A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

If you are using meditation as religious practice, then it is part of your religious belief, especially if you think your consciousness have reach transcendent state.

It is only not a religious belief, if you practice meditation with intention of focusing, clearing the mind or for health benefits.

But you can use meditation for both health purpose and for religious belief, at the same time, but if you continued to use it as "religious" practice, then the purpose is for religion.

One of the major components of religion is belief (and faith), and you wouldn't be doing meditation as religious practice unless it for religious belief.

You did not answer any of the three questions gnostic, just provided some general talking points. I am trying to establish where there is misunderstanding.

So try again and just say whether you agree or not agree to each of the three question 1, 2, and 3.

Once I know which, if any, you disagree with, I can then narrow down where the misunderstanding lies.

So please go ahead, and no superfluous verbiage please, just agree or not agree.

 

[godnotgod]

Not interested in your dreams nor your make believe. What has any of this to do with a quantum sandwich?

It is not a sandwich; it is a possibility. You mistake form for thing.

 

[gnostic]

You did not answer any of the three questions gnostic, just provided some general talking points. I am trying to establish where there is misunderstanding.

So try again and just say whether you agree or not agree to each of the three question 1, 2, and 3.

Once I know which, if any, you disagree with, I can then narrow down where the misunderstanding lies.

So please go ahead, and no superfluous verbiage please, just agree or not agree.

Sorry, but what part of religious practice being part of religious belief, that you don't understand?

As to those questions, they were directed at Christine.

I have decided to cut through those questions and give you my view as to what constitute as religious "belief", and how "practice" of religion don't amount to anything other than that of belief.

My last post should have being contrary to your claim that "stilling the mind" is not a religious belief.

If you are using meditation for religious purpose, then it is practice of religious belief. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but what part of religious practice being part of religious belief, that you don't understand?

As to those questions, they were directed at Christine.

I have decided to cut through those questions and give you my view as to what constitute as religious "belief", and how "practice" of religion don't amount to anything other than that of belief.

My last post should have being contrary to your claim that "stifling the mind" is not a religious belief.

If you are using meditation for religious purpose, then it is practice of religious belief. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

We have been over this before and I gave you the example of a gold miner who had faith where gold was that he could mine, when he found there was gold there, his faith was vindicated, but of course he kept on mining to get more gold. Same thing with the religious faith that still mind meditation practice will lead to the realization of bliss, when union has been realized, the faith was vindicated, but the devotee will keep on meditating to continue to be in a state of bliss.

The fact that there are religious meditators out there who have not realized the goal but continue in faith, is irrelevant to the example of a devotee who had already realized the goal.

 

[`mud]

Wellllll.......I see where about five or so people have come from nothing !
The counter and forward arguments are `something`, so to speak !
I think more meditation is needed.
~
And I still wonder.....what `contained` the singularity ?
could it have been `nothingness`,
from where `nothingness` came ?
What was that `container` made from ?
I'll have to meditate further, I guess !

 

[Thief]

Wellllll.......I see where about five or so people have come from nothing !
The counter and forward arguments are `something`, so to speak !
I think more meditation is needed.
~
And I still wonder.....what `contained` the singularity ?
could it have been `nothingness`,
from where `nothingness` came ?
What was that `container` made from ?
I'll have to meditate further, I guess !

the singularity was contained by the pinch of God's fingers
and released with a 'snap'

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, let us proceed methodically as mature adults to see where the misunderstanding (or lie if that what it is) lies. We will examine the pertinent comments sequentially until we come to the one where we disagree as to what it means.

Let us start the sequence with your post #4247 ChristineM, Jul 28, 2017 "Your belief s yours alone, just don't pay the preacher."

1. Do you agree with my understanding that you are referring specifically to my beliefs?

I replied with my post #4255 ben d, Jul 28, 2017 "There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice."

2. Do you agree with my understanding that I am talking about my still mind meditation practice being a religious practice?

