Adinatha Posted July 19, 2014 You are not willing to put forth actual numbers? What you stated could be any random number. Why is it important for to have an exact number? I don't think science can ever know how long this universe expansion and contraction might take. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adinatha Posted July 19, 2014 you don't need a guru or a lineage. Just proper understanding, which can be attained by one's own experiences If you want to practice dzogchen then you do. If you want to do something else then it's okay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adinatha Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) I stand corrected.. I found this: http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1136 What I meant to say is that when ChNN becomes your guru, you don't automatically become a Nyingma, or a Kagyu, or a Bon, or anything, do you? He is non secular? I also found this... https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kagyu/conversations/topics/34218 If he becomes your guru, then you are introduced to your real nature. Then that becomes your path, being in that. This is beyond any words, schools or traditions. "Dzogchen is not a tradition. If you are practicing tradition, it is not Dzogchen." --Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche But he also says, "Direct transmission is indispensable. This is the first statement of Garab Dorje, be directly introduced to your real nature." Edited July 19, 2014 by Adinatha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 19, 2014 Why is it important for to have an exact number? I don't think science can ever know how long this universe expansion and contraction might take. The science behind the age of the universe is very close 13.798±0.037 billion years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adinatha Posted July 19, 2014 The science behind the age of the universe is very close 13.798±0.037 billion years. But science has no idea how long it will take for there to be a contraction. There is no idea whether even it will be a contraction. Also, this number you cite is based on a theory of the Big Bang. Penrose rejects this was the beginning of the universe. So science is not certain about what they are saying. Hawking recently rejected his own ideas about blackholes. They may not be holes. If one relies on science for the meaning of life, then your meaning changes ad hoc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) But science has no idea how long it will take for there to be a contraction. There is no idea whether even it will be a contraction. Also, this number you cite is based on a theory of the Big Bang. Penrose rejects this was the beginning of the universe. So science is not certain about what they are saying. Hawking recently rejected his own ideas about blackholes. They may not be holes. If one relies on science for the meaning of life, then your meaning changes ad hoc. You assume there will be a contraction. Conjecture no less. You are just citing out of the context of scientific research. Why not study Thomas Kunh's work to understand how science works. BTW, I don't base my entire existence on science. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405785139&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn+the+structure+of+scientific+revolutions Edited July 19, 2014 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adinatha Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) The big bang is also a conjecture. The age of universe is also a conjecture. I come from a family of scientists. I studied science, history of science, philosophy of science. I am familiar with Kuhn also. The point Buddha was making was to explain that the universe, including all the expansions and contractions is extremely incalculably old. One expansions and contraction is also very long, too long to give a number even. Such is one kalpa. Big bang is this way too. At the moment of the big bang, there was no time. Also Penrose, says the "time" before the big bang as he see it, was only gravitational waves in a "time-like" continuum. He explains the universe "forgets" how large or old it is, which is why even though all the energy is spread out infinitely, the universe takes itself to be minuscule, which is why all the energy explodes again. It takes weird math to come up with these ideas. Penrose vindicates the Buddha's ideas about time and space. Edited July 19, 2014 by Adinatha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted July 21, 2014 You assume there will be a contraction. Conjecture no less. You are just citing out of the context of scientific research. Why not study Thomas Kunh's work to understand how science works. BTW, I don't base my entire existence on science. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405785139&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn+the+structure+of+scientific+revolutions Thanks for that suggestion Ralis, I just bought it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted July 21, 2014 If he becomes your guru, then you are introduced to your real nature. Then that becomes your path, being in that. This is beyond any words, schools or traditions. "Dzogchen is not a tradition. If you are practicing tradition, it is not Dzogchen." --Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche But he also says, "Direct transmission is indispensable. This is the first statement of Garab Dorje, be directly introduced to your real nature." CNN or anyone else who is legitimate does not "become" anything, including one's guru. He is as he is. We take people on as our guru if we choose to. That is up to us - the lama is who they are, not what we project. Although most of us get very wrapped up in our projections on authority figures. That's part of the value of the authoritarian model - the lama facilitates our seeing through these projections. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
