A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

So you don't think about belief in god, you transcend that thought?

"The spirituality found in Zen (for example) is not to think about god while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes"
Alan Watts

 

[godnotgod]

what is the point? How do you go about breathing without i hailing and exhaling air?

Your analogy is inappropriate. Breathing is a natural activity; measuring space is not.

Do you agree that space is a reality even before the mind defines it as 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'? That such a description was applied after the fact.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you don't thing about belief in god, you transcend that thought? Interesting

The current aim of religion is to gain as many adherents as possible so the preachers, priests and televangelist's etc can boost their income. Prior to greed it was all about war., they needed more cannon (or spear or arrow) fodder to back up the "my gods better than your god and we'll invade if you don't agree" threat.

Yes Christine, that's it.

Yes, unfortunately most religious institutions are corrupt. I do make a distinction between personal efficacious religious practice and corrupted human religious institutions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's rubbish.

Everything you say about Reality, about Cosmic Consciousness existing beyond the physical - the whole transcending physical business through mediation - are themselves simply you conceptualising what you think reality are.

You have no evidences yourself have transcended, because you are still as bloody egotistic as ever.

You said, that there is no ego, that there are no "I" in this ultimate reality of yours, and yet here you are, your ego is larger than any barn door.

Your ego revealed your hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is just another sign of ego.

Saying its rubbish is not evidence, to the contrary, it reflects your lack of a logical and reasonable argument.

I can and do use my conceptualizing mind as an expedient to explain that if one ceases using their conceptualizing mind, the reality directly present is no longer a conceptual interpretation of reality, but non-conceptualized absolute reality itself. Understood?

You are being obtuse when you ask for evidence of the transcended state as it has been explained to you often that the goal of religion is not the goal of science, the latter is 100% conceptual, the former is 100% non-conceptual. So you do not misunderstand, posting here is not religious practice, it is discussing the differences between science and religious practice.

Your habit of frequently doing ad hom attacks is immature and is no substitute for serious exchange.

 

[godnotgod]

While I can admire people's quest for seeking out spiritual understanding and peace, it is an impossible to achieve such ideals, because it is unrealistic.

Unless you can get agreement from all sides, but people being "human", no two people think alike, nor have the same personality and traits.

And people who do seek spirituality, doesn't guarantee they would be more responsible or more wise...because people being what they are...human.

In general, people who are realized are happier, more stable people than those living in delusion. They tend to radiate a positive energy outwards to all humanity, and thus affect others positively in a chain reaction, without any direct effort to change the world, as the moralist/theist does, and in so doing, the world, in some small way, becomes changed.

Many people think that man's nature is such that he has negative, selfish tendencies. But I say that such tendencies are taught to man, and that his true nature is actually made of some really good stuff. We are taught to be competitive and to scapegoat others from a very early age, and to suppress our true nature as being 'weak', and not 'manly'. Women have the same problem. It is even a wonder that our true natures survive this onslaught of selfish and hateful ideas, coming from parents, teachers, governments, the media and peers, 24/7. In Nazi Germany, such ideas became the norm, as Hitler convinced the German people that it was the Jews who were at the heart of thier distress, and should be eradicated as 'untermenschen'. But humans are very intuitive, and ultimately recognize that some of their beliefs and even their rationality are flawed, and so begin to seek other solutions to their problems. At work just under the surface is their true natures, subtly prompting them to pay attention. And so begins their inner journey to change from the inside out, questioning everything, putting it all under intense scrutiny.

No two people are alike as far as their personal views and beliefs are concerned, but underneath all that indoctrination is the same, undifferentiated consciousness, in the same way that, though no two snowflakes are alike, they all are composed of the same universal substance we call 'water'.

 

[Darkstorn]

Saying its rubbish is not evidence, to the contrary, it reflects your lack of a logical and reasonable argument.

