Are Gods physical?

[ytrewq]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

If they are able to think and do stuff, then presumably they must be made of something.

By physical matter, I mean the physical stuff within our Universe from which everything else is made from, which includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and to be fair I suppose we must include dark matter as well.

But there are other classes of things that undeniably exist, that are not physical matter as such, that perhaps Gods could be made of. Here is a list of stuff that definitely exists, and thus Gods might potentially be made of :-

(a) Physical matter, including atoms, sub-atomic particles, and dark matter

(b) Electromagnetic radiation and other forms of radiation, energy and fields. For example, light and radio waves.

(c) Human (or animal) feelings, emotions, thoughts, love, hate jealousy, intelligence, stupidity, truth, dishonesty, spirituality and so on. All of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form.

(d) Similar to (c), morals, legal or scientific laws, stories, information, principles, and so on. As with (c), all of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form, although the media that encodes them may be physical, such as a book or CD.

OK. So what are Gods made from? Certainly not anything in the (c) or (d) category, which do not physically exist in their own right and are not capable of performing physical feats on their own. That is, it makes no sense to say that a God (or anything else) is made from love, or justice or logic or spirituality. These are attributes of something that physically exists.

I have heard it said that Gods are not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual is an adjective, an attribute of something that exists, so it makes no sense to say that a God is made of spirituality, any more than saying it is made of love. So sure, Gods probably are very spiritual things, but that says nothing of what they are made from, which is the topic of this thread.

So what is left? Within the realms of human knowledge, and Im not interested in just making stuff up, then I must conclude that Gods (if they exist) are made of the same stuff that everything else in the Universe is made of, being categories (a) and (b).

Anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 256 by ytrewq]

Now here is some more logic, which you are clearly good at.

Flattery will get you everywhere. However, I wouldn't characterise myself as good at logic. I have no formal education in logic.
What I am good at is being consistent, noticing small details. Sorta like Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, but not that OP.

Being able to detect stuff anywhere outside our body would be so much more useful, so why develop such hopelessly less flexible and useful sensory receptors on our body?

I'll have to admit, this is an angle I hadn't considered. Both evolutionarily speaking and theologically speaking, this OBE business supposedly happening only in rare circumstances makes no sense. For the evolution angle, it makes little sense that a far superior method (for lack of a better word) of gathering information about one's environment be deprecated in favour of a less efficient one.
As for theologically speaking, think about the design proponents. If we were designed by a supernatural intelligence...then why did it give us this apparently awesome ability and then restrict its use so tightly?

how does this mysterious out-of-body thing communicate with our brain and memory, which it most certainly must if it's real?

Something I had considered but not commented on. This shares similar problems to the problems I raised regarding sense organs and the brain. We have known, for decades, to a lesser or greater extent, how memory is handled by the brain, that that is where memory happens (let's leave Dune-esque, Assassin's Creed-esque arguments of genetic memory aside for the moment). OBE'ers are trying to convince us that they experienced being outside of their body, and that this experience was then written to the memory centres of their brain, just like any other experience.
Except this doesn't make any sense, since what is it they're claiming? OBE, Out of Body Experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If they're claiming they're out of their body, then there's no way for the information that makes up their experience to get to the brain, to then later be recalled.

I will use a computer analogy. What I have been hearing in the past few posts is like someone saying that they either themselves or know others who did, that in the past they picked up an Xbox One controller and played Metro Exodus in glorious 4K at 144fps, with ray tracing on. I raise an eyebrow at that, as I'm quite familiar with computer technology and what's available, and what performance can be had with what's available. I ask them what they are playing on, and they tell me they don't even have a gaming PC. Or a TV. Or even a copy of the game. They picked up the controller and somehow played a newly released game that even the most powerful currently available hardware quite simply is not capable of playing at the settings they indicated.

[Swami]

x delete

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.

What does this passage mean? I will tell you though that you will be able to tell your interpretation, and it might conflict with what I interpret, which is the exact same problem whenever I discuss Christian scriptures elsewhere.
My interpretation is that another physical body is made, somehow, that has all the same parts as his regular body, but is somehow not 'inferior in its faculties', which I'm not sure what means. Superior eyesight? Perfect hearing, in frequencies above and below what regular humans can hear?

