Originally posted by King KandyActually, I'm just saying I don't know, rather than offering some quaint metaphor, eg, God got bored. Technically (at least as I understood it), you were asking the Why of Creation. One can consider what the mystical and meditation literature has to say on the subject (bliss, formlessness, oneness, yada yada), or conclude as you did. I presented it only as a possible answer.
Cop out. You could excuse any logical flaw in God's existence by saying "you just don't understand it". If it isn't falsifiable then its nonsense.
Originally posted by King KandyI'm not offering this as proof, only how the issues presented in this thread might be addressed from a m/m POV.
Oh, that definitely proves it.If everything is truly uniform then where could the illusion of fragmentation possibly originate from?
'Uniform' is not the best word, as it implies sameness. Clearly, not everything is the same...but it is all connected. The illusion of fragmentation, of disconnect, comes from limited human perception, especially given our penchant for scientific analysis, ie, a systematic 'breaking things down'.
Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not offering this as proof, only how the issues presented in this thread might be addressed from a m/m POV.'Uniform' is not the best word, as it implies sameness. Clearly, not everything is the same...but it is all connected. The illusion of fragmentation, of disconnect, comes from limited human perception, especially given our penchant for scientific analysis, ie, a systematic 'breaking things down'.
Originally posted by Mindship
Why are things the way they are? I myself don't rightly know. But if I understand correctly, one discovers why through advanced attention training, wherein the answer becomes obvious beyond words.
Originally posted by King KandyWhy is saying "I don't know," a "cop out"? Why is merely conveying what the m/m literature says (not presenting it as proof) a "cop out"? Why would you even expect me or anyone to be able to answer the question, Why are things the way they are? Why would you even ask that question to begin with since it's not the focus of this thread?
Once again, this is a cop out answer. If it can't be analyzed logically then why on earth would you try and base your logic on it?
That aside...
It's been said that if a new paradigm ever takes hold, one which integrates mysticism with science (not as absurd as it sounds, since meditation is a systematic method for accessing mystical experience, whatever it may be), the heart of the paradigm will be paradox. And logic can't handle paradox. Which means one of two things...
1. You disregard what the m/m literature has to say on the subject; after all, if it can't be logically analyzed, it must be untrue...
- OR -
2. You accept that logic has its limits, and another mode of knowing is required, one that is acquired via attention training.
Clearly, you prefer option 1. That's cool. But to call what I've presented a cop out seems, well, like a cop out. If you disagree, you disagree. No problemo.
Originally posted by Mindship
Why is saying "I don't know," a "cop out"? Why is merely conveying what the m/m literature says (not presenting it as proof) a "cop out"? Why would you even expect me or anyone to be able to answer the question, Why are things the way they are? Why would you even ask that question to begin with since it's not the focus of this thread?That aside...
It's been said that if a new paradigm ever takes hold, one which integrates mysticism with science (not as absurd as it sounds, since meditation is a systematic method for accessing mystical experience, whatever it may be), the heart of the paradigm will be paradox. And logic can't handle paradox. Which means one of two things...
1. You disregard what the m/m literature has to say on the subject; after all, if it can't be logically analyzed, it must be untrue...
- OR -
2. You accept that logic has its limits, and another mode of knowing is required, one that is acquired via attention training.Clearly, you prefer option 1. That's cool. But to call what I've presented a cop out seems, well, like a cop out. If you disagree, you disagree. No problemo.
The person I responded to here was saying that he could PROVE there was a multiverse because of God's omnipresence... any defense of that line of logic is just completely ludicrous and I don't see why you keep trying to prolong that conversation.
Originally posted by King KandyA person does not have substantial control over their attention when on LSD; there is actually less control than in ordinary consciousness. And tripping certainly does not bring one to the higher meditative stages, as evidenced by the continuing awareness of form (past studies have suggested there is not even 'archetypal-causal' awareness; one experiences only the 'dreaming' levels). An advanced meditator does have the necessary control, enabled through time and practice, for going 'all the way'. Further, these experiences -- whatever they may be -- are available to anyone if he/she is willing to put in the time and effort following a strict, consistent, instructional methodology.