1. It's not up to him to provide evidence for your claims to be rubbish: It is up to you to provide evidence that they are not, seeing as it's you making such claims.

2. You are not showing the methods or reasoning for your conclusions. You merely proclaim the conclusion. You are asking literally for blind faith. You haven't shown your case to ring true, simple as that.

3. You NEVER ANSWERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT YOU:

How did your mind come to the conclusion that what you experienced is "transcending thought" instead of simply "no perceived thought?"

And the brain keeps functioning, yes?

I repeat it once more: How did you determine your knowledge not to be an illusion? How did you determine that other people cannot have similar understanding? You even made direct claims that i don't know what you're talking about, and that i haven't experienced what you have. How do you know all this? Or do you just proclaim?

Again: You not being able to even argue your own claims defensively does not bring me great confidence regarding your ability. I mean, if you have to IGNORE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT YOUR CLAIMS, it usually means you simply do not have the answers, which usually means people shouldn't listen to you in the first place. If you have no answers to ALL questions regarding your stance, you effectively have NO answers. Because your view isn't even complete.

But yes. Your "transcending thought" and "concept-less existence" are still: You perceiving transcending thought using your body and senses, and you are using your mind to come to the conclusion that you aren't using your mind to conceptualize.

You are using your own... Things as evidence for their lack. That's never going to work. You are succumbing to your own biases. You have way too much confirmation bias; You even think there's an end point to achieve. And that you have achieved it. I say you're still a fledgling student who thinks far too highly of himself.

 

[godnotgod]

The point is, you don't know that there's space beyond the dimensions of length, width and height. You claim that you do. But you haven't been able to show us with any reasonable ability that this is ACTUALLY the case: That you actually know what you're talking about.

How can space not be infinite? Height, width, and depth are finite. So space is beyond those dimensions, because each of them is defined by point A and point B.

I think it's worth noting that you keep asking "What is "space" prior to the mind's attempt to define it? " and not actually being able to say anything about it...

I'll one up you: "What is *anything* prior to the mind's attempt to define it?"

no-thing-ness

There are no such things as 'things'. All such 'things' are interconnected to and co-arise with all other 'things'. This is called The Law of Dependent Origination. Because there are no such 'things', no phenomena in The Universe possesses any inherent self-nature. IOW, The Universe is empty.

Hint: The answer most definitely is not "universal consciousness" unless you can somehow verify it beyond the level of wishful thinking.

This no-thing-ness is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which all things emerge. You don't need me to verify it; you can do it yourself. Go and see for yourself. Leave baggage at door.

And if others have to use science to come up with their answers, then the same should be required of you. Your new-age rants are definitely not scientific. A lot of it hinges on faith, assumption, circular reasoning and personal stakes. Not actually translatable universal arguments. Just very subjective assessments of reality, and mistaken for the ultimate answer.

I know nothing of 'new age' ideology, nor do I adhere to it.

I have no such 'ultimate answer' nor do I claim to have one; all I can do is to point to the moon. But you continue to attack the pointing finger instead of looking to see what is being pointed to. It's a matter of seeing into the true nature of things, rather than forming concepts about them, and then attempting to make reality fit those concepts. In our current discussion, for example, the commonly accepted notion of what space is, is that it is 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'. IOW, reality is being made to fit the concept, which is why I continue to ask a child's question: "what is 'space' prior to the mind's attempt at defining it?", which is directly related to the other question, namely: "where does your consciousness end and the outside world begin?"

 

[Darkstorn]

How can space not be infinite?

Um. I never said anything about "infinite." But the universe is not infinite, so by extension... It is merely expanding with such speed that we can never "catch it."

Height, width, and depth are finite. So space is beyond those dimensions, because each of them is defined by point A and point B.

But you didn't actually verify or show in your previous statement that space is infinite: Note: I made no direct claims regarding it being infinite or not in any of my posts. Not even here. But i am saying: You haven't shown that your claim is true. I'll choose not to argue it until you do.

