Can anybody help me find a logical explanation for this stuff?

[Pup]

Look at it the other way around. Human beings tend to have similar subjective sensations under certain conditions. They "see stars" when hit on the head, experience sleep paralysis, etc. So of course they'll describe similar experiences, and they'll interpret the experiences according to their culture.

So it's not surprising that once a certain explanation of an experience gets started, other people will have similar experiences that corroborate it. But many reports of feeling an "old hag" sitting on one's chest doesn't prove there really is an old hag, for example; it just shows that when sleep paralysis occurs in a culture where that's the explanation, people use that explanation when they experience it. Same for seeing Jesus or the virgin Mary or whatever

 

[Zanders]

If you look at comparative mysticism there really does seem to be central concepts that are universal. Movements like Theosophy are based on these. There was actually a review I stumbled on on a band's site that made me start looking in to Swedenborg again, because he is prominently mentioned in the title of the book. According to the writer of the review, the book "introduces us to an entire world of interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist," just not in any blatantly manifest or conveniently chronological way.""


Here is the full review
http://www.webofmimicry.com/museum/bookreview-viewer.php?review=corbin

Here is the full review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32973654/Swedenborg-Esoteric-Islam-by-Henry-Corbin


I'm actually not sure I should read it, since I seem to be easily convinced by patterns. But if Swedenborg's teachings match with Sufism and Neo-Platonism, that would be a little impressive, since there is no real proof that he has researched the topic. But who knows, maybe he has. He said that he never read any writings by mystics, but he could have lied.

I just wonder if I might should give it a read because of the "interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist". It makes me feel like I should read it just to see. But I'm not really the guy for the job with how easy it is to impressive me with patterns and similarities. From what I have read, the "comparative spiritual hermeneutics" section would be the one where the parallels in mystical interpretations are made.


Astrolatry could actually be responsible for a lot of the themes that appear. But Then we get in to the similar experiences like the being of light and other such things.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, comparative mysticism is one of my interests. You are right in that there are too many consistencies in comparative mysticism, comparative religion, and comparative mythology to be chalked up to coincidence or to mundane cross-cultural influence.

There are?

How exactly did you quantify this?

I've been to the the Astral realm in lucid dreams and in out-of-body experience. You just gotta see it.

No, you haven't. No (s)he doesn't.

It's all make-believe, Limbo, and seeing supposed grown-ups taking it seriously is cringeworthy, to say the least.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you look at comparative mysticism there really does seem to be central concepts that are universal.

It's bound to seem that way if you look at enough mystical gobbledigook. There are only so many ideas to go around, so recurrences are bound to happen.

What you're doing seems to be like saying that all TV sitcoms share just a few basic themes so therefore those themes must be fundamental to all human existance, or some such nonsense.

That really is a frightening thought.

Movements like Theosophy are based on these.

That's why Theosophy is often spelled 'bollocks'.

There was actually a review I stumbled on on a band's site that made me start looking in to Swedenborg again, because he is prominently mentioned in the title of the book.

No, it's because you're a Swedenborg fanperson. It's been explained to you repeatedly that you're seeking out references to this person (either intentionally or not), you pretend to accept these explanations and then, after a time, return to your insistence that 'something' is guiding you to him.

It was never a fabulous look, but now it's getting really tiresome.

According to the writer of the review, the book "introduces us to an entire world of interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist," just not in any blatantly manifest or conveniently chronological way.""

Geeze, Louise. Is there any point at all in telling you that this stuff is just made up? You clearly want to believe it all, and yet you seem to be seeking some kind of endorsement from the members of this Forum to do so.

Why bother?

Were you hoping that someone like Limbo would come along to provide you with the encouragement you seem to crave? You'll be in Nirvana/Heaven/Valhalla/Avalon now, won't you?

ETA: Gee, I just noticed that all those places have 'V' in them and we all know The Visitors came from 'up there' somewhere. Coincidence???​

I'm actually not sure I should read it, since I seem to be easily convinced by patterns. But if Swedenborg's teachings match with Sufism and Neo-Platonism, that would be a little impressive, since there is no real proof that he has researched the topic. But who knows, maybe he has. He said that he never read any writings by mystics, but he could have lied.

