Debunking a Creator

[Simple_Jack]

They not only tell you otherwise, they might lock you and declare you insane for daring to speak of matters beyond their sterile paradigms.

 

I don't think they will lock you up in an insane asylum, but your research will largely be shunned in the academic community. Your career and funding for research may also suffer as a result.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

I won't say any more but I was thinking in terms of being an "experiencer," not a scientific or academic reseacher of any kind. It's not nice even being in a mental ward of a modern hospital. Let's just leave it at that, shall we? We can agree to sufficient disclosure.

 

...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Brian]

I think it is significant that when some in this thread speak of "how scientists behave," the pronoun used is "they" while when others speak of "how scientists behave," the pronoun used is "we "

[Simple_Jack]

I think it is significant that when some in this thread speak of "how scientists behave," the pronoun used is "they" while when others speak of "how scientists behave," the pronoun used is "we "

 

Regardless, physicalist science represents mainstream academic opinion.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Mal]

~~~~~~~ moderator warning ~~~~~~~~~

 

Thank you for admitting of Bible has been changed. "Two creators having sex" is a lie of your master, Satan. You naughty boy, you follow your master like a loyal server, don't you?

 

 

Brian,

As MTV youth, it is difficult for you, but try to find an original idea from your own just for one time, instead of making comments like a football fan.

 

 

Isimsiz Biri. These posts are insulting. Stop posting insults or you will be suspended.

 

 

Dude, its ancient Greek mythology.

Hesiod.

Are Muslims completely ignorant about world religions?

 

 

RongzomFan you are escalating this situation. Stop posting insults or you will be suspended.

 

~~~~~~~ moderator warning ~~~~~~~~~

[Brian]

 

Regardless, physicalist science represents mainstream academic opinion.

Ummm...

 

Do you know anything about physicalism? The phrase "physicalist science" is an oxymoron of the highest order. Physicalism is a philosophy. It is predicated on the supposition that nothing exists beyond the current understanding of science. One of the modifications employed to avoid the obvious pitfall is to postulate some idealized future understanding of science and then arbitrarily & subjectively state which phenomena or classes of phenomena would be within this "future physics." Physicalism is an ego-protecting construct at odds with the principles of rationality. There is nothing scientific about it and most scientists I have spoken with over the years find it laughable, regardless of their personal beliefs. Are there some in academia and voicing their opinions in the media who have scientific credentials and who also espouse the philosophy of physicalism? Absolutely! They are, unfortunately, adrift in their own self-congratulatory dream.

 

The three most important words in any scientist's vocabulary are "I don't know."

 

Let me tell you a short story...

 

In my senior year as a physics undergrad, the entire senior class was required to participate in a program of study called "senior seminar" -- in addition to all our other classes. Theoretical physicists, applied physicists, astrophysicists and astronomers alike were drawn together for a year-long lesson in humility.

 

The entire physics & astronomy faculty body was involved. On a weekly basis, the students would be split into new teams and assigned a problem. Some were decidedly abstract while others seemed deceptively simple. Some which come to mind include "using Archimedes' method to determine the density of water as a function of temperature" and "determining the circular polarization of light as a function of aqueous sucrose concentration" and "identifying an unknown metal using Hooke's law." In each weekly experiment, we were given a single-sentence definition of the problem -- a problem which the overseeing faculty knew well -- and we then had to devise an experimental approach, identify needed equipment & supplies, ask permission to use those equipment and supplies (sometime the answer would be, "no, you need to find another way"), conduct the experiment as a team and then submit an individually prepared written report. Each Monday morning began with a debrief of the previous week's project and a new assignment. It was Friday, though, which was really interesting...

 

Late Friday afternoon, the entire class met, in business attire, and the members of each team were separated. One member from each team went into a room with a member from every other team, and a panel of faculty members. One by one, the students had to stand before the room and give a formal presentation of this or her research. This was intentionally complicated by things like sometimes finding all the chalk had been removed or that the projector was missing, but the real complication was the question & answer period at the end. Each professor, knowing the experiment, knew the likely mistakes, challenges and misunderstandings, and intentionally raked us over the coals. Questions like, "did you account for the buoyancy caused by air when measuring the mass of that aluminum block?" (a critical detail in that Archimedes' method experiment, BTW) or "explain to us how you calibrated the thermometer you used for measuring temperature." We quickly learned that the absolute WORST thing you could do was not say "I don't know" (or "we didn't think about that" or some variation thereof).