How is space infinite?

no-thing-ness

Ooooooooooooo...

There are no such things as 'things'. All such 'things' are interconnected to and co-arise with all other 'things'. This is called The Law of Dependent Origination. Because there are no such 'things', no phenomena in The Universe possesses any inherent self-nature. IOW, The Universe is empty.

Yawn. You don't need to proselytize me.

This no-thing-ness is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which all things emerge. You don't need me to verify it; you can do it yourself. Go and see for yourself. Leave baggage at door.

Wait.

Didn't you just say "Because there are no such 'things', no phenomena in The Universe possesses any inherent self-nature."

So where does your "Pure Abstract Intelligence" fit in? You just said there are no such things. Then you proclaimed such a thing. What are the causes for your thing? Where did it originate from?

I have a feeling your answer will hinge on faith.

I know nothing of 'new age' ideology, nor do I adhere to it.

I know enough, and i am prepared to make the claim that you do adhere to it. "Pure Abstract Intelligence" ????

I have no such 'ultimate answer' nor do I claim to have one; all I can do is to point to the moon.

You haven't even with any validity shown that there actually IS a moon. Or how there could be one. Merely pointing at a thing isn't enough. You must use reason. Otherwise you are demanding people to believe you unquestionably.

So i think you're actually thinking you do have the answers. Again; I'm willing to bet that you don't and you shouldn't be pointing at the moon without even knowing what the moon truly is. You are using shortcuts.

But you continue to attack the pointing finger instead of looking to see what is being pointed to.

Of course i will. Because i'm rational. And i have no reason to believe your claims.

What if i say i already have pursued knowledge of "the moon" enough for me to realize that you merely pointing to "the moon" is you merely pointing to it? Not actually explaining it in any way.

But hey, at least most masters would explain the nature of "the moon" before pointing at it.

In case you didn't catch it, that was metaphorical.

It's a matter of seeing into the true nature of things,

Judging from the level of ability you are showing, you aren't knowledgeable enough to make any claims regarding the "true" nature of things. You aren't in any position to make such calls. I find it baffling that you somehow missed the memo: You are human. We are humans. What's the difference between you an i?

rather than forming concepts about them, and then attempting to make reality fit those concepts.

Uh... No offence but your posts seem to be very guilty of this. I cannot say about your thoughts. But i can say much about your posts. And according to them, you are most definitely guilty of this.

So better look inward before trying to teach others.

In our current discussion, for example, the commonly accepted notion of what space is, is that it is 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'.

Again, this is merely an attempt to explain reality. Scientists never claim that they have actual Truths. They are merely trying to understand reality. AND space is, as currently known, a model to understand reality. Nothing more. It never claimed to me more.

The thing is, you are claiming what reality actually IS. But you haven't shown how your sensory faculties have enabled you to come to such a conclusion. And as long as you have your body, you are subject to those faculties no matter how much you don't perceive them.

IOW, reality is being made to fit the concept, which is why I continue to ask a child's question: "what is 'space' prior to the mind's attempt at defining it?"

I guess the answer to your question is:

"Pure Abstract Intelligence."

No wonder you are asking such naive questions. Your answers are even worse.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. It's not up to him to provide evidence for your claims to be rubbish: It is up to you to provide evidence that they are not, seeing as it's you making such claims.

2. You are not showing the methods or reasoning for your conclusions. You merely proclaim the conclusion. You are asking literally for blind faith. You haven't shown your case to ring true, simple as that.

3. You NEVER ANSWERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT YOU:







Again: You not being able to even argue your own claims defensively does not bring me great confidence regarding your ability. I mean, if you have to IGNORE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT YOUR CLAIMS, it usually means you simply do not have the answers, which usually means people shouldn't listen to you in the first place. If you have no answers to ALL questions regarding your stance, you effectively have NO answers. Because your view isn't even complete.

