Interesting and Humour - page 4208

New comment
 
ILNUR777:
That's just it. That's what scares you at some point on the path of self-development. At first, you realize the horror of the circumstances in which life/train takes place when you look at it as if from outside.

The next stage is when you try to get off that train. Trying to take a different path.

Then you realize that the other path is no better, it's just different. And in principle (globally), getting off the train does not give you anything either.

But choosing a way knowing for sure that it is not better than any other way. It doesn't matter if you get back on the train or not. You increase the quality of the path, or rather the inner reconciliation and hormone. You are not dissipated by regrets that you could have done it differently. You get as much as you can from what you have, the level of "feeling" increases.

I don't know whether Pelevin has remained at the stage of emptiness, having been disappointed by the absence of an ideal path. Or has ceased the search for an ideal way and has embarked on the path of one (not the essence of which), but at a higher level for himself.

I believe there is more to further stages of introspection. But I don't know.

With speedy cognition, there is a risk of getting stuck precisely at the stage of emptiness after "liberation".
That's probably why Eastern teachings take a smooth approach to the process. Stretching out, paying more attention to the preparation stage.

A little in my own way:

the western way is to find a loophole to get off the infernal train

the eastern way -- dissolve the train into nothing.

 

Just a commercial on TV:

"More than 14 billion years we've been waiting for and finally - the awesome taste of chocolate ...."

 
СанСаныч Фоменко:

transcendreamer:

so a thousand years of orthodoxy has done nothing to improve "moral qualities" or instil goodness and other things that are declared

It's a prime example that religion is a useless superstructure.




It's not a prime example of anything - it's a sign of schizophrenia which takes two unrelated facts and puts them together

I wouldn't expect any other answer ))))))))))

and as usual there's no concrete substantive argument from religion.

the fact is that religion can't justify its importance in a rational way.

that's why either ad hominem arguments or unsophisticated forcing of sacredness follows

 
СанСаныч Фоменко:

Just a commercial on TV:

"More than 14 billion years we've been waiting for, and finally, a luxurious taste of chocolate ...."

zombie TV isn't exactly the best source of information.

 
ILNUR777:

And as far as inner meanings are concerned, everyone is free to seek them in their own way.

If we are talking about real sensations from the divine world, then everyone can be in sync without any external rules or meanings.

 
ILNUR777:
You do not need to have a brain in the head to understand that if you do something, they may do the same to you. It is also possible to describe the rules, even if not all situations are described. The main thing is that everyone should be on an equal footing, at this point everything crumbles. The search for inner meanings is a purely individual thing, and by no means an imposed one. What is the task in forcibly tying the search of meanings to state affairs. Even if a group of individuals want to search for meanings together, they will create a society. But why are they put by the state above the other society. They are just like everybody else. I am even silent about the fact that people used to be imprisoned and corporally punished for religious offenses. Apparently, they were literally looking for inner meaning in other people.

As for the fact that it's not about religion, it's about the quality of those who use it. It is because there are loopholes in thinking which can be exploited to their advantage, which is why religion should not be involved in public affairs, and its followers be placed above it in the legal system. The framework for society must be made concrete. Religion does not presuppose specificity of interpretation, which can be successfully used in worldly affairs. There is a darkness of contradiction. So the search of meanings through religion is not the best.

In science as an empirical method of cognition of the world there are also many contradictions and controversial issues

but the scientific approach implies a constant questioning and rejection of manifest fallacies

traditionalism and religion, on the contrary, are inflexible and dogmatic and suffer because of it.

if you think about ancient egyptian life - their traditional way of life existed for 4 millennia (before the greek roman period)

it's a monumental cultural and religious stratum that seemed unshakable!

but in a relatively short time it was swept away by the more "efficient" Hellenic culture

(luckily the Egyptian material culture was not destroyed)

today the religion of ancient Egypt is dead but it would have been impossible to think of it back in 1500 BC

similarly the Abrahamic religions will die because they have lost all relevance

 
transcendreamer:

I wouldn't expect any other answer ))))))))))

and as usual there are no concrete substantive arguments on the part of religion

the point is that religion cannot justify its importance in a rational way in principle.

that is why either ad hominem arguments or unsophisticated forcing of sacredness follows

All modern humanity is based on religion. It is the basis, within the framework of religion the culture of any nations developed and the differences in culture are determined by the differences in religion of these nations. It is impossible to understand culture of any nation without knowledge (not necessarily faith) of religion, it is impossible to separate from religion any manifestations of culture of peoples.

Is it possible to explain something to people who do not know/ do not want to understand it all?

Or another question: what if we discard all this? Another 500 years of barbarism as it was after the Roman Empire?

 
transcendreamer:

but still of great cultural importance.

Culture, like morality, is imposed by the ruling class in order to keep the downtrodden and dark masses in submission.

Without man's sense of the divine stratum of the world, he will remain a wild and cave creature, even if he learns to hold abstruse conversations about Picasso paintings and other intricate paintings.

 
ILNUR777:
Since everyone is free to search for inner meanings in his/her own way. It is not certain what religion people would choose if it was not imposed from above. And whether they would have chosen it at all.
And if the task of religion was to educate the society (there were some tasks, someone did not write it for nothing). It is not known whether it would have existed separately from the states.

If religion was something good, its imposition and such an organization as the Church would not be necessary and people would enter by themselves...

and we are well aware that if we remove the church hierarchs, religion would be forgotten within 2 or 3 generations...

Counter-example with yoga: yoga does not have some kind of administrative centre, it is not centralized, there are centres of learning, but they don't have administrative and regulatory functions,

people get interested and start practicing it, and number of yoga styles/schools is tremendous - total freedom...

 
transcendreamer:

similarly the Abrahamic religions will die because they will lose all relevance

will not die, but appear in a new light - only primitive and shallow beings who see religion as mere ancient myths and fairy tales will die out.

1...420142024203420442054206420742084209421042114212421342144215...4977
New comment