Pete
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you don't take the practice up, it wouldn't be expected that you could see what it entails
”
You appear to assume that I have not taken up such practices.
basically the more subtle the claim, the more involved the practice - kind of like you can learn a multiplication timestable in a few moments and you can learn what it takes to verify an electron in a few years. The ease that you dismissed the process after simply working with a very simple explanation of it led me to believe that you haven't applied it
But regardless, you're jumping to the second level of investigation. Demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour is the first level - like looking at a TV, and seeing that "something" exists that puts images on the screen.
so the equivalent in this scenario (ie the raw object/s of investigation) would be the phenomenal world and one's consciousness
“
hence different experiences lead to different demonstrations
”
Do they lead to the same properties, the same description of God?
there are numerous ways that god can be described but they should not be contradictory, at least for one who is claiming complete knowledge.
For instance one person may describe a person called fred. Another may describe a person who is a baker. Another may describe a person who's wife is called mary. If it is understood that fred is baker who has a wife called mary there is no contradiction. If we have only a partial understanding of this knowledge, issues may arise (Fred is a baker but we don't know who is wife is, so we can't verify the "mary" thing)
In this way the variety within monotheistic claims can be sorted and even worked along side polytheistic, animistic or even the claims of cargo cultists. (IOW they can all be attributed
some element of truth in regards to the nature of god, but only from the vantage of complete knowledge)
“
basically there is an element to the practice that involves coming to an objective state of mind (purity of consciousness etc)
”
And reliability? How do you test the reliability of this investigation?
well suppose we were discussing a practice that required purity of water. To test the reliability we would adopt a standard for testing that purity (taste, colour etc). Some standards might be more comprehensive than others (perhaps all that is required is that you take a swig of it and see if you drop down dead)
So similarly, when one is discussing purity of consciousness (needs of the soul vs the needs of the body), one adopts a standard, and some standards will be more effective or complete than others.
Here's one such standard
NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.
“
That they are probably messing up on a few aspects of practice or possibly even theory
”
But how is that possible, if approached with a yearning heart, a devoted mind, and a devout guide?
quite easily
NoI 2: One's devotional service is spoiled when he becomes too entangled in the following six activities: (1) eating more than necessary or collecting more funds than required; (2) overendeavoring for mundane things that are very difficult to obtain; (3) talking unnecessarily about mundane subject matters; (4) Practicing the scriptural rules and regulations only for the sake of following them and not for the sake of spiritual advancement, or rejecting the rules and regulations of the scriptures and working independently or whimsically; (5) associating with worldly-minded persons who are not interested in god consciousness; and (6) being greedy for mundane achievements.