But yes. Your "transcending thought" and "concept-less existence" are still: You perceiving transcending thought using your body and senses, and you are using your mind to come to the conclusion that you aren't using your mind to conceptualize.

You are using your own... Things as evidence for their lack. That's never going to work. You are succumbing to your own biases. You have way too much confirmation bias; You even think there's an end point to achieve. And that you have achieved it. I say you're still a fledgling student who thinks far too highly of himself.

You did not understand what was said to you, I did answer your question about an explanation of the transcendent state, but it seems anger has got the better of you and your post is mostly incoherent. What are my own.."Things as evidence for their lack" and what does it mean?

 

[Darkstorn]

You did not understand what was said to you, I did answer your question about an explanation of the transcendent state, but it seems anger has got the better of you and your post is mostly incoherent. What are my own..

You didn't answer the most important questions:

How did you determine your experience to NOT be an illusion? How did you determine it to be the end-all-of-answers? How did you determine it NOT to originate from your senses, OR from your conceptualizing mind? How did you determine your conclusion?

Because all your answers seem to point out to this:

You used faith to come to your conclusion.

You are completely unable to explain the methods and reasoning for your conclusion. I say you are mistaking basic, regular meditation for evidence of a state transcending thought. But you are unable to show how you didn't use thought to come to that conclusion. Or your senses. ETC.

"Things as evidence for their lack" and what does it mean?

Read the post. You quoted out of context.

Seriously, this is starting to be a recurring motif in your posts: I make a long post. You reply with a short comment that barely answers to 1/10th of the content of my posts. How exactly are you expecting people to hold confidence in your ability to know anything about the true nature of reality? Hm?

I say you are mistaking illusions for knowledge. I say you are victim of your own biases. I say your ego is leading you to believe that you have something more than *anyone* else. And finally, i say:

You are merely a regular guy thinking way too highly of himself on an internet forum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You didn't answer the most important questions:

How did you determine your experience to NOT be an illusion? How did you determine it to be the end-all-of-answers? How did you determine it NOT to originate from your senses, OR from your conceptualizing mind? How did you determine your conclusion?

Because all your answers seem to point out to this:

You used faith to come to your conclusion.

You are completely unable to explain the methods and reasoning for your conclusion. I say you are mistaking basic, regular meditation for evidence of a state transcending thought. But you are unable to show how you didn't use thought to come to that conclusion. Or your senses. ETC.



Read the post. You quoted out of context.

Seriously, this is starting to be a recurring motif in your posts: I make a long post. You reply with a short comment that barely answers to 1/10th of the content of my posts. How exactly are you expecting people to hold confidence in your ability to know anything about the true nature of reality? Hm?

I say you are mistaking illusions for knowledge. I say you are victim of your own biases. I say your ego is leading you to believe that you have something more than *anyone* else. And finally, i say:

You are merely a regular guy thinking way too highly of himself on an internet forum.

I explained that absolute reality can not be experienced by the ego, it is a realization of the underlying unity of existence, of non-dual awareness. Only the thinking mind experiences.

Look, I understand that anyone who has not yet realized the non-conceptual state of reality may be confused by the explanation, but I am happy to try and help you. So just quote my exact words that you find confusing and I will try and rephrase so that hopefully you finally get it.

 

[Darkstorn]

I explained that absolute reality can not be experienced by the ego, it is a realization of the underlying unity of existence, of non-dual awareness. Only the thinking mind experiences.

Answer my questions please.

Look, I understand that anyone who has not realized the non-conceptual may be confused by the explanation

I am not confused by your explanation. I am literally doubting your experience. And your knowledge. And i'm doubting your ability to actually answer questions directed at you.

but I am happy to try and help you.

You'll help me by understanding this: I already know what you're talking about. All of it. I understand everything you're saying.

You'll also help me by answering my questions. Why should i listen to you if you're not even prepared to hold the thought that your knowledge might in fact be for naught and merely an illusion caused by your ego?

