A Universe from Nothing?

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

If the universe is eternal it can't have come from nothing.
I have one clue that indicates a possibly eternal universe .
Irrational numbers.

 

[godnotgod]

Butttttt.......there wasn't ever a nothingness !
Unless it was in the singularity !
Then and only then, would it be ........
Damn....that get's nowhere, doesn't it ?

You are still within the context of Time, Space, and Existence; Nothingness is not limited by any of these. Because it is unlimited, it can accomodate Everything. Nothing else can. Nothingness is not held within the context of temporal Existence, but is Being instead, where there is no Time or Space, and that is because Nothingness is eternal. The Singularity is just a manifestation of the background that is Nothingness, or Pure Abstract Intelligence. It is out of this Pure Consciousness that The Singularity emerged. The behavior of atomic particles emulates this same pattern, where 'particles' emerge out of the energy field within which they are detected. But don't get caught up in duality. We are not talking two different realities here, ie; Nothingness over there, and The Universe over here; The Universe is none else than Nothingness itself, or Pure Abstract Intelligence, playing itself as 'The Universe'.

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

The Big Bang was an event in consciousness, but not in Time or Space.

It is no-thing-ness because it is not limited to any form or object, as it is itself The Formless, out of which all forms emerge. Please do not confuse form with 'things'. There are no such 'things' as all 'things' are empty of any inherent self-nature. Therefore:

"Form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

Nothingness is not 'something'; The very moment you attempt to define it; to conceptualize it; to encapsulate it in some symbol or meaning, you are now talking about relative nothingness, for which a relative 'somethingess' must also co-exist. That is a dualistic idea. But Absolute Nothingness has no relative 'other' to which it can be compared; it is the negation of all negation. And that is why it can be called 'The Absolute'.

from: The Tao of Zen, by Ray Griggs

 

[godnotgod]

If the universe is eternal it can't have come from nothing.

It did not come from Nothing; it IS the eternal Nothingness, manifesting itself AS 'Something'. It is That which manifests itself eternally as 'The Universe' that is eternal. The background to that which comes and goes (ie 'The Universe') itself does not come and go. It is Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncaused.

The Universe is The Absolute. If The Absolute is limitless consciousness, without any particular form, then how could it become this world of forms? It did not. Consciousness continues to be, without any change.

Consider a gold chain:

The gold has not become a chain. Only if it becomes a chain do I have to answer the question: "How did it become a chain?" Gold continues to be gold. Once you understand that clearly, then we can say that The Absolute has "become" The Universe....

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

The other metaphor is the classic example of rope and the snake. Walking down a road at dusk where the lighting is compromised, the wind kicks up, and one sees what one thinks is a snake writhing on the ground from the corner of one's eye, only to realize in the next moment, that the 'snake' was nothing but a rope, moving in the wind. The rope (metaphor for The Absolute) has not 'become' a snake (ie 'The Universe'); there never was a snake to begin with, but we see it as such due to the veiling power of what the Hindus call maya. We see The Absolute through the veiling power of Time, Space, and Causation, and therefore see it as 'The Universe'. When these conceptual overlays are removed, we see 'The Universe' as it actually is: The Absolute.

See here:

The Equations of Maya

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

It did not come from Nothing; it IS the eternal Nothingness, manifesting itself AS 'Something'. It is That which manifests itself eternally as 'The Universe' that is eternal. The background to that which comes and goes (ie 'The Universe') itself does not come and go. It is Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncaused.

The Universe is The Absolute. If The Absolute is limitless consciousness, without any particular form, then how could it become this world of forms? It did not. Consciousness continues to be, without any change.

Consider a gold chain:

The gold has not become a chain. Only if it becomes a chain do I have to answer the question: "How did it become a chain?" Gold continues to be gold. Once you understand that clearly, then we can say that The Absolute has "become" The Universe....

