If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[Rick O'Shez]

I disagree. They could present something that could indicate that they are at least legit in their 'practices'. It doesn't even have to be blatant, put it in hint or code, i'm going to know what your referring to.

The "practice" here is simply to let go of beliefs, it's a personal thing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

shrugs, but you were saying that the nondulaism is garbage etc. so thats a belief

I don't think I said it was garbage, I was challenging a particular view of it.

Anyway, there is a difference in believing in things for which there is evidence, and believing in things for which there is no evidence. A lot of religious belief falls into the latter category.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can oversimplify those techniques to the point that you wind up with false conclusions. it's interesting because you are presenting a methodology yhat requires belief. ie belief to affect non-belief. hmm
not sure what you mean by belief, as well.

Try it and see. No faith required either way. All it requires is the courage to do some honest self-exploration.
What I sometimes see is people giving up one belief only to take on another, which I feel is sort of missing the point! Like they have to believe in something, anything.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

a lot of belief in general falls into that category

No, it doesn't. Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same as believing in "God".

The first is an assumption based on accumulated evidence, the second is an assumption which seems to be based mostly on wishful thinking.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

try telling that to people who have religious experiences

I don't think there is really such a thing as "religious experience", it's more like unusual experiences to which people ascribe some religious significance. It's always a matter of interpretation.

For example, I've had some powerful experiences in meditation, which I am sure I would have attributed to God had I been a theist. As another example, I knew a woman who got lost in some woods, eventually she bumped into a horse-rider who told her the way out. She believed in angels and was convinced that an angel had sent the horse-rider to rescue her. Her friends told her it was just a coincidence but she wouldn't have it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How long have you been Zenning?

I've been involved in Buddhism for about 35 years, and have practised in most of the main schools.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then i'm not really sure what you have been doing to miss some of these aspects of the dialogue. What type of meditation did you start with?

What aspects of which dialogue?

I've done all kinds of meditation over the years in different Buddhist schools, but mostly samatha/vipassana ( tranquillity/insight). I have also done "silent worship" with Quakers and some Pagan-based stuff, working with the traditional elements.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I just meant, you haven't come across some of the aspects that your arguing against, even if just dialogue with a theist, or such, that made you adjust your position. or a non-dulaist, etc.

Many dialogues, many adjustments, many explorations. It's been an interesting journey.

 

[godnotgod]

Make a fire, throw on your "Cosmic Consciousness" and your "Absolute Reality", watch them burn, liberate your mind!

There is no mind to liberate, nor anyone who liberates it.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really, like I said the guy sounded confused. And your inability to explain it hasn't helped.

'Not-knowing' does not mean confused. In the East, great doubt is the key to Enlightenment. You see what he is saying?:

"I still don't really
know which is something and which is nothing....."

This is because he sees that they are really one and the same. Do you see how that can possibly be the case?

 

[`mud]

hey Rick,
hellufagoodshow !
One must admire your all around gnosis !
~
'mud

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's because you still have residue contaminating the present moment in the way, and the truth seems to be a terrible Muddle.

But maybe I am wrong, and you really do know the difference between something and nothing. Your years of strict Zen practice must have revealed this difference to you, no doubt.

There is no difference. Something and nothing are both concepts only...they are the same.

 

[`mud]

When 'everything' is contained in 'nothingness',
what is 'everything's' diameter ?
~
'mud

 

[Runewolf1973]

Science does not see it as a universal thing because the method of science is to dissect, reduce, and predict, but consciousness does not lend itself to those methods. It is only experiential. You are that itself. It is not a thing, but a state of being.

Interaction, while ideal for the scientist to measure, observe, and predict, is seen by the mystic only as an appearance of something lying on a deeper level.

If it is not a thing, but a state of being, then stop calling it "something" lying on a deeper level. There are no deeper levels, there is only interaction/interconnectivity which is not a "thing", but the interactive, interconnected state of the entire universe. I use the term interaction to indicate not only outward appearances, but also that which causes those appearances to begin with.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are no deeper levels, there is only interaction/interconnectivity which is not a "thing", but the interactive, interconnected state of the entire universe.

I agree. There can be changes of perception, seeing things in a different way, but we are always limited to the input from our physical senses, we can only see within the visible spectrum for example. So we are still working with the same input to the senses but understanding it in a different way, perhaps seeing connection instead of separateness, or transience instead of permanence.

There are all sorts of religious beliefs about something "beneath" or "beyond" the world that we actually observe, but I really don't see any evidence to support those beliefs. It mostly looks like wishful thinking to me, people need/want there to be something more.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There are all sorts of religious beliefs about something "beneath" or "beyond" the world that we actually observe, but I really don't see any evidence to support those beliefs.

It is all right here, right now in the everpresent moment. Those who are looking for something "deeper", or something beneath or beyond are still stuck on that metaphorical raft.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is all right here, right now in the everpresent moment. Those who are looking for something "deeper", or something beneath or beyond are still stuck on that metaphorical raft.

The raft is really just a set of tools for seeing the present more clearly. Sometimes people miss the point and think it's about owning a nice set of tools.

 

[godnotgod]

If it is not a thing, but a state of being, then stop calling it "something" lying on a deeper level. There are no deeper levels, there is only interaction/interconnectivity which is not a "thing", but the interactive, interconnected state of the entire universe. I use the term interaction to indicate not only outward appearances, but also that which causes those appearances to begin with.

I was merely reiterating your own words:

"Mainstream science doesn't see consciousness as a universal thing. Interaction and/or interconnectivity on the other hand can be seen by both the mystic and the scientist as a universal thing."

No deeper levels? QM tells us that the fluctuations creating atomic mass percolate up from The Unified Field.

(seems Runewolf has attained Supreme Enlightenment overnight...just sayin')

 

[godnotgod]

There is no difference. Something and nothing are both concepts only...they are the same.

What I said...

 

[Runewolf1973]

I was merely reiterating your own words:

"Mainstream science doesn't see consciousness as a universal thing. Interaction and/or interconnectivity on the other hand can be seen by both the mystic and the scientist as a universal thing."

No deeper levels? QM tells us that the fluctuations creating atomic mass percolate up from The Unified Field.

That field is not really what I would call a deeper level, it is everywhere, all around. It simply goes unrealized, unnoticed. Is it on the other side of the river? No. Is it beneath the river? No.