Muse over this and :
Can the sun be expereinced cos of one having a belief? There is
no need, one simply knows. In that knowing what is there to
believe. does a non-believer miss the sun? Does believing or not
believing negate the existence of the sun?
Ignorance belies beleifs! Holding onto beliefs blindly and never
questioning them is akin to sheep bleating away.
It is the lack of understanding and the fear of being found (that
one’s beliefs may not hold up to the fire of reality) out that one
knows not. simply parroting scriptures and repeating what could
have an existential expereince for another is pretension and being
blind to one’s ignorance.
A beleif that is held onto not out of one’s love, not out of one’s
knowing, not out of one’s knowing or experience – means this – that
belief is out of one’s fear.
How to believe in something that one has never expereinced for
oneself? To say that i dont know and I am willing to find out and
explore before I believe is intelligence. Being receptive, being
open to …. is intelligence. Stupidity, is to deny that and simply
quote others and …. this is bondage! Whether one is an atheist or
non-atheist – both are still beliefs – it is closed book, finished
and what is there to find out. One has already concluded what
should be the end. One will never meet God and if one were to utter
that i meet god”” – one is also real and so is god. In other words,
there are two realities, not one. Is there such a thing as two
realities? How can a omnipresence, a being have two realities?
Reality is ’’self’‘-effulgence. One cannot come across god, one can
come across godliness (aka a fragrance of one’s being …..?) – a
process that never ends. Can the latter be objectified?
Hence I say this – when one is being present to one’s being …,
one is being present to another’s being … – a communion (two
emptinesses, can it be counted as two?) However, when one is
present to one’s self one can only be present to another’s self
(this are two persons cannot become ’’emptinesses’).
When one is ’’knowing’’, when one is ’’being’’ ... when one is
’’loving’’ – this is being real.
As usual, Fuzzi is confused between objective reality and
subjective experience, and elevating the latter over the former. To
Fuzzi only that which is experienced is real, but what is real
and not experienced is not real. In fact, it is just not
experienced, not that it is not real. But Fuzzi somehow fudges this
up and fails to distinguish them.
Ignorance does not necessarily belies beliefs. I agree that one
should not hold on to beliefs blindly. Even in the Christian faith
there is no teaching about a blind leap of faith, but faith that is
founded on facts. And how do you tell the difference between a
blind parroting of Scripture and one that is not? You seemed
content to simply label them all as blind parroting.
Why do you believe that must belief be based on experience
solely and not on sufficient reason and evidence? How do you know
you are not experiencing a delusion and engaging in wishful
thinking? You show neither willingness or sincerity to explore
Christianity at all. Is that intelligence, or wilful ignorance?
Last but not least, you seem to be equivocating on the word
"real", changing the definition of that word as and when it suits
you.
