S:C

Thoughts or feelings, yes, that prove to be a part of resistance and thus hinder a full reception. (In my opinion. Which might be wrong.)

If I define it, I separate subject and object in my perception. It’s useful if you want to manipulate perception in that way. But then there’s still a you. Nice to have made you laugh. Make me laugh too?

Your brain structure doesn’t care if its the past or not if an experience ingrained itself there. Causality in its different forms doesn’t bring clarity at all. Too binary. Probability more like it. Never clarity. But beyond. Causality like time is a human concept.

I‘m not so sure anymore. Isn’t truth a questionable and sometimes even dubious concept, depending on the perspective, question, context and definitions? What’s it called in the vedas? I gotta look that up sometime…

That too, was quite helpful and enlightening today! Thank you @Daniel ! Do you have advice for a good book that gives an entry into modal logic (… is there something like modal logic for dummies?) You explained it very well, I think it’s helpful for all sorts of assertions of people!

Upaya? Westerners sometimes call it playing the devils advocate. Of course there can still be discussion: the premises are just more uncertain - and not everyone is willing to follow there for the sake of discussion or learning alone. But it’s possible, for experience sake, no? For now, I experienced the perspective changes and line of argumentation as quite nagarjunian, but I‘m not an expert and might be biased. Still curious on how a mango seed becomes a apple tree in modal logic! But maybe we should take this elsewhere, I don’t want to occupy @Maddies thread here with topics leading astray and elsewhere…

I can imagine a world where it could happen. It's modal logic How so? Can you explain please, Daniel?

The ‘idea’ is nothing but a subjective preference. It has no substantial basis. There is no ‘free will’. We are just prisoners of our own device. Bound to experience a show which script has already been written, with hardly probability to improvise apart from conditioning. ’I think therefore I am’ is nonsense in several ways. Why should thinking imply an existence of a separated self by a way of causality? That is just bonkers. Whatever runs through minds projection surface doesn’t tell one anything about existence and nonexistence. Intelligence is overrated. What use is a sword that cannot cut through emotions? Looking the other way might make you happier than interpreting what you do. Spiritual traditions don’t put enough emphasis on the heart. And heart is not simply emotions in chaos.

You think the double meaning was intended?

Great work at explaining this, thank you @Daniel!

Abstracted thoughts or perceptions, - my guess. I feel the need to explain this further after Apech confused look, but haven’t got the right words now.

Not sure I understand what you’re suggesting.

It’s really odd, how violence was used to help the hierarchy of state and church to gain souverainty over the claimed objective interpretation of the words of the Nazarene! Considering this, I wonder how one should ever utter a word and not expect to be misunderstood and turned into the opposite of the intended meaning? Which could be: Love, but without force. Well maybe I am wrong too, but alas I never claimed objectivity to begin with.

It’s comforting to discuss this without having to expect the inquisition knocking at your door, thanks! Honestly, I ain’t sure if I understand that bible chapter you mentioned fully @Salvijus… but maybe that isn’t necessary.