About what happened in the beginning. Why the ancient sages knew more about what was in the beginning than modern philosophers

New edition Art. 257 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The property of a peasant (individual) farm belongs to its members on the basis of the right of joint ownership, unless otherwise established by law or an agreement between them.

2. Members of a peasant (individual) farm shall jointly own the land plot granted to this farm or acquired, utility and other buildings, reclamation and other structures, productive and working livestock, poultry, agricultural and other machinery and equipment, vehicles, inventory and other property acquired for the farm at the common expense of its members.

3. The fruits, products and incomes received as a result of the activity of a peasant (individual) enterprise are the common property of the members of the peasant (individual) enterprise and are used by agreement between them.

Commentary on Article 257 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

The commentary is being finalized and is temporarily unavailable.

Another commentary on Art. 257 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The property basis of a peasant (farm) economy is joint ownership. Members of a peasant (farm) economy are connected not only by economic, but also by close personal relations, which predetermines the community that is expressed by the relations of joint ownership.

Members of a peasant (individual) farm may establish under an agreement a different regime of property used for the purposes of the farm, different from joint ownership.

2. If a peasant (individual) farm unites more than one member, the participants in the farm must conclude an agreement, which, in particular, determines the procedure for managing the farm, indicates its head, and resolves other issues (Article 4 of the Law on the Peasant (Individual) Farm).

3. Members of a peasant (individual) farm may jointly own property intended for running the farm, as well as property acquired for the farm, and products (income) received from the activities of the peasant (individual) farm. At the same time, members of a peasant (individual) farm may have in their personal property property that is not used for the purposes of the farm and received by them at their own expense or from other sources. Married members of a peasant (farm) economy may also have joint matrimonial property, which is subject to the regime established in Art. 256 GK.

4. Property management of a peasant (farm) economy is carried out by agreement of all its members. In particular, transactions for the disposal of property, as well as transactions that may entail the alienation of property, such as a pledge, must be concluded with the consent of all participants in the economy (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of January 2, 2001 N 3978/01). A transaction concluded by the head of the farm is assumed to be concluded in the interests of the farm, unless it is proved that it is concluded in the personal interests of the head of the farm (Article 8 of the Law on Peasant (Farm) Farming).

5. Division of a peasant (individual) farm is possible upon termination of the farm, as well as in order to create two or more new farms. In this case, the land plot is divided in accordance with the norms of land legislation. In particular, it cannot be less than the minimum amount established in accordance with the law (art. 33 LC).

6. When one of the participants in the peasant (farm) economy leaves, the land plot and means of production, i.e. property directly used in agricultural production is not subject to separation (partition). In this case, the person leaving the farm receives monetary compensation commensurate with his share in the common property. Compensation must be paid within a period of not more than a year from the date of exit. Within two years after leaving the farm, the former member of the farm bears subsidiary liability for the obligations of the farm that arose on the grounds that took place before his exit (Article 9 of the Law on the Peasant (Farm) Economy).

7. In the event of the death of one of the members of the household, an inheritance is opened. The heir, if he has not entered the household, shall be entitled to compensation in proportion to the share of the testator. If the farm is terminated, including due to the death of its last member, the farm is subject to division in kind (Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

It is said that the task of man is to serve God. Who is speaking? Yes, you can't remember them all. So it's easy, they say.

And what is the task of God, did anyone tell you? And in general, what does God do for a person, provided that a person has done something for him. If not, we know what will happen, but in the opposite case? Although: even if a person is not grateful "for everything", is God really so touchy?

After reading spiritual literature, you will not find explanations why God is needed. There is a lot of talk about why it was once needed or why it will be needed, but not a word about what it is good for now.

Each religion gives its own interpretation of "everything that exists", based on a simple thesis: God is incomprehensible to the weak human mind. It is impossible to fully understand it, and if so, then there is no need to worry.

As one programmer friend said, God is such a variable that is referred to when there is no exact data. Unknown value. Pandora's Box.

God - for most people plays the role of a "roof", which, if something happens, will "cover", "smear", "protect".

For example, do you know why it is necessary to take care of parents and children? So God ordered, and if you do not obey, it will be bad for you.

Do you know why you have to be patient? Because God endured and commanded you. Compared to his worldly sorrow, all your life's suffering is a mere trifle. Be patient my child...

We, modern people, have gone far from the ancients in our knowledge of the world, but we have inherited part of their culture. God, for example, that is, an attitude, a variable, to which many rules of our life refer. From such references, this variable becomes something that really exists, you just can’t feel it. So you don't have to touch it. You believe everything. And if you do not believe, he will be angry. (Elegantly, agree, explained).

The myth created by the ancients still lives in the form in which they created it. The form is this - there is somewhere someone who controls everything. You have to be good, and then he will help. You have this myth in your "head" too. Not as bright as a hundred years ago, when hundreds of churches were built, but still there.

Mythological consciousness, that is, thinking that operates with ideas about God, hell and heaven, is inherent in most, if not all, modern people. And here we come to a very simple idea: if something exists, then it is needed for some reason. Right? What is unnecessary would have disappeared long ago. An example of this is the gods of ancient Greece. There are no those who need them, so what? Where is Zeus? Where is Aphrodite? What are they doing now, I wonder?

So, describe your god as if you were describing a person. Tell us about his character. How he treats you. What do you need to do to earn his favor. In general, figure out how your personal relationship with God works.

Here are some questions to help you:

1. What is he, my God? How do I imagine it?
2. What does it do for me?
3. Why is he doing this?
4. Why is he doing this?
5. What am I doing for him?
6. What am I doing to make him treat me better?
7. How do I know how he treats me?
8. How do I know if I live right or not from his point of view?
9. What in our interaction gives me strength? What makes me stronger when I have a god?
10. How does this connection deprive me of power? Why do I get weaker when I have a god?

