Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

Fact: QM has now saying that there is no material reality;

No, that isn't what QM says at all. There clearly is a material reality, QM is about uncertainty at the sub-atomic level.

The mystics, particularly Buddhists, have said that 'form is emptiness; emptiness is form'

Sunyata ( emptiness ) is basically just conditionality - nothing has independent existence from it's own side. This is not in the least bit supportive of ideas about "cosmic consciousness".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science gives us all the facts about the universe, but cannot tell us what the universe actually IS.

And you can?

 

[godnotgod]

I think that, as a somewhat insignificant species, we simply have to accept the fact that we are still a fairly primitive race. Though that is the sad reality, it is still no reason for some human animals to go off half-cocked on wild assumptive tangents that are not particularly persuasive and unlikely to contain much validity. It is because of this that the only reasonable position to take is the one that can be objectively validated. Talk is cheap, proving things is a bit more complicated.

Do you think that the Supreme Enlightenment of the Buddha was merely a belief?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The knowledge is consistent and over 4000 years old.

No, it isn't consistent at all. It often depends on the variety of hallucinogen which is employed. An appeal to the wisdom of "ancient sages" is a weak argument, particularly when not backed up by specific detail.

 

[godnotgod]

Another balance in nature is, nature produces intelligence and intelligence can observe and reflect on nature. It's a beautiful balance.

I would say that nature is intelligence itself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would say that nature is intelligence itself.

I would say that intelligence is an emergent property of consciousness, which in turn is an emergent property of biological life. A word like "nature" is so vague as to be meaningless.

 

[metis]

Do you think that the Supreme Enlightenment of the Buddha was merely a belief?

Yes.

 

[metis]

Facts are not reality. Knowing all about the piano does not yield the music. The music is not actualized until listened to.

Science gives us all the facts about the universe, but cannot tell us what the universe actually IS. To know that, it must be experienced directly.

Facts are only facts when expressed and tested. Reality does not require facts in order to be Reality. Facts are purely a human phenomena.

In your estimation, what other pathways to knowledge exist?

You're really twisting what I'm saying around, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion. Also, as I previously mentioned, you're elevating your beliefs as if they were facts, and that also complicates any attempt at serious discussion.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you think that the Supreme Enlightenment of the Buddha was merely a belief?

I reject the concept of so-called "Supreme" enlightenment.

Though I am a rather big fan of what I call "Buddha's little joke".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Also, as I previously mentioned, you're elevating your beliefs as if they were facts, and that also complicates any attempt at serious discussion.

Indeed, and preaching is not conducive to genuine debate.

 

[godnotgod]

I reject the concept of so-called "Supreme" enlightenment.

There are different levels of enlightenment. It is common knowledge amongst Buddhists that the Buddha achieved the highest potential a human can achieve, which is Supreme Enlightenment.

Do you accept that the Buddha achieved Enlightenment, or was it merely a personal belief?

"I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment."

-- Gotama Buddha

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I reject the concept of so-called "Supreme" enlightenment.

And I reject the ongoing attempts to misrepresent Buddhism in an attempt to lend credibility to ideas about "cosmic consciousness".

I also reject the attempts to misrepresent quantum mechanics for the same purpose. There is nothing quite so distasteful as pseudo-science.

 

[godnotgod]

You're really twisting what I'm saying around, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion. Also, as I previously mentioned, you're elevating your beliefs as if they were facts, and that also complicates any attempt at serious discussion.

The experience of universal consciousness is beyond all beliefs and doctrines, just as the experience of listening to music is beyond the notes and the musical instrument. The experience of universal consciousness is not a fact that can be proven via logic or reason, but it is the direct experience of the true nature of Reality itself. It is beyond mere fact. Facts are dead knowledge, having been derived from traces of past events. As such, they are derived from data, and data is held in memory, which is also past. The experience of universal consciousness, on the other hand, is a living experience that occurs only in the immediate present, and that has no history, no memory, no trace, and therefore, no facts, and yet, it is the most authentic reflection of Reality that can possibly exist. The mirror, in perfectly reflecting what it sees, retains no trace of any image. it remains as before: empty, like the perfect mind of universal consciousness, which only sees, but retains nothing of what it sees.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The experience of universal consciousness is beyond all beliefs and doctrines,

Perhaps, but you seem to be very dogmatic in your views, very preachy. So...?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes.

So so called 'Enlightenment' turns out to be self-delusion, then, correct?

 

[metis]

So so called 'Enlightenment' turns out to be self-delusion, then, correct?

No.

 

[godnotgod]

No.

The Buddha claims enlightenment. To be enlightened is to KNOW you are enlightened. If the Buddha merely held a belief that he was enlightened, he would have to be deluded that he was. Enlightenment is not based on belief. It is beyond belief.

The fact that you can identify delusion as being delusion means you also are enlightened, though you may still have not realized the fact. You can only know what delusion is from the viewpoint of being enlightened.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Trying to conflate Buddhist enlightenment with "cosmic consciousness" is both misleading and dishonest. But please don't take my word for it, go onto any Buddhist discussion forum and ask the question "Is Buddhist enlightenment the experience of cosmic consciousness?". See what response you get from practising Buddhists.

"Cosmic consciousness" looks much more like a new-age take on pantheism. It's a belief system, cobbled together with bits from here and there.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes it does. It shows the 'material' of the atom to be fluctuations in the Quantum vacuum. No material. No 'physicality'.

Not quite. We have us. Then our cells, then the molecules that make up those cells, then the elemental atoms that make up those molecules and then with each atom you have mesons and bosons (and hadrons are in this category but lets not get to complicated) and then from there they are made of quarks. But the big mystery of science today is the Higgs Boson which is the current theoretical particle believed to exist (and has been found) that would be the cause for the mass and "physical-ness" of our universe today.

What I have been referring to as background and foreground are, in reality, one and the same. You and I are also the background. Saying that we are in the foreground is just a matter of perspective. We, as conscious beings, do not exist apart from the background in any way. So consciousness belongs to the background as much as it belongs to the foreground. Can you show where one leaves off and the other begins?

In this fish? Well the fish is obviously easily defined compared to the water it inhabits.

The Universe, in the sense that it represents Everything there is, including all multiverses and intergalactic space, is not just an absolute, it is The Absolute, as there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. When you realize that you are no different from the Universe, individual, relative consciousness is transformed into Universal Consciousness. It is an absolute, but not absolute truth. The realization of Universal Consciousness is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong, as it is not a relative viewpoint.

I honestly get where you are coming from but why do you believe that the pocket of "me" in the All is conscious means that the whole universe has a higher universal conscience? We can have all kinds of properties and qualities in pockets in the universe that are not necessarily universal.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes I see. I kind of sense these things at times, but it's very elusive, often just beyond reach. Are there practices you do that make you more receptive? How do you tend to experience it?
I've always liked touching rocks ( strange, I know! ), and I've had some odd experiences where it felt like I was picking up "memories" or something - it might have just been an over-active imagination but it felt real at the time. Interesting though!

In my belief, some people are born that are able to "feel" it more easily and others have to be trained. I was in the middle of those two. Everyone has the ability to feel it but its a subjective experience that can only be shared anecdotally.

For example have you ever done Tai Chi? If you haven't I recommend it. Anyway if you get to the point where you can "feel" the chi moving through you, even if its just during the motion try to touch something with that "energy" like a stone or a tree. Even the ground.

Personally I have to open myself to it but I can't really describe to you how that is done.