted that "Seth" was a supernatural entity and her books are full of skepticism on who and what 'he' is (is he a part of my subconscious, am I having a schizophrenic episode, is this just an aspect of my own creative self?) I meant to take her ideas more as philosophy or mysticism much like the way nonreligious people take the writings of Lao Tzu or Buddha. Again, what makes Lao Tzu any different, wasn't the Tao Te Ching considered "the mystical source and ideal of all existence." Jane certainly never made any such grand claims. Even "Seth" never such claims, and stressed trusting yourself over anything he or any guru, priest or authority figure said. And Jane wrote books as herself that delved into philosophy, religion and psychic phenomena in a way that has no parallel in any literature on the subject that I have ever come across.

And again, how is Lao Tzu not a 'channeler' himself? My ex-fiancee was a Taoist, I've taken classes where I had to learn about all things Taoist. It was all presented to me as divinely inspired wisdom, facts about objective reality.

I agree about quantum physics, if you're interested in it, study quantum physics, not any new age take on it. The fact that other writers use writers like Roberts to try to get QP to fit new age ideas doesn't take away from her work. She never invoked quantum physics in her writings.

I definitely don't consider Roberts to point to objective reality, I read her books now in a playful way, testing the ideas (and to be honest I have had some interesting results). And the ideas have been incredibly mind expanding for me (kind of like LSD but without any possible bad trips ;)

Peace,
Penelope Grace

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 saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. 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

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

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.