A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

How can perceptual reality be trusted?

For one thing, science, which relies on perception and the extensions of perception, continues to change many of its theories over the years as new information becomes available, especially today with the emergence of Quantum Physics and how it has overturned the applecart of Newtonian physics. It is like being in a darkened room, and the door is opened slowly to reveal vague shapes and colors at first which appear as one thing, but then change as the door is opened further and more light is allowed in. But even in the full light of Reason, we can only determine the behavior of phenomena and make predictions about it, but we can never actually say what we are looking at. IOW, science, via perceptual reality, cannot tell us the true nature of things.

Perceptual reality is a limited view, designed for man to operate within certain parameters so he can navigate around in his environment. Beyond that, he is pretty much lost. Another kind of knowledge is necessary to see into the nature of Reality.

We use a collection of perceptual tools; a bat uses another, while a honeybee still another. Each one creates a different reality for that particular organism. So where is 'reality'? It is purely conditional when perceptual reality is the case.

But you have claimed that you can directly apprehend reality...through what? Through "meditations"?

What make your so-called "direct apprehension" any more real?

How do you know what perceiving though meditation is not illusions...or your deluded mind?

In my younger days, I was very willing to believe in anything. And I did try meditation.

Admittedly, I did find it quite relaxing being in that state, but so relaxing that 3-out-of-5 times, I would doze off. Nothing in those sessions would I call the experiences "transcending" or seeing cosmos or reaching epiphany.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In my younger days, I was very willing to believe in anything. And I did try meditation.

Admittedly, I did find it quite relaxing being in that state, but so relaxing that 3-out-of-5 times, I would doze off. Nothing in those sessions would I call the experiences "transcending" or seeing cosmos or reaching epiphany.

Generally it takes many years of serious religious meditation practice before the mind approaches stillness....religious meditation practice is not about relaxation...

 

[gnostic]

Generally it takes many years of serious religious meditation practice before the mind approaches stillness....religious meditation practice is not about relaxation...

No, it take years to addled your brains with delusion.

It is far more likely to be hallucinating at this state, confusing the dreaming with this imaginary transcendence.

Have you ever wonder wonder why some would go to some high mountaintop to meditate? In that altitude, oxygen is less, so you have to breath harder to sustain oxygen in areas like the brains. And you don't even need to meditate to experience hallucinations at that altitude.

It is known medical fact, that depriving brains from oxygen will make people hallucinate.

But you don't need to be on mountain to reach such state.

With meditating, breathing is important. And it is not just about breathing in and out, but holding that breath for sustain long moments, thereby replicating the altitude lack of oxygen from reaching the brain.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it take years to addled your brains with delusion.

It is far more likely to be hallucinating at this state, confusing the dreaming with this imaginary transcendence.

Have you ever wonder wonder why some would go to some high mountaintop to meditate? In that altitude, oxygen is less, so you have to breath harder to sustain oxygen in areas like the brains. And you don't even need to meditate to experience hallucinations at that altitude.

It is known medical fact, that depriving brains from oxygen will make people hallucinate.

But you don't need to be on mountain to reach such state.

With meditating, breathing is important. And it is not just about breathing in and out, but holding that breath for sustain long moments, thereby replicating the altitude lack of oxygen from reaching the brain.

Haha....religious meditation is not about holding your breath.....shows you know as much about meditation as you know about religion and metaphysics......

 

[james bond]

Sure you can experiment. You can just let a person look at a red ball and then let a color blind person look at the same ball and see if that changes the "reality" of the ball in any way.Get hold of a piece of it and contact somebody with the right equipment and he can tell you which electromagnetic frequency it reflects and what that corresponds to in color.

So your answer is something we can experiment on? Your answer sounds like logic to me though. It's logic to back up your pov, but I see no experiment nor have heard you propose a valid experiment.

I propose this experiment. What color is the dress?

 

[james bond]

Here's the answer to the color of the dress according to science (in depth):

 

[james bond]

For those who value science more than their own logic or lack of, here is a simple perception test. The answer why it occurs is still a mystery. Which way is the ballerina spinning? Clockwise or counter-clockwise?

Now try and focus to change your thinking. If you thought the ballerina was spinning clockwise, then think she is spinning counter-clockwise.