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

The other metaphor is the classic example of rope and the snake. Walking down a road at dusk where the lighting is compromised, the wind kicks up, and one sees what one thinks is a snake writhing on the ground from the corner of one's eye, only to realize in the next moment, that the 'snake' was nothing but a rope, moving in the wind. The rope (metaphor for The Absolute) has not 'become' a snake (ie 'The Universe'); there never was a snake to begin with, but we see it as such due to the veiling power of what the Hindus call maya. We see The Absolute through the veiling power of Time, Space, and Causation, and therefore see it as 'The Universe'. When these conceptual overlays are removed, we see 'The Universe' as it actually is: The Absolute.

See here:

The Equations of Maya

Why does everyone in religions speak with such unquestioned conviction?
Doesn't Anyone say"If", "possibly " or "could be" anymore?
Someone have a bet riding on this ?

 

[gnostic]

What you are describing are relative values which are the products of the subject/object split, the reality being that they form a single reality. But yes, such definitions are finite in nature, and therefore limited.

So what there are limitations.

Limits to what we know, what we understand, what we might believe in - are all perfectly natural, and I don’t any problem with that, because are willing to learn.

I am comfortable with “relative”, whether the relative be “objective” or “subjective”.

I am comfortable with knowing that I don’t know everything, because clearly I don’t, but I am willing to learn some things that are worth my time.

And I am fine that science don’t have all the answers for me or for anyone else. There are absolutely nothing wrong with that. It just mean that there are still more knowledge to be learned, new phenomena or more of nature to discover.

It is better than being pigheaded arrogant in what you believe in, especially believing that religions can answer all questions, which clearly they cannot do.

The differences between science and religion, is that science allow for challenges, provided that it has both logic and the evidences to back up the logic.

The SCIENTIFIC theory is only true, if there are verifiable evidences to back it up. Science are not based on mere guesswork, superstitious beliefs and biased dogma like religions, because they rely on evidences, religions rely on belief and faith.

It is evidence or experiment (hence observation) that make Scientific Method “objective”. The more evidences they have, the more probable or not probable it is, and not the number of people who believe in something (eg gods, demons, spirits, conscious universe, etc) that are not testable.

 

[godnotgod]

Why does everyone in religions speak with such unquestioned conviction?
Doesn't Anyone say"If", "possibly " or "could be" anymore?
Someone have a bet riding on this ?

One can speak with certainty from a religious POV, or from a spiritual POV. The religious 'certainty' is not certainty at all, as it is belief-based. As Alan Watts once put it:

"Christians are like men huddled in the dark, shouting to lend comfort to one another"

It's just a way of making things 'fit' by force, for the purpose of assuaging one's metaphysical anxiety about one's mysterious existence, and in that sense, is the most doubtful of all conditions.

Certainty in the spiritual world comes as a result of an experience that is beyond all doubt, but not certainty borne of the thinking mind that spawns personal views; it is certainty that comes from a power beyond all personal views. The path leading up to the experience is filled with doubt, however, and is even a prerequisite, as the mind is filled with such an overwhelming amount of doubt that one comes to the point of knowing nothing at all. That is the beginning of the spiritual experience.

"If", "possibly", and "could be" are all in the sphere of conjecture, and conjecture is a child of the thinking mind whose tools are Logic, Reason, and Analysis, which sometimes provide resolution to these doubts. Perfectly fine if your goal is to gain factual knowledge about reality. But to experience directly the true nature of Reality itself, one must subdue the ceaseless chattering of the thinking mind and it's subject/object split, and learn to see, rather than merely think. And it is in seeing things as they actually are, rather than merely conceptualizing them, that one sometimes arrives at certainty. The process in spirituality is the opposite of that of factual knowledge, where facts and data are accumulated until a theory can be formulated and tested to arrive at some positive conclusion. Spiritual understanding and insight, however, come about not by accumulation, but via subtraction; subtraction of opinions, concepts, ideas, beliefs, and doctrines, until one arrives at knowing nothing.

"Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinion"
3rd Zen Patriarch

Only then, when the mind is completely quieted, can the inner eye open; can 'Big Mind' come into play. The incessant and never-ending chatter of the thinking mind (ie; 'monkey mind') leads one on and on and on, never to arrive in the already complete and perfect Present Moment, where Everything just is.

