Esoteric Teaching - David Bruce Hughes

Post Reply New Topic

Dear All,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

I have known about my AS tendencies for several years. As many of you I have tried out different methods to reduce the negative symptoms and find out the best way to live life. For me this included evaluating different models of reality (ontologies). I would like to share with you that practicing the Esoteric Teaching has helped me overcome all of life's challenges. This level of Absolute Truth is not for everyone and only about 1 in 10,000 people can understand it. I recommend giving up all preconceived notions then watch the videos at:

youtube dot com forward slash davidbrucehughes

I've never heard of him so did a Google search. Seems like he's a Bhakti-yogi. In my encounters with Hinduism and the Vedas I never got on with bhakti-yoga. It is based on faith and belief in God and total submission and devotion to that idea of God. However, Jnana-yoga is a different matter, it seems ideal for the sceptical scientifically minded spiritual seeker and has close parallels with Buddhism. The other two yogas are perhaps better known in the West: Raja yoga - this is all to do with meditation and trying to open the shakras and is heavy into mysticism - not to everyones taste. Finally there is Karma yoga where people live a selfless life doing good deeds in order to realise God. Hmmmm.

Do you have any more to say about your experiences of his teachings? I'm merely curious and have no intent to pour scorn, though on this forum I'm sure the vultures will be gathering.

It is bu**sh*t.

ruveyn

A little more digging shows his "lineage" to be from the hare Krishna movement, which rings alarm bells and there are also a few question marks over his "cultish" behaviour.

Please avoid the tendency to categorize and pass judgement on something you have no direct knowledge of. I recommend watching one of his videos then making your own decision.

Don't mind Ruveyn, he's just like that. =/

Yes, but in this case he is actually correct.

notice the post count for 'getcwd' at this pont: 2.

Don't they require a few more than 2 posts before they let you post outside links, so as to avoid spammers?

/why do I smell canned ham?

The old tactics - used successfully since at least since Roman Times: Pretend you have the "Absolute Truth" and only a very few selected can understand; tell your followers they the "Chosen Ones", that they are of a "Higher Order" than all other - and will find always some how believe you. The early Christians work this way, any other religions does something similar.

If critical question are raised say that the truth is of so "high order" (or any other phrase) that the critics can't understand it and it is "beyond" rational thinking.

---

Unfortunately Adolph Freiherr von Knigge's text regrading such groups is not in English translation published. I should do here a good work for humanity.

That kind of intellectual schmutz is readily cleaned up with Karl Popper's philosophical soap.

Any proposition referring to the world that cannot be empirically falsified is total nonsense.

ruveyn

Sir Francis Bacon did here the most of the work. David Hume and Immanuel Kant cleaned up the rest; Sir Karl did the polishing.

Kant had a bogus philosophy. There is no such thing as a necessary synthetic a priori judgment. The only necessarily true propositions are analytic, i.e. true by definition. Any proposition requiring empirically confirmation is not necessarily true. If a synthetic proposition is true, it it is true contingently. It just so happens to be the case etc. etc. Anything that is true in every possible world is analytic and tells us nothing factual about this world.

Kant said Euclidean Geometry was true synthetic a priori. When he wrote that non-Euclidean geometry had been discovered. Conclusion: Kant goes down in flames. Kant said that Newtonian Physics is true synthetic a priori. We now know Newtonian Physics is false. Newton's physics is Galilean invariant and we know by experiment that the world is locally Lorentzian invariant. Again, Kant goes down in flames. There is a very simple rule. If a theory implies a conclusion that is falsified experimentally, one of the premises of the theory is false. In short the theory is wrong since it follows from the logical conjunction of its premises.

As to Hume, he and Hobbes are my philosophical heroes.

Hume's only sin was to drive Kant mad, whereupon Kant inflicted the Critique of Pure Reason on an unsuspecting world.

ruveyn