What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

You aimlessly throw words around like you are wielding flimsy quacking rubber duck.

You wouldn't be able to describe a science or a theory in science without referencing a Yogi.

Sure. A yogi illuminates scientific knowledge to tell you what it means. Science doesn't know what its own knowledge means. If you think it does, give me an example. Tell me, for example, what science thinks QM is.

 

[godnotgod]

They arent putting the thought process to sleep. During meditation these practitioners are using their brains more fully, not less, and automatically with years of training. Its evidence they are using there brains for meditative states, believe it or not.

Nope. During meditation, the idea is to quiet the thinking mind by not engaging with the thoughts that arise. Thoughts are merely observed and allowed to arise and subside. The thinking mind is not the focus; the intuitive mind is. The meditator also concentrates on the breath, the hara, or sometimes a candle flame. In the West, the brain is considered the center of consciousness, but not in the East, where the hara is. Meditation is about seeing, not thinking, and I don't mean visual eyesight.


The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment

Settling the body’s center of gravity below the navel, that is, establishing a center of consciousness in the hara, automatically relaxes tensions arising from the habitual hunching of the shoulders, straining of the neck, and squeezing in of the stomach. As this rigidity disappears, an enhanced vitality and new sense of freedom are experienced throughout the body and mind, which are felt more and more to be a unity.


Zazen (meditation) has clearly demonstrated that with the mind’s eye centered in the hara the proliferation of random ideas is diminished and the attainment of one-pointedness accelerated, since a plethora of blood from the head is drawn down to the abdomen, “cooling” the brain and soothing the autonomic nervous system. This in turn leads to a greater degree of mental and emotional stability. One who functions from his hara, therefore, is not easily disturbed. He is, moreover, able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency owing to the fact that his mind, anchored in his hara, does not waver.


With the mind in the hara, narrow and egocentric thinking is superseded by a broadness of outlook and a magnanimity of spirit. This is because thinking from the vital hara center, being free of mediation by the limited discursive intellect, is spontaneous and all embracing. Perception from the hara tends toward integration and unity rather than division and fragmentation. In short, it is thinking which sees things steadily and whole.

The figure of the Buddha seated on his lotus throne—serene, stable, all-knowing and all-encompassing, radiating boundless light and compassion—is the foremost example of hara expressed through perfect enlightenment. Rodin’s “Thinker,” on the other hand, a solitary figure “lost” in thought and contorted in body, remote and isolated from his Self, typifies the opposite state.

Note the position of the Buddha's hands, called mudras. One, palm outward, is saying: 'Fear not', while the other right at the hara, indicating the point of psychic energy flow.

The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment

 

[godnotgod]

And yet, "sterile" science and "clinical" science work- as evidenced by the computer you're using to type your posts, the internet that connects us to this forum, even the clothes on your back. Heck, your dismissal of "clinical logic" is a performative contradiction, since making the assertion at all, presupposes the very "clinical" logic you're criticizing.

What does the technology derived from science have to do with understanding what the nature of Reality is? What I'm criticizing is the myopic view that the rational mind can provide us with this answer. It can't. Period.

Ah, so you are my computer desk, and Martha Stewart, and the planet Jupiter, and my friends pickup truck? Interesting. Clearly, its either opposite day, or you're high on something, since you are not the universe itself, as there are many propositions which are true of the universe, or true of other things in the universe, that are not true of you (such as, among literally an infinite number of such propositions, is "X is a non-human").

Even though each snowflake is unique, they are all made of the same substance: water. You and I and everything else are made of the same substance as the entire universe: consciousness. That's why the universe can be called a universe: it's basic essence is uni-versal.

is as well. But since you've dismissed logic, i.e. principles of cogent reasoning, it should be no surprise that you're left with this trainwreck of an argument- this is instructive; abandon logic (and bite the hand that feeds you in the process) upon pain of offering retardly ******-poor arguments.

As your brain is surgically attached to Reason, and can see no other view, you have failed to take note that I have consistently told you: that logic and reason, while being able to provide factual information about the phenomenal world, cannot tell us what the nature of the world is.

