Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
L
Lunitik
Guest
I am, your judgement will not let you be.
Again, mind is the enemy, always it wants to play its part - swiping down ideas it doesn't like, raising those it does. Mind cannot accept reality, it is the barrier to the real.
You do not have to take my word for it, merely sit silently for 10 mins - perfectly still inside and out. Merely consciously surrender to what is happening, do not consider any of it. This is not a thought or action, merely be surrendered. Does any feeling arise? Does it go deeper? See for yourself, know meditation for the first time in your life - and a Westerner has shown you to boot. You can think of Krishna as the one surrendered to if you'd like, any object provided it is not a distraction, just for easing into it.
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Lunitik,
I began meditation when Roshi Suzuki first came to the SF Zen center. Lo, these many years later, I still meditate, but as Quaker now.
I am merely saying that Science qua Science cannot address the Light. These are metaphysical questions that can only be experienced.
QM is surely the most thoroughly tested and verified of sciences. But it stops at a certain point. Like we do not now know how it and relativity are united. Similarly now we do not know how it and neuropsychology are related. I think consciousness and the divine is well beyond it's perview, and will always be (a non-provable Goedelian loop). Just my opinion.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
I began meditation when Roshi Suzuki first came to the SF Zen center. Lo, these many years later, I still meditate, but as Quaker now.
I am merely saying that Science qua Science cannot address the Light. These are metaphysical questions that can only be experienced.
QM is surely the most thoroughly tested and verified of sciences. But it stops at a certain point. Like we do not now know how it and relativity are united. Similarly now we do not know how it and neuropsychology are related. I think consciousness and the divine is well beyond it's perview, and will always be (a non-provable Goedelian loop). Just my opinion.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
L
Lunitik
Guest
Then you have not experienced truth? You cannot differentiate when you know - it is like picking the colors of the prisms reflection rather than knowing the light it reflects more deeply.
This is what I attempt, to allow the experience to occur for others. It goes against their belief structures though, and they are very loyal people.
QM and relativity coincide quite simply, these are still dense fields that are colliding. Why separate them merely because it appears there are new rules? The rules are the same, we merely perceived the situation wrongly. It is also that consciousness in the gross manifestations applies relatively to that of the united field theories. How to prove these, well that is a good question, how do you prove it without experience is better. It can be easily proven if the groups were not at odds with each other - how can physical and spiritual be at odds? They are both looking at same reality! Of course, it is because they do not realize they have found the same thing, but God is feared by one, and quanta is not understood by the other.
Vajradhara
One of Many
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Lunitik,
If you have a way to unify QM and RT, there is a Nobel prize wiating for you, That is what the bruhaha is about String Theory and Quantum Gravity, they promise to do such.
The bottom line is science explains so very little. And very little of it is truth in the way you use the term. From a hard-core skeptic point of view only deductive logic is true because it deals with logical tautologies. Every other science (including math, see Goedel) is never provably true.
God does play dice, superposition exists, and non-locality is more likely than multiverses. Doubt, possibility, probabilty, dat-zi (Dine for yes and no) are the core of what must come to grips with in the world of time and space. In eternity (the en in panentheist) we must apply the same principles of scientific method.
That's why we Quakers are so flexible and so slow to come to intellectual congruence. One shares the word within and partake that of God in others in a group meditation. We build up our spiritual beliefs over years of intimate sharing. Works for us.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark
If you have a way to unify QM and RT, there is a Nobel prize wiating for you, That is what the bruhaha is about String Theory and Quantum Gravity, they promise to do such.
The bottom line is science explains so very little. And very little of it is truth in the way you use the term. From a hard-core skeptic point of view only deductive logic is true because it deals with logical tautologies. Every other science (including math, see Goedel) is never provably true.
God does play dice, superposition exists, and non-locality is more likely than multiverses. Doubt, possibility, probabilty, dat-zi (Dine for yes and no) are the core of what must come to grips with in the world of time and space. In eternity (the en in panentheist) we must apply the same principles of scientific method.
That's why we Quakers are so flexible and so slow to come to intellectual congruence. One shares the word within and partake that of God in others in a group meditation. We build up our spiritual beliefs over years of intimate sharing. Works for us.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
If I had a wish, it would be to listen in on a talk between Suzuki Roshi, Martin Buber and Thomas Merton. The energy generated from these and so many others would have softened the heart of any skeptic.
Now that I've gotten a little older and a lot greyer, I find that enlightenment is really an overrated concept. Not that I doubt it or disparage it, but there is an opening right here right now, a chance to be fully engaged with each other and therefore with the great immensity. I'm grateful to be closer to the great mystery because of being closer to my humanity.
Make of it what you will, but I've never been this alive before.
L
Lunitik
Guest
This is exactly what is wrong with the world, skepticism is a very negative stance. Always the negative is easier though, and we are taught logical is a great thing - it shows how great we are as a species. Thing is, logic cannot deduce truth, because it is dependent on truths. The variables must be entirely correct before logic can find truth, but this is not the situation. This has created a chicken and the egg situation - we want truth, we want to know more about existence, but to know more, we have to have a true foundation.
Meditation can take you to a place where you can have a direct experience of truth, but it is unscientific so the skeptic is not interested - it also often involves opening up to statements about God which most skeptics are allergic to on sight. Someone has to correlate quanta with God, but the religious don't want that, maybe Dharmakaya can be more easily correlated, maybe understanding Brahman can do the same. As a meditator, even I am not convinced God has a personality though, so I do not blame the skeptic. All I know is that if the Scientists can pursue openly Spiritual practice, they can build from a valid foundation and then advance from there. Today, it is not possible because it can not go beyond a theory.