Weak.

So just quote my exact words that you find confusing and I will try and rephrase so that hopefully you finally get it.

None of it is confusing. Answer my questions.

 

[godnotgod]

Um. I never said anything about "infinite." But the universe is not infinite, so by extension... It is merely expanding with such speed that we can never "catch it."

You said:

"you don't know that there's space beyond the dimensions of length, width and height"

to which I replied:

"How can space not be infinite (ie; beyond the dimensions of length ,width, and height)"

If the Universe were finite, it would be contained, but that means there is an inside and an outside, and if that is the case there must, by definition, be something further on the outside, and on and on ad infinitum.

But you didn't actually verify or show in your previous statement that space is infinite: Note: I made no direct claims regarding it being infinite or not in any of my posts. Not even here. But i am saying: You haven't shown that your claim is true. I'll choose not to argue it until you do.

How is space infinite?

Because it has no beginning, it therefore can have no end.

Ooooooooooooo...

I wasn't aware that you were impressed by no-thing-ness. It's just the way 'things' are (no pun). Nothing to get hung about and nothing special.

Yawn. You don't need to proselytize me.

Emptiness is not a doctrine, so there is nothing to proselytize about.

Wait.

Didn't you just say "Because there are no such 'things', no phenomena in The Universe possesses any inherent self-nature."

So where does your "Pure Abstract Intelligence" fit in? You just said there are no such things. Then you proclaimed such a thing. What are the causes for your thing? Where did it originate from?

I have a feeling your answer will hinge on faith.

Faith has nothing to do with it.

Pure Abstract Intelligence (note the word 'abstract') is not a thing. It is uncaused, unborn, unconditioned, which is why it's nature is beginingless and unending.

I know enough, and i am prepared to make the claim that you do adhere to it. "Pure Abstract Intelligence" ????

Why do you create associations that have no validity in reality? Show where PAI is a new age phenomena. If anything, it's old age, as the idea is at least 4000 years old.

You haven't even with any validity shown that there actually IS a moon. Or how there could be one. Merely pointing at a thing isn't enough. You must use reason. Otherwise you are demanding people to believe you unquestionably.

I point. You see. That is all. Or are you having difficulty seeing, because Reason gets in your way? Can you just see what is, without forming ideas about what it is you see, which only takes you further away from what it actually is?

The moon is a metaphor for Reality. Do you suppose that no such Reality is the case, and that only delusion is real?

So i think you're actually thinking you do have the answers. Again; I'm willing to bet that you don't and you shouldn't be pointing at the moon without even knowing what the moon truly is. You are using shortcuts.

Of course i will. Because i'm rational. And i have no reason to believe your claims.

Why do you continue to try to figure me out. Just go see for yourself. Pointing to the moon is not a claim, so you have no reason to attack the pointing finger. It's empty, so what claim do you think you're attacking?

What if i say i already have pursued knowledge of "the moon" enough for me to realize that you merely pointing to "the moon" is you merely pointing to it? Not actually explaining it in any way.

But hey, at least most masters would explain the nature of "the moon" before pointing at it.

In case you didn't catch it, that was metaphorical.

If you need an explanation, then you have missed seeing, and are now just nibbling around the edges, rather than piercing to the heart of the matter.

Judging from the level of ability you are showing, you aren't knowledgeable enough to make any claims regarding the "true" nature of things. You aren't in any position to make such calls. I find it baffling that you somehow missed the memo: You are human. We are humans. What's the difference between you an i?

None, in reality. You have every bit the ability to see into the true nature of things as much as anyone else. As I said earlier, it's really nothing special, so stop making it out to be by your attempt to discredit me with not having enough knowledge. Knowledge is not required for seeing what is. In fact, it must be gotten out of the way, because it is an obstacle.

Uh... No offence but your posts seem to be very guilty of this. I cannot say about your thoughts. But i can say much about your posts. And according to them, you are most definitely guilty of this.