Soon after death occasions the lack of physical senses, the sight of the world appears to the soul as if he were seeing it with open eyes when he was living.

Again, we have a similar problem to Christian texts. I'm seeing religious texts making grandiose claims of what are essentially magic.
This text specifically, I have essentially already commented on. How can a soul see, just like physical eyes?
Physical eyes react to light. Does the above line mean the soul reacts to light too? Is it referring to binocular vision? Why would our soul be like that?
If you say yes, the soul reacts to light, you're going to have to prove that, most likely by showing me a soul appendage/receptor of some sort.
If you say no, the soul does not react to light, then the line you quoted is confusing in its meaning.

Then we find our bodies to be an aerial substance that mixes with the air, and at last, with these our mortal frames, we are able to come to the sight of Brahma.

So our soul bodies become gaseuous substances, that potentially could be breathed in?

I will say I know what happens while out-of-body

As of this moment in time, I do not believe you when you say you have had out of body experiences. I believe you have had experiences that you have misinterpreted as OBEs, but I cannot just take at face value that you have had OBEs.

I'll explain why this is not a problem since there are examples of this in science.

It's a huge problem! Let's say, just for sake of argument here, you are right, you and others see while outside of your body. This would necessarily mean that everything we humans currently think we know about how sight works, is wrong. That it has nothing to do with eyes. That any time we diagnose problems with sight being due to damage to the eyes is in actuality, sheer coincidence.

I consider the option that it's an extension because many report seeing a silver cord that connects their mental or astral body to their physical body. If the cord serves as a connection then this presumably leaves room for information to be exchanged/processed between the two.

You will need to demonstrate the existence of this 'cord'. Unlike yourself, I don't just call it a day when I hear a cord is mentioned and presume that it's an information exchange medium.
To go back to my computer analogy from my previous comment, it's like you're saying to me you've been writing data to a hard drive...without using SATA cables or wireless equipment of any kind.
If your mystical cord is transferring information from the spirit body to the real body, then this means it HAS to be physical and can be detected. Where is it? It can't be the case that it reacts to the physical world while being completely non-physical itself.

No. Scientists already accept a form of perception that does not involve the senses while not understanding how it works, i.e. 'introspection'. With introspection, you acquire information about your mind and this also involves sensory like information in the case of mental images. There's at least one example of perception without our senses.

You'll have to elaborate more on this, as I always thought introspection to be nothing more than thinking really hard about oneself.

Also worth noting that all of what I've been describing here can be experienced by ANYONE. All you need is consciousness and meditation - both of which scientists possess although many Western scientists are too close-minded to implement Eastern practices.

I presume I have a consciousness and I have been meditating for close to twenty years.
Yet I do not experience anything like an OBE. Never have and I expect never to.

My responses above apply here as well. I can also say that I've had several OBEs so far. At times, my vision is blurry, and at other times it's just like my bodily perception. I've also read about some having x-ray like vision, seeing through walls, and even having panoramic or 360 degree vision. Others report it takes practice almost like learning to use it.

Again, vision is predicated upon light, which in an OBE, one would not be reacting to. So these reports must necessarily be false.

I actually focus on this black silent void when trying to quiet my mind of all thoughts. This is usually a good way to get into transcendent experiences which I consider distinct from OBEs.

I focus on the flame and the void. Bonus points if you know where I most likely got that from.

Very young children would be very unlikely to have heard about near-death experiences or understand them.

I wouldn't bat an eye at the thought of kids having this knowledge. I myself had such knowledge of the concepts at that age.

Not sure if it was you or Riko who brought up OBE perception with blind people. Here's some relevant info:

Unfortunately, I don't have access to that actual study. What you present us here is a summary of it, but not any of the actual data. Indeed, I get a 404 error when I click the link for the text for the five year old girl, Martha (and the snippet presented to us does not sound like a five year old)

Here are some illustrative examples from NDEs:

Colors were beyond any I had ever seen.

Everything seemed so much more colorful and brighter than normal.