If God is removed, who will judge man? And let him judge and punish himself. That's all the solution.
God will not come to the “Last Judgment”, and do not hope for this meeting (by the way, the “terrible” the court, the more you depend on all sorts of “intermediaries”: priests, pastors, and other benefactors who caught you on the hook ...) . You judge and punish yourself. We punish ourselves and judge ourselves every day. It turns out that there is no need to do a terrible judgment at any particular moment. He is always there. And there is no god on it, but its function is performed.

And here another conclusion suggests itself, if something (someone) performs its functions, then it means that it is a god? It is necessary to find that (that) that (who) performs its functions. This will be God.
Is the hint clear? Not yet?

There are two ways to become a god:
1. Become an immortal work of art. It doesn't really matter which one. (The Way of Art).
2. Become the rule of life for many people. (The ideological path).

God is an idea directing interacting ideas from a certain level of the system (or the whole system). However, if there is no system, there will be no god.

So WHAT was in the beginning: god or system (universe, microbes, man)?

Now, Putin showed Poroshenko exactly the same compromising evidence. Through Medvedchuk. And now Poroshenko has no choice: it is necessary to make a decision on the Crimea and Donbass on Putin's terms.

Yesterday and today I received many messages from my friends that the authorities are beginning to carry out repressions. Damn-fly! What did I say in Krakovets? Who has the video? Look!

All the same. It's not even the second episode. It's the same. Only with other actors. The script and direction are the same.

Now we look at the denouement: Yanukovych signs an "agreement on the settlement of the political crisis" and knocks out of the country. Along with him is the Attorney General. Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the head of the SBU and the inner circle. Yanukovych's wife remains in Ukraine with pinned oranges.

Surnames are changed according to positions.

Now about panic moods.

I will not leave the country anywhere. I already left once, but then, as a citizen of Ukraine, I went to the mainland from the Russian occupiers. I'm ready for any change. I have absolutely no fear of the future, for I know it. Therefore, do not write to me: “Beware”, “Be careful”, “Look around”, etc.

Everything is fine with me. It was in the Crimea and will be now.

I have nothing to fear. In the scenario with Peter Alekseevich, my violin is not at all the main one. In this case, the prima is himself. Let him be afraid. Moreover, in the scenario with Yanukovych, the president was not an alcoholic. Perhaps this is the only, but very significant difference.

O F C Yu
Demigods and Humans

ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE BEGINNING

Like other peoples of the Ancient East, in India myths about the origin of the world constitute the earliest layer. For centuries, in different parts of the vast peninsula, human thought pulsated and beat in search of answers to the questions: where does all this splendor that surrounds us come from; where are we from? Other peoples have pondered these questions, but in the diversity and richness of their mythological solutions, India has no rivals.

In Indian myths about the origin of the world, two groups of legends are clearly distinguished: the actual creation of the world and the protection of the newborn world from monsters ready to devour it and plunge it into primordial chaos. At this second stage, the creator gods are replaced by dragon-slayer gods, already familiar to us under other names from other mythologies.

In the beginning there was neither being nor non-being. There was no air space, no sky above it. There was neither death nor immortality. There was no day or night. But there was something that breathed without disturbing the air. And there was nothing but him. The world was covered in darkness. Everything was an indistinguishable abyss, an emptiness generated by the power of heat. Desire came first, the seed of thought. Then the gods appeared. But did they create the world? Where did this creation come from? Did it create itself? The one who oversees the world in the world that has gone out may know about this, or may not know 1 ..

The waters arose before all other creations. They created fire. The Golden Egg was born in them by fire. It is not known how many years it has been swimming in the boundless and* bottomless ocean. From the Golden Embryo in the egg, the Progenitor Brahma arose. He cracked the egg. The upper part of the shell became the sky, the lower part became the earth, and between them Brahma placed the air space. On the earth floating among the waters, he determined the countries of the world, laid the beginning of time. This is how the universe was created.

Looking around, Brahma saw that he was alone. And he became afraid. Therefore, by the power of thought, he begot from his eyes, his mouth, the right and left ears, from the nostrils of six sons. From them came gods, demons, people, birds and snakes, giants and monsters, priests and cows and many other creatures inhabiting all three worlds.

Having transferred power to the gods and demons, Brahma went to rest in the shade, under the branches of a mulberry tree 3 . Brahma's rest, his "day", will last for billions of years, until the "night of Brahma" comes and the world he created again becomes a huge mass of water, which will have to wait in the wings, the birth of a new world egg and the appearance of a new creator of Brahma.

At first there was nothing alive, except for the first man, the thousand-headed, thousand-eyed, thousand-legged giant Purusha. He lay, covering the ground with his huge body, and still towered ten fingers above it. After all, Purusha is the universe that was and will be. Such is its size and majesty. The gods approached Purusha, tied him like an animal during a sacrifice, doused him with oil and divided him into parts 4 . His mouth became a brahmana 5 , his hands became a kshatriya 6 , his thighs became a vaisya 7 , from his feet a sudra arose 8 . The moon was born from his soul, from the eyes - the sun, from the mouth - Indra and Agni, from the breath the wind was born, from the navel 9 - airspace, from the head - the sky, from the legs - the soil, from the ear - the cardinal points. Thus, the worlds arose from the first man.

1 This earliest description of the creation of the world, given in the Vedas, is at the same time the most abstract. No god or other mythological character is mentioned. The author of this hymn disclaims any firm judgment. Thus, the commonly held view that abstractions are alien to primitive thinking is refuted by this text.

2 The concept of the world egg, from which the universe arose, is inherent in many mythologies. Let us recall the Egyptian myth about the origin of the world from an egg laid by the "great Gogotun". Hence the role of the egg in the burial rites of the Etruscans (on the funeral frescoes the deceased was depicted with an egg in his hand), as well as the place of the egg in the fertility festivals of the Eastern Slavs.