So better look inward before trying to teach others.

Excuse me, but I am not the one pushing the concept of space as 'dimensions of height, width, and depth'. If you have been paying attention, I have clearly stated that such dimensions are not inherent to space; that such dimensions are superimposed over reality. Is that correct?

Again, this is merely an attempt to explain reality. Scientists never claim that they have actual Truths. They are merely trying to understand reality. AND space is, as currently known, a model to understand reality. Nothing more. It never claimed to me more.

The thing is, you are claiming what reality actually IS. But you haven't shown how your sensory faculties have enabled you to come to such a conclusion. And as long as you have your body, you are subject to those faculties no matter how much you don't perceive them.

All I have done is to question the status quo, by asking:

'what is space prior to the mind defining it?'

Science can never understand reality via the scientific method. All they can hope to do is to uncover data and facts which they can then use to predict behavior of phenomena. That is all. The method of science is basically dissection, and dissection and reduction never yields what the true nature of anything is, because all data and facts about phenomena is already in the past, and as such, is dead. You fail to see that the nature of the universe is pure abstract intelligence because you are trying to understand reality with dead knowledge, which only leads to seeing a dead, material universe.

I guess the answer to your question is:

"Pure Abstract Intelligence."

No wonder you are asking such naive questions. Your answers are even worse.you don't know that there's space beyond the dimensions of length, width and height

Where does your consciousness end and the external world begin, or are you incapable of seeing what is beyond the limited, conceptual mind?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Answer my questions please.



I am not confused by your explanation. I am literally doubting your experience. And your knowledge. And i'm doubting your ability to actually answer questions directed at you.



You'll help me by understanding this: I already know what you're talking about. All of it. I understand everything you're saying.

You'll also help me by answering my questions. Why should i listen to you if you're not even prepared to hold the thought that your knowledge might in fact be for naught and merely an illusion caused by your ego?

Weak.



None of it is confusing. Answer my questions.

You are confused, you do not understand what I say to you. It is not I who realizes the transcendent state of mind, it is that aspect of being that is beyond thought. Thought does not and can not play a part in transcendence of thought...see the logic?

 

[Darkstorn]

If the Universe were finite, it would be contained, but that means there is an inside and an outside, and if that is the case there must, by definition, be something further on the outside, and on and on ad infinitum.

This statement doesn't actually demonstrate how the universe is infinite. It merely posits that there's something outside of it. But in turn, you cannot know that what's outside the universe is infinite either.

I don't think you understand your lack of knowledge in this subject as well as you should. But yes the universe is finite, and there's something "beyond" it. Probably other universes.

Because it has no beginning, it therefore can have no end.

You haven't demonstrated this to be true in any way. You merely proclaim it. Like faith.

And i am sorry, but i don't have enough faith in you to believe what you are saying just because.

You need something else.

I wasn't aware that you were impressed by no-thing-ness. It's just the way 'things' are (no pun). Nothing to get hung about and nothing special.

I am not. I'm impressed by your use of flashy talk to make a so called point.

Emptiness is not a doctrine, so there is nothing to proselytize about.

You haven't demonstrated how it's not a doctrine though. You merely proclaim. Therefore, you proselytize.

Faith has nothing to do with it.

So you proclaim. But you haven't actually refuted it with logic.

Pure Abstract Intelligence (note the word 'abstract') is not a thing. It is uncaused, unborn, unconditioned, which is why it's nature is beginingless and unending.

So it's a bit like a god?

And funny how it still seems like it's a concept the way you conceptualize it. And i say it needs a cause in order for your explanation of reality to make any actual logical sense.

Right now it's an assumption instead of a logical conclusion.

Why do you create associations that have no validity in reality? Show where PAI is a new age phenomena. If anything, it's old age, as the idea is at least 4000 years old.

Heh, you even have an acronym for it. Okay.

