I enjoy believing in Gods that don't exist. You get the benefit of a higher power but without the drawback of taking a fantasy to be real.
A few days ago I started reading a book about a modern approach to Stoicism, The Stoic Challenge: A Philosopher's Guide to Becoming Tougher, Calmer, and More Resilient by William B. Irvine.
Irvine begins his book by relating a tale of how, after several attempts to repair a plane's cargo door had failed, with an extended delay in taking off, a gate agent announced that the passengers would have to wait until morning because no plane would be available until then.
A groan went up from the passengers. He assured us that the airline would put us up at a nearly hotel, an assurance that was met with even more groans. I was, I must admit, among the groaners, but then I realized what was happening: the Stoic gods had contrived this event on my behalf, as a kind of challenge.
"Game on!" I said to no one in particular.
I did this because I knew from experience that by treating this setback as a challenge -- by assuming, more precisely, that the Stoic gods had administered the setback as a test of my resilience and resourcefulness -- I could simultaneously reduce the emotional cost of being set back and increase my chances of finding a workaround.
When I read this, I wondered what was up with the mention of Stoic gods. Did Irvine, a professor of philosophy at Wright State University, really believe in them? If so, I figured that my enjoyment of his book was going to take a marked downturn after reading the first two pages.
But, no, such wasn't the case, as I learned on the next page.
It is important to realize that Stoicism is not a religion: its primary concern is not with our afterlife but with our time spent on Earth. That said, I should add that Stoicism is compatible with many religions, including Christianity and Islam. But here another clarification is in order.
Above, I made reference to the "Stoic gods." I do not believe that these gods actually exist, as physical or even as "spiritual" beings. They are, for me, fictitious entities.
By invoking them, I can transform what for many people would simply be an unfortunate setback into a kind of mind game. Doing this lets me respond to setbacks without becoming frustrated, angry, or despondent.
Those who dislike invoking imaginary gods as part of a psychological strategy may instead invoke an imaginary coach or teacher; the psychological effect will be equivalent.
And those who do believe in God may proceed on the assumption that the setback in question is part of God's plan for them -- or if they are Muslim, part of Allah's plan -- as many Christians and Muslims already do.
It is my impression that those that all those that have reached enlightenment of sorts, describe ithat enlightenment as an "state" but talking and writing describing their experience, they use words and concepts that "allows" others to believe that there is something with human characteristics.
They say that: ....humans are made in the image of THAT
and that is transformed by humans in ...
THAT is made in the image of THEM.
And that is how it is and can not be otherwise as the use of language and conce[pts does not allow it otherwise,
To describe an computer and its workings to those that live far away from the so called western world in rural NATURAL environments one has to use THEIR language, language that is born from living in these rural natural environments.
People that do not have inner experiences themselves are like those living in rural forests of the world,. To explain what the experience is all about, one has to use THEIR words, their language and based upon THEIR world view.
Computers and inner experiences do exist but NOT in the way they are SAID to exist.
Atheists etc are like people living in these forest, after havong heard of the description go on and on to state that "the computer" doesn't exist as they cannot find one where they happen to live.
Hahaha ...they are right, .... it is not there to be found
Posted by: um | July 28, 2023 at 01:46 AM
@um
In my opinion, you are wrong about those that have reached enlightenment. Here is where we have to differentiate between enlightenment and mystical experiences. Mystics manipulate the (usually kundalini) energy to achieve "states" up to the "God" state. These are temporary experiences and when the experience ends they return to normal egoic consciousness.
Enlightenment is something completely different by most accounts. It is the recognition that your true nature is the unchanging consciousness that does not come and go, has never been harmed, and can never be harmed. The subjective, invisible, empty knower of all. The reality that persists through all experiences. The foundation in which no other experience is possible. Even "God," if there is such a thing, requires that "I" exist first to know if it exists. Without my existence first, I cannot investigate the existence of anything else. Therefore "I" am the ground of all.
Everyone on investigation will have to admit, that "I" have never changed. The objects that appear to "me," such as my body and surroundings have constantly changed. But "I" the knower never has. That is why someone of 70 or 80 will say they feel no older than when they were 10. Sure appearances have changed, but I have not and neither has anyone else.
This recognition ends all suffering when seen correctly because what you are can never be harmed or suffer losses; whereas the false identity is in constant disturbance with losses all over the place and finally the ultimate loss which is death. To identify as a person is to be depressed and suffer when you are truthful about it.
Posted by: 12 months left | July 28, 2023 at 03:51 AM
To accept or refute “God,” we must have a clear definition of what “God” is. What I mean by “God,” is likely different than what someone else means.
By looking in 8 different dictionaries on the definition of God, one quickly finds they are wide-ranging in their definitions.
Some say: “the supreme or ultimate reality,”
“the supreme being and creator of the universe,” “ruler of the universe.” We must note these dictionaries do not agree on basics. Some say “God” is a "male deity," some say, “a being,” some say “a spirit.” Others disagree and use a more amorphous definition such as the ultimate reality or the creative principle.
If the dictionaries themselves cannot agree on what “God,” is, then obviously there can be no agreement on WHETHER God is.
To refute God we must be clear on what we are refuting and the dictionaries are all over the map on what “God” is.
Posted by: 12 months left | July 28, 2023 at 03:55 AM
@ 12 etc
>> To accept or refute “God,” we must have a clear definition of what “God” is. What I mean by “God,” is likely different than what someone else means.<<
For that very reason , I am not "wrong" nor can I as i "read" from my "own" book.