You accidentally fall into a mountain lake. Is there any doubt that the water is cold?

 

[godnotgod]

So what there are limitations.

Limits to what we know, what we understand, what we might believe in - are all perfectly natural, and I don’t any problem with that, because are willing to learn.

I am comfortable with “relative”, whether the relative be “objective” or “subjective”.

I am comfortable with knowing that I don’t know everything, because clearly I don’t, but I am willing to learn some things that are worth my time.

And I am fine that science don’t have all the answers for me or for anyone else. There are absolutely nothing wrong with that. It just mean that there are still more knowledge to be learned, new phenomena or more of nature to discover.

It is better than being pigheaded arrogant in what you believe in, especially believing that religions can answer all questions, which clearly they cannot do.

The differences between science and religion, is that science allow for challenges, provided that it has both logic and the evidences to back up the logic.

The SCIENTIFIC theory is only true, if there are verifiable evidences to back it up. Science are not based on mere guesswork, superstitious beliefs and biased dogma like religions, because they rely on evidences, religions rely on belief and faith.

It is evidence or experiment (hence observation) that make Scientific Method “objective”. The more evidences they have, the more probable or not probable it is, and not the number of people who believe in something (eg gods, demons, spirits, conscious universe, etc) that are not testable.

I never said anything was 'wrong' with limited knowledge like science; I said that it cannot tell us what the true nature of Reality is.

Careful that your 'comfort' does not turn into smugness.

'Objective' and 'subjective' are artificial constructs of the thinking mind. They do not actually exist in reality. Why? Because the observer is completely one with that which is being observed. There is no way the observer can separate himself from the universe he is seeing as an object. When you learn to see things as they actually are, the dualistic and relative values of 'objective' and 'subjective' merge into a single reality, because Reality is neither subjective nor objective. Those are just polar ideas. The way things actually are, is more like:

Science is perfectly fine if you understand that it is limited, descriptive, and predictive knowledge.

As I previously explained, some things are true but are not testable via scientific means. Science is just one way of looking at things. It's method is dissection and reduction, and therein lies the problem. On the other end of the polar scale, is religion, which has it's own set of problems. But both are products of a certain level of consciousness that employs the thinking mind. The spiritual experience, OTOH, transcends the pitfalls of the thinking mind, and goes directly to the source itself. Science and Religion do not go to nature for answers because they see nature as unintelligent. Science goes to Reason, while Religion goes to something it sees as superior to nature, and that is God. But both are devices that treat nature as dead artifact; as a made 'thing'. Fact is, nature is not made, but grown. It evolves organically.

Are you going to answer my questions instead of jumping ahead, latching onto other's posts? You don't seem to want to have a real discussion. I have addressed your many protests, over and over again. So now what?

 

[gnostic]

The spiritual experience, OTOH, transcends the pitfalls of the thinking mind, and goes directly to the source itself. Science and Religion do not go to nature for answers because they see nature as unintelligent.

Sorry, but the spiritual experience is a belief-based experience, like faith-based religion, and the so-called transcendence is merely illusion, like this maya of yours, or worse a delusion.

And you haven’t shown that you have reached the transcendent state, because you are too egotistic.

All along, you have been telling people - who disagree with you - that you are right and everyone else are wrong. That’s your own ego talking.

You have been telling people here, to reach transcendence, that they let go of their ego of “self” - the “I” - but you have been too eager to tell how right you are, to let your ego go.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but the spiritual experience is a belief-based experience, like faith-based religion, and the so-called transcendence is merely illusion, like this maya of yours, or worse a delusion.

A most brilliant deduction, my dear Watson! Now, by what means would you happen to know that, dearie? Why, you must be enlightened, or course! Or perhaps you are just deluded into thinking so. My, my.. decisions, decisions.

