Thief
Rogue Theologian
period.....indicates a finiteIt is immeasurable, period.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
period.....indicates a finiteIt is immeasurable, period.
incorrect characterization of my beliefsBecause you have a shallow understanding, or better yet, because you are simply in denial, all you can do is to call it 'word salad', while clinging to your belief out of fear, beliefs which have no basis in fact.
incorrect characterization of my beliefs
apparently YOU have deliberately misread everything I have ever wrote to youYou think you follow your corpse into the grave. Even in death you cling to the flesh.
apparently YOU have deliberately misread everything I have ever wrote to you
I believe we stand from the body OR.....
follow the body into the grave
God and heaven then make a judgment call
the stand made after your last breath is up to you
what happens to you after that is up to God
if you do not believe.....it is not likely you will stand at all
lack of faith is not a strength
I was dealing with the issue of "creation", so I decided to use "Brahman" instead. Either way, these are still religious entities whereas there's no objectively-derived evidence that either entity exists. As a believe based on faith, I certainly do not have a problem with that, but it's certainly not science.Are you confusing Brahma with Brahman? Brahma is a creator-god, and is definitely religious; Brahman is just the Source of All itself, The Ground of All Being.
if you insist about nothing.....I neither believe, nor not-believe. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
ho hum...fed up with your silly proselytizing and religious and spiritual ignorance. This is not the place for it. Your fear-based belief of 'following the body into the grave' is just plain silly. This discussion is over. Back to the topic about Nothing.
To the latter, "Pure Abstract Intelligence".No problem.
So you are saying that maya itself is flawed in that it sees the material world as unreal, when it is actually real? If this is the case, how do you determine the 'reality' of the 'material' world?
What is PAI?
if you insist about nothing.....
it can be arranged.
all you need do is.....nothing
I was dealing with the issue of "creation", so I decided to use "Brahman" instead. Either way, these are still religious entities whereas there's no objectively-derived evidence that either entity exists. As a believe based on faith, I certainly do not have a problem with that, but it's certainly not science.
BTW, let me just mention something you're probably aware of, and that is, at least in the past, there have been non-theistic schools within Hinduism, plus that there's also a large amount of give-&-take even as far as even base beliefs are concerned.
To the latter, "Pure Abstract Intelligence".
To the former, the key word is "sees" that I focused on, because it is often our perception of the material world that is flawed, not that the material world itself is flawed.
Such claims are made in pretty much all religions, plus such claims simply are out of the framework of science. Just because I may feel I experienced something doesn't mean that anyone in science must accept it as evidence.Brahman is not a belief; it is an experience. It is commonly stated that 'the jiva becomes Brahman' in the spiritually transformative experience. There is no doctrine to be believed in this experience. If we translate Brahman as 'the ground of all being' it is devoid of any religious overtones. The ground of all being is none other than the unified field; tao; etc.
This experience (as well as Enlightenment in Buddhism) is not based on 'objectively derived evidence' via reason, logic, and analysis, but is a direct experience of Reality itself, with nothing in between. There is no trace of the experience that can be tested via scientific means. However, it can be verified via one's own direct experience.
Unverifiable and unfalsifiable.The seeing of the world as illusion, or maya, is not a matter of perception, but insight via a transcendent consciousness. No, the ordinary conditioned mind of perception cannot detect the facade.
Such claims are made in pretty much all religions, plus such claims simply are out of the framework of science. Just because I may feel I experienced something doesn't mean that anyone in science must accept it as evidence.
Yes, I've heard this many times before by people in different religions, but we always must remember that our "experiences", real or imaginary, cannot be fully shared with others. But either way, personal experiences are not the basis of how we in science operate, and BB cosmology is science, not religion.As I said, there is no factual evidence to the experience, other than the experience itself. There is no requirement that science must validate it. While I understand your position as regards the fallibility of a personal experience which can vary from one individual to another, it must be understood that a transcendent experience is just what it says: transcendent of a personal view, as well as one transcendent of any derived via Logic, Reason, or Analysis. Being transcendent of personal perceptual experience, it can be verified from one practitioner to the next. And this is actually the case, because the experience has been verified around the world by practitioners independent of one another, and in different historical frameworks. This is the crucial difference between personal religious beliefs and impersonal transcendent experience. Religious belief is a conditioned view; transcendent experience is a transformative experience in consciousness, which is an unconditioned view. It is not a view of a personal consciousness, but that of a universal consciousness. As the Hindus tell us:
"The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere"
Well, sorry to say that it very much is true. See #296. Let me give you an example of what I mean by "unfalsifiable":Both untrue. See #294
Well, sorry to say that it very much is true. See #296. Let me give you an example of what I mean by "unfalsifiable":
Our entire universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, whose firey spit-wads created stars, but the planets and moons came out of his anus. Prove me wrong.
Yes, I've heard this many times before by people in different religions, but we always must remember that our "experiences", real or imaginary, cannot be fully shared with others. But either way, personal experiences are not the basis of how we in science operate, and BB cosmology is science, not religion.
However, with that being said, I am not claiming you're wrong-- just that I don't know if you're right.
I'm just going to cut this all short, so this will be my last post.That analogy does not work. Your example is simply a fantastical concoction. The mystical experience allows one to detect the illusory quality of the world most of us see as 'reality'.