I'll show it to you once you provide evidence for every single one of your proclamations. Deal? Just trying to be fair here.

I point. You see. That is all.

That's now how it works. It's naive to consider our sense-perceptions to be trustworthy in determining reality. They are by definition, not direct.

Or are you having difficulty seeing, because Reason gets in your way?

So there is absolutely zero possibility to use both your senses AND your reasoning to come to a conclusion? Firstly, what makes you think so? And secondly, how did you determine that your senses are the ultimate in all there is?`

Can you just see what is, without forming ideas about what it is you see, which only takes you further away from what it actually is?

I'm actually going to posit the claim that you can't actually see "what is." And i do mean both generally and you specifically.

The moon is a metaphor for Reality. Do you suppose that no such Reality is the case, and that only delusion is real?

Rofl. Firstly, i know that it's a metaphor. You seem to have some preconceptions about me.

I never supposed the case you are positing. I am merely suggesting that you aren't a trustworthy source for Reality. I say you're even a terrible source for it.

You mistake your understanding of reality as reality rather than an attempt to understand reality. That sounds just egotistical. Makes you look like a random internet person who thinks way too highly of himself.

Why do you continue to try to figure me out. Just go see for yourself. Pointing to the moon is not a claim, so you have no reason to attack the pointing finger. It's empty, so what claim do you think you're attacking?

All your claims?

You act like a priest trying to convert people on a forum. I am attacking this as well.

If you need an explanation, then you have missed seeing, and are now just nibbling around the edges, rather than piercing to the heart of the matter.

I don't need an explanation for any of your claims beyond the following: To know whether or not you have the ability to explain them or not. You're acting like a priest. Just not a very good one. You merely proclaim your view of things like a parrot.

None, in reality. You have every bit the ability to see into the true nature of things as much as anyone else.

I'm actually going to posit that the default stance for understanding is that you cannot possibly know the true nature of things. At best you can come to a high approximation. You have no direct experience. Everything is through your imperfect sensory faculties. Even your non-perception of them is caused by them.

I just think it's highly egotistical for you to make the claim that you do see the true nature of things. Here's my stance: Even if i did think i had the true answers to things, i would understand that it'd be wrong and not helpful at all to make claims that i either could see the true nature of things, or that it would even be possible. Because i cannot show it to you or anyone else beyond any reasonable doubt.

And neither can you. And you haven't.

The "correct" way in my view, would be to show people the WAY to reach such understanding by their own. You haven't been able to do this at all. You're not even trying. You're acting like a priest.

As I said earlier, it's really nothing special, so stop making it out to be by your attempt to discredit me with not having enough knowledge. Knowledge is not required for seeing what is. In fact, it must be gotten out of the way, because it is an obstacle.

So you proclaim. You didn't show how knowledge is an obstacle for "seeing what is."

You're still talking like a priest. Saying how things are. How do you know? How did you arrive to the conclusion that your experience isn't merely an illusion fed by your ego?

You didn't. You just chose to accept the things fed through your conceptualizing mind and sensory faculties. It was your conceptualizing mind telling you that your mind has stopped conceptualizing. And it has trapped you through your own biases.

Excuse me, but I am not the one pushing the concept of space as 'dimensions of height, width, and depth'. If you have been paying attention, I have clearly stated that such dimensions are not inherent to space; that such dimensions are superimposed over reality. Is that correct?

You have stated those things. But you haven't shown how it's true. At least we tried to show how the other position might be true. You simply make statements that we should believe.

All I have done is to question the status quo, by asking:

'what is space prior to the mind defining it?'

This doesn't question it very effectively though as has been demonstrated. It's merely asking the question: "What is anything before we think about it?"

I think it's sad you consider yourself the only person who ever thought that question. Heh. This forum didn't exist when i started trying to find answers to that question.

Science can never understand reality via the scientific method.

So you proclaim. But you haven't shown this to be true in any way except perhaps through copious amounts of wishful thinking.