No, you shoudn't read it. But you will. Then you'll come back here and say how much it scares you. It's a strange hobby you've chosen.

I just wonder if I might should give it a read because of the "interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist". It makes me feel like I should read it just to see. But I'm not really the guy for the job with how easy it is to impressive me with patterns and similarities. From what I have read, the "comparative spiritual hermeneutics" section would be the one where the parallels in mystical interpretations are made.

Whatever.

Astrolatry could actually be responsible for a lot of the themes that appear. But Then we get in to the similar experiences like the being of light and other such things.

An interest in ancient superstitions as an academic exercise is quite a worthwhile pursuit. What appears to be a fervent desire for it to all be based in reality, not so much.

 

[steenkh]

Again, a being of light.

Yes, it seems that when some people see a blinding light when incapable of rational thinking, they think they meet Jesus. That is, of course, if they are Christians. I wonder how many Hindus or Muslims you can find who see this light and interpret it as Jesus, and not, say Muhammad, or Krishna.

Does this not piece together a rather consistent image?

There is a consistent image that certain situations make people experience the same thing. It does not mean that beings of light actually exist, or that these people are experiencing anything that has a connection to anything outside their brains.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, it seems that when some people see a blinding light when incapable of rational thinking, they think they meet Jesus. That is, of course, if they are Christians. I wonder how many Hindus or Muslims you can find who see this light and interpret it as Jesus, and not, say Muhammad, or Krishna.

That's how we know they're all delusional. If they were seeing Obi-Wan Kenobi like I do then we'd know there was something more to it.

 

[Limbo]

I just wonder if I might should give it a read because of the "interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist". It makes me feel like I should read it just to see. But I'm not really the guy for the job with how easy it is to impressive me with patterns and similarities. From what I have read, the "comparative spiritual hermeneutics" section would be the one where the parallels in mystical interpretations are made.

Its ok to be impressed with patterns, just make the decision that you will not act on the patterns and parallels, until you have had a chance to experience mysticism for yourself. Then, once you have the twin guns of experience and background knowledge, you will find a comfort zone.

An interesting thing you will also notice is the parallels in the descriptions of physical symptoms as your "kundalini" rises. Such a physical aspect took me by surprise.

 

[Zanders]

No, it's because you're a Swedenborg fanperson. It's been explained to you repeatedly that you're seeking out references to this person (either intentionally or not), you pretend to accept these explanations and then, after a time, return to your insistence that 'something' is guiding you to him.

It was never a fabulous look, but now it's getting really tiresome.

Well, that honestly was what made me look deeper in to him. It was before I came here.

Geeze, Louise. Is there any point at all in telling you that this stuff is just made up? You clearly want to believe it all, and yet you seem to be seeking some kind of endorsement from the members of this Forum to do so.

Why bother?

I don't want to believe it, I just find most "skeptics" too dismissive of cases without considering the bigger picture it paints. Like the consistency in experiences and messages

Whatever.

This is exactly the problem. People are dismissive of things that they don't want to deal with, when they should have an open mind and be willing to check it out for themselves. If you never check it out, how can you know?

Something that I was talking about that the book covers is the symbolic message contained in the books, consistently interpreted by the people mentioned inside. When taken literally as historic events the holy books are pretty useless and full of problems, but looking at the deeper symbolic message they seem to agree. For example, both Swedenborg and many Sufi mystics say that the flood was not historical (of course it wasn't) but an allegory. The esoteric branch of every religion is strikingly similar.

(Oh, and I apparently made an error in my last post. I said "here's the review" twice when the second one was supposed to say "here is the book")

 

[wardenclyffe]

For example, both Swedenborg and many Sufi mystics say that the flood was not historical (of course it wasn't) but an allegory. The esoteric branch of every religion is strikingly similar.

Did they also figure out that Aesop's Fables were also allegories? Really? The flood's not real, so it's just a story with a lesson? That's how profound Swedenborg and Sufi mystics are? That's amazing. No one else would ever have thought that. Zanders, it's always one step forward, three steps back with you. I don't get it.

Ward

 

[Limbo]

The esoteric branch of every religion is strikingly similar.

Here is something you might like.