Reason is not what feeds me as regards understanding the nature of Reality because the nature of Reality is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis. You need another kind of knowledge to get there, and that pathway is Higher Consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

The Science Delusion: Rupert Sheldrake, BANNED TED TALK:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

 

[Slapstick]

Sure. A yogi illuminates scientific knowledge to tell you what it means. Science doesn't know what its own knowledge means.

Way to dodge a question. On a scale of 1 to 10 I will give you a -5 for not even trying. You didn’t explain a science or describe a theory, yet made a reference to a yogi to say yogis depend on scientific knowledge to explain the world around them. Then snidely went on to say science doesn’t know what knowledge means. As if you have any say so over science, research, and development. You do realize a Yogi wouldn’t be anything without science right? You can’t even explain with clarity, which means I encourage you to illuminate us and everyone else on this subject of how knowledge is acquired in the most basic sense of the word.

If you think it does, give me an example. Tell me, for example, what science thinks QM is.

Quantum Mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with particles, their characteristics and behavior on a subatomic level. There is no formal definition of QM, but I would encourage other people who are in the field of physics to tell me why my assertion on QM is wrong. Mainly because I’m not a physicist and don’t claim to be a yogi, because Yogis have no special knowledge that can’t be obtained or explained by science.

 

[godnotgod]

You didn’t explain a science or describe a theory, yet made a reference to a yogi to say yogis depend on scientific knowledge to explain the world around them.

This is just plain idiotic, and a good demo as to how Reason is a faulty system of knowledge. You're not paying attention!

I NEVER said that! I said that a yogi illuminates scientific knowledge to tell you what it MEANS!

Then snidely went on to say science doesn’t know what knowledge means.

I don't need to be snide to say that. I said it out front:

SCIENCE DOES'NT KNOW WHAT ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE ACTUALLY MEANS!

As if you have any say so over science, research, and development.

When science comes to a conclusion and makes a statement about Reality, I must interpret that statement against my conscious experience of Reality. I don't have a say-so about scientific research, but about what it says in relation to Reality.

You do realize a Yogi wouldn’t be anything without science right?

Now you add the ridiculous to the idiotic! Yogis and mystics, FYI, have been around a lot longer than scientists. They are what they are because of the perfection of CONSCIOUSNESS, not because of science!

You can’t even explain with clarity, which means I encourage you to illuminate us and everyone else on this subject of how knowledge is acquired in the most basic sense of the word.

Obviously, via consciousness.

Quantum Mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with particles, their characteristics and behavior on a subatomic level. There is no formal definition of QM, but I would encourage other people who are in the field of physics to tell me why my assertion on QM is wrong. Mainly because I’m not a physicist and don’t claim to be a yogi, because Yogis have no special knowledge that can’t be obtained or explained by science.

Talk about snide! So you don't have a clue what QM is actually about, right?

Science has its nose pressed up against the window pane of yogic and other mystical insight. It hasn't even the slightest clue. The mystical world is the invisible silent world behind all phenomena, and science cannot overlay its conceptual framework onto it, because there is nothing apparent of a sensory nature for it to do so.

 

[Slapstick]

This is just plain idiotic, and a good demo as to how Reason is a faulty system of knowledge. You're not paying attention!

I NEVER said that! I said that a yogi illuminates scientific knowledge to tell you what it MEANS!

You didn't give an explanation. Was I suppose to read your mind or something?

I don't need to be snide to say that. I said it out front:

SCIENCE DOES'NT KNOW WHAT ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE ACTUALLY MEANS!

Okay, well tell me and everyone else what scientific knowledge means.

When science comes to a conclusion and makes a statement about Reality, I must interpret that statement against my conscious experience of Reality. I don't have a say-so about scientific research, but about what it says in relation to Reality.

You do realize you have no greater awareness or higher conscious of reality than anyone else right? You can talk about it all day long, but until you demonstrate something that hasn't been discovered by science or anyone else you aren't saying much.

Now you add the ridiculous to the idiotic! Yogis and mystics, FYI, have been around a lot longer than scientists. They are what they are because of the perfection of CONSCIOUSNESS, not because of science!

So what does consciousness have to do Yogis when everyone possess it?

Obviously, via consciousness.

Being aware of ones surroundings? Really? That is the best you could come up with.

Talk about snide! So you don't have a clue what QM is actually about, right?

