Jack said:
Meteor said:
In a thousand years love will remain a complex mystifying thing and you will never be able to figure it out, because it's not 'real'. The things I'm telling you won't change in a thousand or two thousand years because they are laws of nature. Laws of nature have nothing to do with interpretation either. They just are and they will continue to be. But when humans shed the imperfect material nature of self in due time through the process of development, the notion of love as is prevalent currently will go away.
I feel similarly, but not about love and about logic instead.
When I say "logic", what I really mean is "understanding causality": to know how one thing follows from another. To me, that is what logic really is. Not something that exists only in the left side of the brain, and not something that needs to be written in words either.
In time when people understand that better, even spiritual concepts can be simplified. And that's already happening: consider for example the planetary squares. Specific amounts of repetitions in a specific order for a specific amount of days, just like a formula. And if you properly follow the formula, you know you'll get results. Cause and effect.
To understand the cause and effect of everything, is what logic is to me when perfected.
I know I don't think completely like a normal person. I care so much about about the "why" and the process that I become detached sometimes and stop caring about the actual contents of a situation or discussion, at least until it gets so serious and personal that my emotions drag me back down to reality. But it's good that they do, since as long as I don't fully understand my feelings, ignoring them completely is the worst thing I can do if I want to be happy.
But even if I'm weird, it doesn't matter to me anymore. "Normal people" aren't the ones who always got perfect scores on their math tests and know almost right away how to solve almost any complex practical issue. Normal people just complain that things don't go the way they wanted, not taking into consideration that maybe it's their own fault holding on to their misunderstandings about the way reality works, which led to them not doing any of the things required for the outcome they wanted.
I understand where you're coming from but unfortunately its wrong . You're wrong about Logic and mathematics also. Mathethatics is not logic. And yet the application of Mathematics to solve problems is Logic. Logic is most certainly bound by limitations. If that were not so ,we would be currently living in a utopia. Mathematics was used by Astrophysicists to create a host of totally wrong assertions and assumptions (which exist to this day), because they were bound by the limitations of their material selves. And most people still are. Mathematics is used by people in a host of different sciences. And many of these sciences which appeared logical at that time were rejected after they were presented with contradictory evidence. For example it was logical for people to believe at one time that Earth was at the centre of the solar System. A lot of mathematics was used there too. But that logic was revised with new data. 'Logic' is a left brained notion which is born out of intellect ,a facet of Prakriti - Nature. In reality ,there is no such thing as 'Logic' in the Superconciousness reality of the Brahman. Things just are ,which is why its called 'truth'. There is no interpretation or debate about it. They are as they always were. And theres also no such thing as perfect logic because intellect is by its nature borne out of imperfection - through Prakriti.
Technically, all the formulas to model the movements of the stars and planets can be written from the Earth's perspective too. It just happens to make them a lot more complicated than they need to be. Although that's besides the point here.
The formulas created by someone who doesn't know reality will rarely make accurate predictions when it matters. That's why knowledge is also important. Knoweldge can be acquired simply by looking, by listening, through experiments, or through meditation. It really isn't a surprise that when people were suppressed and indoctrinated by the church and their spiritual abilities were inhibited, their mathematics suffered for it as well.
Creating formulas is very different from using them. It is a delicate creative process that involves inspiration as well as intuition. The right side of the brain is for understanding the logic, and the left side is for applying it, at least in my experience when creating new formulas.
While I believe that there is absolute logic which simply is from which everything follows, I do not believe other things "simply" are. For example, the trees in the forest are there because that's where the seeds landed. I'm here because I was born at the right time. It rains because the clouds are getting cold up there, and the Sun shines because it's hot.
However, I do agree that knowledge can be acquired directly through meditation without understanding why. For example, using a specific technique that I don't fully understand the workings of yet, I can gain direct information about the location of an object I'm looking for, or what number will appear if I press the button on a random number generator at a specific time. The objects are there not because they simply are, but because someone put them there. The number was not chosen at random, but determined based on the internal state of the generator. But neither of those are things I know the specifics of; and yet I can still see them correctly if I try. Admittedly, that is to see knowledge directly seemingly without involving logic.
But looking at it more closely, how is that really any different from just using our eyes and ears? The only difference here is that it's not the present I'm looking at.