I suppose you are just a phantasm yourself, eh? Or maybe you're nothing more than just a 'complex set of chemical reactions', and 'you' don't actually exist. Then, again, how would you know? Your brain may be playing trix on you, and laughing it's arse clean off, ha ha...

One thing is clear: you don't have the capacity to answer questions, do you? All you can do is deny, deny, deny, like the prisoners in Platos's Cave who refuse to go see the Sun for themselves. That is the degree to which your mental conditioning is working to keep you enslaved. You won't answer my questions because you know a shaft of light would enter the darkness you exist in, and you would be forced to admit that something far greater exists than the sterile tripe you've been indoctrinated with.

 

[godnotgod]

All along, you have been telling people - who disagree with you - that you are right and everyone else are wrong. That’s your own ego talking.

Where did I say everyone else is wrong?

You have been telling people here, to reach transcendence, that they let go of their ego of “self” - the “I” - but you have been too eager to tell how right you are, to let your ego go.

I never instructed anyone here to do anything of the sort. You're making crap up.

The way things are is neither right nor wrong. Right and wrong are values you maintain in your head.

The ego is an illusion. You can't let go of something that does not exist to begin with. That's the problem many people who try find themselves facing, and they go round and round in fatuity.

So, are you ready to answer my two questions that you've ignored post after post? hmmmm?

 

[gnostic]

But a question, if you will:

What do you think it is that is prompting the scientist to pursue his inquiries?

Is this question you are referring to?

I didn’t mean to ignore it.

When I am posting, I am usually following the exchanges, of what you quote from me with a respond, I would likewise respond, then there are flurries of responds and counter-responds, that I might overlook the question that were asked.

So for that, I am sorry that I didn’t answer your question.

But back to your question.

What do you think it is that is prompting the scientist to pursue his inquiries?

A scientist “pursue his inquiries” because he is driven to understand his surroundings, whether be nature or man-made, and try to find answers to his questions.

The most common questions they ask are the WHAT and HOW types.

For instance, a scientist investigating a certain phenomena, would ask:

WHAT is it?​

Follow by:

HOW does it work?​

Then two possible essential questions (or more), like:

WHAT can it be used for?
HOW do I make it work?​

The last two, concerning with possible applications.

Meaning - that’s how science acquire knowledge.

For some religions and spiritualities or mysticisms, social science and various philosophies may ask some of the same questions as science do, to acquire knowledge.

But the main differences between the way science acquire knowledge and the ways philosophies/religions/mysticisms acquire knowledge, is that science seek to verify or refute if it is true or false, respectively by the mean of observations.

Observation as in finding empirical evidences, as in testing or experiments. Science required to be able to quantify it, measure it, test it.

Observation and testing are what give science a large edge of objectively acquiring knowledge over philosophy, religion and mysticism.

And a scientist, except for those involved highly theoretical physicists (like those involved in Superstring Theory, multiverse models; they are not really “scientific theory” because they are empirically untestable) and those involved in psychology-related fields, a scientist is required to follow two essential methodologies:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method (SM)

They are related.

And the later methodology - SM - involved a whole heap of steps that must be followed, for examples, formulating the hypothesis (explanations and predictions) based on initial observation and asking question, testing the hypothesis and analysing the test results.

So a scientist not only acquire knowledge, he or she must test it, otherwise the knowledge isn’t scientific or falsifiable.

Mysticism, like faith-based religions, are all belief-based, including your Zen and your transcendent consciousness.

For instance, you claimed that mysticism is “falsifiable”:

The mystical view is also falsifiable, but not via scientific standards.

But then you stated in your next reply:

It is impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness via the methodology of science, because it is beyond the grasp of that methodology.

IF it is “impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness“, then it is “not testable”, therefore “it isn’t falsifiable”.

You are contradicting yourself. Or you don’t understand what falsifiable mean. Or worse, you are trying to change the definition of Falsifiability to suit your agenda.

I am sorry, if I get sidetracked with the whole Falsifiability, Scientific Method, and the testing when answering your question, but I need you to understand why scientists are required to test their knowledge, to determine if it is true or not.