My vision was greatly increased. I was able to see things as close or as far as I needed. There was no strain involved it was almost like auto zooming a camera.

I had 360 degree vision, I could see above, below, on my right, on my left, behind, I could see everywhere at the same time!

My questioning here has been on the how. If people are describing colours, whether more or less brilliant than normal, this still comes back to the problem of sight involving light, which they would not be responding to in an OBE.

[William]

[Replying to post 260 by rikuoamero]

Both evolutionarily speaking and theologically speaking, this OBE business supposedly happening only in rare circumstances makes no sense.

It isn't rare. It is largely unreported and under reported and feared by the superstitious who either condemn or prescribe in an effort to contain it.
OBE's are found in practically every human culture which has been on the face of the planet since the dawn of human existence. Mostly these are hidden/occult within the mythology of said cultures.

As for theologically speaking, think about the design proponents. If we were designed by a supernatural intelligence...

Why is it that one has to claim that a designer of the human form, has to be 'supernatural' in intelligence, when acknowledge that It simply has to be a conscious self aware creative Entity? Surely the purpose of using such words to do with the supposed 'supernatural' is to denote the characteristics and abilities in comparing those with human characteristics and abilities.

At that rate the term 'supernatural' simply would mean "that which is naturally more accomplished than human beings in relation to what it can consciously achieve within the dominant reality of the same environment."

...then why did it give us this apparently awesome ability and then restrict its use so tightly?

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that It gives us the tools to use, but it is we who decide weather we will use them or not, and if we use them, also how we use them.

We each determine the restrictions for our selves, based upon whatever belief systems we have engaged with.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 259 by Mithrae]

Heck even most materialists lean towards the view that personal identity relates to a person's consciousness - their memories, personality and so on - rather than (or at least moreso than) their body. There's whole movies or TV series built around the scenario of if/when we can scan, digitize and transfer all relevant neural content to a cloned body.

If it's Star Trek or Stargate you're referring to here, I was a huge fan of those back in the day. Both series took pains to make it clear, that whether transporter or the Stargate wormhole, it's your actual physical atoms being dissembled, transported across time and space, and then reassembled at the destination. No copies are being made (at least, not if one intentionally forgets that one TNG episode where a duplicate of Commander Riker was made due to a freak transporter accident...). I will also recognise that both series also dabbled in mind-to-computer duplication - Thor of the Asgard in SG-1 come to mind.
However, I also have to remind you that these are still, to date, science fiction. Sure the concepts are exciting and ought to be explored, but at this time, at best what might happen in the real world would be a copied mind that thinks its the original when in fact it is not. Would we have to kill the original body in secret, to prevent the new copied mind from finding out, just to prevent these existential crises?

Only if you're unable to think past your philosophical objection above.

This has nothing to do with what you labelled my philosophical objection. Please pay attention. How is one picking up various frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum without a receptor of any kind?

How many alleged OBEs have you looked at before reaching that conclusion?

Some but not many.

I would expect few if any to coherently convey such information because a) as explained above it presumably would not be coherent even to the subject herself, nothing more than a blur of white noise sensations

Yet another problem in the claim. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, they're a consciousness, outside the body, and they are somehow picking up a majority, if not the entirety, of the EM spectrum. According to you, OBE'ers don't report the X-rays or gamma rays or anything else that normal human physical organs don't react to because...? Okay...but what about the "normal" part of the EM spectrum that we do see in our everyday lives? How come that isn't lost as part of the white noise? For lack of a better term, it looks to me like you and other OBE'ers have a bias (And I don't mean this in the general negative sense) towards what one experiences in their normal everyday lives. In normal life, one's hearing is limited to between 20 and 20,000 Hertz and this range is & has been determined to be due to the ears and brain. In an OBE, why and how the focus on this range, as opposed to any other range, with all other ranges being lost as white noise?

b) even imagining some monk who'd spent decades learning and practicing some kind of OBE meditation, it'd still be virtually impossible to to coherently communicate that kind of information to others, like describing vision to someone born blind.

