[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Here's the rub - "generally", you say, people believe in local mind. Various religions talk about non-local or Divine mind, and letting go of your prejudices, they say, leads to that oneness and Enlightenment. The problem is, if you are not enlightened, and don't actually have very much evidence for those religious claims, then it is a prejudice to keep believing them, and you are programming your mind to be closed, not opening it up to possibilities.

Let's see. I'm not enlightened. Um... do I have much evidence for religious claims? hmm... not really, I mean I can read stories of miracles and listen to arguments but that's not evidence. Am I believing these stories, first hand? no. Well, to a point I do feel oneness with some experiences. But ok, that's not real objective evidence. subjective again. How is it that is programing my mind to be closed? I have taken some ideas and found my experience to fall into what those idea offer. At least as far as being able to meditate and get into states that are non-ordinary that feel like an expanded sense of self where everything is exactly what it is, no brain objections.

I suppose I look are religious people in the way of being closed minded, that they have taken on a faith belief without evidence. However I have talked with people that have felt to their core a conversion. Maybe I should talk with them more. I don't think they feel there's lack of evidence that Jesus is there for them. But back to me. I would rather not program my mind to be closed and I'm trying to understand what you see in this as being closed minded. So if I read something that says TM lowered crime rates but I didn't go out and collect that data, and I start to think that could be - is that closing my mind? Or would rejecting the claims be closed minded?

The way you put it it sounds like there is no path to enlightenment. We are doomed to local mind because we don't have real evidence of enlightenment, and without evidence there's no way to bring it on because to try to believe it is actually another version of not being open?

I agree that to cling only to scientific realism would also be prejudice, but it seems to me that the act of describing explanations for a phenomenon should depend on first identifying that there is a real phenomenon to explain. All you are doing is repeating religious dogma about Enlightenment. It may be true, I'm just saying that being open minded doesn't mean believing what orange-robed gurus say, it means considering all possibilities, comparing them, ruminating on them, daring to try believing the opposite of the opinion you normally defend. That is the way to get free of prejudice and move towards enlightenment, imho.

I'm all for not following gurus. Jesus was one of those reluctant gurus that kept trying to get people to not need him. the kingdom of heaven is in you - or something like that.

Daring to try to believe the opposite of the defended opinion - well I try to not defend opinions. At least as soon as I defend something I think I want to believe, I have regressed and am not on my path anymore, probably.

And what is your aim? I mean you tell me to not be closed minded and not follow the orange-robed gurus, to consider and compare things - but are you doing that? Or is your path not interested in enlightenment? I think you are interested. But also you are not interested in paths that dead end and appreciate that you seem to know what dead ends are. However, how does one compare things without trying what it is that is being said to the point of experiencing? It can't be done with endless thought experiments that lets the mind declare, something that needs to have experience to feel, it bugus.