I say they can understand it to a large degree eventually. Definitely larger degree than Mr. Subjective Internet Person.

All they can hope to do is to uncover data and facts which they can then use to predict behavior of phenomena. That is all.

That's all anyone could ever hope for. Even you.

The method of science is basically dissection, and dissection and reduction never yields what the true nature of anything is, because all data and facts about phenomena is already in the past, and as such, is dead. You fail to see that the nature of the universe is pure abstract intelligence because you are trying to understand reality with dead knowledge, which only leads to seeing a dead, material universe.

I don't actually see you providing a better alternative at all.

Where does your consciousness end and the external world begin, or are you incapable of seeing what is beyond the limited, conceptual mind?

The senses are the "point" where they meet. That's basically just it. It's not a deep question of metaphysics, and i don't even see the need for it to be answered beyond that. I think it's a meaningless question. I would simply never bother thinking such a naively simplistic question.

Does that answer it?

/E: I need to add, mostly for giggles:

Your analogy is inappropriate. Breathing is a natural activity; measuring space is not.

Since when is "measuring" NOT natural? The moment we compare, we measure.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are confused, you do not understand what I say to you.

So you proclaim. You haven't shown this to be true.

I suppose me telling you that i'm a Buddhist will not change a thing in your line of thought. If so: Too bad.

It is not I who realizes the transcendent state of mind, it is that aspect of being that is beyond thought. Thought does not and can not play a part in transcendence of thought...see the logic?

"Blah blah blah blah"

I don't care about your view of reality or things until you can actually show to me or anyone else that you actually know what you're talking about. So before i'm going to accept you as my Master, and listen to what you say, i must first verify that you actually know what you're talking about.

So, let's begin by you answering my questions. Let's start with this:

How did you determine your understanding to be Truth instead of an illusion? What did you use beyond your conceptualizing mind, your body, and your senses? If anything?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you proclaim. You haven't shown this to be true.

I suppose me telling you that i'm a Buddhist will not change a thing in your line of thought. If so: Too bad.

I don't care about your view of reality or things until you can actually show to me or anyone else that you actually know what you're talking about. So before i'm going to accept you as my Master, and listen to what you say, i must first verify that you actually know what you're talking about.

So, let's begin by you answering my questions. Let's start with this:

How did you determine your understanding to be Truth instead of an illusion? What did you use beyond your conceptualizing mind, your body, and your senses? If anything?

So "Blah blah blah blah" is meant to convey that indeed it is correct you do not understand what i said, for all to see.

I see now the problem, you are a believer of some Buddhist teaching. What is being explained to you is that there is no true religious teaching, Buddhist or otherwise. When you understand that reality is on the other side of beliefs, of conceptual language, of thoughts, etc., you are approaching the portal that reveals that which beliefs, language, concepts, etc., allude to...Nirvana.

You are free to have an interest in conceptual pursuits, science, politics, this world in general, but you can not expect to realize nirvana through this dualistic mind.

 

[DavidFirth]

A universe from nothing...

 

[Darkstorn]

So "Blah blah blah blah" is meant to convey that indeed it is correct you do not understand what i said, for all to see.

You only assume so. It doesn't make it so. I'm merely doubting your ability as a teacher of people.

I see now the problem, you are a believer of some Buddhist teaching.

That's a mistake on your part to assume so. It's your ego speaking: That you believe that you're in such a position as to teach me or supplement my information, DIRECTLY implying that YOU know more than i do.

You cannot know this, therefore it's an assumption.

You are free to have an interest in conceptual pursuits, science, politics, this world in general, but you can not expect to realize nirvana through this dualistic mind.

And you still think it's not your ego speaking? You think you're a teacher.

Fine; Answer my questions, Master.

A universe from nothing...

So, god magic?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A universe from nothing..

Existence is on the other side of both the belief in existence, and the belief in the absence of existence.