You'll want to talk to Razorsedge up above then, as he seemingly has no issue citing studies where those who were born blind reported NDEs/OBEs using visual language. As for it being virtually impossible...no it is not. I and all other humans have binocular vision, and yet the concept of a 360 video is not implausible or unintelligible to me.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

I've also read about some (while having an OBE) having x-ray like vision, seeing through walls,

Really? I find that very hard to believe. Were they able to check later that what they saw on the other side of the wall really was true? I don't think so. Or was it more like in a dream, where of course you can dream that you are seeing through walls, but the said walls don't actually match any real walls ...

What you have "read about" about here is a paranormal claim. There has never been even a single verifiable paranormal claim to my knowledge, so I quite rightly take unevidenced paranormal claims with a grain of salt. Including this one.

If for real, X-ray vision would be incredibly useful for survival. If we are to believe this claim then we already have the "machinery" for X-ray vision, and if that is true, then it seems incomprehensibly unlikely that we would not developed the ability to use it normally. It would be the equivalent of us having our our eyes, magnificently advanced receptors that they are, but not being able to use them except in very unusual circumstances such as when meditating. That is absurd.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.

What does this passage mean? I will tell you though that you will be able to tell your interpretation, and it might conflict with what I interpret, which is the exact same problem whenever I discuss Christian scriptures elsewhere.
My interpretation is that another physical body is made, somehow, that has all the same parts as his regular body, but is somehow not 'inferior in its faculties', which I'm not sure what means. Superior eyesight? Perfect hearing, in frequencies above and below what regular humans can hear?

I've been open to the astral body being physical but that is not my experience because no one sees it. If it were physical, then that would be easier to deal with in scientific terms. The text says it is made out of the same stuff as the mind so I presume it's just as unobservable as our thoughts or consciousness.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

Soon after death occasions the lack of physical senses, the sight of the world appears to the soul as if he were seeing it with open eyes when he was living.

Again, we have a similar problem to Christian texts. I'm seeing religious texts making grandiose claims of what are essentially magic.
This text specifically, I have essentially already commented on. How can a soul see, just like physical eyes?
Physical eyes react to light. Does the above line mean the soul reacts to light too? Is it referring to binocular vision? Why would our soul be like that?
If you say yes, the soul reacts to light, you're going to have to prove that, most likely by showing me a soul appendage/receptor of some sort.
If you say no, the soul does not react to light, then the line you quoted is confusing in its meaning.

The text is saying that the soul is able to perceive imagery, sound, etc. How it perceives is another matter. This is why I brought up introspection because that also involves perception of sound, imagery, sensations without any physical stimuli and sensory organs.

Also, remember that this is all coming from a worldview where reality is just a manifestation of consciousness. There aren't any strict rules or laws of physics in reality. At some levels of reality that I've experienced, there aren't any laws of physics like what we have. At most, they're just constructs of "our" mind, otherwise we can make our own rules and objects behave based on how you think.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

Then we find our bodies to be an aerial substance that mixes with the air, and at last, with these our mortal frames, we are able to come to the sight of Brahma.

So our soul bodies become gaseuous substances, that potentially could be breathed in?

Likely not but I have no experience of that part. Gases have no definite form. The author might have been using the closest physical analogy to describe his experience.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

I will say I know what happens while out-of-body

As of this moment in time, I do not believe you when you say you have had out of body experiences. I believe you have had experiences that you have misinterpreted as OBEs, but I cannot just take at face value that you have had OBEs.

Don't simply go by what I say. I encourage you to experience it for yourself!

I decided to participate on this website because I wanted to introduce the Eastern approach. This approach involves experience, but it's not just one person's experience but rather it's an experience for EVERYONE to have. From there you can see patterns, consistencies, and derive an understanding from that. This experiential approach is needed to understand consciousness and reality overall. Western scientists would do good to learn meditation and use it to research and explore consciousness. I have confidence that this works because those Western scientists who experience or at least learn don't remain hardline materialist.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

I'll explain why this is not a problem since there are examples of this in science.