3 The mulberry tree, under which Brahma rested, is the world tree present in all cosmogonic myths, which occupied a central position in the world. In Chinese myth, it is also a mulberry.

4 This passage from the Rigveda hymn shows that this version of the creation of the world from the body of a cosmic giant is nothing more than a description of the human sacrifice of the first man, from which all the constituent elements of the world arose. When sacrificed, Purusha is divided into parts, from which elements of a cosmic and at the same time social organization arise.

5 Brahmins are priests.

6 Kshatriyas, or rajanyas - warriors.

7 Vaishyas - farmers, cattle breeders, merchants.

8 Sudras - the lowest class in Indian society, engaged in unskilled labor.

9 The navel played a special place in other mythologies, being considered as the world axis or the central world mountain. The navel of Purusha is the navel of the earth. But none of the mythologies knows the emergence from this center of the sky.

Systematization and communications

Ontology

Ancient sources like Genesis and Torah in general, Vedas, Upanishads, etc. it is still generally accepted to consider as a storehouse of wisdom true knowledge about what was in the beginning. The Aramaic word Breshish, which is the name of the first book of the Torah and which was later translated by the word Genesis, meant at the beginning. What was at the beginning of creation is described in detail in the Vedic tradition. But unfortunately, the specific language of symbols, in which the ancient sages expressed their knowledge, remains incomprehensible to us, but intuitively we feel that they knew what they were talking about.

Comments

In fact, back in 1939, a graduate of the United Theological Seminary of the United States (by the way, the most religious and esoteric country in the world) Robert Lind in his book Knowledge for What? (Knowledge for What?), Wrote: "in modern society to replace" “worn to holes” religion, a science must come that will indicate the goals of life.

What they did: the West ... the USSR ... yes, China and India. And now we ... with some kind of fright turned back ... away from progress. Closer to darkness.

Religions are already from two to five thousand years old... but morality is still in the same place... no life goals have been achieved... As it turned out, religions are shackles on the body of humanity. So let science try now. She took up morality, morality and goals ... only about fifty years ago. That is a hundred times less than the time of the domination of religions on Earth.

Viktor, komunyaki zombified your brains thoroughly. The ancient sources I have listed have nothing to do with religion. They have the generalized name of esotericism in European philosophy. It was then that all sorts of priests stuck to them and declared them books of God. Listen to Laitman's lectures on Kabbalah, he repeatedly emphasizes that the Torah, one of the fundamental works of Kabbalists, is a scientific work and Kabbalah itself is the science of what was in the beginning.

The question is why when there were no Cambridges or Harvards, but they already knew this.

I, a modern philosopher, pose the problem of transdisciplinary synthesis and offer solutions. Esotericists (at least in FS) are silent. They don't know what to do. Their only suggestion is to fuck up philosophy, sciences and part of religions - and leave one esoteric. That's all their knowledge.

People know how to grow potatoes without any Cambridge and esoteric.

Similarly, esotericists know their Secret Teachings without any Cambridges.

In the same way, modern science knows something unknown to esotericism. Not a single esotericist will calculate the bridge diagram and determine the formula for alloy steel.

You are biased inaccurate. What prevents the esoteric from being an architect or an engineer? Ouspensky and Gurdjieff understood the sciences and technology very well, which did not prevent them from being esoteric

Sergei, as a modern philosopher who knows how to grow potatoes, why do you cling to Parmenides, Aristotle, and they, in turn, clung to Abraham and Moses. Because the ancient sages possessed true knowledge. For example, the word Genesis they denoted that which was in the beginning. In the Vedas, the word Brahm was used for this, which means integrity. So, speaking of integrity or what was in the beginning, they indicated its properties: existence, consciousness, bliss. In your interpretation of being there is not a word about its properties. For you, this is an abstraction, while you don’t even know what an abstraction is by definition, highlighting some properties and abstracting from others.

This is about your comment. But the question remains, the ancient authors knew what was in the beginning or not. And do contemporaries know this?

I have no doubt that the ancient sages knew something that was not available to many contemporaries.

In the same way, I have no doubt that modern scientists, sages, philosophers know something that was completely unknown to the ancient sages.

And the fact that esotericism is not philosophy, I have already stated to you in plain text many times. With esotericism, you made a mistake with the forum. You need to go to the Esoteric Assault.

Without esotericism there can be no philosophy, which is worth one concept of being. This is how unity manifests itself in diversity. All fundamental questions of philosophy find their solution in esotericism. We simply do not correctly imagine what esotericism is. I think if it is called the highest philosophy, then it will not be far from the truth.

Actually, I have a book of Kabbalah. Bought 20 years ago. I didn't see anything scientific.

I remember only one thing. Light... op... The more you take in, the more you give, and the more you give, the more you take in. I was still joking then: Kabbalah was written by the future Marxist-Leninist dialecticians, quantity turns into quality.

There is nothing scientific there. In the modern sense of the word scientist. So the priests of Egypt can be called professors. They predicted eclipses... perfectly.

Victor, I also once bought a book on elementary particle physics. When I read there that there are particles that have flavor and there are charmed particles, I also thought that this book has nothing to do with science. But then one physicist explained to me what it means and I changed my mind. Listen to Lightman's lectures, maybe they will help you get an idea of ​​Kabbalah.

:) And I have known about this (aroma and charm) for more than 20 years. Therefore, Kabbalah...

I just read on the wiki about Lightman. And so I understood that the orthodoxies of Kabbalah (Judaism and Zionism) do not recognize him. And I have a book (600 pages) published in Israel. I bought it when Gorbachev allowed us everything, and Israel flooded Leningrad with its propaganda literature.