Science has its nose pressed up against the window pane of yogic and other mystical insight. It hasn't even the slightest clue. The mystical world is the invisible silent world behind all phenomena, and science cannot overlay its conceptual framework onto it, because there is nothing apparent of a sensory nature for it to do so.

I already see this conversation is lost and not worth continuing. I will just take it as a waste of time and effort.

 

[idav]

Nope. During meditation, the idea is to quiet the thinking mind by not engaging with the thoughts that arise. Thoughts are merely observed and allowed to arise and subside. The thinking mind is not the focus; the intuitive mind is. The meditator also concentrates on the breath, the hara, or sometimes a candle flame. In the West, the brain is considered the center of consciousness, but not in the East, where the hara is. Meditation is about seeing, not thinking, and I don't mean visual eyesight.


The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment

Settling the body’s center of gravity below the navel, that is, establishing a center of consciousness in the hara, automatically relaxes tensions arising from the habitual hunching of the shoulders, straining of the neck, and squeezing in of the stomach. As this rigidity disappears, an enhanced vitality and new sense of freedom are experienced throughout the body and mind, which are felt more and more to be a unity.


Zazen (meditation) has clearly demonstrated that with the mind’s eye centered in the hara the proliferation of random ideas is diminished and the attainment of one-pointedness accelerated, since a plethora of blood from the head is drawn down to the abdomen, “cooling” the brain and soothing the autonomic nervous system. This in turn leads to a greater degree of mental and emotional stability. One who functions from his hara, therefore, is not easily disturbed. He is, moreover, able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency owing to the fact that his mind, anchored in his hara, does not waver.


With the mind in the hara, narrow and egocentric thinking is superseded by a broadness of outlook and a magnanimity of spirit. This is because thinking from the vital hara center, being free of mediation by the limited discursive intellect, is spontaneous and all embracing. Perception from the hara tends toward integration and unity rather than division and fragmentation. In short, it is thinking which sees things steadily and whole.

The figure of the Buddha seated on his lotus throne—serene, stable, all-knowing and all-encompassing, radiating boundless light and compassion—is the foremost example of hara expressed through perfect enlightenment. Rodin’s “Thinker,” on the other hand, a solitary figure “lost” in thought and contorted in body, remote and isolated from his Self, typifies the opposite state.

Note the position of the Buddha's hands, called mudras. One, palm outward, is saying: 'Fear not', while the other right at the hara, indicating the point of psychic energy flow.

The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment

I get all that but it doesnt change what is physically happening. Certain regions of the brain get bigger on meditation practitioners because they are utilizing that part of the brain more. The brain is utilized to achieve enlightenment, the feelings are coming from the chemical and physical changes in the brain just like any other emotion or insight.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I get all that but it doesnt change what is physically happening. Certain regions of the brain get bigger on meditation practitioners because they are utilizing that part of the brain more. The brain is utilized to achieve enlightenment, the feelings are coming from the chemical and physical changes in the brain just like any other emotion or insight.

I am no expert but I am fairly sure that no part of the brain in anyone simply "gets bigger" from something like meditation. And if it does then its very very bad because that is called encephalitus which is deadly. I think you might mean that the connections in certain parts of the brain can get stronger....or something along those lines.

 

[godnotgod]

I get all that but it doesnt change what is physically happening. Certain regions of the brain get bigger on meditation practitioners because they are utilizing that part of the brain more. The brain is utilized to achieve enlightenment, the feelings are coming from the chemical and physical changes in the brain just like any other emotion or insight.

The post about the hara was not targeted to the impact of meditation on the size of the cortex, but rather to show that the center of consciousness is not in the brain.

At least in the kundalini experience of enlightenment, it is psychic energy resting at the base of the spine that is awakened and rises up along the spinal cord that activates the brain:

Kundalini awakening and brain activation

An attempt to record Kundalini activation and its physiological effects was made by Itzak Bentov (1923-1973), a Czech born scientist, inventor, mystic and author, and a pioneer in the field now recognized as ‘consciousness studies.’

Bentov developed a model that attempted to explain the effects of Kundalini Awakening on brain activation [and enlightenment]. According to this model, when Kundalini ascends the spine through the sushumna nadi (the main channel of subtle energy), it results in a huge energy influx into the brain.