It's a huge problem! Let's say, just for sake of argument here, you are right, you and others see while outside of your body. This would necessarily mean that everything we humans currently think we know about how sight works, is wrong. That it has nothing to do with eyes. That any time we diagnose problems with sight being due to damage to the eyes is in actuality, sheer coincidence.

Everything you know about sight is not wrong, but rather it's incomplete. There are other ways to perceive. Also, I'm not so interested in the narrative of science (whether it be metaphysical materialism or what not). I leave that for philosophers. What I'm interested in is the process of science, which is to apply empirical standards to any subject matter. Judging ideas as false solely because it doesn't square with a narrative is not science. Suspending judgement until you are able to empirically test a claim, no matter if its a religious, secular, or mundane claim is science-minded.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

I consider the option that it's an extension because many report seeing a silver cord that connects their mental or astral body to their physical body. If the cord serves as a connection then this presumably leaves room for information to be exchanged/processed between the two.

You will need to demonstrate the existence of this 'cord'. Unlike yourself, I don't just call it a day when I hear a cord is mentioned and presume that it's an information exchange medium.
To go back to my computer analogy from my previous comment, it's like you're saying to me you've been writing data to a hard drive...without using SATA cables or wireless equipment of any kind.
If your mystical cord is transferring information from the spirit body to the real body, then this means it HAS to be physical and can be detected. Where is it? It can't be the case that it reacts to the physical world while being completely non-physical itself.

The 'silver cord' is completely non-physical or it is physical unlike anything else we've discovered so far. But it is undeniable that many people see it connected to their body while in an OBE state. I brought it up as part of my explanation because it may show that being out-of-body does not necessarily mean being separate from it. In other words, you can be out-of-body but still connected to it via the silver cord. Sensory and other types of information may very well be transmitted between the two bodies (human and astral body) via this cord.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

No. Scientists already accept a form of perception that does not involve the senses while not understanding how it works, i.e. 'introspection'. With introspection, you acquire information about your mind and this also involves sensory like information in the case of mental images. There's at least one example of perception without our senses.

You'll have to elaborate more on this, as I always thought introspection to be nothing more than thinking really hard about oneself.

The definition is fairly simple. When I Google "introspection" this comes up:"the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes." Observation has to do with perception, but of course in this case its perception without the senses. And as one topic from the Science section brings up, it's a perception or observation involving imagery and sound, just like your dreams would have.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

Also worth noting that all of what I've been describing here can be experienced by ANYONE. All you need is consciousness and meditation - both of which scientists possess although many Western scientists are too close-minded to implement Eastern practices.

I presume I have a consciousness and I have been meditating for close to twenty years.
Yet I do not experience anything like an OBE. Never have and I expect never to.

There are many different types of meditation. There are types that tend to bring on paranormal abilities beyond what I've been discussing here. I equate this to the Pentecostal form of Christianity because Pentecostals tend to emphasize the spiritual gifts. For now, I would recommend that you engage in the types of meditation that would open the door to these experiences.

If you say that you don't want to experience these things, which appears to the case, then it's safe to say that you aren't looking for proof. Perhaps you're locked into the Western approach where they try to explore consciousness from the third-person. But from this you will only get a superficial understanding of consciousness and it shows since your scientists are stumped. The Eastern approach is a critical first-person approach. The Eastern mystics have the proof but this "proof" has to be experienced.

Again, vision is predicated upon light, which in an OBE, one would not be reacting to. So these reports must necessarily be false.

I'd qualify your statement by saying that vision through "sensory organs" is predicated on light. This may not be the case in other systems. Your view may simply be based off of current technological limitations no different than an ancient caveman saying he could never fly to the moon.

Right now I'm thinking of how a camera doesn't need sensory organs to capture and process images. Technically, a computer only sees digital code but if we were building a robot I'm sure it could be hooked up to camera to process visual information.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

I actually focus on this black silent void when trying to quiet my mind of all thoughts. This is usually a good way to get into transcendent experiences which I consider distinct from OBEs.

I focus on the flame and the void. Bonus points if you know where I most likely got that from.

The Wheel of Time book series? I haven't read them nor have I thought of applying any technique from it. I'm willing to try it out.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

Very young children would be very unlikely to have heard about near-death experiences or understand them.