The testings or observation are a mean of being objective when the hypothesis or theory is true. Something you can’t do with mysticism, because like your inner or transcendent consciousness, it is highly subjective.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

You are contradicting yourself. Or you don’t understand what falsifiable mean. Or worse, you are trying to change the definition of Falsifiability to suit your agenda.

Many English words are being re-defined at an astonishing rate. George Orwell called it "doubleseak'.

 

[godnotgod]

Is this question you are referring to?

I didn’t mean to ignore it.

When I am posting, I am usually following the exchanges, of what you quote from me with a respond, I would likewise respond, then there are flurries of responds and counter-responds, that I might overlook the question that were asked.

So for that, I am sorry that I didn’t answer your question.

But back to your question.



A scientist “pursue his inquiries” because he is driven to understand his surroundings, whether be nature or man-made, and try to find answers to his questions.

The most common questions they ask are the WHAT and HOW types.

For instance, a scientist investigating a certain phenomena, would ask:

WHAT is it?​

Follow by:

HOW does it work?​

Then two possible essential questions (or more), like:

WHAT can it be used for?
HOW do I make it work?​

The last two, concerning with possible applications.

Meaning - that’s how science acquire knowledge.

For some religions and spiritualities or mysticisms, social science and various philosophies may ask some of the same questions as science do, to acquire knowledge.

But the main differences between the way science acquire knowledge and the ways philosophies/religions/mysticisms acquire knowledge, is that science seek to verify or refute if it is true or false, respectively by the mean of observations.

Observation as in finding empirical evidences, as in testing or experiments. Science required to be able to quantify it, measure it, test it.

Observation and testing are what give science a large edge of objectively acquiring knowledge over philosophy, religion and mysticism.

And a scientist, except for those involved highly theoretical physicists (like those involved in Superstring Theory, multiverse models; they are not really “scientific theory” because they are empirically untestable) and those involved in psychology-related fields, a scientist is required to follow two essential methodologies:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method (SM)

They are related.

And the later methodology - SM - involved a whole heap of steps that must be followed, for examples, formulating the hypothesis (explanations and predictions) based on initial observation and asking question, testing the hypothesis and analysing the test results.

So a scientist not only acquire knowledge, he or she must test it, otherwise the knowledge isn’t scientific or falsifiable.

Mysticism, like faith-based religions, are all belief-based, including your Zen and your transcendent consciousness.

None of your response addresses the question I asked. I did not ask you HOW the scientist goes about his inquiry; I asked you what prompts his inquiry in the first place.

For instance, you claimed that mysticism is “falsifiable”:

​

But then you stated in your next reply:

​

IF it is “impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness“, then it is “not testable”, therefore “it isn’t falsifiable”.

You are contradicting yourself. Or you don’t understand what falsifiable mean. Or worse, you are trying to change the definition of Falsifiability to suit your agenda.

I am sorry, if I get sidetracked with the whole Falsifiability, Scientific Method, and the testing when answering your question, but I need you to understand why scientists are required to test their knowledge, to determine if it is true or not.

The testings or observation are a mean of being objective when the hypothesis or theory is true. Something you can’t do with mysticism, because like your inner or transcendent consciousness, it is highly subjective.

I understand what scientific falsifiability is; I was an invertebrate marine zoology major in college.

What I said was that the spiritual experience is NOT falsifiable via the scientific method, but IS falsifiable via direct experience. There is no contradiction here; you are just misreading the content.

I asked you if the prisoners in Plato's Cave can verify or falsify the claim of the escaped prisoner of the existence of a Sun outside the cave by simply going to see for themselves. Can you answer that question, please. Thank you.

 

[godnotgod]

Many English words are being re-defined at an astonishing rate. George Orwell called it "doubleseak'.

Otherwise currently known as 'Trumpspeak', 'KellyanneConwayspeak', and 'AlternativeFacts'. LOL

 

[gnostic]

None of your response addresses the question I asked. I did not ask you HOW the scientist goes about his inquiry; I asked you what prompts his inquiry in the first place.