You replied with your post #4259 ChristineM, Jul 28, 2017 "No, it is a practice, religion is only involved if you personally wish it to use it as a vehicle to achieve a result."

3. Do you agree with my understanding that you are denying my still mind meditation is a religious, merely a non religious practice?

If you do not agree with my understanding of context and meaning of the three posts, please explain your understanding? If you do agree on all three, then we will then move on further in our quest to find where the misunderstanding lies.

I am referring to you preaching, as the post stated. So no i do not agree.

Yes you stated "..., it is a religious practice." You made no reference to personal belief, you claimed transcendence is a religious practice. So, no, i do not agree.

I agree i wrote "No, it is a practice, religion is only involved if you personally wish it to use it as a vehicle to achieve a result" which it correct, it is a practice, practiced by both religious and none religious people. I later provided evidence to validate my claim.

There is no misunderstanding, you made a claim and i refuted it, end if story. I do not actually give two hoots what you believe, i do, in this case, care about what you wrote.

 

[ChristineM]

According to the theory, the false vacuum energy was present, it is the starting point of the theory. They do not address the question of where it came from as it is a given.

That you meant a bubble and not a bumble...

A local quantum minimum of energy as opposed to a global minimum of energy, as is defined for a true vacuum

Ahh spelling police ad hominem, no more than expected from the petty minded.

 

[ChristineM]

Ben does that all the time with me.

I know that my grammar and my English are not the best, and most likely below average, but for him to bring it up whenever he backed into corner, just show how petty and low he is, trying to redirect the topic from the debate to my English.

I'd call that whenever he used this, merely a distraction or evasive tactics.

I came across it often enough on topix, it always backfired in the end because they always made an error of some sort themselves at a later date. Funny how many people jumped on that error, and never let them forget.

Its not the first time ben d has tried it on, it wont be the last.

Yes, it is usually a distraction, a sure sign they have no substance in their claims.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not a sandwich; it is a possibility. You mistake form for thing.

Know what i meant when i wrote it, obviously you are at a loss as to what a sandwich is.

 

[gnostic]

We have been over this before and I gave you the example of a gold miner who had faith where gold was that he could mine, when he found there was gold there, his faith was vindicated, but of course he kept on mining to get more gold. Same thing with the religious faith that still mind meditation practice will lead to the realization of bliss, when union has been realized, the faith was vindicated, but the devotee will keep on meditating to continue to be in a state of bliss.

The fact that there are religious meditators out there who have not realized the goal but continue in faith, is irrelevant to the example of a devotee who had already realized the goal.

And I have explained to you before, that your analogy of gold miner is faulty, because it is not just his experience.

If he found the gold, and showed it to other people, then these people would know the gold is real. He can have the media to photograph the gold, he can sell it or keep it, but once other people know the gold is real, it is not just his experience.

The same cannot be said about your experience of transcendence, using meditation. You can tell people of your experience, but you cannot make them believe your claim. All we have, is your words, and your belief, in your experience.

How do people know that you have lost your touch of reality? How would they know that you weren't hallucinating your reality?

My point is that you cannot prove to me that you have reached transcendent state of being. Only you would believe in it, and what you believe doesn't make it real.

 

[godnotgod]

And I still wonder.....what `contained` the singularity ?
could it have been `nothingness`,
from where `nothingness` came ?
What was that `container` made from ?

"The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God!—it's full of stars!"

(Astronaut Bowman, upon approaching the face of the monolith in space, in an attempt to land his space pod onto it's surface.)
from 2001 A Space Oddysey

Nothingness did not come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere. It IS Anywhere....and Nowhere at the same time. It has always been, but not in time. It is Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncreated. The Singularity is none other than Nothingness itself.

Nothingness is Pure Abstract Intelligence, playing itself as The Universe.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

IOW, mud: The Big Bang is an event in CONSCIOUSNESS. In fact, it is Pure Abstract Intelligence playing itself as The Singularity, the BB and The Universe. The question is 'why'.

