Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[godnotgod]

Pfffft. What would NASA know about anything, Rick. C'mon, we have the Messenger of Absolute Reality, the Mouthpiece of Cosmic Consciousness here to guide us. Why on Earth would we care what mere scientists have to say?

Don't be a dolt. I never said science doesn't have factual knowledge about the universe; I said it doesn't know Jack S**t about the nature of the Universe. Mystics accept science, but see it in the proper context of Reality itself. That is the point I have been trying to get across to un-named thick skulls who, when I try, make a Pavlovian leap right back into their old Materialist Paradigm, as you just did. What science is trying to do is to present itself as the only valid approach to knowledge, all others eat cake.

 

[godnotgod]

I am all for any evidence that suggests that mystical experience transcend space and time. It is a bold statement but an empty claim if it has nothing to back it up, but it sounds like you all are aware.

If you accidentally burn your finger on a hot stove, do you need scientific evidence that you have done so, or do you know that immediately prior to your mind kicking in and then thinking: 'Oh, I burned my finger!'? No. Your response is immediate and without thought. Likewise, when you have an authentic mystical experience, you will know it is real beyond a shadow of a doubt. The diff is that there is no physical evidence for such an experience because it is beyond Time and Space, where physical stuff goes on. I'm sure you are a reasonable person and can at least have a grasp for this idea, yes?

 

[godnotgod]

I call BS.

Let's see if I can rephrase:

I am sure you know what a scientific correlation is, right?

Now, if 8 out of 10 tries, scientists noted that every time they executed Action A, Result B became evident, but they saw no obvious connection between the two events, they would come to the conclusion that there is some sort of relationship there.

Well, that is somewhat similar to people who report the same experience independently of each other in different times and places throughout history. That is why, for example, one can follow (if done correctly) the Buddha's 4 Noble Truths and Eightfold Path and have consistent results from one practitioner to the next. But because of cultural and language differences, what those experiences are called seem to be different. It takes someone who has had such experiences to see that they are not different. But why is that the case? It is because there is only a single Reality that we all exist within. When we get down to the base level of consciousness, there is no difference in view between one human and another. That diff only exists when individual personal views are nurtured. When those are put aside, what remains is a universal view, namely, universal consciousness. This, in turn, points to the idea that consciousness in its pure state is non-local.

 

[godnotgod]

That is an accurate assessment, but I'm afraid it won't stop this character repeatedly hijacking threads to preach his flap-doodle mysticism.

I can think of something else that continues to incessantly and uncontrollably flap at the slightest breeze. Some call it 'motor mouth'. I call it 'kneekosis jerkilensis', a sometimes incurable and/or fatal disease, as the poor victim ends up repeatedly and uncontrollably kicking himself to death.

 

[idav]

Well, that is somewhat similar to people who report the same experience independently of each other in different times and places throughout history. That is why, for example, one can follow (if done correctly) the Buddha's 4 Noble Truths and Eightfold Path and have consistent results from one practitioner to the next. But because of cultural and language differences, what those experiences are called seem to be different. It takes someone who has had such experiences to see that they are not different. But why is that the case? It is because there is only a single Reality that we all exist within. When we get down to the base level of consciousness, there is no difference in view between one human and another. That diff only exists when individual personal views are nurtured. When those are put aside, what remains is a universal view, namely, universal consciousness. This, in turn, points to the idea that consciousness in its pure state is non-local.

I don't doubt that people experience these things but there is not a correlation that makes one religion better than another. It works for all humans regardless of religion because the correlation has nothing to do with the truths the religion espouses. So w.hy is it that all the religions give the same results of enlightenment yet everybody comes out with different answers? Cause the knowledge still has to be obtained via regular senses

 

[godnotgod]

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck
Why do you think Planck talks like that, He is talking of the singularity that is unified throughout space-time. He says things like that because its the ramifications of what we observe and predict in relation to the cosmos and space-time through special relativity, quantum mechanic and string theory. So to reference someone like Planck, and saying at the same time, science can't possibly know is very misleading.