[ Do not take it to serious ... hahah]
Well if what you wrote about feeling unchanged in age is an sign of enlignment I must be ... hahaha. These days whem my age comes up in a conversation, some people gaze at me as if the see water burning, so much so that it starts to effect me and I start to wonder if I am indeed that old as I think to be...very strange feeling to be honest.
Back to topic.
It os my understanding that all ultimate experiences and state do end in tbeing the same, irrespective the approach, irrespective the description and explanation ... I can not be otherwise.
Of course those that have walked a given path and those that follow in their footsteps do deny it as they hold on to the the uniqueness of their variation of the same. and I guess it has to be so.
All whites are white even if this white is not that white.
All forms of psychotherapy are the same as they are all working IF and and only IF, there is an so called therapeutic rapport or relationship between the two. No text book will explain how to establish that relations hip however.
All forms of meditation are also the same and are also, like therapies, based on something that is never discussed.
Anyway ...it is all just my persona;l understanding and there is no need to enter discussions about what exists and what not.
I am here writing .. that much do I know ... hahaha ... and " I " just meaning a point in time and space, god knows who does the writing, chooses the words, manipulates the keyboard ... I am not resposible ... that for sure ... hahaha
Time for coffee
Posted by: um | July 28, 2023 at 06:14 AM
@ 12 ...
Before I forget ... whatever you wrote is correct,, a reasonable description of an point of view. Well worth to be expressed that way in the public domain.
But I love to stay "inside" the comfort of my own home these days
Posted by: um | July 28, 2023 at 06:17 AM
@um
“I am here writing .. that much do I know...”
But DO you know that?
King Janaka had a dream in which he lost his kingdom. When he woke up he wondered, “was the dream real? Did I lose my kingdom? Or is the current situation real and I still have it? While in the dream this life seemed unreal. Now the dream seems as if it were unreal.”
He called his advisor. The advisor said, “the dream is not your situation now so it can’t be real. Discard it. Also, while in the dream, your current situation was not real, so it too must be discarded.
Then what is real?
What was there both in the dream and now?
“I was there during both.”
“Then YOU must be real since you were in both places. Not the person you took yourself to be in the dream or now.”
Posted by: 12 months left | July 28, 2023 at 11:47 PM
@ 12 month left
What is ..."REAL" ... i know how to write the word and in general how it is used in conversations, but beyond that the word has no value and meaning for me.
To look in the mirror while shaving and stating ... you are real ... would not make any difference .. don't you think so? I would still need to be attentive not to cut myself ... hahaha
By the way what happens when the 12 months are over?
Posted by: um | July 29, 2023 at 02:19 AM
@ 12 enzo
I am not an expert in anything, neither theoretical nor practical, but i hear what fellow humans had and have to say and witness what they do, did and will do as long as there is a "future"for me.
That said,
Yolande Duran, the lady that spontaneously entered into , what is described by people like Nisargadatta as the end state. It would be a THIRD state a state from which their is no return. a state that is beyond the two you mentioned.
A state one is DRAWN IN and not a state that can be ACHIEVED, by ANY practice whatsoever a state of love.
That sounds as reasonable to be as that crows are born crows, live as such and will die as such ....what holds for crows holds for everything and everybody.
Posted by: um | July 29, 2023 at 08:18 AM
@Um,
Hi Um,
You said, “By the way what happens when the 12 months are over?” I don’t know.
Regarding the 4th state, here is my view:
Reality or Truth is sometimes referred to as the fourth state. Why? Because it doesn’t belong to the three states of waking, dreaming, or deep sleep. Those three states are the only three generally known.
Many describe samadhi as the 4th state and some yogically try to enter the 4th state through kundalini, mantra, control of the breath and other means. Radhasoami is based on that idea. So let’s call that state of samadhi, the fourth state.
What do we really mean by samadhi? We mean a state of union. A state of oneness. In the yogic path, whether RS, kriya yoga, or other such means, you achieve a temporary experiences of union or samadhi. Unfortunately when that experience ends you return to one of the other 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) and are essentially no better off than before you performed your yogic feat.
That is why the Maha-yogis suggested another step. That is to experience union or oneness even during the experience of the other 3 states. Some have experienced this on LSD or other drugs, in which case you walk around and still interact with the world, yet are consciously “totally at one with all and everything.” Complete and total union, at all times. This is sometimes referred to as Sahaj samadhi. It never goes away. Whereas the yogic experiences do go away, this is not temporary and does not go away once it is stabilized.
In Sahaj samadhi, the other 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) continue even while undisturbed Union or Oneness is all that is really present. Thus, it cannot be called one of the 3 states and is referred to as the 4th state. But it is not really a state in that the other 3 states function at the same time.
The achievement of “states” of consciousness are temporary measures, such as the achievememnt of Sach Khand, and as such should in no terms be considered a final goal, or actually even important.
Soamiji Maharaj who founded RS, may have been an expert at performing this samadhi yogic feat, but that does not “end the ego” and no matter how exalted it seems, is still not any kind of advanced understanding.
Posted by: 12 months left | July 31, 2023 at 11:27 PM
@ 12 ..
Thank you for this detailed exposition of states,
Its corresponds with the view point I came to understand from reading some pages on Advaita literature and the description of Yolande Duran Serrano that spontaneously, without any previous knowledge or interest in altered states,got into that fourth state while maintaining her capacity to function in the other states.
As I wrote in yesterday in the open threat 46, she has fallen in the light and has become one with it.
If you do read that contribution ... do read the last sentence twice ...hahaha
Posted by: um | August 01, 2023 at 12:09 AM