Victor, let me give you some advice, if you want to have an idea about Kabbalah, listen to Laitman's three dozen lectures, they are just being published on FSH. They are a little boring, but reading books on Kabbalah is very difficult to understand. Because cabalists in their books use psychological techniques that help us to plunge into altered states of consciousness. Their texts not only pursue the transfer of knowledge, but at the same time a way of manipulating our consciousness. Castaneda describes these techniques very intelligibly in his books, where he talks about his experience in teaching occultism.

Vitaliy, I am too mundane and too reasonable in the negative sense of the word mind.

Maybe I could have been remade when I was 15... Although I think they couldn't even then. The boys put me on the ground and wanted to put a lit cigarette in my mouth to make me smoke. And not once laid. But I never put a lit cigarette in my mouth once in my entire life. They persuaded me to go stealing, since I was friends with the most hooligan part of the yard, but I never went ... I was somehow very little influenced by the environment.

And once, long ago, one DMN told me: "Vitya, it is quite possible that you do not succumb to hypnosis."

So what to say now, when life can be said to be lived. Only another Nobel laureate will change me. If Lightman wins a Nobel Prize, then I'll go buy all his books and read them. Until then...

:) I have something to do. Went to the store. I took a jar of cucumbers to the cellar. Cucumbers in a greenhouse and two greenhouses collected. I "ran" along the compost cage and threw about 2 meters of cubic soil into it.

There are books on the table next to the bed.

1. Hinttika. About Godel.

2. Lyotard. postmodern state.

3. Hazen. History of the Earth.

4. James. It's not a woman's business.

:) I read everything at once.

Friends ... all parted. All four. For 60 years. Vladivostok. Tambov. Israel.

:)) And I've been a talker since childhood. The one ... without FS ...

And so you think that sensually imaginative thinking is more effective in understanding the nature of Being than the intellect. This is already interesting.

Feeling goes ahead of the mind, it is generally recognized. I can hardly be mistaken if I say that all words in the language began with some kind of feeling. It was then that they became words. And regarding the capacity of the image, there is a Chinese wisdom. It would take 200,000 volumes to explain what is in the picture. And the number of reviews about Pushkin's novel in verse "Eugene Onegin, a small book, confirms this. Probably, so many have been written in 150 years, 200 thousand. And they keep writing, writing, they find something else that no one has noticed before.

Here is about sensory-figurative thinking, in fact, about the right hemisphere of the brain:

To creatively comprehend the problem, one logical apparatus is not enough. Intuition is needed, and this is the most important function of the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere highlights the most important, key points in each problem, but if they are not enough to solve it, it is powerless. The right hemisphere grasps the problem as a whole. It easily forms various associations and sorts through them with great speed. This helps the right hemisphere to understand the situation and express a hypothesis, formulate an idea, even if it is crazy, but often non-standard and often correct.

The right hemisphere is the realm of the unconscious. Mental operations are carried out in the right hemisphere secretly and independently of the left, and it gets acquainted only with the final result of this work. That is why the left hemisphere, which commands everything and everyone, cannot interfere in this secret work and destroy in the bud an idea that is beginning to emerge, which seemed to him unexpected and paradoxical.

The insight that can come to us both in a dream and when our brain is busy with completely different work is the result of the creativity of the right hemisphere.

And here is the significance of sensory-figurative thinking among famous scientists:

Most of the outstanding mathematicians of our century thought in visual, less often in motor images. J. Hadamard recoded the tasks into a system of points and spots of an indefinite form, and then operated on these symbols, the distances between them, and free spaces. Only at the final stage of the study did mathematical signs begin to be used, and the recoding of visual images into words was carried out only in the process of preparing the discovery for publication.

A. Einstein worked in exactly the same way. He and another great physicist, N. Bohr, with a large lag behind the average norm, mastered oral and then written speech in childhood. This contributed to the greater development of the right hemisphere, the creation of special systems of signs of inner speech, subsequently used in the process of creative activity, completely protected from the interference of a skeptical left neighbor with his verbal thinking and the logic of traditional common sense, which ultimately made them outstanding scientists.

Everything is correct, only the brain is useless here. The ancient sages describe the source of their knowledge, this is a modified, in comparison with ours, sensory perception. It is also called mental vision or spiritual vision. Sri Aurobindo calls this an altered state of consciousness. It doesn't matter what to call it, it is important that our consciousness keeps in itself the potential ability to perceive true knowledge without the help of thinking, and much more. The scientific discipline that studies these phenomena is called esotericism, and the researchers are called mystics. This, unlike philosophy, is not only theoretical research, but also their practical use, called occultism. For example, Patanjali, in the esoteric work: Yoga Sutras, describes the so-called siddhis, when with the help of a special technique called sanyama, one can get the strength of an elephant or master levitation.

Well, that's what scientists have researched. What can be said with certainty. And in all kinds of occultism, mystics write with a pitchfork on the water.

Ancient sources like Genesis and Torah in general, Vedas, Upanishads, etc. it is still generally accepted to consider as a storehouse of wisdom true knowledge about what was in the beginning.

By the way, don't you have the feeling that you wrote a contradictory text? :)

Right. When someone's will dominates someone, this will restricts that someone's critical thinking. Therefore, contradictions with this someone are inevitable.

So only the "ancient sages" who created "the book of Genesis and the Torah as a whole, the Vedas, Upanishads, etc." can answer you on the merits of the question, under whose will the will of Vitaly Andriyash bends.

1.I.e. no knowledge? Or voice it?

2. Isn't there a contradiction between "unfortunately, the specific language of symbols in which the ancient sages expressed their knowledge remains incomprehensible to us" and "Why do we, who created modern technologies, conquered space and are on the verge of creating artificial intelligence, know about what was in in the beginning less than the ancient sages herding sheep."

And, by the way, does not mean this knowledge.

This is empty talk.

In the beginning there was a triune Self, existence, consciousness, bliss. Paradoxes are always contradictory. Everyone's will bends, for some under the pressure of desires, for others under the pressure of ignorance, for others under the influence of the light of knowledge.

