Does any supernatural god exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry. I read your line as "has the right", not, as you actually wrote, "has it right."

Nevertheless, they don't have it right because it "may turn out to be true", they are right to include it because it's an accurate reflection of how some use the word.

Ok I understand now.

I note your dissent, but if you go down that track, so as to be consistent, should you then question science based on hypotheses being called "science", because only some "may turn out to be true"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Observation, contemplation, meditation, all help to understand what one is in the context of all that exists.

It does not need to be just a collective, it is the individual who has the responsibility to learn the difference between the manifest and the unmanifest, and then one is able to discern reality as it is, not having to rely on someone else's belief or claim.

Partially, I would express it thus, one deals with duality, involving the measurable 5% of reality, the other deals with non-manifested reality, involving a non-dualistic process such as meditation. Btw, if you have never learned to meditate, the process involves the suspension of thought, having a mind that is still, and it is plain silly to imagine that such non-dual states of mind could be subject to analysis by the dualistic mind approach that applies to daily life and science.

If you find meditation helpful, great... but I think you're fooling yourself if you think it's a reliable path to insights beyond the scope of science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you find meditation helpful, great... but I think you're fooling yourself if you think it's a reliable path to insights beyond the scope of science.

That is the thing, you "think" such and such! Thought about reality is not the same thing as reality itself. In meditation when the mind is still and free from thought, then and only then is reality present absolutely, not a mental conceptualization representing reality.
Having said that, meditation is no substitute for science with respect to understanding the material world, and that is essential.
Wrt science and religion, it is not a case of which one is correct, they both have their place in the life of mankind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. should you then question science based on hypotheses being called "science", because only some "may turn out to be true"?

A scientific hypothesis is not a flight of fancy like the religious hypotheses about God sand soul, it has some evidence, though not yet proved up to sigma 6 standard.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A scientific hypothesis is not a flight of fancy like the religious hypotheses about God sand soul, it has some evidence, though not yet proved up to sigma 6 standard.

No one said anything about a religious hypothesis, there is only the universal reality present when the human mind is not thinking about reality, call it what you will, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, etc..

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wholly agree to that (whether we are here or not). The problems arise when we search for its properties.
It is omnipresent, it has no form of its own (though everything is a form of it), it does not 'interfere' in the worldly affairs, it does not require worship or submission, it does not give a law to humans or other sentient beings, it does not judge our deeds, does not punish or reward for them. Lastly it does not send humans to convey its messages to humanity. Would you agree to that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because it is omnipresent, it is all that exists. It does no 'interfere' in worldly affairs because it is worldly affairs, It does not require worship but it happens because the ones who are doing the worshipping are yet to realize (become one with) that it is they who is being worshipped.
Concerning laws and judgements, 'karma' is the same immutable principle as 'cause and effect' is in the manifested/material part of it.
Concerning human envoys to humanity, evolutionary levels of humanity wrt understanding the bigger picture of existence is not equal, and thus the lessor evolved may attribute certain powers and honors to the more evolved.

 

[Madsaac]

Observation, contemplation, meditation, all help to understand what one is in the context of all that exists.

It does not need to be just a collective, it is the individual who has the responsibility to learn the difference between the manifest and the unmanifest, and then one is able to discern reality as it is, not having to rely on someone else's belief or claim.

Partially, I would express it thus, one deals with duality, involving the measurable 5% of reality, the other deals with non-manifested reality, involving a non-dualistic process such as meditation. Btw, if you have never learned to meditate, the process involves the suspension of thought, having a mind that is still, and it is plain silly to imagine that such non-dual states of mind could be subject to analysis by the dualistic mind approach that applies to daily life and science.

Can't the 'results' of meditation be explained by science. When your mind is still, contemplates or observes for example, these experiences can be understood, though measurements and scientific explanations, it's just your mind/brain doing something.

Science doesn't know anything at 100% surety but could it not be argued that it can explain 'everything' to a certain point?

For example, how you feel about something, can have a scientific explanation, can it not?

Maybe, even the 'unknown' can be explained by science to a certain level?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can't the 'results' of meditation be explained by science. When your mind is still, contemplates or observes for example, these experiences can be understood, though measurements and scientific explanations, it's just your mind/brain doing something.

Science doesn't know anything at 100% surety but could it not be argued that it can explain 'everything' to a certain point?

For example, how you feel about something, can have a scientific explanation, can it not?

Maybe, even the 'unknown' can be explained by science to a certain level?

