• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Word about Nothing...

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Because 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
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You 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
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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 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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
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.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
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.
if you insist about nothing.....

it can be arranged.
all you need do is.....nothing
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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?
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.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

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.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
Unverifiable and unfalsifiable.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

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"
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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"
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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

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'.

Assuming for a moment that you had attained an enlightened state, what that would mean is that you would instantly know the difference between things as they actually are, and delusion. An example is found in Zen. During intensive group meditation called sesshin, old imagery in the subconscious is stirred up due to the high energy levels involved. Students excitedly come to their teachers with vivid visions of Jesus, Buddha, Blessed Mary, etc.; "Jesus was right in front of me!" they insist, and the teacher calmly directs them back to their meditation mats over the students protests. Eventually, the students get past this phase (makyo) and attain a higher level of clarity.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

So if the escaped prisoner in Plato's Cave told the others of the existence of The Sun outside of the cave, how would they go about verifying his claim?

I think you're not reading my post correctly: I made a very specific point about the fact that the mystical experience is transcendent of all personal views, and that science is inapplicable here. That takes care of the two extreme views of Reality: Belief and Reason. The transcendent experience in consciousness is the only one left, and the only way to validate it is for you to go see for yourself. However, all personal views must be shed. Even the concept of a self that is validating the experience must go so that you are left only with the experience itself. Not for the faint of heart, and no crutches, like science or religion here.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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'.
I'm just going to cut this all short, so this will be my last post.

I am an anthropologist who has studied a great many of the world's religions in decades classwork, reading literallyhundreds of books on theology, and also actually being at locations to get my info from "the horses' mouth", such as my second visit to the Mayan areas this last May. So, what you're writing is nothing new to me.

But since my orientation is objective in this and all other science-related areas, I simply do not accept what you're writing as being objective evidence. What you propose could hypothetically be correct, but I simply am not going to assume that.

Take care.
 
Top