In the beginning there was a triune Self, existence, consciousness, bliss. Paradoxes are always contradictory.

If these are paradoxes for you, then they are not knowledge. After all, what is a paradox -

PARADOX

A strange opinion, a statement that is at odds with generally accepted opinions, scientific provisions, as well as an opinion that contradicts (sometimes only at first glance) common sense.

The paradox itself is characterized as follows:

Paradox- unexpectedness, unusualness, originality, contradiction to oneself, initial assumptions, generally accepted, traditional view or common sense in content and / or form. The antonym of paradox is orthodoxy- Proven, traditional. "Orthodox" literally means "following the dominant tradition."

And what did Spartak ask you about? -

The will sags in everyone, in some under the pressure of desires, in others under the pressure of ignorance, in others under the influence of the light of knowledge.

There is a limit to your critical thinking here. The restriction, presumably, imposed by the will of the ancient people, which you follow. After all, they died, so their souls do not cave in under the pressure of the fear of death. And you, saying that everyone, did not mention this. And this is an important point that should not be missed. It turns out that you yourself are not alive.

I answered Spartacus, at first it was I. About free will. What is destiny is the role played by the I in the theater of life. Who is the screenwriter, this is also I, who is the spectator, this is also I, the Tatr is also I. When I, according to Stanislavsky, enters the image of its role, it forgets its universal divinity and becomes an ego in the divided consciousness of individuality. God is also I in the consciousness of unity. Creation is a game that the divine Self has played with itself. This is the brief summary of the doctrine of the mystics. How all this is possible, small children, accustomed to playing with themselves, will understand without difficulty, the game of imagination is just as real for them as the material world is real for adult uncles. It's just that the kids know what they're imagining, but the uncle doesn't.

Well, so you set out solipsism:

Solipsism(from Lat. solus - "only" and ipse - "self") - a philosophical doctrine and position characterized by the recognition of one's own individual consciousness as the only and undoubted reality and the denial of the objective reality of the world around. Can be seen as an extreme form of subjective idealism. Sometimes this term is used in an ethical sense to denote extreme egocentrism.

The logical basis of solipsism is the proposition that the only reality that exists reliably is one's own consciousness (which is directly accessible to a person) and sensations (which are also perceived directly). The question of the adequacy of the reflection of the surrounding world in our minds always rests on the question of the reliability of perception; if sensations are reliable, then the world is as we see it, but we cannot prove the reliability of sensations indisputably, because, apart from sensations and consciousness, nothing is directly accessible to us. In this case, we can assume that the sensations are distorted or generated by our own consciousness, and the world around us is completely different from what we see it, or even does not exist at all.

If the use of this term in the ethical sense is also correct -

Sometimes this term is used in an ethical sense to denote extreme egocentrism.

And egocentrism, in turn, is -

Egocentrism(from other Greek Εγώ - "I" and Latin centrum - "center of the circle") - the inability or unwillingness of the individual to consider a point of view other than his own as worthy of attention. Perception of one's point of view as the only one that exists.

That in the struggle of life is a hindrance -

As the definition implies, contrary to popular belief, self-centeredness is not a form or degree of selfishness. However, egocentrism makes it difficult to understand that others may have their own feelings, desires and needs, and can lead the egocentric to conflicts.

Maybe this is solipsism, except for the name, I don’t know anything about it. But it did not arise from scratch, and I am not the only one who is interested in esotericism.

Have you heard about Kant and his idea of ​​the impossibility of knowing the thing-in-itself?
This is solipsism

in the beginning it was me

And how did everything else come from the I? Now close your eyes and walk down the street. Here's a pillar that you'll crack, how did I come out of this?

And why? If I'm like it was, I'm left like that. :)

2. I state the transition to my personal qualities, so you have no arguments?

Or is there still something?

Let's get back to the point, shall we?

Here was I. And there is I. And around that, there is nothing? Why, then, other I, for example, in me or in a dog, fix the surroundings. just like your me? Here is the same pillar (material, material object) we all bypass. independently of each other. Doesn't this prove that there is something in this place and at this moment?

Here, using a more correct logic than my logic of a housewife, tell me how it is.

Help ordinary people understand from the plow.

If it is not clear to you, then from myself I will add popularly: first your consciousness imagined a body, then a pillar external to the body, then a blow and that it hurts. But since this imagination takes place on a subconscious level, we are not aware of the process of imagination itself, but perceive only its final result and call it the world.

This logic is experimentally confirmed by any hypnotist who can do a trick with you when you hit a pole and it will hurt you, but all viewers will see that there is no pole in sight. All this he will conjure up in your imagination. But for you it will be real.

Climb a little higher and look at Vladmir K's remark about solipsism, where he gives a rationale for why your logic about the outside world is flawed. Why repeat if it's already been said.

You misunderstood me, I only stated what is today -

Yes, solipsism is impossible to disprove. What can you do?

And there is also a negative attitude towards solipsism -

Solipsism as a radical subjective idealism has often been criticized by well-known philosophers (“solipsism can only succeed in a madhouse” (A. Schopenhauer), “solipsism is madness” (M. Gardner)). However, there was no sufficient justification that would allow unequivocally asserting the existence of objective reality outside the perceiving subject. One of the latest attempts to give such a foundation was the article by V. Yu. Argonov and S. I. Atina “The definition of matter based on the concept of temporal locality: the practical meaning of ontological problems.”

There are words in the Upanishads: Brahman is one, but it can present itself from many centers. Thus the One Self was scattered into many I's, which imagined the body and the outer world. Thus, Brahman or in other words I, realizing my loneliness, created creation and started a game with myself for fun.

Maharishi defines Brahma or wholeness as the field of all possibilities. Thus there are many pastimes, both good and bad, when one gets bored, the brahmin moves on to another.

Climb a little higher and look at Vladmir K's remark about solipsism, where he gives a rationale for why your logic about the outside world is flawed.