The answer is here (still a mystery):
The spinning dancer illusion and spontaneous brain fluctuations: an fMRI study.
http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/23984988

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For those who value science more than their own logic or lack of, here is a simple perception test. The answer why it occurs is still a mystery. Which way is the ballerina spinning? Clockwise or counter-clockwise?

Now try and focus to change your thinking. If you thought the ballerina was spinning clockwise, then think she is spinning counter-clockwise.

The answer is here (still a mystery):
The spinning dancer illusion and spontaneous brain fluctuations: an fMRI study.
http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/23984988

The mortal mind has it's limitations, it is dualistic in nature and therefore is forever unable to realize the oneness of God.. However if the mind is still, there is no 'I' present to separate the mind from it's inherent oneness with the God..

 

[ArtieE]

Here's the answer to the color of the dress according to science (in depth):

Yes thanks for illustrating my point so well. The dress IS in reality black and blue no matter what some people think. We all see the same dress and the real color of the dress doesn't change.

 

[godnotgod]

Haha....religious meditation is not about holding your breath.....shows you know as much about meditation as you know about religion and metaphysics......

ROFLOL

 

[godnotgod]

The mortal mind has it's limitations, it is dualistic in nature and therefore is forever unable to realize the oneness of God.. However if the mind is still, there is no 'I' present to separate the mind from it's inherent oneness with the God..

Wonderfully put.

 

[godnotgod]

So what? The ball is what it is anyway. It doesn't change.

Then how do you know it's ultimate reality is a ball at all? You are incapable of seeing beyond the perceptual view.

Because you only see things via perceptual reality, you don't actually know that what you say about the ball is true beyond the constrictions of perception, just as you know nothing of the awakened state when you are in a dream.

You call what you see currently as 'ball', but before it was in its current form, it was just formless material, and is now on its way back to formless material as it's molecular components break down over time. So all objects are changing all the time. From the POV of Quantum Physics, a ball is not a ball; it is a possibility. From the POV of Higher Consciousness, a ball is a form that has no inherent self nature, and in effect, does not actually exist perse. So where is 'ball'? It is an idea in the mind.

Except of course that the real ball isn't "an illusion of the mind" per definition.

So what!? Reality is what it is and doesn't change depending on our perceptions. All we can do is use objective science to discover more aspects of reality.

But since your conditioned mind is bound by perception, you can't see the Reality beyond it you claim never changes. Your statement is pure speculation.

 

[ArtieE]

You call what you see currently as 'ball', but before it was in its current form, it was just formless material, and is now on its way back to formless material as it's molecular components break down over time. So all objects are changing all the time. From the POV of Quantum Physics, a ball is not a ball; it is a possibility. From the POV of Higher Consciousness, a ball is a form that has no inherent self nature, and in effect, does not actually exist perse. So where is 'ball'? It is an idea in the mind.

"Ball" is just a name we have given certain collections of atoms and molecules with certain properties fulfilling certain criteria. Such collections do exist in reality.

 

[godnotgod]

The ocean isn't conscious and doesn't "experience" anything. Neither does the wave.It exists temporarily as a product of the interactions between the atoms and molecules in this body. Soon it will seize to exist when the interactions that produces the I stops.

How do you make the quantum leap from unconscious material atom and molecule to their production of the conscious non-material 'I'?

via your argument, whirling waters produces the whirlpool, which would then cease to exist when the whirling stops. But 'whirlpool' is just an idea, not a real thing. There is no such 'whirlpool' that actually exists, just as there is no such 'I' that actually exists. It's just an idea in the mind.

Show me where you see this 'I' that exists.

'Wave' and 'Universe' are not experiences? The Big Bang was not an experience?

A conscious ocean and wave is another question. Ocean/Wave are only metaphors for self and Universe. What you call 'self' is just a total activity of the entire Universe. But most people have it backwards, insisting they are an ego acting upon the world. They are deluded.

 

[godnotgod]

"Ball" is just a name we have given certain collections of atoms and molecules with certain properties fulfilling certain criteria. Such collections do exist in reality.

However, such 'collections' are totally interconnected with all other 'collections', which we call 'things'. In reality, there are no such 'things'. What you call 'ball' is not just a collection of atoms and molecules; it is also the tree from which the rubber was extracted; the Sunlight, water, and nutrients which grew the tree; the harvesting and processing of the rubber into a shape; the transportation and sales of the ball, etc, etc. There is no inherent 'ball' nature. IOW, 'ball' is empty of self-nature. It arises simultaneously and interdependently with all other phenomena and therefore is not a 'ball' in its own right, 'ball' as independent 'thing' being just an idea in the mind.