 

[godnotgod]

Know what i meant when i wrote it, obviously you are at a loss as to what a sandwich is.

You think it is a thing you eat. It is just an idea in your mind, a 'superposition of possibilities'.
Are you understanding the Quantum Physics meaning of this, or not?

How do you know you are not just dreaming of eating a sandwich?

This is not a pipe.

"Space" is just an idea in your mind you call 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth".

What you call 'space' is actually consciousness; but it is not your personal consciousness; it is the consciousness of The Universe itself.

 

[godnotgod]

the singularity was contained by the pinch of God's fingers
and released with a 'snap'

Was that perchance the same set of fingers previously caught in the cookie jar, or aimlessly pointing to the moon? Was that *snap* a ginger snap, perhaps? mmmmm....finger lickin good!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am referring to you preaching, as the post stated. So no i do not agree.

Yes you stated "..., it is a religious practice." You made no reference to personal belief, you claimed transcendence is a religious practice. So, no, i do not agree.

I agree i wrote "No, it is a practice, religion is only involved if you personally wish it to use it as a vehicle to achieve a result" which it correct, it is a practice, practiced by both religious and none religious people. I later provided evidence to validate my claim.

There is no misunderstanding, you made a claim and i refuted it, end if story. I do not actually give two hoots what you believe, i do, in this case, care about what you wrote.

You are obviously obfuscating with respect to Question 1 where you do not say whether you agree or not agree for obvious reasons. You had to in order to continue your denial. Let me explain.

You said in your post #4247 ChristineM, Jul 28, 2017 "Your belief s yours alone, just don't pay the preacher."

My question 1 was...Do you agree with my understanding that you are referring specifically to my beliefs?

Now if you said that you do not agree with my understanding that you are talking about my beliefs, then it is obviously a lie, if you say you agree, then it follows that when I say in my responding post #4255 ..."There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice.", it is directly in the context of you raising the issue of my beliefs in your post #4247. Note how in your post, you purposely edited out "There is no belief involved in stilling the mind,"

Now my question to you is.....Do you think that my statement 'There is no belief involved in stilling the mind..." is in direct response to and in the context of, your statement to me..."Your beliefs..."?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A local quantum minimum of energy as opposed to a global minimum of energy, as is defined for a true vacuum.

Regardless at what theorized level of energy of the vacuum is, anywhere from 10^−9 joules to 10^+113 joules or even infinity, the energy must have always been there. Where do you think it came from?

 

[Thief]

Regardless at what theorized level of energy of the vacuum is, anywhere from 10^−9 joules to 10^+113 joules or even infinity, the energy must have always been there. Where do you think it came from?

God is.....dark energy

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I have explained to you before, that your analogy of gold miner is faulty, because it is not just his experience.

If he found the gold, and showed it to other people, then these people would know the gold is real. He can have the media to photograph the gold, he can sell it or keep it, but once other people know the gold is real, it is not just his experience.

The same cannot be said about your experience of transcendence, using meditation. You can tell people of your experience, but you cannot make them believe your claim. All we have, is your words, and your belief, in your experience.

How do people know that you have lost your touch of reality? How would they know that you weren't hallucinating your reality?

My point is that you cannot prove to me that you have reached transcendent state of being. Only you would believe in it, and what you believe doesn't make it real.

You are mistaken, a personal experience is not invalidated because it is not some physical substance, if others can replicate the experience, then it becomes a part of the common knowledge of the culture. That some people have not or do not want a particular experience is not evidence that the experience is not real. The Dharmic traditions of India that have spread earlier through most of Asia and later throughout the whole world has allowed hundreds of thousands of devotees, if not millions, to realize the bliss associated with a still mind over the millennia.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

God is.....dark energy

Pantheistically, I would put it this way. Spirit is......dark energy.

 

[Thief]

Pantheistically, I would put it this way. Spirit is......dark energy.

I would cling to the notion of an actual person
Someone capable of pronouncement.......I AM!.....

Someone had to be first