As the Kundalini flows from the thalamus to the cortex, it sets up a powerful energy loop within the brain, generating coherent alpha and gamma waves, and awakening the dormant, non-mechanical parts of the brain which we have never used before.

With increasing levels of coherence, the whole brain comes alive, turning into a super-conductor of conscious energies that heal, empower and transform our lives. Enhanced awareness levels, greater creativity and extraordinary abilities start to express through us...

http://articles.nithyananda.org/2012/05/scientific-study-of-kundalini/

 

[godnotgod]

I am no expert but I am fairly sure that no part of the brain in anyone simply "gets bigger" from something like meditation. And if it does then its very very bad because that is called encephalitus which is deadly. I think you might mean that the connections in certain parts of the brain can get stronger....or something along those lines.

"Our data indicate that regular practice of meditation is associated with increased thickness in a subset of cortical regions related to somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive processing."

Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness
*****

Several studies have compared brain morphology of experienced meditators with matched controls, and findings include increased cortical thickness...

Mindfulness [meditation] has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgementally.” (ie; 'conscious attentiveness').

http://expanded--consciousness.blogspot.com/2013/08/biologic-effects-of-mindfulness.html

 

[Thief]

You need to know the rest of that statement so you can understand properly:


I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Mister city policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
I'm crying, I'm crying.

Yellow mother custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sitting in an english garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the english rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob.

Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying.

Semolina pilchard, climbing up the eiffel tower.
Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking edgar allan poe.
I am the eggman, They are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob goo

...and this is a discussion of reason?
Still banging your head on the wall I see.

 

[Thief]

Not buying it.

At the 'point' of singularity there would be only ONE.
And He would be conscious and self aware.

He is credited for being the First to say.......'I AM!'

...quoting my'self' to reset the train of thought.

 

[godnotgod]

You do realize you have no greater awareness or higher conscious of reality than anyone else right?

So what does consciousness have to do Yogis when everyone possess it?

Consciousness, while everyone has it, can either be conditioned or awakened.

Beyond the Third Level of [conditioned] Consciousness, that of Identification (Waking Sleep), there are levels of Awakening or Higher Consciousness, such as Self-Transcendence and Cosmic Consciousness.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What does the technology derived from science have to do with understanding what the nature of Reality is? What I'm criticizing is the myopic view that the rational mind can provide us with this answer. It can't. Period.

Because technology demonstrates that this "myopic view" works- that the methods of science and reason allow us to successfully interact with and manipulate the world around us. If it managed to do this despite not being true, that would be a coincidence of mind-blowing proportions. On the other hand, no other method has had comparable success- certainly not religion or mysticism, at any rate.

Even though each snowflake is unique, they are all made of the same substance: water.

And yet, they each have properties which distinguish the one from the other. Are you familiar with the law of identity in logic, or Leibniz's law?

You and I and everything else are made of the same substance as the entire universe: consciousness.

Baseless speculation. It sounds nice, but there's absolutely no reason to think that is true, and good reason to think that it is not; hitherto we have never encountered consciousness or mind without a brain, and the universe does not have a brain. Nor does it exhibit the sorts of behavior we associate with consciousness. Needless to say, it's a pretty safe inference that the universe is not conscious.

As your brain is surgically attached to Reason, and can see no other view, you have failed to take note that I have consistently told you: that logic and reason, while being able to provide factual information about the phenomenal world, cannot tell us what the nature of the world is.

Providing factual information about the world is telling us about the nature of the world.

Reason is not what feeds me as regards understanding the nature of Reality because the nature of Reality is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis. You need another kind of knowledge to get there, and that pathway is Higher Consciousness. [/COLOR]

Still writing pure fiction. Just because something sounds good, or strikes you as deep or profound, does not mean it is true.

 

[godnotgod]

Because technology demonstrates that this "myopic view" works- that the methods of science and reason allow us to successfully interact with and manipulate the world around us. If it managed to do this despite not being true, that would be a coincidence of mind-blowing proportions. On the other hand, no other method has had comparable success- certainly not religion or mysticism, at any rate.

I am not questioning that science and reason 'allow us to interact/manipulate the world'. But that is not understanding what the nature of the world is.

You're wrong about religion: it has successfully interacted and manipulated the world via fear for centuries.

And yet, they each have properties which distinguish the one from the other. Are you familiar with the law of identity in logic, or Leibniz's law?