Science can tell what brainwaves occur during meditation, they are Theta (4 to 7Hz) and Alpha (7 to 12 Hz), but just as in the dream and daydream mind states with which these waves correlate, science cannot analyze the content of the mind. As an example, you can have a vivid dream, but you can't prove to anyone that your dream experience was what you claim it was.
Now science can map the brain activity of someone in the meditative state, but that does not give it access to the content.
Science deals with the material universe it can't even detect dark energy which constitutes 95% of the universal mass and is omnipresent, not alone explaining what it is comprised of and what it does.

 

[Madsaac]

Science can tell what brainwaves occur during meditation, they are Theta (4 to 7Hz) and Alpha (7 to 12 Hz), but just as in the dream and daydream mind states with which these waves correlate, science cannot analyze the content of the mind. As an example, you can have a vivid dream, but you can't prove to anyone that your dream experience was what you claim it was.
Now science can map the brain activity of someone in the meditative state, but that does not give it access to the content.
Science deals with the material universe it can't even detect dark energy which constitutes 95% of the universal mass and is omnipresent, not alone explaining what it is comprised of and what it does.

Yeah, that's all fair enough but my point is science does have reasons (all up to a certain point) why you dreamt what you dreamt, or your brain content whilst meditating or what dark energy is?

And you could argue that it's just a matter of time before we understand these things better and may even be able to prove them 100% one day.

It's a little bit like when people thought god made the stars............

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can't the 'results' of meditation be explained by science. When your mind is still, contemplates or observes for example, these experiences can be understood, though measurements and scientific explanations, it's just your mind/brain doing something.

Science doesn't know anything at 100% surety but could it not be argued that it can explain 'everything' to a certain point?

For example, how you feel about something, can have a scientific explanation, can it not?

Maybe, even the 'unknown' can be explained by science to a certain level?

That word as done by science has no evidence with science. It is in effect your cogntion about that cogntion is not cognition but a physical process.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, that's all fair enough but my point is science does have reasons (all up to a certain point) why you dreamt what you dreamt, or your brain content whilst meditating or what dark energy is?

And you could argue that it's just a matter of time before we understand these things better and may even be able to prove them 100% one day.

It's a little bit like when people thought god made the stars............

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the concept of science? Science as a concept as I understand it means knowledge, and deals with the understanding of material reality. Science is to the material reality, what religion is to spiritual reality.

Could the atoms in a cell in a tissue in an organ in your body understand you 100%? Could mankind on a planet in a star system in a galaxy in a universe understand the universe/God 100%.

It's a bit like when man thought that thoughts were real.

 

[Muffled]

I was sitting in a Philisophy of Science class a long, long time ago, and there was a new question being introduced.

Is observation theory-laden?

The professor held up his white coffee cup, and asked us what we see.

I saw a coffee cup.

He explained that we were really seeing a white splotch on our visual field (ie: favoring syntax over semantics), and then went into some weird theoretical stuff about photons and rods and cones and whatnot, which I found confusing because I’m just a mathematician, not a philosophical observation theorist.

I couldn’t see the disembodied context-free white splotch that he claimed that I was seeing, but upon further observation, I was able to determine that the coffee cup was white (which I hadn’t noticed at first, since the coffee-cuppedness of the object was what I perceived directly, and the white splotch only came to me after learning the theory behind it, and concentrating on decontextualuzing my visual field thru will power alone).

My direct perception was of the (semantical) coffee cup, but thru the use of philosophical observation theory, I was able to actually see the (syntactical) decontextualized white splotch.

The professor explained that (according to philosophical observation theory), my direct perception was the white splotch, which only later acquired it’s semantical character as a coffee cup.

And because of this complicated theory, I was mistaken about my own perceptions, and actually perceived the syntax prior to the semantics.

Therefore, according to the professor, Observation was NOT theory laden.

Philosophy is hard if you’re a mathematician, without an understanding of philosophical observation theory. Without the theory, we can only make guesses about what we are actually observing directly.

Thru a proper understanding of theory, we can correct our perceptions of our own perceptions, bringing our perceptions more in line with theory, thereby proving that observation is not theory-laden.

QED

I believe context also counts. For me it is a cup unless it is pictured under a coffee maker. I have been known to drink Cocoa, tonic (soda pop), tea and juice in the same cup I use for coffee. It is only because most of time I use it for coffee that I think of it as a coffee cup.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the thing, you "think" such and such! Thought about reality is not the same thing as reality itself.

That's my point.

In meditation when the mind is still and free from thought, then and only then is reality present absolutely, not a mental conceptualization representing reality.

Sounds like you have some ideas about meditation that I likely wouldn't agree with - and may very well think are nonsense.

The only way to be "free from thought" is to have no brain activity. Regardless of how calm you feel during meditation, you are not "free from thought."

Having said that, meditation is no substitute for science with respect to understanding the material world, and that is essential.
Wrt science and religion, it is not a case of which one is correct, they both have their place in the life of mankind.

I don't see how meditation enters into the discussion (except for the fact that you seem kind of obsessed with it).

Meditation is a pastime that may have physical and psychological benefits. It is not a method of investigation. It's not a pathway to truth except in the sense that being calmer or more relaxed might help someone think more clearly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's my point.



Sounds like you have some ideas about meditation that I likely wouldn't agree with - and may very well think are nonsense.

The only way to be "free from thought" is to have no brain activity. Regardless of how calm you feel during meditation, you are not "free from thought."




I don't see how meditation enters into the discussion (except for the fact that you seem kind of obsessed with it).

Meditation is a pastime that may have physical and psychological benefits. It is not a method of investigation. It's not a pathway to truth except in the sense that being calmer or more relaxed might help someone think more clearly.

Only when the mind is in the non-thinking state can there be the present the pure awareness of reality itself, thinking creates a dualistic conceptualization of reality, and conceptualizations are not real except as a conceptualization. Science deals in dualistic conceptualization, religious practice deals in non-duality.

A mind in the thinking state will never realize the reality known as God, spirit, etc., it has no idea outside of believing or not believing the conceptual descriptions of other's claims, and never will so long as the mind is in the thinking state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only when the mind is in the non-thinking state can there be the present the pure awareness of reality itself, thinking creates a dualistic conceptualization of reality, and conceptualizations are not real except as a conceptualization. Science deals in dualistic conceptualization, religious practice deals in non-duality.

A mind in the thinking state will never realize the reality known as God, spirit, etc., it has no idea outside of believing or not believing the conceptual descriptions of other's claims, and never will so long as the mind is in the thinking state.

Dude. "Awareness" and "realizing" are both types of thinking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Dude. "Awareness" and "realizing" are both types of thinking.

It is not possible to convey fully to someone about a certain experience unless that someone has already had a similar experience. In your case, it is obvious that you have not yet experienced the deep meditative state of non-duality, so anything you say about it will be the chattering of the conceptualizing mind. Thoughts have no reality except as a sort of symbol to represent the real, you do not know what reality is unless and until you cease separating yourself from the real as in the duality of thinker of a reality and the reality thought of. Only then will there be just the reality.

 

[McBell]

That is the thing, you "think" such and such! Thought about reality is not the same thing as reality itself. In meditation when the mind is still and free from thought, then and only then is reality present absolutely, not a mental conceptualization representing reality.
Having said that, meditation is no substitute for science with respect to understanding the material world, and that is essential.
Wrt science and religion, it is not a case of which one is correct, they both have their place in the life of mankind.

Sounds as though you are saying there is no thinking in reality.
Or even thought.

How does one interact with this absolute reality if no thinking or even thought is allowed?

Interestingly enough, how do you know this state is actually reality, absolute or not, and not simply a mental conceptualization representing reality?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sounds as though you are saying there is no thinking in reality.
Or even thought.

How does one interact with this absolute reality if no thinking or even thought is allowed?

Interestingly enough, how do you know this state is actually reality, absolute or not, and not simply a mental conceptualization representing reality?

Thinking reality is just that, that reality that is being thought of, but that reality doesn't cease to exist just because you cease thinking of it.

When one is in deep meditation with no thoughts, the energy of the universe (light waves, cosmic, waves, etc..) that is always present interacting with the mind processes is now able to be 'center stage' creating altered states of the mind involving seeing and feeling, et... Iow, the awake state thinking process masks the potential of the underlying cosmic processes of mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not possible to convey fully to someone about a certain experience unless that someone has already had a similar experience.

What experience would I need to have to overlook you contradicting yourself.

In your case, it is obvious that you have not yet experienced the deep meditative state of non-duality, so anything you say about it will be the chattering of the conceptualizing mind.

News flash: the only people without "conceptualizing" minds are dead.

Thoughts have no reality except as a sort of symbol to represent the real, you do not know what reality is unless and until you cease separating yourself from the real as in the duality of thinker of a reality and the reality thought of. Only then will there be just the reality.

This is reminding me a lot of people who feel like their drug trip was something very profound.

If you enjoy inducing an altered state through meditation, I'm happy for you. It's not a pathway to truth, though.