Taking LSD consistently causes mystical experiences. More than meditation. How do we qualify if something is really a mystical experience or just nonsense? And if we know that meditation helps with mysticism, we only know that because of logic anyway (inductive reasoning); the very argument you gave here that meditation consistently causes these experiences is a logic based argument.
The person I responded to here was saying that he could PROVE there was a multiverse because of God's omnipresence... any defense of that line of logic is just completely ludicrous and I don't see why you keep trying to prolong that conversation.I'm not that person. And again, I myself am not offering 'proof', just an alternative viewpoint, especially given that a lot of these redundant, merry-go-round God conversations involve the Biblical God, ie, the Biblical God metaphor taken way too literally. My thinking was, offering another POV might help to break that repetitiveness.
I think we are approaching this with 3 dimensional thinking.
If God is several reality planes (possibly an infinite number) above our own level of thinking, we are using 3D concepts to define something that just cant be logicked
like a beetle discussing dark matter or a brain tumor in elephants.
This is not a cop out, but how can we truly expect to understand and fully discuss a being of infinite scope with limited words and ideas?
Originally posted by Solidus BlackI've used the above ideas myself to illustrate the limits of our current understanding. However, this still is not proof. As I mentioned in a previous post, if logic is unable to fully grasp a supposedly divine entity, it could be because of what you said, OR, it could well be that said entity simply does not exist. And in all fairness to the truth (whatever it may be), the reductive-materialist model is in a much stronger position to state its case than the holistic-transcendent model. In this sense, King Kandy is right: for the transcendent model this is an uphill battle.
I think we are approaching this with 3 dimensional thinking.If God is several reality planes (possibly an infinite number) above our own level of thinking, we are using 3D concepts to define something that just cant be logicked
like a beetle discussing dark matter or a brain tumor in elephants.
This is not a cop out, but how can we truly expect to understand and fully discuss a being of infinite scope with limited words and ideas?
Originally posted by Mindship
I've used the above ideas myself to illustrate the limits of our current understanding. However, this still is not proof. As I mentioned in a previous post, if logic is unable to fully grasp a supposedly divine entity, it could be because of what you said, OR, it could well be that said entity simply does not exist. And in all fairness to the truth (whatever it may be), the reductive-materialist model is in a much stronger position to state its case than the holistic-transcendent model. In this sense, King Kandy is right: for the transcendent model this is an uphill battle.
We will always search for proof and as we become enlightened proof changes.
The caveman thought with fire taht they reached the pinnacle.
Hundreds of years ago, people thought heat came from a substance called caloric in iron
Pennicillin was another important discovery.
As was dark matter.
As we learn more and more, we should realize that in aggregate that there is less and less we truly know because every answer spawns hundreds of new queries.
That being said, i think we will never evolve towards God in a significant way where logic is involved. he is too abstract to ever be solved without a metaphysical equation.
There is no "proof" to be gotten and that is why people say taht one should have faith.
But i will agree. It is an uphill battle.
Originally posted by Solidus BlackWhat I find fascinating is that, theoretically, scientific method ('applied common sense'😉 can be used to investigate transcendent realities (indeed, essentially it has been all along). One just has to be fair about it: the nature of the tools used and the data collected should be consistent with that of the phenomena being studied. Eg, one wouldn't use a microscope to verify a logical proof; neither should one use the LHC to seek 'heaven'.
We will always search for proof and as we become enlightened proof changes.
Historically, traditionally, the appropriate tool has been meditation, and consistent methodical application over time and across cultures has produced reliable results. As for the validity of these results...I believe validity is also an issue with empirical science (if less so because phenomena is 'concrete'😉. Nonetheless, if an insight improves the quality of one's and others' lives, this suggests there's something to it. Moreso, one could use empirical science to support what is revealed through meditation. Eg, for thousands of years, mystical literature has claimed there is no self. Modern brain research appears to support this.