 

This senior seminar had three objectives. It cured us all of stage-fright (may surprise you to learn that not all physicists are extroverted social butterflies), it gave us confidence in our abilities to apply our knowledge to a vast array of situations AND (most importantly) it drove home to each of us how little we really comprehend & how critical it is to approach each new challenge with an open mind.

 

I learned that lesson well, and many years later came to understand that the empty cup is to spiritual cultivation what the open mind is to intellectual cultivation.

[Simple_Jack]

Ummm...

 

Do you know anything about physicalism? The phrase "physicalist science" is an oxymoron of the highest order. Physicalism is a philosophy. It is predicated on the supposition that nothing exists beyond the current understanding of science. One of the modifications employed to avoid the obvious pitfall is to postulate some idealized future understanding of science and then arbitrarily & subjectively state which phenomena or classes of phenomena would be within this "future physics." Physicalism is an ego-protecting construct at odds with the principles of rationality. There is nothing scientific about it and most scientists I have spoken with over the years find it laughable, regardless of their personal beliefs. Are there some in academia and voicing their opinions in the media who have scientific credentials and who also espouse the philosophy of physicalism? Absolutely! They are, unfortunately, adrift in their own self-congratulatory dream.

 

As far as I know, I've been taught in school that consciousness is a product of the brain/CNS.

[Green Tiger]

As far as I know, I've been taught in school that consciousness is a product of the brain/CNS.

 

I'll hazard a guess it wasn't a Waldorf school you attended.

[Stosh]

_{"So mister Stern , lets get on with this , How did you} "determine the circular polarization of light as a function of aqueous sucrose concentration"?

 

_{I dont know.}

 

_{Great ! You exceeded all expectations, Heres your diploma.}

 

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

As far as I know, I've been taught in school that consciousness is a product of the brain/CNS.

 

It seems indisputable that this is the prevailing orthodoxy in the western world at least.

 

...

[gatito]

Parmenides

On Reality (fragments of a poem)

 

 

 

Born around 515 BC., Parmenides, was a citizen of Elea, a small town in the south of Italy. His poem "On Reality" was probably comprised of three parts of which we have only the first two largely intact.

The first part takes the form of an allegorical poem in which we see the poet, impelled by a strong desire, travel toward the domain of the Goddess, in a chariot pulled by powerful runners. After unveiling their faces for him, the Maidens of light guide him to the "threshold where the roads of Night and of Day converge", and he is allowed to cross it as a result of their intercession. He is then welcomed with benevolence by the Goddess who takes his right hand in hers and commences her teaching.

The second part, translated here, is the metaphysical section and contains the teaching of the truth.

The third, which is fragmentary, is the physical part. It represents ignorant public opinion according to which reality is the physical universe which came into existence in the past, exists today, and is destined to disappear one day.

 

fff

 

Now then, I will instruct you; hear what I say:

Two paths are open to investigation.

The first says: being is and non-being is not.

It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.

The other says: being is not, therefore non-being is.

This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction

For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you to conceive of non-being, nor to name it.

 

Speaking and thinking necessarily arise from being, because being is.

And non-being is not. I invite you to reflect deeply on this point,

And to move away, in your search, from that other path

As from the one traveled by those ignorant mortals

Who are the men of two minds: the uncertainty which resides in their hearts

Misleads their wavering reason. They are swept along,

Deaf and blind, benighted, the masses without discernment

Who pretend that being and non-being are simultaneously identical

And different, they for whom, for any statement, the opposite is equally true.

 

No power will ever bring non-being into existence.

So direct your thinking away from this path of exploration.

May habit, so often resumed, not force you to return to it,

With eyes blinded, ears filled with noise

And mouth with words, and may your intelligence alone resolve this contentious issue.

 

Only one path remains for us to pursue:

Being is. And countless signs prove

That being is free from birth and death

Because it is complete, immutable and eternal.

It never was, it never will be, because it is completely whole in the now,

One, endless. What beginning, indeed, should we attribute to it?

Whence would it evolve? Whither?