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't have that condition and yet, I have had a wide variety of profound mystical experiences. So, I'm not inclined to accept your explanation.

But you report that you use or have used hallucinogenic drugs in order to have these mystical experiences. The symptoms of a temporal lobe seizure and the effects of hallucinogenic drugs (including long-term effects) can be very similar, to the degree where doctors cannot always tell the two things apart. One of the areas of the brain hallucinogens affect is the temporal lobes.

 

[Akhenaten]

Whatever.

This is exactly the problem.

A problem for whom? How does my choice to automatically reject what I perceive to be nonsense create any sort of problem?

People are dismissive of things that they don't want to deal with, when they should have an open mind and be willing to check it out for themselves.

I can't speak for 'people', but for my own part, the comment, "whatever" was in response to this:

I just wonder if I might should give it a read because of the "interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist". It makes me feel like I should read it just to see. But I'm not really the guy for the job with how easy it is to impressive me with patterns and similarities. From what I have read, the "comparative spiritual hermeneutics" section would be the one where the parallels in mystical interpretations are made.

Maybe it would be nice to have the time and other resources necessary to look into every possible explanation for every possible thing, but the fact is that I don't. Nobody does.

So we have to short-list the things that we take the time to look into. When I do this, "interrelated phenomena that demonstrate themselves irrefutably to "exist" and "comparative spiritual hermeneutics" don't make the cut.

I'll cope.

If you never check it out, how can you know?

I probably won't, but I've made the tough decision for myself that I'll just have to manage as best I can, struggling through life without a proper understanding of comparative spiritual hermeneutics.

Life's a bitch, then you die.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't want to believe it, I just find most "skeptics" too dismissive of cases without considering the bigger picture it paints. Like the consistency in experiences and messages

Does "too dismissive" mean that you think "skeptics" don't spend as much time as you deem appropriate to spend on all this guff?

That's a little egocentric, isn't it?

In any case, if you find the "skeptics" too dismissive, we "cynics" are going to give you "nightmares".

"Bummer".

 

[Zanders]

Does "too dismissive" mean that you think "skeptics" don't spend as much time as you deem appropriate to spend on all this guff?

That's a little egocentric, isn't it?

In any case, if you find the "skeptics" too dismissive, we "cynics" are going to give you "nightmares".

"Bummer".

It's more of the debukner attitude. When you go in to something assuming that it is garbage and refuse to give it a chance, it causes you zero in on any one little thing you can find to dismiss the whole thing as fast as you can, making it very easy to miss the bigger picture or implications. Maybe something isn't perfect but it could contain clues and pieces of a bigger picture that needs consideration and looking in to. Such as the similarities and consistencies in these experiences and writings.

 

[biomorph]

It's more of the debukner attitude. When you go in to something assuming that it is garbage and refuse to give it a chance,

Your assumption is worse, that no one with that attitude hasn't given "it" a chance......many have and for years and in depth.....

it causes you zero in on any one little thing you can find to dismiss the whole thing as fast as you can,

no, to show that the details don't work out, and there is one little detail (amongst many probably) as an an example. for you......its not a time thing, a quick and easy dispatch is not all the debunkers you decribe want or require to achieve, all the time.

making it very easy to miss the bigger picture or implications.

If the bigger picture has already been dealt with, and abandoned, by that skeptic, cynic etc, how would you know.......perhaps a quick and dismissive response comes from you not getting a grip........think about this a lot more......

Maybe something isn't perfect but it could contain clues and pieces of a bigger picture that needs consideration and looking in to.

Maybe and could? you mean you don't know?

You just don't like those who do know, been there, done that, and got the teeshirt, looked into it and found it false.

yes there are some..and if they be short with you, who are you to judge? or me?

Such as the similarities and consistencies in these experiences and writings.

theres only so much that aint the same, get over it....

 

[Limbo]

Your assumption is worse, that no one with that attitude hasn't given "it" a chance......many have and for years and in depth.....

I've spent years studying comparative mythology and comparative mysticism, and I've spent years talking to atheists. Guess what, I've noticed that they don't usually like those kinds of fields. And, I've also noticed that its kinda hard to study something you don't like.

