Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Nothing mystical there, it is simple physics.
-
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!
Ask a nondual "person"
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Yes, very good! Twentieth century physics produced many suggestions that this is true.
Say, @SalixIncendium, I’ve a couple of questions. Was it guru Sankara who associated space, time and causation to Maya? Also, did he indicate those to be causes of Maya, or rather the attributes of Maya?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Nothing mystical there, it is simple physics.
“Here, on the edge of what we know, in contact with the ocean of the unknown, shines the mystery and beauty of the world. And it’s breathtaking.”
― Carlo Rovelli, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
I believe it was Vivekananda that stated this at a lecture in London back in 1896.
These are considered to be attributes...or more accurately, the foundation of Maya.
I want to look for this; it is available in print?
I think that what lies beyond the frontiers of human knowledge as gained by scientific inquiry is not mysticism, but rather more knowledge. If one had made your argument in the eighteenth century, as I feel sure that some must have, then my answer would be corroborated. To suggest as you do is to think that science leads to the mystical. Rather, I feel that mysticism runs in parallel with science as a means to human understanding. This, however, is not to say that mysticism is without a proper place at the philosophical table. It seems that only some people have the mental and physical qualities which allow them to have mystical experiences. Those people possess an ability of certain epistemological value. My belief is that the experiences had by them have value, if not if furthering scientific knowledge, then certainly in integrating new science into mankind’s metaphysical and ontological understanding of himself, the universe, and what ultimate reality underlies all things. Discerning which mystical experience is of value and differentiating them from those which do not would seem to be the problematic issue in this, just as faulty scientific inquiry must be differentiated from sound theory by further research. Dry scientific understanding provides not the answer to all things. It merely provides a theoretical basis for the effort to comprehend the absolute which the mystic often has direct insight into gained by other than the scientific method.
Last edited:
Also...
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Einstein, who had more than a little of the mystic about him, spoke at length about the part inspiration and intuition played in the process of theory development. He was of course in every sense a scientist, and he is important because his theories have been repeatedly tested, and repeatedly confirmed by observation. But in the formulation of those theories, there was perhaps an element of revelation.
Then how about this, from Werner Heisenberg, describing a breakthrough in his thinking about quantum theory;
“I had the feeling that, through the surface of atomic phenomena, I was looking at a strangely beautiful interior, and felt almost giddy at the thought that I now had to probe this wealth of mathematical structures nature had so generously spread out before me.”
Yes, inspiration, intuition and imagination (the “3 I’s of theorization”?). I can remember a conversation that I had with a friend about Einstein. At one point the subject was broached of E’s relationship with Robert Oppenheimer, who apparently had a significantly higher IQ than Einstein. However, because he lacked the imaginative ability of Einstein, his work will never place him in the scientific Valhalla alongside old Albert. Einstein was by all accounts, very imaginative even as a young boy.
Last edited:
What are your thoughts, if any, on Thich Nhat Hanh?
I've had no thoughts on him until now, since I had to Google the name. I would have to read up on him to offer any.
What is your anchor for mindfulness and being in the present moment, aside from (I'm assuming) breathing?
Cogito ergo sum.
Sorry. Just now seeing this...
I don't really have a need for anchors anymore, but in the past, I've found breathing (as you mention) and mantras useful.
Breathing: I don't adjust my breathing; I breathe normally. I count each breath in and out as I exhale, counting to 20 and then starting over. It's a good measure of your distraction by the monkey mind if you suddenly come back to your breathing at find yourself in the 30s.
Mantras: For me, Om has been the most effective, though I've used the mantra in my signature, the Pavamana mantra, Om namah Shivaya, the Jai Shiva Shankara Nataraja mantra, and "I am not the body, I am not even the mind."
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
Inspired by @VoidCat's Ask a nonbinary person thread. Ask me anything nondual (or about nonduality of you so wish). Keep in mind I'm only speaking from my own experience and no one else's and I don't speak on behalf of any religion or philosophy. Flood the thread with any argument you wish. I'm game. If you want to attack me or my view, I won't put you on ignore, but I will ignore you. However, I won't ignore you if you tell me I (mind and body) don't exist. I might even agree with you.
So I know a little about Advaita, but was wondering if Bhakti (devotion) is part of your spiritual journey? Do you have a specific Devata that you are drawn to? (It looks like it might be Mahadev!)
Bhakti has not been a part of my path in this life. This life has been about jnana. And yes, I identify with Mahadev. Chidananda rupah Shivoham.
Sorry. Just now seeing this...
I don't really have a need for anchors anymore, but in the past, I've found breathing (as you mention) and mantras useful.
Breathing: I don't adjust my breathing; I breathe normally. I count each breath in and out as I exhale, counting to 20 and then starting over. It's a good measure of your distraction by the monkey mind if you suddenly come back to your breathing at find yourself in the 30s.
Mantras: For me, Om has been the most effective, though I've used the mantra in my signature, the Pavamana mantra, Om namah Shivaya, the Jai Shiva Shankara Nataraja mantra, and "I am not the body, I am not even the mind."
How did you manage to keep count of your breaths while immersed in a task, such as work or a chore? This has been my biggest challenge with mindfulness anchoring so far.
Apologies. I presumed you meant during meditation.
Best while performing a task to be exclusively mindful of the task, mainly for safety reasons, but this can also be a great exercise in centering the mind and quieting its tendencies to wander. If one finds one's mind wandering away from the task simply bring focus back. Focusing exclusively on the task is every bit as good as focusing exclusively on the breaths.
Don't want to be driving down the freeway focusing on counting breaths while tuning out the traffic around you.