I will not allow you to say or to think that it comes from nothingness,

Nor that being is not. What exigency would have brought it forth

Later or earlier, from non-being?

Thus, it can only be, absolutely, or not at all.

Our firm innermost conviction will never admit

That something can spring forth from nothingness.

In this way the goddess of Justice, forbidding birth and death,

Preserves without respite the existence of being. Whereas the question was to resolve

Whether being is or is not. We must therefore decide to abandon as false

The second hypothesis, the path which can neither be thought nor formulated,

And to hold to the first, which is the path of the truth.

How could what is, one day cease to be? How could it have, one day, come to be?

What is born, is not, neither what is to be born.

Thus dies birth and thus dies death.

Within being there remain no differences because it is completely identical to itself.

There is not, here, something more that comes to break continuity

Neither, there, something less: but everything is filled with being.

Thus it is all continuous: being adjoined to being.

On the other hand, maintained motionless by powerful links,

It is without beginning and without end, since birth and death

Have been rejected as contrary to our intuition of truth.

Remaining itself, existing within itself, supported by itself,

Thus, immutable, it remains in the same place because the powerful necessity,

Hemming it in from all sides, keeps it firmly unified.

That is why it is not permitted that being be unfinished,

Because there is nothing missing in it; unfinished, it would be missing everything!

Thought is identical to being, and so it is for the object to which thought refers;

Thus there is nothing, and there will never be anything, outside of being

Which Destiny compels to an eternal bliss. Thus,

To be born and to die, to be or not to be,

To change place or appearance,

All of these events are but names superimposed by manÕs ignorance.

Being the ultimate, it is everywhere complete.

Just as an harmoniously round sphere

Departs equally at all points from its center.

Nothing can be added to it here nor taken away from it there.

What is not, cannot interrupt itÕs homogeneous existence.

What is, cannot possess it more or less. Out of all reach,

Everywhere identical to itself, beyond all limits, it is.

 

Translated by Francis Lucille

(stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/parmenides.rtf)

[Simple_Jack]

http://www.francislucille.com/advaita_channel_item.php?id=269 A question on no-Self, Bernadette Roberts, Advaita, Buddhism - Francis Answers - 138

 

Dear Francis,

 

Thank you very much for giving me your address. What a beautiful way of starting the new year.

 

Some time ago I sent you a question to which no answer ever appeared on your website. Probably there was an error and my question did not reach you, or perhaps you had some reason not to answer. The question was about one Bernadette Roberts, who is a Christian mystic, and who to her astonishment discovered that what is regarded as the final 'stage' in her tradition -- which she thinks is the same as the Sat-Chid-Ananda of the Advaitins -- dropped away one day, swallowing up and dissolving completely everything that could ever be called the true Self, 'I AM' or God. She calls it the 'state' of 'No Self'.

Since she could not find anything about this in the Christian mystic literature, she started studying Hinduism and Buddhism, and she says that the only place in literature where she found anything pointing to this was one reference of the Buddha.

She says that it is very easy to confuse the state of no ego with the state of no Self, but that it is entirely different. It happened to her totally unexpectedly, 25 years after the ego had dropped away.

To Bernadette it seems that all the books and enlightened ones talk about the no-ego state, not about the stage of no Self. Though she is convinced that it has been reached by many.

 

I know, that at my total-ego stage it is of no immediate consequence. I have to free myself of this hypnosis. Still, the question sits deep inside and I cannot help asking for your comment. This age old discrepancy between Hinduism and Buddhism as to the eternal existence vs. the non-existence of Self. Is it, as is often said, rhetorical, or is it real after all? Here is a part of an interview with Bernadette:

 

Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center - the coin, or "true self" - suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine."

 

Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist's insistence on no eternal Self - be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman.

Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the "no-self experience"; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

 

Bernadette also wrote very detailed book on this, parts of which are available to read online: http://books.google.be/books?id=-ujxTTC7vjQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bernadette+Roberts

 

I'm sorry to trouble you once again with the same question. If for some reason you do not wish to comment on it, please let me know.

 

Many thanks and greetings

and the best wishes for the new year (though to you there are no wishes and no time :-))

 

Om

Vishvarupa

[gatito]

http://www.francislucille.com/advaita_channel_item.php?id=269 A question on no-Self, Bernadette Roberts, Advaita, Buddhism - Francis Answers - 138

 

Dear Francis,

 

Thank you very much for giving me your address. What a beautiful way of starting the new year.

 

Some time ago I sent you a question to which no answer ever appeared on your website. Probably there was an error and my question did not reach you, or perhaps you had some reason not to answer. The question was about one Bernadette Roberts, who is a Christian mystic, and who to her astonishment discovered that what is regarded as the final 'stage' in her tradition -- which she thinks is the same as the Sat-Chid-Ananda of the Advaitins -- dropped away one day, swallowing up and dissolving completely everything that could ever be called the true Self, 'I AM' or God. She calls it the 'state' of 'No Self'.

Since she could not find anything about this in the Christian mystic literature, she started studying Hinduism and Buddhism, and she says that the only place in literature where she found anything pointing to this was one reference of the Buddha.

She says that it is very easy to confuse the state of no ego with the state of no Self, but that it is entirely different. It happened to her totally unexpectedly, 25 years after the ego had dropped away.

To Bernadette it seems that all the books and enlightened ones talk about the no-ego state, not about the stage of no Self. Though she is convinced that it has been reached by many.

 

I know, that at my total-ego stage it is of no immediate consequence. I have to free myself of this hypnosis. Still, the question sits deep inside and I cannot help asking for your comment. This age old discrepancy between Hinduism and Buddhism as to the eternal existence vs. the non-existence of Self. Is it, as is often said, rhetorical, or is it real after all? Here is a part of an interview with Bernadette:

 

Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center - the coin, or "true self" - suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine."

 

Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist's insistence on no eternal Self - be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman.

Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the "no-self experience"; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

 

Bernadette also wrote very detailed book on this, parts of which are available to read online: http://books.google.be/books?id=-ujxTTC7vjQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bernadette+Roberts

 

I'm sorry to trouble you once again with the same question. If for some reason you do not wish to comment on it, please let me know.

 

Many thanks and greetings

and the best wishes for the new year (though to you there are no wishes and no time :-))

 

Om

Vishvarupa

 

I'm assuming that this is some point that you want to make in response to what Parmenides said:-

 

Now then, I will instruct you; hear what I say:

Two paths are open to investigation.

The first says: being is and non-being is not.

It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.

The other says: being is not, therefore non-being is.

This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction

For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you to conceive of non-being, nor to name it.

[Simple_Jack]

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,
‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.
Because of that, is and is not
are not made into a basis by the wise. - Nagarjuna

[gatito]

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,

‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.

Because of that, is and is not

are not made into a basis by the wise. - Nagarjuna

 

Again, what point are you trying to make?

 

Parmenides is giving a clear line of possible investigation - Nagarjuna is not.

 

The Self is permanent, holding that it is not is untrue.

[RongzomFan]

Nagarjuna's reasoning is unassailable, which is why you Advaitins stole verses verbatim from him.

Read The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta By Michael Comans

Edited December 19, 2013 by RongzomFan

[gatito]

Nagarjuna's reasoning is unassailable, which is why you Advaitins stole verses verbatim from him.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't accord with reality.

 

If you're unsure whether you exist or not, you have no possible axiomatic starting point.

 

I'd suggest that you have a really good think about whether you want to try to argue that you don't exist.

[RongzomFan]

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't accord with reality.

Its a historical fact that Advaitins took verses verbatim from Nagarjuna.

[RongzomFan]

I'd suggest that you have a really good think about whether you want to try to argue that you don't exist.

Really?

 

Its quite simple.

 

You are merely a bundle of parts.

[RongzomFan]

Hearsay on your part

You deny your body is made up of various organs?

 

Wow.

[gatito]

You deny your body is made up of various organs?

 

Wow.

 

I am not my body

[RongzomFan]

The Self is permanent and indivisible - it can be deduced and it can known directly as objectless Consciousness (nirvikalpa samadhi) and in everyday life as savikalpa samadhi

This is not even Advaita.

 

This pseudo-Advaita based on the internet.

[gatito]

This is not even Advaita.

 

This pseudo-Advaita based on the internet.

 

No.

 

It is my own direct experience.

[RongzomFan]

 

No.

 

It is my own direct experience.

 

I see. Lollll.

[RongzomFan]

"I" is just a concept.