I did answer you.

It is funny how you seem to miss this first part:

A scientist “pursue his inquiries” because he is driven to understand his surroundings, whether be nature or man-made, and try to find answers to his questions.

What do think that is?

Gee, why did I even bother to answer you at all.

Why don’t you go suck some lemons?!

 

[gnostic]

What I said was that the spiritual experience is NOT falsifiable via the scientific method, but IS falsifiable via direct experience.

You stated that high consciousness IS IRREFUTABLE:

It is impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness via the methodology of science, because it is beyond the grasp of that methodology.

You said “impossible to refute”.

Falsifiability has nothing to do with being irrefutable.

If it is irrefutable, then it is unfalsifiable, therefore untestable.

But you are making excuses that “unfalsifiable” in science, but “falsifiable” with your mysticism. You are trying to change the meaning of Falsifiability, just to suit your agenda and your religion.

You cannot say it is falsifiable here, and unfalsifiable there. You cannot make such justification, and you don’t have the authority to define it when it suit you. .

I know that you don’t think much of science, and you keep saying mysticism is better, and yet, when it suit you, you continue to compare the two as if science and mysticism work together.

It is nothing more than dishonest charade, you’re playing word game.

 

[godnotgod]

I did answer you.

No, you did not. Your answer:

gnostic said: ↑
A scientist “pursue his inquiries” because he is driven to understand his surroundings, whether be nature or man-made, and try to find answers to his questions.

...only says 'he is driven', etc., but does not tell me what I am asking, and that is: exactly what is it that is creating the impetus for him to pursue his inquiry? What is the nature of his inner impulse to do so?

Please understand that this inner impulse is precisely the same inner impulse that prompts the mystic to pursue his inquiry. But the very first foot set forth in doing so is not the same.

So what is it?

 

[godnotgod]

You stated that high consciousness IS IRREFUTABLE:



You said “impossible to refute”.

Falsifiability has nothing to do with being irrefutable.

If it is irrefutable, then it is unfalsifiable, therefore untestable.

But you are making excuses that “unfalsifiable” in science, but “falsifiable” with your mysticism. You are trying to change the meaning of Falsifiability, just to suit your agenda and your religion.

You cannot say it is falsifiable here, and unfalsifiable there. You cannot make such justification, and you don’t have the authority to define it when it suit you. .

I know that you don’t think much of science, and you keep saying mysticism is better, and yet, when it suit you, you continue to compare the two as if science and mysticism work together.

It is nothing more than dishonest charade, you’re playing word game.

Gnostic, you're making crap up again!

I never said that mysticism is better than science. Show me where I said any such thing. I said that science cannot provide us with the nature of Reality, while the mystical view can. Then I said, contrary to your assertion that 'I don't think much of science', that I embrace science wholeheartedly, but only insofar as it's limited knowledge allows. Mystics value science just as much as anyone else, but scientists give little or no credence to the mystical view, mainly because it is untestable via SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am not changing any meaning whatsoever. What I am saying is that the spiritual experience cannot be verified or falsified via the tools that science employs, namely: Reason, Logic, and Analysis, simply because the spiritual experience is transcendent of these methods. Therefore, using the Logic you so highly value, the mystic seeks another pathway to verifying the authenticity of the experience, and that is called 'seeking higher ground'. The way the mystic verifies the spiritual experience is via direct apprehension of Reality itself. But in order to ensure that his vision is without blemish, he must first do inner work to prepare, and that many times can take years to accomplish. The experience of Pure Consciousness is called 'pure' because it is a 'clear' and unobstructed view of Reality, without any personal beliefs, concepts, conjectures, or opinions in the way. Even the self is gotten out of the way, so this is not a personal view. In fact, it is an impersonal view afforded via a universal view. Consciousness is non-local. The view of the mystic is not 'MY view'.

Now listen up, so I can correct you on your erroneous assertion that I

"continue to compare the two as if science and mysticism work together."

