Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Unification]

So one cannot live off Buddhist practice alone? Oh well. So much for diversity.

Whatever you're practicing, you have little control of yourself when it comes to assuming and twisting words and making everything something it's not.

 

[Unification]

The persons who condescends is the one who makes a claim of superior knowledge and then gets defensive when asked to explain how they came by it. It's a familiar pattern.

Superior knowledge of what? One just knows themselves and their nature more than others.

Knowledge doesn't equal knowing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Whatever you're practicing, you have little control of yourself when it comes to assuming and twisting words and making everything something it's not.

Cut the personal nonsense and address the points I've raised.

 

[Unification]

Cut the personal nonsense and address the points I've raised.

They've been addressed, where is your addressing?

That was referred to one cannot live off discovering their external environment alone, one must find it within.

You twisted it and made it all about "Buddhism" and "diversity."

 

[leibowde84]

A: "you need to explain yourself.

B: "explained using different words."

A: "now I will condescend and judge you and disrespect all that you explained."

That is also not acceptable behavior in a forum such as this. But, just claiming a superior understanding without being able to explain why is absurd. If someone deeply believes that they have superior understanding, but cannot explain why or what that is, they should probably just keep it to themselves.

 

[Unification]

That is also not acceptable behavior in a forum such as this. But, just claiming a superior understanding without being able to explain why is absurd. If someone deeply believes that they have superior understanding, but cannot explain why or what that is, they should probably just keep it to themselves.

Who said it was a superior understanding?

That is a claim, show where one has claimed superior understanding and what that superior understanding is.

 

[leibowde84]

Superior knowledge of what? One just knows themselves and their nature more than others.

Knowledge doesn't equal knowing.

We are talking about those who claim to have superior knowledge/understanding, yet cannot explain why they believe this. As you say, they are not in any position to judge themselves as having any more or less understanding than any other contributor here. So, they should expect skepticism and demands for explanation when they make such claims.

 

[leibowde84]

Who said it was a superior understanding?

That is a claim, show where one has claimed superior understanding and what that superior understanding is.

What claim?

 

[Unification]

We are talking about those who claim to have superior knowledge/understanding, yet cannot explain why they believe this. As you say, they are not in any position to judge themselves as having any more or less understanding than any other contributor here. So, they should expect skepticism and demands for explanation when they make such claims.

Elaborate on any claims of superior knowledge by anyone?

Reading through recently, there are those who claim their experiences are the only true ones and others are false. Maybe you're talking about "superior meditative experience?" "Superior Buddhist practice and their words only being superior?"

Superior peace and superior ego's?
Whose use of words and language is superior to the others?

 

[Unification]

What claim?

You've claimed that others are expressing superior knowledge which is not only your subjective belief, but not backed up as to where anything of "superior knowledge" has been presented.

 

[Ouroboros]

You must be using a different definition for the word "real". Subjective experience has been proven to be unreliable at times.

Of course it is, when we compare different experiences. But think about this, do you know if the world around you exist or not? Do you know if other people exist or have a mind? The only thing you, personally you, know is through your own experiences. Everything you know. Everything you can think of, all comes from your own experiences. Right now, while typing, or while you are reading this, we are going through experiences of the world. The world, however real it is, and however it actually is formed or exist, comes to us through our experiences of it. So whatever "real" that we ascribe to the world is all based on our own personal, and unfortunately very subjective and unreliable experiences. In the end, the only thing you know for absolute certainty to exist and be real to you, is your own personal experiences however wrong they might be in contrast to the rest of us.

The way we see the world around us is nowhere near perfect, and we are often fooled by our brains ability to adjust what our eyes see.

Absolutely. Also, today in physics, the underlying explanations to quantum mechanics are unresolved. It's a world we can't see or experience. We can't even figure it out. There are many different ideas, but they're all very speculative. Take the hologram principle for instance. It suggests that matter doesn't exist, but all that we see and experience is all an illusion of something else. Which means, that even what you think is the "real" real, isn't. But still, in the end, it's the fact that having an experience, not necessarily some kind of "true" experience, but the fact of just having experience is what is real to us. To feel. To think. To act. To be in the now. All of that is real to you right now, even if you close your eyes and stop listening to the world around.

For example, think about the "following eyes" optical illusion, where a concave face appears as if it is watching you when moving past it. In actuality, it is just confusion in the way our eyes our communicating with our brain, and our brain tries to correct it. We cannot trust subjective experience as evidence without verification.

Sure. The truth value or the actuality of what is experienced might be way off. I'm not saying that just because you experience something that this experience is a reflection of what the true world is out there. What I'm saying is that the only thing you can be certain about yourself and your own existence and existence in general is that you do have feelings and experiences. Without having experiences (even if they're illusional/delusional) you wouldn't be you with a mind thinking of the things that are around you. The things around you wouldn't exist to you unless you had some experience (however accurate) of their existence. The reality of the world comes to you through your experiences, regardless if you want them or not and regardless if they exist or not. Your experience, as such, is the only thing you know exists, even if you can't be certain those experiences are accurate in relation to the things being experienced. There's a level of subject vs object that I'm dealing with here. I'm not referring to "the subjects function in relationship with object" but the "function of the subject" alone.