So, I think I can verify his assumption through my own observations. Your use of the word "many" is too strong. I would go with "few" instead.

 

[Zanders]

Your assumption is worse, that no one with that attitude hasn't given "it" a chance......many have and for years and in depth.....

no, to show that the details don't work out, and there is one little detail (amongst many probably) as an an example. for you......its not a time thing, a quick and easy dispatch is not all the debunkers you decribe want or require to achieve, all the time.



If the bigger picture has already been dealt with, and abandoned, by that skeptic, cynic etc, how would you know.......perhaps a quick and dismissive response comes from you not getting a grip........think about this a lot more......


Maybe and could? you mean you don't know?

You just don't like those who do know, been there, done that, and got the teeshirt, looked into it and found it false.

yes there are some..and if they be short with you, who are you to judge? or me?


theres only so much that aint the same, get over it....

I wasn't saying that all skeptics do that or that everyone here does. I actually made a thread here to demonstrate how many people have actually had a background in or have researched this stuff. I was just talking abut the debunker mentality of shrugging something off, or trying to find one flaw so they can brush off the whole subject in question or just not even look in to it at all because they assume everything in the field is automatically completely false.

Directed at wardenclyffe, it is more than them both simply saying it was symbolic, it was their interpretations of it. I actually posted a link to the book. The second link was supposed to say "here is the book" not "Here is the full review" again.

And Limbo, just how many years have you been doing this? I am actually curious how long you have been in to this stuff, or even how old you are (if that is no offense. You don't have to post here, you could just tell me in a private message if you want)

 

[steenkh]

I've spent years studying comparative mythology and comparative mysticism, and I've spent years talking to atheists. Guess what, I've noticed that they don't usually like those kinds of fields. And, I've also noticed that its kinda hard to study something you don't like.

That is true. But many have had a past where they were believers in spirituality, gods, and son on. Your assumption that they dismissed these beliefs lightly, is unfounded.

 

[Rramjet]

It's more of the debukner attitude. When you go in to something assuming that it is garbage and refuse to give it a chance, it causes you zero in on any one little thing you can find to dismiss the whole thing as fast as you can, making it very easy to miss the bigger picture or implications. Maybe something isn't perfect but it could contain clues and pieces of a bigger picture that needs consideration and looking in to. Such as the similarities and consistencies in these experiences and writings.

I think you may misperceive what this forum is all about. This is the JREF. In the JREF all reasoned argument and consideration of the facts and nuances of the observed evidence are just not considered to be relevant at all. Only the beliefs of The Great Randi are considered - and even those are sometimes dispensed with if it means a point can be scored against an opponent.

I also read over a few of your posts near the beginning of this thread and it seems you reference Wikipedia quite often. You should realise that Wikipedia’s “truth” is basically that of whoever can shout the loudest for the longest time – that might be okay for folklaw conceptions of reality, but if you are interested in historical veracity (or anything more nuanced) you should research the original source material - and reading on through the thread, I think you have come to realise this.

The other thing I note is that you seem to have true enquiring mind. BobR characterised you as a “true skeptic” (post #172) and exhorted you to “keep it up”. I can only concur – the so called (self proclaimed) sceptics of the JREF are nothing of the kind. They are as closed minded as the most evangelistic of religious zealots. “The cult of Randi” is alive – but not well. Their modus operandi is to “get to you” rather than to “get to the truth”.

My advice to you is then - with as much equanimity as you can muster - just stick to the facts and never proclaim or complain. Just present the evidence - and repeatedly if necessary. And if the "naysayers" proclaim or complain in response to you, simply point out that mere unfounded assertion does not confer veracity.

There are many more who read these threads than actually post, so just be cool, calm and collected and rest assured that many of those readers are not as gullible or as naïve as the “naysayers” would have you believe. Those same readers will however not appreciate it if you "sink to the naysayers level". Cool, calm and collected: just present the evidence - and keep doing it.

 

[Limbo]

That is true. But many have had a past where they were believers in spirituality, gods, and son on. Your assumption that they dismissed these beliefs lightly, is unfounded.

They had a past in which they were immersed in the exoteric level of a mythology that is not fully-functional. That is a far, far cry from the perspective of a mythologist.