It describes the essence of solipsism as a view, but without any justification.

then from myself I will add popularly: at first your consciousness imagined a body, then a pillar external to the body, then a blow and that it hurts.

You are inattentive. I understand this, and therefore I asked you a simple question: "Why, and my I, and all those around me, including the dog and other living creatures, imagined the same?

This logic is experimentally confirmed by any hypnotist who can do a trick with you when you hit a pole and it will hurt you, but all viewers will see that there is no pole in sight.

So what? This indicates only the possibility of influencing the imagination and nothing more. Yes, there is such a possibility. Very limited. But why does this suddenly serve as proof that nothing exists in acre of imagination?

And let the hypnotist do a DIFFERENT trick: so that all the spectators and the dog see this pillar in their imagination. Will be able?

And most importantly, and Since when has the impossibility of refuting a view become PROOF of its validity?

We are not talking about which view you or I prefer, but which of them fits better into the overall picture of the world. What are their pros and cons and more.

Do you really not understand that in short posts it is impossible to give reasonable answers to all questions. I have only outlined the doctrine of the mystics, and the doctrine itself is as voluminous as modern physics.

This is first. Secondly, if you think that I know the answers to all questions, then this is not so. Even Sri Aurobindo, when he cognized the supermind, noted that above, there are levels of consciousness not available for cognition. Therefore, we can only say one thing, the divine consciousness is not limited by anything.

But don't you understand that everything that is produced by man, that you use in life, is only thanks to physicists, etc.?

And from mystics NOTHING!

Will mystics help grow a good potato crop? Move fast? Get information from anywhere in the world? understand this information?

How do mystics help to live?

Not with anything? So why the hell do I need such weights?

expounded the ancient "knowledge" about the world order. What can I do with them? and what about them?

So what kind of knowledge is useless and empty? I'm not interested in those. Generally.

Are you interested? And okay.

I once saw a man banging his head against the wall. Knock Knock. Knock Knock. he was interested in it.

But you know, he is even preferable to you, because he did not impose his preference on anyone. He just stood and knocked: knock-knock, knock-knock. What he imagined. to me. the stump is clear, it is not known, however, since he did this without coercion from the outside, he had, as it seemed to him, a strong argument for banging his head against the wall. :)

I prefer to use my head differently.

Again. Assumptions are important. And the choice of one of them as the basis of one's worldview is a personal matter of a person. But to claim that it is true on this basis is foolishness.

A pragmatic position is a product of a developed intellect, but when intuition begins to erupt, new interests and values ​​arise. Lightman calls this the awakening of the point in the heart. The laws of evolution are inexorable, sooner or later the era of spiritual values ​​will come for each person. What is not important to you now may become an internal necessity in the future. These near-philosophical conversations are a kind of family thrown into the subconscious and with the onset of time can give completely unexpected shoots.

Sergey, you are asking about values, please. Spartacus talks about what we benefit from esotericism, the benefit is the requirement of the ego. When the point in the heart awakens, the person turns to altruism. Living for the sake of others, without any benefit for yourself. When the majority of the population becomes like Mother Teresa, the era of mercy will come.

There are thousands of ethical teachings, and you can count on the fingers of one's fingers. It is impossible to teach to become an altruist; this requires a radical breaking of consciousness. The problem is, as Laitman says, and all the wise men have been talking about this for thousands of years, that a person cannot do it by personal efforts. The maximum that we are capable of with the help of striving is to open ourselves to higher influences, and hope for help from above. But what I'm saying, for those unfamiliar with the teachings in general, it looks like bullshit.

Sri Aurobindo has a book: The Human Cycle, where he examined all historical socio-economic formations from the standpoint of the evolution of consciousness. So he predicted anarchism in the socio-political system following capitalism. But it will be possible when humanity completely gets rid of egoism. Then the need for a state as an apparatus for violence will disappear, since everyone will live according to the law by virtue of their consciousness. And now Sergey give an example of an ethical teaching that knows how to do this. All esoteric schools know not only how but also when this will happen.

If we are talking about technology, I will say a few words on this topic. Shendarovich was on a program visiting Gordon, where Shendarovich told how he took his daughter to football, she made comments to him. Dad, don't yell, I'm ashamed of you. But already in the second half, she was yelling and whistling along with all the ballers. Shendarovich called it the crowd effect. Ocultists use this effect to create a magical circuit, it is not difficult to create a circuit, the teacher's art is connected to universal altruistic energy. Then everything happens by itself, and the larger the magic chain, the faster and more efficiently the transformation of consciousness takes place. But there is one condition, voluntariness, teachers do not hold anyone back. And here, by analogy with Lenin, a revolutionary situation should develop, when the number of people striving for correction will be large enough, and this again is not in our hands. Therefore, esotericism is still the lot of singles, but according to the forecasts of Kabbalists, it will change within two hundred years. Sri Aurobindo predicted a transitional period of about five hundred years.

Two hundred, five hundred years - all these are at best unverifiable hypotheses, at worst - chimeras. Read any history textbook - you will find such chimeras and myths of the future in a cart and a small cart. History presents such surprises that all dreamers never dreamed of.

If altruists can be counted on one hand with all bookstores full of esoteric literature, then they are worthless, like all ethics. All ethics teach altruism against selfishness, and life goes on as usual, regardless of ethics and esotericism, in the enmity of people and wars.

Examples of ethical teachings that know how and when the role of the state as violence will disappear: anarchism (replacement of the state by individual freedom), communism (replacement of the state by self-determination of people).

Vitaly, I want you not to resort to non-philosophical (esoteric) propaganda and agitation at the philosophical forum, but to conduct a philosophical conversation. Heart-to-heart. In Dasein mode. For instance.