Any differences are only superficial. Underneath, they are all the same, and at the root level, all come from the undifferentiated, formless state, rendering uniqueness an illusion. The real question here is, why is there infinite variety?

Baseless speculation. It sounds nice, but there's absolutely no reason to think that is true, and good reason to think that it is not; hitherto we have never encountered consciousness or mind without a brain, and the universe does not have a brain. Nor does it exhibit the sorts of behavior we associate with consciousness. Needless to say, it's a pretty safe inference that the universe is not conscious.

Then you are not conscious. Otherwise, show me where you leave off and the universe begins.

Grass has no brain, yet can photosynthesize, a complex process that would require conscious intelligence were we to attempt it.

Providing factual information about the world is telling us about the nature of the world.

And what, then, is the nature of the world?

Still writing pure fiction. Just because something sounds good, or strikes you as deep or profound, does not mean it is true.

Seeing into the nature of Reality, without Reason, Logic, or Analysis is to see things as they are. This has nothing to do with deep or profound, nor that it sounds good. That is your biased overlay.

While science has a boatload of facts ABOUT the world at its disposal, it still is in the dark about the nature of reality, both on the micro and macro scales. In fact, science is more confused than ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just because something sounds good, or strikes you as deep or profound, does not mean it is true.

It's a Deepak Chopra imitation. Word salad and jargon woven together (usually badly) to impress those who get impressed by that stuff.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am not questioning that science and reason 'allow us to interact/manipulate the world'. But that is not understanding what the nature of the world is.

As I said, if it allowed us to manipulate and successfully interact with the world, despite not providing us with an understanding about the nature of the world, or certain aspects thereof, this would be a ridiculously fortuitous coincidence. As it happens, the two go hand-in-hand; science works (i.e. technology, accurate predictions, etc.) in virtue of the fact that it successfully provides accurate insights into the nature of the world.

You're wrong about religion: it has successfully interacted and manipulated the world via fear for centuries.

We aren't talking about manipulating people, but reality, in the form of accurate predictions and correctly identifying causal relationships, such that, e.g. we can create the sorts of technology we use everyday.

Any differences are only superficial. Underneath, they are all the same, and at the root level, all come from the undifferentiated, formless state, rendering uniqueness an illusion.

No, that does not render uniqueness an illusion.

Grass has no brain, yet can photosynthesize, a complex process that would require conscious intelligence were we to attempt it.

No, not necessarily, since plants perform photosynthesis without conscious intelligence- if we had the requisite biological machinery, we could do the same, without requiring conscious intelligence. In any case, this is irrelevant to any of your claims.

And what, then, is the nature of the world?

Going to have to be more specific than that- as is, the question is so vague as to be essentially meaningless.

Seeing into the nature of Reality, without Reason, Logic, or Analysis is to see things as they are. This has nothing to do with deep or profound, nor that it sounds good. That is your biased overlay.

No, since you continue to be unable to offer any sort of substantiation for your claim that "seeing into the nature of Reality, without Reason, Logic, or Analysis is to see things as they are", I can only imagine that the basis for this claim is that it sounds cool or romantic or something. It certainly is not being offered on the basis of anything like cogent reasoning or evidence.

While science has a boatload of facts ABOUT the world at its disposal, it still is in the dark about the nature of reality, both on the micro and macro scales. In fact, science is more confused than ever:

Actually, science tells us a great deal about "the nature of reality". I'm guessing, however, that you're thinking of some sort of grandiose metaphysical principle, which is just a chimera to begin with.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's a Deepak Chopra imitation. Word salad and jargon woven together (usually badly) to impress those who get impressed by that stuff.

Certainly looks that way. After all-

"Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water." (Nietzsche)

 

[godnotgod]

It's a Deepak Chopra imitation. Word salad and jargon woven together (usually badly) to impress those who get impressed by that stuff.

Your implication is that those who accept Chopra's ideas are being hypnotized, but I submit to you that those who accept science's ideas are in hypnotic trances. The approach of a mystic going in is that what is conventional understanding is fallacious. That is why a different pathway is sought in the first place. Unlike science, which goes in with its baggage of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, the mystic goes in with nothing at all.

You're just overlaying your own bias onto all other views, while mystics accept science as well as the mystical view.