Here is what Schrodinger says.
"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." Erwin Schrodinger

Planck talks like that because he intuitively knows that there exists behind the force of the electron "a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”, as he is quoted as saying. You left the most important part out. IOW, the Universe is conscious and intelligent.

At some point in their growth, only SOME scientists make the leap of understanding that we live in a conscious universe, scientists such as Capra, Planck, Gotswami, Hameroff, Dyson, and I believe Penrose and maybe Schrodinger and many others who continue to get onboard. Most materialistically-based scientists would not think in those terms. Materialist science cannot know until it transcends its own materialist view. That comes about via intuitive insight, something that Einstein used as well.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't doubt that people experience these things but there is not a correlation that makes one religion better than another. It works for all humans regardless of religion because the correlation has nothing to do with the truths the religion espouses. So w.hy is it that all the religions give the same results of enlightenment yet everybody comes out with different answers? Cause the knowledge still has to be obtained via regular senses

OMG, you have missed the point entirely! The difference is that which is between religion and the mystical experience. Religion entails belief and doctrine about the Source; the mystic is about going beyond them to the Source directly.

No. The 'knowledge' is NOT obtained by the 'regular senses' at all. It is an experience beyond perceptual reality. It is the experience of Ultimate Reality. The mystic has come to the realization that the senses are unreliable at some point, and seeks a different path. Religion tries to create doctrines out of the experience that the ordinary man can follow in his everyday life, which is usually about morality. The mystical experience is amoral.

 

[idav]

Planck talks like that because he intuitively knows that there exists behind the force of the electron "a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”, as he is quoted as saying. You left the most important part out. IOW, the Universe is conscious and intelligent.

At some point in their growth, only SOME scientists make the leap of understanding that we live in a conscious universe, scientists such as Capra, Planck, Gotswami, Hameroff, Dyson, and I believe Penrose and maybe Schrodinger and many others who continue to get onboard. Most materialistically-based scientists would not think in those terms. Materialist science cannot know until it transcends its own materialist view. That comes about via intuitive insight, something that Einstein used as well.

What I bolded shows your true bias. I hear that sort of talk from Eastern types, it has nothing to do with materialism, thats just a label. I keep telling you that science has already shown what material reality is all about. It is no coincidence these folks believe as they do without having to be any particular religion. The simple gold foil experiments showed us that we should be falling through the floor because we are truly more empty space than anything, thats what "material" reality shows us, but saying material or non-material makes no difference. Call it a frequency if you want, thats what we are detecting, frequencies. Can any of those peeps tell us what the frequencies are really made of, can any religion tell us, I highly doubt it.

 

[godnotgod]

If I was feeling especially generous, I might simply call it BS, but I think that calling it that raises its inherent credibility far too high.
No doubt the Evangelist of Emptiness would likely disagree.

'Far too high' as it is way over your head, hence your labeling it 'BS'. The ignorant always denigrate that which they lack the understanding about. Actually, you don't lack the understanding, you just choose to ignore it completely so you can stay nice 'n comfy 'n safe tucked away in your mouse hole they call 'Plato's Cave', while your brain is transfixed by those hypnotic dancing cave wall shadows you only think represents reality which some refer to as 'science'.

 

[godnotgod]

What I bolded shows your true bias. I hear that sort of talk from Eastern types, it has nothing to do with materialism, thats just a label. I keep telling you that science has already shown what material reality is all about. It is no coincidence these folks believe as they do without having to be any particular religion. The simple gold foil experiments showed us that we should be falling through the floor because we are truly more empty space than anything, thats what "material" reality shows us, but saying material or non-material makes no difference. Call it a frequency if you want, thats what we are detecting, frequencies. Can any of those peeps tell us what the frequencies are really made of, can any religion tell us, I highly doubt it.

Religion can't; science can't; but the mystic can.