Fact of the matter is that both scientist and mystic are trying to gain insight into nature. It's just that (and here's the important difference) science looks at nature with a conditioned view, while the mystic's view is unconditioned. And that is why the outcomes are different. The mystic understands why, but the scientist does not, because he is looking at everything via a conditioned view called 'the scientific method'. There is no particular method to the mystic's view of Reality; he just sees things as they are, rather than how his conceptual mind defines them.

So you are still not answering my question:

Can the other prisoners in Plato's Cave verify or falsify the claim of the escaped prisoner that a Sun exists outside the Cave by going to see for themselves?, that is to say, by their first-hand and direct experience?

 

[gnostic]

No, you did not. Your answer:



...only says 'he is driven', etc., but does not tell me what I am asking, and that is: exactly what is it that is creating the impetus for him to pursue his inquiry? What is the nature of his inner impulse to do so?

Please understand that this inner impulse is precisely the same inner impulse that prompts the mystic to pursue his inquiry. But the very first foot set forth in doing so is not the same.

So what is it?

Again, you are playing word games.

I gave you my answer, so if you are not satisfied with the answer, then that’s your problem, not mine.

 

[gnostic]

I never said that mysticism is better than science. Show me where I said any such thing.

You keep telling us, that science is limited, which I actually happened to agree, because it doesn’t work on emotions (eg anger, love, jealousy, etc), behaviours, because not everyone are exactly the same. Some follow similar guidelines, but others are erratic, because human nature have so many variables.

When people paint and draw, it is art, not science. Science is limited in art.

But this thread is about the universe and cosmology, so we have science vs religion/mysticism views. So human emotion and art don’t deal in this areas.

Again, again, you keep saying science is limited, as are logic, reason, analysis, thought/mind, that it cannot go where the transcendent consciousness can. You think consciousness can directly perceive reality better than science or scientists. Hence, aren’t saying mysticism is better than science, is it not so?

You keep telling us that the evidences science have, are nothing more than illusion, not the capital “R” Reality. Do you not think that?

You keep telling me that I hold on to science, theories and their evidences don’t concern with the “real” Reality. That you grasp view beyond that of science. Aren’t you saying mystics are better at understanding reality than science?

This whole quote below, is you ditching science as illusions, and mysticism being better at it than science:

The experience I have been pointing to is without, and transcendent of, the thinking mind, and it is the thinking mind which utilizes the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis, and which creates belief and bias. I don't entertain any particular preference for the experience; it's just the way things are, like breathing naturally. It's just about being awake in the present moment, and seeing things as they are, from moment to moment, rather than the mind formulating concepts about how things are, which is what science does.



But, gnostic, don't you see, that you assume that science is the gold standard for knowledge, and by which all other views should be judged. A real scientist would say something like:

"Yes, it is possible that there exists a higher state of conscious awareness, one that is unconditioned, outside the reach of the rational mind, and for which no evidence as science knows it exists, and is reality; and that science is only a partial view of that ultimate reality. I don't know, but am willing to put my science aside and go see for myself"



I never claimed that 'what I am doing' is science; it isn't; it is a view beyond the grasp of science. While the method of science is dissection and reduction, the method of the mystic is to apprehend reality just as it presents itself, wholly and without any attempt to intellectualize it. The mystical view is neither science nor philosophy. It is direct experience of the reality we find ourselves immersed in right here; right now, from one eternal moment to the next, but without attachment. While your scientist is preoccupied with what is right or wrong, reality itself is neither. The scientist always ends up immersed in paradox because factual knowledge does not synch with nature. Nature is always bigger than Reason, because, unlike Reason, which attempts to encapsulate Reality into concepts that the rational mind can 'understand', (because concepts are themselves the product of the rational mind), the mystical view just sees things as they are, without the filter of the mind. IOW, there is no longer a subject/object split as in science; subject and object have merged into a single Reality. As Deepak Chopra put it:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

The very first step one takes in order to 'understand' reality is one step removed from reality, simply because you ARE that very Reality itself.