I wouldn't bat an eye at the thought of kids having this knowledge. I myself had such knowledge of the concepts at that age.

You'd be a very rare case.

[Replying to post 257 by Razorsedge]

Not sure if it was you or Riko who brought up OBE perception with blind people. Here's some relevant info:

Unfortunately, I don't have access to that actual study. What you present us here is a summary of it, but not any of the actual data. Indeed, I get a 404 error when I click the link for the text for the five year old girl, Martha (and the snippet presented to us does not sound like a five year old)

Here are some illustrative examples from NDEs:

Colors were beyond any I had ever seen.

Everything seemed so much more colorful and brighter than normal.

My vision was greatly increased. I was able to see things as close or as far as I needed. There was no strain involved it was almost like auto zooming a camera.

I had 360 degree vision, I could see above, below, on my right, on my left, behind, I could see everywhere at the same time!

My questioning here has been on the how. If people are describing colours, whether more or less brilliant than normal, this still comes back to the problem of sight involving light, which they would not be responding to in an OBE.

As I mentioned before, not knowing how something works does not mean that it doesn't work. You certainly don't just give it up and say I'm not willing or expecting to experience it either. Instead, you suspend judgement or you put on your white lab coat and experience so you can figure it out. That's part of how science works.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 266 by Razorsedge]

The text is saying that the soul is able to perceive imagery, sound, etc ....

I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful, but what "the text" says is irrelevant unless it provides evidence.

What do you think and what evidence can you provide? Scurrying off to "the text" when you don't know the answers is not strengthening your case.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 266 by Razorsedge]

Here are some illustrative examples from NDEs:
Colors were beyond any I had ever seen.
Everything seemed so much more colorful and brighter than normal.
My vision was greatly increased. I was able to see things as close or as far as I needed. There was no strain involved it was almost like auto zooming a camera.
I had 360 degree vision, I could see above, below, on my right, on my left, behind, I could see everywhere at the same time!

Well yes, I don't dispute that people report these perceptions.

But are they real, or are they just perceptions? We can and do dream stuff like this too.

The bottom line is whether, after "seeing" all this stuff, there is evidence that they were really seeing anything real in the real world at all, or whether they just felt like they were. No one is denying that they "felt" that they saw these things, and that the perceptions were incredibly clear and realistic.

But if they were really seeing real things in the real world, then it would be easy enough to check if they really did "see" what they claimed. For example, if they remember "zooming" and seeing far into the distance where their eyes could not have, then check if what they thought they saw is actually true. Same for claims of "X-ray" vision. No one to my knowledge has ever demonstrated that they were actually seeing what they felt they were seeing. Some of us have some really spectacular and lifelike dreams, too, but it does not follow that the dreams are anything more than perceptions.

It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence to back the claims that these perceptions are real, and none has been provided.

As I mentioned before, not knowing how something works does not mean that it doesn't work. You certainly don't just give it up and say I'm not willing or expecting to experience it either. Instead, you suspend judgement or you put on your white lab coat and experience so you can figure it out. That's part of how science works.

You clearly don't understand science. The first step is to determine if the claim is actually true. As yet no evidence of a scientific standard has been presented to demonstrate your claims, so what science actually says is something like "Bye, bye, come back later when you have evidence for what you claim".

It's not a case of "not knowing how something works", because the something has never been demonstrated in the first place! But it is perfectly OK to look at the unevidenced claim, and say "that seems unlikely because it contradicts all known science, knowledge and experience".

[Swami]

[Replying to post 268 by ytrewq]

You've received detailed quality information from 3 posters here - William, Mithrae, and myself. Our 3 posts are full of good insight and evidence.

Even if this wasn't enough for you, I offered a way for you to prove these things for yourself via meditative experience. It's apparent that you don't want to experience but instead you want to debate. You never realized that you don't need "others" to prove it to you if you can prove it to yourself.



If anyone is interested in reading a good intro. into the Eastern worldview I recommend Dr. William Compton's book, Eastern Psychology: Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism.

Another good read is Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge by B. Allan Wallace.