 

[YmirGF]

'Far too high' as it is way over your head, hence your labeling it 'BS'. The ignorant always denigrate that which they lack the understanding about. Actually, you don't lack the understanding, you just choose to ignore it completely so you can stay nice 'n comfy 'n safe tucked away in your mouse hole they call 'Plato's Cave', while your brain is transfixed by those hypnotic dancing cave wall shadows you only think represents reality which some refer to as 'science'.

You asked for an example of where something had gone well over your little head. See above. You are the king of denigrating the opinion of others so are you willing to accept that you are, yourself, quite ignorant?

 

[YmirGF]

Religion can't; science can't; but the mystic can.

Just because one has experiences or experiences reality, on its terms, does not mean that said mystic is in any position to elucidate that inner experience. That, my friend, is why you think so many seem to agree on so much because their linguistic abilities did not match up with their perception of those abilities.

 

[idav]

Religion can't; science can't; but the mystic can.

I doubt that.

 

[godnotgod]

You asked for an example of where something had gone well over your little head. See above. You are the king of denigrating the opinion of others so are you willing to accept that you are, yourself, quite ignorant?

When I downgrade another's opinion, I always...always...qualify it with a reason*; but when others downgrade my input, it is usually something like plain 'BS', and that is all, as was recently posted, or by labeling it 'new age pseudo hinduism' or 'flapdoodle', or some such crap. So if you are going to call my stuff 'BS', stand behind it, unless you can't stand the stench of your own output. As for 'over your head', you are the one who started that pretentious crap, and it's just coming back to the source.

*Unless, in rare cases where mere words simply cannot describe the stupidity involved, such as in Muldoon's, the regrettable necessity of a face-palm is called for.

 

[godnotgod]

I doubt that.

Of course you do, because you just don't know.

 

[godnotgod]

Just because one has experiences or experiences reality, on its terms, does not mean that said mystic is in any position to elucidate that inner experience. That, my friend, is why you think so many seem to agree on so much because their linguistic abilities did not match up with their perception of those abilities.

Nope. It's simply and purely because the mystical experience is beyond description and words. Their perception is completely unimportant, because the experience is impersonal, which is speaking to their universal consciousness and not to their personal view. In Zen, for example, the final transmission or direct experience is always...always...in complete silence, which is why mystics in general regard scripture as secondary in importance, as scripture is a second-hand account of the first-hand mystical experience. All that the mystic can do in attempting to relate his experience to others in the final analysis is to silently point to the moon.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just because one has experiences or experiences reality, on its terms, does not mean that said mystic is in any position to elucidate that inner experience.

"Mystical" experiences are inherently subjective, and claiming that they provide an objective insight into the nature of the cosmos is at best arrogant, and at worst delusional. Claims like the big bang being an "event in consciousness", or space-time being merely a concept.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So why is it that all the religions give the same results of enlightenment yet everybody comes out with different answers?

Because people interpret "mystical" experiences according to their religious preconceptions. People view their experiences through the distorting lens of religious belief, and the stronger the pre-existing belief the greater the distortion.

It is nonsense to say that "mystical" experiences are independent of religious belief, and such experiences are invariably described in religious terms, in this case the jargon of the new-age religion.

New-agers like to "borrow" ideas from authentic spiritual traditions, but these are invariably twisted out of recognition to make them fit the latest DIY religion.

New-agers love to talk about mysticism and ancient wisdom and such, but it is mostly just talk. You can tell by the continual quote-mining, the continual misrepresentation of traditional sources, and of course the pervasive reek of BS.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are the king of denigrating the opinion of others...

I notice much the same with Chopra, who indulges in childish point-scoring and arrogantly interrupts others.

Perhaps it is a new-age thing?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I hear that sort of talk from Eastern types, it has nothing to do with materialism, that's just a label.

You're right, it is a straw-man, though I think in this case it is more a new-age bias. In the new-age religion there is a lot of anti-science rhetoric, though ironically a fascination with pseudo-science. Go figure!