Now I understand. To be frank, I cannot help you within the framework of a philosophical forum. But I can advise, since you are an intellectual person, techniques that are not based on intelligence may not suit you. Lightman's lectures are aimed at the collapse of the intellect. Unless, scroll through the Human cycle, the book is written in the tradition of philosophy, without any mysticism, with a logical justification for every thought. This work is in the spirit of Marx's capital. If you catch the thread, then it will be easier to find the way on your own.

Excuse me, I will also say two words of mysticism. There is such a rule: not a student is looking for a teacher, but a teacher is looking for a student, if your desire is sincere, you will be noticed and help will come. How it will be, like a simple accident. As an intellectual, of course, you do not believe, so I will tell you one story. They say the staff of N. BORA's laboratory noticed a nailed horseshoe over the doors of his office. Why did you nail her, I was told that she brings happiness, answered Bor. And what do you believe in it, of course not, but those who gave it to me said that it brings happiness, regardless of whether you believe in it or not. You can't refuse Bohr's logic here.

Very similar. Why live if you're going to die anyway.

two words of mysticism. There is such a rule: not a student is looking for a teacher, but a teacher is looking for a student, if your desire is sincere, you will be noticed and help will come.

The child is not looking for the mother, but the mother is looking for the child. It is not the object that seeks the subject, but the subject that seeks the object. Man does not seek God, but God seeks man. Man is not looking for Diogenes, but Diogenes is looking for man. Not work is looking for a person, but a person is looking for a job. Not things are looking for a man, but a man is looking for things. Forms are not looking for desires, but desires are looking for forms that suit them.

And what about "mysticism"?

Question: Why does God seek man?
PS Just listened to an interesting (for me) performance
Perfection can create the imperfect, through limitation, concealment, but it can also create the perfect, through the unlimited, disclosure, removal of restrictions.

However, to the question that the "wise man of Zion" asks himself, that in what way the perfect (unlimited) creates the limited (imperfect), he did not wait for an answer. Or rather, there was an answer, but it boiled down to the fact that "limited" - a person, cannot ask such a question. Because he will not understand the answer, and therefore it is meaningless.
But I just didn’t understand, for this reason it is forbidden to raise such a question, or is it not forbidden?
He himself puts such a question, but can I?

In short, until you try to answer the question for yourself, it is unlikely that you can understand anything from this lecture.
The limited tries to answer the question about the unlimited, knowing (not realizing) that there is no answer to this question))

However, if the "limited" asks such a question, then one must think that he has something "unlimited" in himself, which allows him to "rise" above the "limited".

Well, the one who managed to rise above the limited, one must think, thinks to himself that he is above the rest. (((

You want to know everything at once, let's take it easy. In the beginning, as the unlimited created the limited. The solution to this question was suggested by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He gave a definition of the Absolute, it is a universal, universal field of memory. A single memory gives rise to duality, it is a memory that remembers and does not remember. When the entire field of memory remembers itself as I AM, this is one side of the Absolute, when it remembers nothing, this is the second unknowable side. Then a situation arose when part of the memory remembers itself, and part does not. To visually model this situation, let's imagine a memory that does not remember itself as a black sheet of paper, but a memory that remembers itself as I AM, like a white sheet of paper. Let's make a lot of round holes in the black sheet and cover the white sheet with it. We will see a lot of white circles on a black background. So the one I turned into many I. This is the first step of creation.

See the difference. I'm with you heart to heart, and you tell me - read Lightman. So which one of us is intelligent? I didn't ask you what to read, I asked you what to do?

If you have a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE on how to overcome the Ego - share it. And you tell me about mysticism, about esotericism, about fictional teachers.

Here again I bring to you what the Ancients did not know. Existential philosophy of life in the spirit of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky. Existentials of Heidegger. Metaphysical meditation of Descartes, Husserl, Solovyov, penetrating into the very innermost recesses of the soul.

In short, do you have only slogans and references to the texts of other people (is this not intellectualism?) or can we talk heart to heart about my and your Personal EXPERIENCE of fighting the Ego? After all, I did not say that I did not have it, I said that I did not have it full. And for the part that I know, I myself can teach, those who express a desire. Without any esoteric. Here and now.

If you have a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE on how to overcome the Ego - share it.

I'll share, do you mind?

Learn to correctly assess the life situation and find such a behavioral response that will give the best result for you, not only in the near future (momentarily or a little more), but in general in life, with a perspective.

To do this, learn to think in a variety of ways, train your thinking and accumulate knowledge bases: about the objective world around you and various models of behavior in society with an assessment of their effectiveness.

You will not overcome the EGO (it does not need to be overcome!).

You will simply become more profitable for yourself to solve life problems with many unknowns. The overall result will be an improvement in the comfort of your life.

A small but essential detail - your choice should always be directed not only to yourself, but also to the development of man as a species.

If you want everything only for yourself. then do the same, but for yourself and your children. You will be like Surkov, Sechin, Putin, Lukashenko, Trump and others.

They also "drive" the evolution of Mankind. So nothing bad will happen in this regard.

It's just that you die poor and happy because of that, and they die rich and happy because of that. And that's it.

everything else is the same!

Not-not-not, only about experience, personal.

I am learning. This is an experience. He described him.

The ego is not overcome, it is used. The ego is a tool.

Ego is a hammer. They can build a house, or they can take someone else's life.

The choice is for those who have a hammer in their hands. So it is with Ego. Only and everything.

And although the example is not 100% accurate, it conveys the essence.

The ego is a survival tool. And survival gives a positive effect both personal (a specific individual survives) and general (a species survives).

The duality is already there.

And everything else is from the field of relationships between people.

The very last villain (albeit based on the Ego) has a circle of friends. So it's just a matter of behavior preference and nothing more. Someone considers this model unacceptable (and what harm is it for humanity? It has been used for hundreds of thousands of years and everything is fine in biological terms), and someone is the best.

Just a matter of personal preference.

