godnotgod
Thou art That
Because there are people who still think the wave and the ocean are two separate things.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe from Nothing?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
Because there are people who still think the wave and the ocean are two separate things.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Hindu beliefs and pseudo-science are the basis of your Chopra-inspired new-age dogma, they run through everything you post here. Others here will judge the accuracy of this observation, but I am certainly not being deceitful.
Why do you keep going on about "stagnant Theravada backwaters"? You have no experience of that school and you are clueless about it, it is just lame ad-hom.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Why do keep going on about my "30 years on the mat"? It is irrelevant to the discussion. So I have done a lot of Buddhist meditation, and I think you are preaching BS. Just deal with it.
By the way, there are many forms of Buddhist practice, it isn't all about being "on the mat". Again, you are clueless.
Last edited:
That's because a wave is a wave and an ocean is an ocean. Two separate words for two separate things. An ocean is not a wave and a wave is not an ocean.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You are confusing form with things. Both wave and ocean are made of the same thing: water.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I already know that. 'On the mat' is just a metaphor for any kind of meditation.
So why do you accept Sunyata for which there is no evidence, and then harp on and on about a conscious Universe and the BB being an event in consciousness, also for which no evidence exists.
Never said it wasn't. A wave is just some water behaving in a certain way.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
"On the mat" refers to sitting meditation. There are many other types of practice in Buddhism, but I guess you wouldn't know that because your experience of Buddhism is so limited.
You are the one that harps on about a conscious universe and the big bang being an event in consciousness, it is the basis of your new-age pseudo-Hindu dogma.
Sunyata makes sense to me based on close observation of the aggregates, which are invariably conditional and transient.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever for your claims, which are religious beliefs rather than observable truths.
godnotgod
Thou art That
That water is ocean water manifesting itself as a wave. Wave and ocean are not two separate things. They are the same event. Only form is different. Same with you and the Universe: the consciousness of the Universe is not different than your consciousness at its source. But because of the ego, an idea of separation has been created. That separation is an illusion. The ego wants to think it is in control of nature, that nature is an unconscious 'thing' that it can bulldoze around and manipulate and dominate it in such a way as to make it serve the ego.
When you sit and watch the sea quietly without calling what you see 'wave' and 'ocean', it will become perfectly clear that you are observing a single reality, not two. The idea of their being separate is only in your mind.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
You're just being a silly, misguided individual when you harp on about Chopra and new age and Hinduism. Sure, I like Chopra, but I like Dawkins too, and many many others. I also find truth in Hinduism, and Zen, and in all traditions. Where you and I differ is that I see the connections between these ideas as harmonious, while you see them in opposition.
You're just dense, and don't get the metaphor about 'on the mat'. IOW, it is not a literal statement that only means sitting meditation, but applies to any form of meditation.
Those two ideas about the BB and a conscious univeres come from me, not from Hinduism or new age.
Sunyata makes sense to me as well, in exactly the same manner that a conscious universe and the BB as an event in consciousness do. As far as I am concerned, a conscious universe and a BB being an event in consciousness
are not only observable realities, but direct experiences. You have too much science on the brain, preventing you from seeing things as they are.
Show me the evidence for your claim that Sunyata is a reality.
ak.yonathan
Active Member
So, are you saying that that theory is unfalsifiable, henceforth prohibiting it from being a scientific one?
ak.yonathan
Active Member
How about the fact that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero? Look, wasn't it you who said that nothing is masquerading as something? Well, I happen to agree with that, meaning that everything we think we see around us is really just an illusion.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yes, because it is beyond the scope and methodology of science. It is a matter of direct realization, and not of clinical analysis, reduction, and dissection.
That would require having a separate mind to have the idea in.
ak.yonathan
Active Member
If that's the case, then forgive me if I'm suspicious about its validity in making claims about reality. How can we know that this 'direct realization' method as any merit whatsoever? What if we realize something that is wrong? At least in science we can test our theories.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
You are a new-ager, and therefore you cannot help trying to bang square pegs into round holes. And you cannot help but misrepresent things in order to force them into your DIY religion.
Not all Buddhist practices are meditation, so it you who are being dense.
These ideas clearly come from your hero, the charlatan Deepak Chopra.
I simply don't believe you. These are religious beliefs and not things that can be directly observed. I am calling BS.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Sunyata, or Emptiness, also applies to ourselves, and the 'I' stands squarely in the way of realization that humans possess no inherent self nature. We may intellectually understand that all equals zero, but the power of maya and duality still dominate the mind. This is why even Quantum physicists do not yet grasp the implications of their own science. They are like the Christian who believes that 'the Word became Flesh', but if they were to actually realize this, they would go running wildly into the streets, screaming their heads off.
Then it's useless since we can't verify any of it.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
As I have repeatedly explained, sunyata also stands squarely in the way of your new-age beliefs like the universe being conscious and the big bang being an event in consciousness. Sunyata means that consciousness also lacks inherent existence and only arises conditionally, so it cannot be the fundamental property of the universe as you claim. Your beliefs have much more in common with Hinduism than Buddhism.
One minute you are challenging the validity of sunyata, the next minute you are using it to support your claims, all the time not properly understanding what sunyata actually means. What a complete muddle you are in.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Direct realization does not occur via sensory perception; it is transcendent of perception and is a mirror image of Reality, or rather, is Reality itself.
We can be fooled by the five senses. In science, what we say is true today changes tomorrow. Kant says that Reason reaches ineluctable limits.
"We create a certain theory and then there is the honeymoon with the theory. For a few years things go perfectly well [with a scientific theory]. Then reality asserts itself. Reality brings up a few things and the theory gets into difficulty because we had excluded a few facts. Those facts will protest, they will sabotage your theory, they will assert themselves. In the eighteenth century science was absolutely certain, now it is certain no more. Now a new theory has come: the theory of uncertainty.
Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.
But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason. And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical."
http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/r...fcda0f-5bb?p=9811f0127585ca97f7545550839d0e8d