 

[Unification]

We are talking about those who claim to have superior knowledge/understanding, yet cannot explain why they believe this. As you say, they are not in any position to judge themselves as having any more or less understanding than any other contributor here. So, they should expect skepticism and demands for explanation when they make such claims.

If someone said that they've experienced peace, bliss, rest, comfort ... they've found "God" or have found "cosmic consciousness," why would that be inferior to "sunyata?"

Wouldn't it be about discovering and finding more and more inner peace, rest, and comfort and not giving a damn about which diverse words were used?

I still don't see where your claim for superior knowledge fits in here. It is more about realizing that being a respector of words is the condescending practice for human beings experiencing the same stuff.

 

[Unification]

One of the reasons that perception is subjective is because of beliefs and the bias they create.

Which is precisely what you've been participating in with no self realization of such.

 

[Unification]

It's respecting what the words actually mean instead of twisting the meaning to suit a personal agenda.

I'm not objecting to diversity, I'm objecting to your woolly syncretism.

You are continually trying to impose uniformity on things which are actually quite different, so I would say that you are the one who has a problem with diversity.

Fair enough, which is exactly what you're participating in.

You're taking the mere word "God" and twisting it into some preconceived mental conditioning of a supernatural exoteric egotistical deity while others aren't even adhering to that meaning.
It's your agenda.

Right, Mr. Objective while being offended by syncretism. Imagine that.
"There is no other path and way to find peace and rest except my tradition, my way and my words." "Every other experience and use of words is false."
It's Buddhism and sunyata or the highway. Everything else is just a belief.

So where is your respect for diversity? I don't see it anywhere. Where is your belief for not taking your own beliefs so seriously? I don't see it anywhere.

I love Buddhism and every other diverse practice that is harmless. Do you just cling to Buddhism? Is it the only way and path to peace and rest?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes brain, yes cells, yes organic matter, etc. No mind, just brain, no need for a pretend division just so you can be ever-so-special. Seems you and "unification" prefer false dichotomy ... ever so strange.

Is a dead brain the same as mind?

Is saying "I'll keep you in my mind" the same as chopping someone up and stuffing them into my physical brain? The mind is more of a conceptual, metaphysical, or at least non-physical aspect than what the brain made out of matter is.

There is a significant difference between the physical brain and the emerging mind from the brain. They're not identical, even if the dictionary claims them to be synonymous.

 

[leibowde84]

Elaborate on any claims of superior knowledge by anyone?

Reading through recently, there are those who claim their experiences are the only true ones and others are false. Maybe you're talking about "superior meditative experience?" "Superior Buddhist practice and their words only being superior?"

Superior peace and superior ego's?
Whose use of words and language is superior to the others?

I'm not talking about superior word usage. I'm talking about people who claim to have some kind of deep understanding not available to most. But, when questioned as to what they mean, they just use the cop-out that it's "inexplicable".

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not talking about superior word usage. I'm talking about people who claim to have some kind of deep understanding not available to most. But, when questioned as to what they mean, they just use the cop-out that it's "inexplicable".

Have you ever had an experience that you only can try to explain to others, but you feel that words aren't enough? Like love, or some amazing food, or perhaps biking in the wild and flying down the hill in high speed. How would you describe the taste of a carrot? Isn't the experience of actually tasting the carrot superior than to describing it?

 

[Unification]

I'm not talking about superior word usage. I'm talking about people who claim to have some kind of deep understanding not available to most. But, when questioned as to what they mean, they just use the cop-out that it's "inexplicable".

A deep understanding and knowing of oneself. It's available to anyone who seeks within and seeks purely.

Most dislike what they don't have and don't know. They cannot experience it for another, one has to find it on their own. Shall we rip out our experiences and stitch them within another?

I've experienced surreal peace, happiness, goodness, rest, love, equality, understanding of myself and my nature, a wonderful content and fulfilled life.... is this a problem? Does this make me superior or inferior to anyone else?

Isn't that what everyone pretty much does? What makes a man or woman in the eyes of many seems to be about how much external knowledge they can hoard. . forget about ones inner character and nature.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"There is no other path and way to find peace and rest except my tradition, my way and my words." "Every other experience and use of words is false."

I have never said, and have no problem with diversity. I have objected to your woolly syncretism, trying to force all traditions into the same mould, pretending that sunyata is the same as "God" or "cosmic consciousness", pretending that all paths lead in the same direction, all that cosy new-age nonsense.
I have also objected to the idea that metaphysical belief is necessary for personal transformation and knowledge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If someone said that they've experienced peace, bliss, rest, comfort ... they've found "God" or have found "cosmic consciousness," why would that be inferior to "sunyata?"

You have completely missed the point.