Observing things helps us to see them as they are. But that doesn't mean they simply are, or that they always have been. I believe that everything happens for reasons, even if we don't fully understand the reasons yet. Even love is borne out of specific combinations of circumstances.
Love is not an objective feeling nor is it permanent, perfect or universal. It cant be measured, or defined. It has no properties of an objective reality. You can't measure the overlaps. The only thing that you can measure are the individual emotions and that's not love. Those are transient feelings which go away in time. The only way to see love is by looking at the individual feelings associated with it. And that's your personal composition of love ,that too for a particular person. Meaning that person composition will change with regards to different people.
Your first sentence I can agree with, although to me love is "permanent until contradicted", but I know what you mean and I'd rather not get into my personal feelings about love.
As for the second sentence though, I think many forms of love can be defined; even if writing a definition that covers all the edge cases properly would be a bit time-consuming and require a lot of extra information. As for measuring it, that can be done too. In fact, people can do it just by looking. If it was something that can't be measured, why can it be so blatantly obvious sometimes when someone is in love? Although saying a person's love is immeasurable does sound rather romantic, but I think that's besides the point here.
It might be more harder for people with more analytical minds because they are prone to analyzing and logically engaging themselves, while they try to meditate. You have to let go of logic and look at truth if you want to advance. Leave your previous self and undergo the little deaths that break apart your sense of self. Only after many such little deaths can you call yourself a Yogi who accepts truth for what it is.
I was bound by the limitations of my mind at one point but now with each new segment of information, I say "I don't know anything. " I don't let my ego get hurt if I'm proven wrong. Its just another building block for advancement. The more I discover things in meditation the more my preconceived notions are destroyed and it doesn't affect me as I'm used to it.
To love logic is not the same as to reject reality. If something doesn't happen according to my logic, then that doesn't mean reality is wrong, but my logic is. Above anything, that's an opportunity for me to learn and improve my logic even further.
Why would I, seeking to perfect my logic, ever want to live in denial of the truth? If I cannot see the truth unbiasedly, how could my logic be unbiased either? Letting go of all those biases and seeing only that which remains is obviously the way to go; but my logic is no bias, it is merely the understanding acquired in the process.
A while ago, a Satanist with a good reputation told me something similar, that I should let go of my logic and preconceptions and just look in his mind without bias so I would understand the "Truth" that he saw. I believed him. You know what happened? He turned out to be an infiltrator with jewish genes, and as I looked at the images he showed me in my mind, I went insane. I lost my will, my ability to think critically, my personality, and even my name. If that's what it means to die and break, then I don't want it.
I am not accusing you of such a thing, and I know it's largely thanks to the Gods and the other good people around me that I was able to recover and become myself again. But even if I were to see the same things as you do regarding love, I simply can't afford to be so trusting anymore and think something is true simply because it initially seems that way. Things can be confusing and deceptive, and if something doesn't make sense, then I probably shouldn't trust it unless there's clear, actual evidence of it in the real world.
For me, logic is not something I can ever live without again, because it's what protects me the most from ever losing myself again. If back then I had simply listened to my logic, I would not have believed any of the things I saw. None of it made sense, and yet I had convinced myself that I was just being close-minded and that it was my logic that was wrong, not the information, simply because he said he had received the information from the Gods.
Nowadays, I change my beliefs if they don't appear to lead to accurate predictions, and take the things people say into consideration. But I will never again change my beliefs just because someone tells me to. In meditation as well, I take the things I see into consideration rather than believing them at face value. I suspend my personal understanding of logic temporarily during the meditation so I can see things properly and without bias, but once I'm done, I make sure to scrutinise and analyse everything I saw, just to make sure no potential misunderstandings slipped through.
If during meditation you got the idea that you should jump from a high place because you can fly, would you do it? No, right? Because it doesn't make sense. While there are other ways to improve accuracy as well, if your logic is sound, then it can be an extremely valuable filter when it comes to discerning truth from falsehood. And it's a filter that I will continue to refine and never let go of ever again, because it's there for a reason. If it ever holds me back for some reason, that just means I have to improve it even further.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49493993/this-is-fine.0.jpg)
![NakedPluto [JG]](/data/avatars/s/21/21004.jpg?1712372085){kind=avatar}