 

[ArtieE]

How do you make the quantum leap from unconscious material atom and molecule to their production of the conscious non-material 'I'?

via your argument, whirling waters produces the whirlpool, which would then cease to exist when the whirling stops. But 'whirlpool' is just an idea, not a real thing. There is no such 'whirlpool' that actually exists, just as there is no such 'I' that actually exists. It's just an idea in the mind.

Of course whirlpools do exist there's plenty of pictures of them online. Just like "I" exist as long as the atoms and molecules in my brain keep interacting in a certain way.

 

[godnotgod]

But you have claimed that you can directly apprehend reality...

How else can it be apprehended if not directly?

What make your so-called "direct apprehension" any more real?

Because there is nothing that exists as obstacle between your consciousness and Reality.

It is not 'my' personal Reality. It is not a personal view.

How do you know what perceiving though meditation is not illusions...or your deluded mind?

This, of course can and does occur. In Zen these hallucinations are called 'makyo', and is why a teacher is so important to guide the practitioner through this phase of his development. Eventually, the student does travel beyond this stage. One of the keys to understanding any delusions that crop up is non-attachment to any thought. IOW, they are not MY delusions; they are just delusions. By not grasping onto them, they eventually dissipate of their own accord, as they are no longer being given the attention they thrive on.

In my younger days, I was very willing to believe in anything. And I did try meditation.

Admittedly, I did find it quite relaxing being in that state, but so relaxing that 3-out-of-5 times, I would doze off. Nothing in those sessions would I call the experiences "transcending" or seeing cosmos or reaching epiphany.

You just didn't get very far, that's all. In fact, if you had been holding onto the idea of 'seeing cosmos or reaching epiphany' as an expectation, then you were wasting your time on your mat. If you really want to meditate, just sit. Don't do anything else.

In the Zendos of the world, a monk walks around, occasionally whacking a student on the shoulders with a flat stick called a keisaku to keep him from dozing off. During intensive group mediation (sesshin) in the winter months, students drink a strong brew of green tea in the morning to stay awake during sessions.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course whirlpools do exist there's plenty of pictures of them online. Just like "I" exist as long as the atoms and molecules in my brain keep interacting in a certain way.

A snapshot of whirling water is not a whirlpool. You are deluding yourself.

We commonly say: 'It is raining'. But there is no such 'It' that rains. Likewise there is no such 'I' that thinks. There is only think-ing itself, without a think-er.

I fail to see how unconscious material atoms/molecules creates a conscious non-material 'I'. Even if this were possible, show me where this 'I' exists.

 

[ArtieE]

However, such 'collections' are totally interconnected with all other 'collections', which we call 'things'. In reality, there are no such 'things'. What you call 'ball' is not just a collection of atoms and molecules; it is also the tree from which the rubber was extracted; the Sunlight, water, and nutrients which grew the tree; the harvesting and processing of the rubber into a shape; the transportation and sales of the ball, etc, etc. There is no inherent 'ball' nature. IOW, 'ball' is empty of self-nature. It arises simultaneously and interdependently with all other phenomena and therefore is not a 'ball' in its own right, 'ball' as independent 'thing' being just an idea in the mind.

A "ball" is just what we call a certain collection of atoms and molecules just like we call different collections "tree" and "rubber". We have different names for different collections and atoms and molecules can of course be a part of one collection and when this collection dissolves they can become part of a different collection. Have you asked a soccer player if he's running after a ball or just an idea in his mind?

 

[godnotgod]

A "ball" is just what we call a certain collection of atoms and molecules just like we call different collections "tree" and "rubber". We have different names for different collections and atoms and molecules can of course be a part of one collection and when this collection dissolves they can become part of a different collection. Have you asked a soccer player if he's running after a ball or just an idea in his mind?

He calls the object 'ball', because it is an idea in his mind he has been conditioned with. But in reality, it is not a ball. It is a collection of atoms and molecules in a particular form which arose simultaneously and interdependently with all other 'things', just as all ocean waves arise simultaneously and interdependently with all other waves, and all other 'things' in the Universe.

Yes, we call them those names, but the description is not the described.