Wads4

It may be case that we have to spread the observational platform so that different human individuals regard their fellows as objects and therefore part of reality,-same as they would do for animals and inanimate objects. In that way the "subject" who is the observer and part of what he is observing, becomes, in the eyes of another individual, a part of the total reality upon which valid observations may then be made.
Also, we make observations, which as you say, may be merged with the observing subject, but then we compare with others doing the same so as to achieve a higher order of observational reliability, and practical consistency.
Also, is it true to say that in classical systems the observer always influences the observed in a measureable way,-or does this only apply in the quantum world?
How does your direct viewing method work in practice?

Wads4

Well it sounds a bit unlikely to me that there can be experiencing without the mind of an experiencer, whatever Buddhists might think. The Self is only truly extinguished at death. Meditators still have awareness of the outside world and presumably their own relationship to it.
Who then has identified the "burning" and the "ouch" as ontological entities--apart from the person who has just been burned? Full consciousness of an injury does in fact arrive later than the immediate reflex awareness of it. I expect you may have noticed when you stub your toe, --there is an immediate pain, plus reflex withdrawal of your foot from the source of injury, followed a second or two later by a more excruciating pain, as the pain perception nerve impulses use slower nerve fibres than the initial fast ones, and reach the more conscious levels of the cerebral cortex.

Wads4

Ah well there we have the diffference between believers and unbelievers; If I were to regard sacraments etc as "mysteries" I would have to first believe they were real things, which of course as an infidel I do not,--instead I regard them as artificial made-up concepts which have no significance outside of theological studies.

Valdemar

If god exists, he knows exactly what it would take to convince me. I don't know, maybe an arm lost in the war growing back right before my eyes.

DBT

Irrelevent to reality.
Belief isn't knowledge, a belief may prove to be true or false or it may be unprovable.
A decision to accept the christian God as being real will not make that God a reality, which makes the belief itself...irrelevent.

danrael

Do you agree with the statement that the mind is a self-created principle?

danrael

Is the universe singular and seamless?

Here is a little story:

Baby fish: "Momma, all my friends at school keep telling me about the
sea. What is the sea?"

Momma fish: "Well, baby, the sea is all around you."

Baby fish: (looking all around) "Where? I don't see anything?"

Momma fish: "It's right in front of you."

Baby fish: "Sigh. Well, I guess it does'nt really exist after all."

danrael

"Just because the water in a teapot boils when placed over a fire does not mean that there is a fire-god which dwells within the fire."
unknown source

danrael

I think part of the problem some of us have is that we have developed the attitude that we are in need of convincing, ie; that it is somehow mandatory. There is nothing to indicate that someone will convince us of the existence of a God simply because we demand or expect it. Perhaps it is because this involves a preconception of what the results will be, and, therefore, the experience never occurs as this is in the way. If someone were to unexpectedly toss you into a cold mountain stream, you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the water is cold. Similiarly, the only thing that would convince you of the existence of God is a totally unimaginable and overwhelming spiritual experience by which you would know is true beyond a shadow of doubt, that is, should such an experience happen to you.

"The soul should always stand ajar, ready to welcome the ecstatic experience." ―Emily Dickinson

ThorsHammer

The skeptic (me) always starts out with an objective, but logical attitude regarding a supernatural claim. Once all information and evidence is digested, the skeptic usually makes an objective decision as to the voracity of the claim. There never is a "i believe" equivalent to the supernatural "i believe" with the skeptic.