Some people prefer blondes. someone brunette. Who is right? Yes, none of them.

The one who is for diversity is right.

Sergey, I will answer you first. Sorry if I didn't get a personal heart-to-heart conversation, but it's not because I don't want to, but rather because I don't know how to do it on FS. About personal experience, everyone has it, but experience cannot be conveyed in words, everyone has their own. Therefore, they say that it is better to see once than hear a hundred times. But there is a general pattern that all teachers talk about. Getting rid of the ego is not achieved by personal effort, for personal effort itself is a manifestation of the ego. After all, the ego is, among other things, the awareness of one's separateness, and liberation is the awareness of unity. Therefore, Sri Aurobindo says that the highest technique of meditation is self-surrender, if you can do perfect self-surrender, you do not need to do anything else, everything will be done for you.

In the European tradition, they talk about connecting to an egregore. How to do this, you need to connect to any school and enter the magic circuit created by the teacher, no matter if he is alive or gone, like Jesus. You and I have the same intellectual warehouse of the psyche, which is why I share my experience of connecting to the teacher's egregor. I recommended the book The Human Cycle to you, because knowing you I am sure that it will interest you as a very interesting philosophical material, which outlines a new approach to the development of human civilization. If you are sensitive enough you will feel the energy of this book and that energy will work to weaken your ego. This is all I can help you with, my personal experience says that only by connecting to the influence of those who know how to transform the ego, you can do something with it.

I know it's hard to talk about personal experience in FS. That's why the Project was conceived, to talk about it. But you are the first of those who agreed and christened him zilch. That is, you don’t really want to look for ways. Or how?

If experience is not conveyed in words, then what are we all doing here, verbiage? What are we passing on to each other, nonsense? But in any case, if I have experience, you have experience, we can already talk on this topic. Do you really think I don't understand how you achieve altruism when I achieve it myself.

I agree with you that connecting to the experience and wisdom of a Teacher or a great Philosopher creates a base, and sometimes even works against the will of the student to conquer goals. But I see two pitfalls along the way.

1) Connecting to one or more congenial Teachers (like yours) can create an incident of one-sidedness, bias, absolutization of the chosen teaching. Therefore, I stand for the unity of all philosophers and for connecting not to one Teacher, but to their unity.

2) I consider your position to be ultimately passive and giving in to your own will. Instead of actively nurturing and cultivating altruism yourself, you shift all responsibility to some teachings, external forces, they say, they should make you kind for you. And what about doing good to people is already weak?

Sergey, you raised questions of personal experience that teachers recommend discussing only between like-minded people. Why, there are reasons for that, but I will not talk about them here. As for the project, I'm closely watching how events unfold.

There are thousands of ethical teachings, and you can count on the fingers of one's fingers. It is impossible to teach to become an altruist; this requires a radical breaking of consciousness.

Nonsense. In every way.

Altruism is a variant of a behavioral response.

It is present not only in humans, but also in animals. What teachings do you know about animals?

So on what basis do you tie the presence of this form of behavioral response to "teachings"?

The conditions under which altruism is used determine the number of times it is used. Plus, the choice in favor of just such behavior is fixed by the results - what will happen after.

Almost all people are altruists in relation to their close relatives.

Why? Because there is a return, after all. When there is no such return, then under these conditions altruism is not used.

Thus altruism is only one of many behaviors.

Like any other form of behavior, it implies a benefit for the user.

The fact that this benefit is not obvious at a glance does not make altruism unprofitable.

The low percentage of altruism among other forms of behavior is at least debatable.

All according to the situation. The conditions are met - there will be altruism. If they don't answer, they won't.

This is easily verified by placing a person in different social groups (by conditions).

//It is impossible to teach how to become an altruist, this requires a radical breakdown of consciousness. The problem is, as Laitman says, yes, all the wise men have been talking about this for thousands of years, that a person cannot do it by personal efforts.//

Rave! Altruism, as a form of behavior, is either genetic or easily acquired, like all other skills, through observation of other people.

ALL people are altruists. ALL people use this form of behavior. Some more often, others less often, but that's another topic.

But it will be possible when humanity completely gets rid of egoism.

All esoteric schools know not only how but also when this will happen.

Selfishness is the cornerstone...mmm...of human existence. Without selfishness, we will die out. The foundations of egoism are genetically determined, through unconditioned reflexes.

Appeal to survival and well-being for oneself when assessing a life situation in order to choose a behavioral response is the essence of the entire mechanism of choice in the life of any living being.

And you want to cancel it. You're stupid? The question is not to insult, but to understand the degree of your adequacy.

You still wean a person to eat and drink, for the sake of preserving the environment. :)

//Mystics will help grow a good crop of potatoes?\\
For example, if you arrange erotic mysteries in a potato field, then the harvest will be a hundred times higher.) And how to receive and understand information, only a mystagogue can teach this.

Galia, the word teach is not entirely appropriate, it is more correct to use the word show. As Castaneda writes, all the words that Don Juan spoke to him were needed only to shake his doubts, and he showed knowledge with a blow to the back.

Yes, Vitaliy, a forum is not a situation of direct transfer of knowledge, it is impossible to beat your opponents on the back. Here, if you are overcome by doubts from the abundance of someone's words, everyone can banging his head against his wall. Complete independence and autonomy. :)

For example, if you arrange erotic mysteries in a potato field, then the harvest will be a hundred times higher.)

Good day Galia. Is this experience or guess? :)

And here the question arises. Why do we, who have created modern technologies, conquered space and are on the verge of creating artificial intelligence, know about what was in the beginning less than the ancient wise men who herded sheep.

I understand you. The same question popped into my head when talking with an evolutionist about three years ago. And I accordingly asked him to explain how evolution manifests itself in the mental activity of people on the example of Aristotle, who lived 2500 years ago, and whom few people over the past period could surpass in the depth of their reasoning. More like degradation than evolution.