L
Lunitik
Guest
What do you think enlightenment is? Certainly, it is a very real experience, but more than this it is a condition of totality. How can we fully engage when the mind constantly wanders away from herenow? Without training to cease the motions of mind, we are always like a pendulum, and enlightenment occurs when the pendulum stops swinging. We are always only half into something, enlightenment practice is merely learning how to be totally engaged with what is going on herenow.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Do you not think you are also very negative at times? From my point of view, you dismiss everything that is not already included in your own faith. You even went so far as to call other religious followers less intelligent. Or do you believe that what you say isn't negative if it's the truth?
L
Lunitik
Guest
I do not have a faith, first of all.
Are my statements negative? They are apposed to organizations that repress people, and I have said people that allow themselves to be repressed out of their own fear are idiots. If you call this negative, then I am negative.
My understanding of negative is that it is a message of "no", I say "yes" to every faith because I know it has attempted to describe a particular state of being. Since they are all describing the same situation, it is utterly pointless to try and say what is different. To say they are different shows your own ignorance, and to prefer one over another entirely misses the point. I counter that which says "no", so I do not think I am being negative.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
So tell me about your practice, and what it was like for you when you became enlightened.
Vajradhara
One of Many
namaste all,
i've read this thread with some interest and have found the responses very well stated.
i suppose that my argument is with the OP's initial premises that science, as a lingua franca, can or is even concerned with "truth"...however without defining what truth may mean in this case it's hard to be more specific.
Science isn't concerned with truth. Science is concerned with observable, measurable facts of the universe in which it operates and leaves the ideas of truth and such for other disciplines that have the tools, means and methodologies to investigate truth claims.
it is true, for instance, that water runs downhill. it is a fact, however, that water can run uphill. the two ideas are not the same and conflating them cannot do anything but muddle the issue even more than it already is for a great many beings.
thus i would completely agree with the OP if it stated "can we agree on facts if Science explains it?" whereas i must reject the OP as it currently is.
metta,
~v
i've read this thread with some interest and have found the responses very well stated.
i suppose that my argument is with the OP's initial premises that science, as a lingua franca, can or is even concerned with "truth"...however without defining what truth may mean in this case it's hard to be more specific.
Science isn't concerned with truth. Science is concerned with observable, measurable facts of the universe in which it operates and leaves the ideas of truth and such for other disciplines that have the tools, means and methodologies to investigate truth claims.
it is true, for instance, that water runs downhill. it is a fact, however, that water can run uphill. the two ideas are not the same and conflating them cannot do anything but muddle the issue even more than it already is for a great many beings.
thus i would completely agree with the OP if it stated "can we agree on facts if Science explains it?" whereas i must reject the OP as it currently is.
metta,
~v
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Truth is like a mirror that accurately reflects reality in sincerity. 
As for skeptics, a truly honest skeptic is my (or any scientist's) best friend. If you are after truth, it's the way to go. However, if you are after victory rather than truth, honesty is often the first thing to go out the window.
As for skeptics, a truly honest skeptic is my (or any scientist's) best friend. If you are after truth, it's the way to go. However, if you are after victory rather than truth, honesty is often the first thing to go out the window.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Truth is like a mirror that accurately reflects reality in sincerity.
As for skeptics, a truly honest skeptic is my (or any scientist's) best friend. If you are after truth, it's the way to go. However, if you are after victory rather than truth, honesty is often the first thing to go out the window.
Gassho SeattleGal, you never cease to impress me.
I entirely concur. This is of course heretical to atheists, whose dogma only permits empirically derived facts and equates this with the truth of reality.
Suchness is not data.
pseudonymous
Obtuse Kineticist
Please don't lump all atheists into one box. There are atheists with dogma, and then there are simply atheists that do not believe in god/gods - and do not need to debate the non-belief. Transpersonal experiences derived from meditation practices do not necessarily lead to god beliefs.
No desire whatsoever to divert this thread from its original intent, but I do find generalizations about atheists rarely address all of us very accurately. I respond in same to any atheist that lumps all believers in one box, too.
No desire whatsoever to divert this thread from its original intent, but I do find generalizations about atheists rarely address all of us very accurately. I respond in same to any atheist that lumps all believers in one box, too.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
V, I think the last word in the topic should be "it", I have been reading it that way. And as you can tell, I, for one do not accept many instnaces of "Truth" whether defined by science or spirit. Experience is truth. We duck when someone shoots at us because (for those of us who have) we have experienced that getting hit with a bullet will kill us. The only real Truth science or math gives us are tautologies and we do not really need that proof, we can experience it. Similarly, the truth of the light within shared by us all is experiential--all the spitritual or religious discourse which agress with that does not proove it--the experience does. Likewise I experience the truth of induction--even though philosophy and science cannot proove it.
When we move into discussions about things beyond science (like the nature of the world, unifying QM and relativity, the existence of UFOs, or the Divine) there may be Truth, but I surely do not believe it is knowable.
Do not get me wrong, we can (and do) get closer and closer. And we have all rights to believe in the results of QM or meditation. But when I look deep within myself the Still and Small Voice tells be, "it could always be an error".
Snoopy, just was in the right place at the right time. Like Laos was the wrong place at the right time
Too long, I know, but stay engaged, I love the comments for the most part.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
When we move into discussions about things beyond science (like the nature of the world, unifying QM and relativity, the existence of UFOs, or the Divine) there may be Truth, but I surely do not believe it is knowable.
Do not get me wrong, we can (and do) get closer and closer. And we have all rights to believe in the results of QM or meditation. But when I look deep within myself the Still and Small Voice tells be, "it could always be an error".
Snoopy, just was in the right place at the right time. Like Laos was the wrong place at the right time
Too long, I know, but stay engaged, I love the comments for the most part.
Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark