Eastern mysticism

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

In fact, you already have all the evidence you need to know that the Eastern Mystical God exists. If you fail to believe in this God it can only be because you don't understand the religion. Because if you did understand the religion you could not deny its God. At least not as the religion defines it.

The tables are turned in Eastern Mysticism. In other words, if you wish to argue for a purely secular materialistic existence, then the burden for that claim is on your shoulders. You'd have to explain how that can be true.

Over to Divine Insight or anyone that can explain it please.

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

[Divine Insight]

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

The god of eastern mysticism is not easy to explain for many reasons. To begin with it is not thought of as anthropomorphic ruler of the universe that exist as an egotistical entity that makes demands of us and will judge us accordingly. Although to be fair, there are eastern mystical religions that have unfortunately evolved to view god in that way.

But at its core as a philosophy it is actually called mysticism because the god of mysticism is a mystery. Therefore if you think you can define the god in any sort of descriptive terms that describes god as something entirely separate from yourself then you have missed the point. In fact, there exists eastern religions that have indeed missed the point. And because of this they have actually created external godheads to worship.

This is why I point to Taoism as one of the few eastern religions that has retained the mystical nature of god. They abstractly refer to god as "The Tao", although the "The Tao" actually means the "The Way". And even this is grossly misunderstood in western cultures. Because in the west "The Way" is see as a code of behavior or a path that must be taken in order to get to god. But that's not the original meaning. "The Way" simply means "they way things are". And of course if a person wants to be in harmony with the way things are, then they must be in harmony with "The Tao". Because the Tao is the way things are.

You might then ask, "But what does this have to do with any god?" Even a naturalist or materialist recognizes that there exists a way that things are. Why does recognizing that nature has a specific way lead to the conclusion that nature must be god?

Well that actually comes from how the eastern mystics began their journey into philosophy which is explained next:

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

There are basically two ways to think of reality. There are actually three if we allow for the philosophies that consider god to be and egotistical entity that is totally separate from us like the Greek and Hebrew mythologies, etc. However, those mythologies aren't philosophies, they are clearly just unguided superstitions. Unguided in terms of any serious contemplation or reason.

The two natural ways to form a philosophy are to start with something we know for certain and then reason from there.

On is to start with the apparently self-evident truth that there exists a material world "out there". A world in which we exist. And then to try to discover the true nature of that world by studying what "out there" objectively. And that is the method by which the physical sciences base their philosophy. They describe what they believe to be a preexisting physical world, and then ultimately need to work backwards to try to explain their own ability to experience this world in terms of objective material stuff. Stuff which is incapable of even having an experience.

So the materialist starts with stuff that can't have an experience to try to explain why they can have an experience.

The eastern mystics start from an entirely different starting place. Instead of looking outward into the physical world as their starting point, they look inward and realize the only real truth they can ever really know and that is the experience of "I AM".

This is all they can truly know for certain. Everything else must be examined from this fundamental perspective. And it is from this that they realize that the great "I AM" is at the core of reality and it is everything else that needs to be explained. Not the other way around as the materialists are thinking.

With this comes the realization that we are an integral part of god. Remember in this philosophy god is "The Tao" and the Tao is "The Way" (not the way to get to god but the way that god is). The way that everything, is because god is everything and everything is god, and we are that.

This is actually a very productive philosophy. This is a philosophy in which science is 100% compatible. Why? Because in mysticism life is seen to be a dream in the mind of god (the great "I AM") and science is nothing other than an attempt to explain how the dream is manifest in what we perceive to be a physical world. So science is a perfectly compatible field of study in mysticism. However, while it may be able to determine the rules of the dream it will never determine the true nature of the dreamer (i.e. of god). Especially if it thinks that god is "out there" like all the rest of the physical world.

The burden of proof therefore is on the materialist. What they need to prove is how it can be that material (energy and matter) can have an experience. When they do not allow that (energy and matter) innately has this ability.

The mystics simply recognize that it must necessarily be the nature of reality to be able to experience itself. Why? Because that's what's obviously happening. Therefore it must be part of "The Tao", or "The way things are". For if it wasn't part of the way things are, then it couldn't occur. But it does occur. How do we know that it occurs? Well, no science required. Just realize the truth "I AM".

So Taoism is the most self-evident philosophy of them all. There is nothing to prove. The proof is in "I AM". We already have the proof of Taoism in our very own experience. This is from whence Taoism begins. It doesn't end here as a conclusion, but instead it begins with this innate truth. It begins with the only truth we can ever know for certain.

The materialists on the other hand begin with the assumption that there exists a physical world that cannot have an experience. And then they ask us to believe that this physical world evolved to a point where it can now have an experience through us. But what are we? We are nothing other than this material world experiencing itself. And thus the materialists are the ones who need to bring in something above and beyond materialism to explain how material that cannot innately have an experience, can now experience itself. The burden of proof to explain this is on them because this is their position. They started with the premise that all that exists is material that cannot itself have an experience.

The mystics started with the premise that the only truth we can know for certain is "I AM". And so the mystics began with this premise. There is nothing to explain. Especially in terms of 'objective physical science'.

Ironically, however, it does appear that the physical sciences are actually pointing in the direction that the physical world may very well be a dream of something else. I won't go into those scientific observations here, but they certainly exist and are being actively studied by scientists as we speak.

[instantc]

So the materialist starts with stuff that can't have an experience to try to explain why they can have an experience.

Since consciousness and experience are defined by subjective criteria, how exactly do you know that an atom cannot have an experience? Just because there is no external manifestation of an experience doesn't mean that there is no experience, and conversely just because there is an outward manifestation of what seems to be an experience doesn't mean that there actually is an experience.

[Divine Insight]

So the materialist starts with stuff that can't have an experience to try to explain why they can have an experience.

Since consciousness and experience are defined by subjective criteria, how exactly do you know that an atom cannot have an experience? Just because there is no external manifestation of an experience doesn't mean that there is no experience,

You're exactly right. I can't know that an atom cannot have an experience. Or a rock, or anything that is material. In fact, as a mystic, the idea is that the entire universe is having an experience on some level.

~~~~

Ironically modern science actually come to the rescue of mysticism in helping to explain this which I'll explain in a moment, but first let's look at the differences between science and mysticism in more detail.

Modern science is a philosophy that begins with three main assumptions.

1. There exists a physical world "out there" (eternal to our experience of it)

2. That external physical world can be reduced to individual parts. (i.e. reductionism correctly describes reality)

3. The individual parts of this reducible reality are atoms so-to-speak. Although this idea actually refers to the original Greek meaning of the term atom (i.e. indivisible part). Our chemical atoms are not the Greek's atoms, as we even know that our chemical atoms are reducible further to quarks, leptons, and bosons. We are no suggesting that quarks, leptons, and bosons are further reducible to vibrating "Strings". Yet another imagined irreducible part of a physical reality that is "out there" (eternal to our experience of it).

Mysticism is a philosophy that begins with the following assumptions.

1. The foundation of the world comes from within. Not within our physical bodies but within our sentient experience which is the ultimate foundation of all that exists.

2. That internal world cannot be reduced or divided into individual parts. In other words everything is one. Everything is interconnected and has no individual existence that is separate from everything else. In other word mysticism is a philosophy of holism not reductionism.

3. The irreducible holistic nature of reality is our true essence. Rather than imagining that we are made up of individual materialistic parts, the mystics imagine that there actually exists one holistic thing which becomes manifest in appearance as individual phenomenon.

~~~~~~

And now to explain how modern science comes to the rescue of the mystics in explaining the holistic nature of reality.

Albert Einstein discovered that space and time cannot even be separated into two different reducible things. Instead the only rational way to think of physical reality is in terms of a single holistic fabric of spacetime. This not only works out perfectly in terms of a mathematical description of reality, but it also predicted time dilation which has since been scientifically observed, measured and shown to be a true property of the holistic nature of spacetime.

But our super genius Einstein didn't even stop there. He also discovered that energy and matter are also one single holistic phenomenon and one can be transformed into the other via the mathematical relationship E=mc². Once again demonstrating the truth of holism and the false premise of reductionism.

Again, Einstein's theories have been vindicated and scientifically observed to be true. We can indeed change matter back into energy precisely as Einstein had mathematically predicted. We do this every day in our nuclear power plants and submarines. We also unfortunately demonstrated the truth of this fact of reality by unleashing huge amounts of energy from matter in the form of atomic bombs.

There is no question that Einstein was right. Matter and energy are indeed the same stuff and they are malleable one into the other. Matter is nothing other than pure energy bound up in standing waves of vibrations.

Evidently all that exists is energy. Indivisible non-reducible holistic energy that can become manifest as physical material objects that appear to have substance.

Science has no clue what "energy" even is. It's certainly a useful term to help describe the universe mathematically and it was so useful that Einstein was able to show that all matter can be "reduced" (or rapidly expanded) to become pure energy.

If anything, science has shown that if the universe is reducible, it is reducible to a single phenomenon called "energy" a single indivisible "stuff" that would itself be holistic since energy itself has no known boundaries. A universe that is reducible to pure energy is indeed a holistic universe that is created from a single indivisible phenomenon.

~~~~~

I won't go into any more scientific details here, but I would just like to add that I haven't even used our scientific knowledge of Quantum Mechanics to illustrate this point. Yet that field of study has much to offer the holistic view of reality as well. In fact, when we get into QM we begin to see reasons to suspect that pure energy may ultimately have structure or organized behaviors that lies beneath what we deem to be our physical world.

~~~~~

So now when we ask whether an "atom" or a "rock" can have an experience, we need to really ask, "Just what is it that is having an experience?" If energy is the foundational entity that becomes manifest as the universe, and we are ultimately made of pure energy (and basically nothing else), then it must be energy that is ultimately having an experience. Not atoms, not quarks, leptons, or bosons, not imagined elementary vibrating individual strings, but a totally holistic energy.

The mystics would then say, "Tat t'vam asi", which is Sanskrit meaning "You are that". You are the energy of this universe. You are the entity that has become this universe. Or at least a direct manifestation of it. Your brain is not dreaming up this universe. Your brain is a dream within this universe. It is a portal through which you (an entity of pure energy) experiences the manifestations that energy has become.

The mystics would say, "There simply is nothing else for you to be".

If you want to create a philosophy of individual strings or atoms then those must be what you are. But if that's the case then how can you be having an experience unless strings or atoms can have an experience? So any attempt at reducing reality to individual parts that cannot innately have an experience requires that you add something "more" to reality when you eventually get to the point where something starts to have an experience.

The question then becomes, "What is it that is having an experience?"

The current scientific hypothesis at this time is that "experience" is an emergent property of complexity. But even so, the question of "Just what is it that is having this experience?" is illusive. Is an abstract notion of an "emergent property" having an experience truly coherent?

I won't say that this idea is entirely impossible. Perhaps the materialist have it right and this is indeed the truth of reality. But I will say that it's not entirely convincing. Nor would I say that it's an "explanation" since it's not at all clear what it is that is actually having an experience.

On the other hand, the mystics haven't offered a fully satisfying explanation either. But then again, they openly confess this. Their philosophy accepts that the ultimate truth of reality is indeed a "Mystery", this is why this philosophy is called "Mysticism".

It doesn't' claim to know the true nature of "energy" or "God" or this thing that is ultimately having an experience. The only thing it claims to know is "Tat t'vam asi" or "You are that". You are this thing that is having an experience. And that is ultimately all we can know. It's also all we need to know.

~~~~~~

Science is determined to "explain" this in terms of reductionism.

Mystics are content with "accepting" this in terms of holism.

Now I'm not saying that science should abandon their attempt to explain everything in terms of reductionism. Nor am I suggesting that they never will be able to. But I think they are only fooling themselves if they believe that they have already succeeded in this goal. I also question whether or not they will succeed. After all, if the mystic are right and our true nature is that we are beings of pure energy, then science is simply barking up the wrong tree altogether.

And it sure looks like they might be. We already know that spacetime is a single holistic fabric and that E=mc². The science of Quantum Mechanics actually points to holistic feature of reality as well.

So is science barking up the wrong tree of reductionism when even their best theories appear to be confirming a holistic reality?

Isn't it somewhat ironic that their methods of reductionism have actually ended in theories that predict holism?

[Vango]

With this comes the realization that we are an integral part of god. Remember in this philosophy god is "The Tao" and the Tao is "The Way" (not the way to get to god but the way that god is). The way that everything, is because god is everything and everything is god, and we are that.

This is actually a very productive philosophy. This is a philosophy in which science is 100% compatible. Why? Because in mysticism life is seen to be a dream in the mind of god (the great "I AM") and science is nothing other than an attempt to explain how the dream is manifest in what we perceive to be a physical world. So science is a perfectly compatible field of study in mysticism. However, while it may be able to determine the rules of the dream it will never determine the true nature of the dreamer (i.e. of god). Especially if it thinks that god is "out there" like all the rest of the physical world.

Ok, so I may have missed something here as this thread seems to be a response to another discussion but I'm not clear as to what is being defined as "eastern mysticism" (a term I grossly detest). It appears from your response that you are equating eastern mysticism to Taoism. That's fine but then I would just call it Taoism and not eastern mysticism. If you are including other "philosophies" such as Buddhism and Jainism in this group of "eastern mysticism" then I would have to disagree both with the term "mysticism" and the concept of an "I AM". This self-concept is in fact described as a delusion in Buddhism to be eradicated as part of the awakening process.

As my first post I decided to throw myself out of the frying pan into the fire instead of introducing myself in the relevant section. Apologies if I offend anyone but I saw the high calibre of the posts on this forum and I couldn't wait to get involved in some of the discussions.

[Divine Insight]

Hello Vango, welcome to the forums.

Before I respond to your comments, let me point out that this website forum primarily debate Christianity and the Abrahamic picture of God. So we don't typically get into seriously deep details about "Eastern Mystical Philosophies".

I will be the first to grant you that the term "Eastern Mystical Philosophies" is a very broad umbrella and doesn't actually refer to any one specific Eastern philosophy. I am well aware that there are many different views even within things such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc.

So with this in mind I'll try to address your concerns as it applies to how I am using these terms. And I confess that I'm using them very "loosely".

Ok, so I may have missed something here as this thread seems to be a response to another discussion but I'm not clear as to what is being defined as "eastern mysticism" (a term I grossly detest).

To begin with I don't understand why you find the term "Eastern Mysticism" to be detestable. It's a term used by many people who have actually done much to teach these views. The "Eastern" part simply refers to the geographic location of typically India, but also China, Japan and other far east countries from whence these mystical ideas of reality have arisen. The "Mystical" part of it actually means "Mystery". Typically the "Eastern Mystics" who teach this stuff are the very first to confess that they do not understand the foundation of reality and that it is indeed a mystery. This doesn't mean that they don't understand their individual philosophies. So it's not a derogatory term in the least. It's simply a confession that reality is "mystical" (i.e. a mystery).

It appears from your response that you are equating eastern mysticism to Taoism. That's fine but then I would just call it Taoism and not eastern mysticism.

I do support many of the foundational ideals of Taoism more so than other eastern philosophies. However, I see where many of these philosophies also share many common ideas.

If you are including other "philosophies" such as Buddhism and Jainism in this group of "eastern mysticism" then I would have to disagree both with the term "mysticism" and the concept of an "I AM". This self-concept is in fact described as a delusion in Buddhism to be eradicated as part of the awakening process.

I would disagree with you on this point because the "I AM" that is being referred to here is not the ego. It's not the personal sense of individual identity that is referred to by this "I AM". The "I AM" that is being referred to here is the awakened consciousness. Not the individual ego.

So in this sense this concept is fully compatible with the teachings of Buddhism.

As my first post I decided to throw myself out of the frying pan into the fire instead of introducing myself in the relevant section. Apologies if I offend anyone but I saw the high calibre of the posts on this forum and I couldn't wait to get involved in some of the discussions.

Your views and comments are more than welcome. Especially if you have information to offer concerning Eastern Philosophies. That's a vantage point that is lacking on these forums quite a bit.

I have never actually studied under an Eastern "mystic", Buddhist, Taoist etc. Although I have watched many lectures and read many books. It is my understanding that there is actually quite a wide variety of views and beliefs on these philosophies.

I once took a course on the History of Buddhism, and I must confess that I was shocked and amazed to discover that Buddhism has as many different sects, and beliefs as Christianity. The instructor of the course began with the story of Siddhartha Gautama, and even pointed out that Siddhartha was not the inventor of or founder of Buddhism but was simply a man who made Buddhism popular. But the basic idea had already existed prior to Siddhartha. At the end of the course we ended with the Japanese "Zen Buddhism" and the question was they posted, "Is this even really Buddhism in the sense of what Siddhartha had originally known?" And the answer appears to be that it's really quite different on many levels.

So to even speak of "Buddhism" really makes very little sense unless we actually clarify which philosophy we are actually referring to. It's really not unlike Christianity. Catholics, Amish, and Southern Baptists in America (for example) actually believe dramatically different things. And it appears to be the same for Buddhism.

In fact, it's my understanding from that very course that Buddhism itself actually had much trouble with drastically different sects that were actually arguing and fighting among each other. This was what sparked the rise of "Mahayana Buddhism" or "The Great Vehicle". Mahayana Buddhism was an attempt to unify the disagreeing factions of Buddhism. And supposedly it worked quite well in that capacity. It did serve to unify that philosophy quite a bit. But even so there are still different views on Buddhism.

Anyway, that's just an overview of how I personally see this world philosophy. I don't support any particular view, and this is why I tend to refer to "Eastern Mysticism" with a very broad brush. I don't try to pin it down to anything too concretely. In fact, I feel that when any philosophy attempts to do that it starts becoming heavily dogmatic. And that's something I would like to avoid if at all possible.

[Vango]

To begin with I don't understand why you find the term "Eastern Mysticism" to be detestable. It's a term used by many people who have actually done much to teach these views. The "Eastern" part simply refers to the geographic location of typically India, but also China, Japan and other far east countries from whence these mystical ideas of reality have arisen. The "Mystical" part of it actually means "Mystery". Typically the "Eastern Mystics" who teach this stuff are the very first to confess that they do not understand the foundation of reality and that it is indeed a mystery. This doesn't mean that they don't understand their individual philosophies. So it's not a derogatory term in the least. It's simply a confession that reality is "mystical" (i.e. a mystery).

Hi Divine Insight,

I see a mystery as something that is not knowable, mystical or even magical. That paints eastern philosophies as somewhat obtuse. After reading about 11,000 pages of the Theravadin Buddhist suttas, I find quite the opposite. Buddhism is precise, consistent and coherent in the way that many western religions are not. I don't really want to compare though because each to his/her own. But the reason I don't use the term "mystical" to describe eastern religions/philosophies is because they seek to know reality for what it is, not leave "mystical" unknowns to be wondered at.
Understanding reality is a subtle process and is very difficult to achieve but the premise is that it is possible to understand and/or more precisely experience it. I could only accept describing it as mystical in the way that I would describe quantum mechanics mystical. They both don't make sense in our "macro" world.

I would disagree with you on this point because the "I AM" that is being referred to here is not the ego. It's not the personal sense of individual identity that is referred to by this "I AM". The "I AM" that is being referred to here is the awakened consciousness. Not the individual ego.

Do you mean the "WHAT IS" then?

Your views and comments are more than welcome. Especially if you have information to offer concerning Eastern Philosophies. That's a vantage point that is lacking on these forums quite a bit.

I hope I can provide a coherent and fair view of Buddhism as required then.

I have never actually studied under an Eastern "mystic", Buddhist, Taoist etc. Although I have watched many lectures and read many books. It is my understanding that there is actually quite a wide variety of views and beliefs on these philosophies.

I once took a course on the History of Buddhism, and I must confess that I was shocked and amazed to discover that Buddhism has as many different sects, and beliefs as Christianity. The instructor of the course began with the story of Siddhartha Gautama, and even pointed out that Siddhartha was not the inventor of or founder of Buddhism but was simply a man who made Buddhism popular. But the basic idea had already existed prior to Siddhartha. At the end of the course we ended with the Japanese "Zen Buddhism" and the question was they posted, "Is this even really Buddhism in the sense of what Siddhartha had originally known?" And the answer appears to be that it's really quite different on many levels.

So to even speak of "Buddhism" really makes very little sense unless we actually clarify which philosophy we are actually referring to. It's really not unlike Christianity. Catholics, Amish, and Southern Baptists in America (for example) actually believe dramatically different things. And it appears to be the same for Buddhism.

In fact, it's my understanding from that very course that Buddhism itself actually had much trouble with drastically different sects that were actually arguing and fighting among each other. This was what sparked the rise of "Mahayana Buddhism" or "The Great Vehicle". Mahayana Buddhism was an attempt to unify the disagreeing factions of Buddhism. And supposedly it worked quite well in that capacity. It did serve to unify that philosophy quite a bit. But even so there are still different views on Buddhism.

Anyway, that's just an overview of how I personally see this world philosophy. I don't support any particular view, and this is why I tend to refer to "Eastern Mysticism" with a very broad brush. I don't try to pin it down to anything too concretely. In fact, I feel that when any philosophy attempts to do that it starts becoming heavily dogmatic. And that's something I would like to avoid if at all possible.

There are indeed more than one form of Buddhism existent and when I realised my views were more in line with Buddhism I had to figure out which form I was going to study in more depth. Some forms of Buddhism have a great many cultural rituals that go with them. Some have more "mystical/magical" elements and some even have god beliefs, worship or the goal of being born in some sort of pure heaven. Those last few are so like western religions in their belief systems that I find it difficult to even call them Buddhism. Still, even the Buddha said (according to the suttas) that one day Buddhism would be so changed that it will no longer teach the original or relevant message and Buddhism would effectively disappear from the world. That's the nature of change.

Nevertheless, I chose Theravadin Buddhism because it had the least amount of mysticism and cultural riturals and being the oldest form of Buddhism extant to this day would be most like the "original" teaching that the Buddha expounded.

Now, as for your instructor stating "that Siddhartha was not the inventor of or founder of Buddhism but was simply a man who made Buddhism popular", I have to say I am completely gobsmacked by this comment. I would certainly have challenged him on that.
The stories of the Buddha that I have read and the Pali sutta translations I have read tell a different story so I don't know where he got that from. Of course who knows what happened 2,500 years ago but if we are to accept the sutta account of the Buddha's path, they state that he spent many years wandering and learning meditation under various teachers. He mastered the teachings of the two main teachers that he studied under and each of them offered him to lead their group. But the Buddha knew that the refined mind states that these ascetics taught were not the final awakening that he was seeking. It was only after he remembered a meditative state that he had once "accidentally" attained called jhana that he used the jhana states to attain final awakening which he finally achieved under a Bodhi tree.
He then decided to teach this awakening and the path that leads to awakening to other students/ascetics. This is the generally accepted story of the Buddha so I would like to know what references your teacher was using to teach that the Buddha's path was not the unique teaching of our time (if you can call the last few thousand years our time).

[Divine Insight]

I see a mystery as something that is not knowable, mystical or even magical. That paints eastern philosophies as somewhat obtuse. After reading about 11,000 pages of the Theravadin Buddhist suttas, I find quite the opposite. Buddhism is precise, consistent and coherent in the way that many western religions are not.

They still make unknowable assumptions and premises. In fact, the very idea of reincarnation is an idea that was innately intuitive to these cultures. They accept reincarnation as a "self-evident" truth. Simply because this is how it is viewed in their culture. So much of their knowledge is based upon these unprovable assumptions that they think they know, but may ultimately be wrong about.

If you are going to claim that the Buddhists actually know the true nature of reality I think you're going to have your work cut out for you.

But the reason I don't use the term "mystical" to describe eastern religions/philosophies is because they seek to know reality for what it is, not leave "mystical" unknowns to be wondered at.

But ultimately that's actually impossible. It's impossible for any human to know the true nature of reality. In fact, if any human actually possessed that knowledge they could then answer every mystery of science. Can the Buddhists do that? I don't think so.

Understanding reality is a subtle process and is very difficult to achieve but the premise is that it is possible to understand and/or more precisely experience it.

I think it's quite possible to understand and experience the enlightenment that Buddha taught. But that enlightenment cannot be knowledge of the absolute truth of reality. Buddha's enlightenment was simply to awaken from the illusion of the ego. That's an enlightenment that is available to everyone. In fact, some people don't even need to be enlightened because they have awakened from that illusion at a very young age without any help from any spiritual philosophies.

You need to understand that the Buddha himself may have simply awakened from the illusion of the ego and thought that was quite profound. But to someone else it may not have seemed profound at all.

I could only accept describing it as mystical in the way that I would describe quantum mechanics mystical. They both don't make sense in our "macro" world.

I can accept that. In fact, I'll accept that as a very good analogy. And we know as much about the spiritual nature of reality as we know about why quantum mechanics is the way it is. Basically nothing.

I would disagree with you on this point because the "I AM" that is being referred to here is not the ego. It's not the personal sense of individual identity that is referred to by this "I AM". The "I AM" that is being referred to here is the awakened consciousness. Not the individual ego.

Do you mean the "WHAT IS" then?

Actually yes. In fact, this philosophy would actually be true whether mysticism is true or pure secular materialism is true. The "I AM" is the awareness that is having the experience. The only difference between mysticism and pure secular materialism is that in the form the "I AM" is considered to be the eternal ground of being, whereas in the latter its seen as nothing more than a temporary feedback loop of a biological analog computer.

I personally think either of these have a potential for being truth. Although I confess that I lean toward the mystical picture pretty heavily. But I can't imagine proving the difference even via self-reflection meditation. How could you ever prove the difference even to yourself?

Surely if you could actually know that you are the ground of being then you would also have some knowledge of that that state of consciousness is. I don't see any evidence that any Buddhists possess that kind of knowledge. So I'm content with understanding their philosophy as simply an educated guess. But ultimately they could be wrong.

There are indeed more than one form of Buddhism existent and when I realised my views were more in line with Buddhism I had to figure out which form I was going to study in more depth. Some forms of Buddhism have a great many cultural rituals that go with them. Some have more "mystical/magical" elements and some even have god beliefs, worship or the goal of being born in some sort of pure heaven. Those last few are so like western religions in their belief systems that I find it difficult to even call them Buddhism. Still, even the Buddha said (according to the suttas) that one day Buddhism would be so changed that it will no longer teach the original or relevant message and Buddhism would effectively disappear from the world. That's the nature of change.

But don't you think this was also the Buddha's way of saying that he doesn't really know the ultimate answer? After all if he had it nailed down then how could it change?

Clearly even he recognized that this is just the best philosophy currently available. Not some form of absolute fundamental unchanging truth.

Nevertheless, I chose Theravadin Buddhism because it had the least amount of mysticism and cultural riturals and being the oldest form of Buddhism extant to this day would be most like the "original" teaching that the Buddha expounded.

I found Tantra Buddhism to be the most attractive for me, in part because of the rituals, and because they embrace physical reality rather than viewing it as something to become detached from.

But I confess that my attraction to Tantra Buddhism was romantic and pragmatic, more so than philosophical. I am a firm believer in actually embracing the physical world of incarnation. I don't believe that the idea is to get out of physical carnation but rather to enjoy it without becoming attached to it.

Now, as for your instructor stating "that Siddhartha was not the inventor of or founder of Buddhism but was simply a man who made Buddhism popular", I have to say I am completely gobsmacked by this comment. I would certainly have challenged him on that.

He addressed this in some depth. He didn't actually claim that "Buddhism" itself existed prior to Siddhartha, but he explains that Siddhartha didn't make this all up in a vacuum. In other words, many of these spiritual ideas existed prior to Siddhartha and obviously had an impact on Siddhartha's philosophy.

The stories of the Buddha that I have read and the Pali sutta translations I have read tell a different story so I don't know where he got that from. Of course who knows what happened 2,500 years ago but if we are to accept the sutta account of the Buddha's path, they state that he spent many years wandering and learning meditation under various teachers. He mastered the teachings of the two main teachers that he studied under and each of them offered him to lead their group. But the Buddha knew that the refined mind states that these ascetics taught were not the final awakening that he was seeking. It was only after he remembered a meditative state that he had once "accidentally" attained called jhana that he used the jhana states to attain final awakening which he finally achieved under a Bodhi tree.

Well, the idea that Siddhartha was the first one to actually achieve enlightenment is questionable. Clearly there were other people were also trying to achieve enlightenment at the same time. So the concept of enlightenment must have been well-known. They may have even been others before him who had become enlightened. The only difference is that they didn't then go around teaching people a methodology to achieve this state of mind. I got the idea that Siddhartha was basically the first enlightened one to actually then take on disciples and teach a specific methodology (i.e. the Four Nobel Truths, and the Eight-fold path)

He then decided to teach this awakening and the path that leads to awakening to other students/ascetics. This is the generally accepted story of the Buddha so I would like to know what references your teacher was using to teach that the Buddha's path was not the unique teaching of our time (if you can call the last few thousand years our time).

I never said that it wasn't a "unique" teaching of a path. What I was trying to say is that it wasn't the origin of the underlying philosophy of life.

In fact, it may have very well been the first unique teaching of a path to enlightenment. But the concept of enlightenment itself was not new.

By the way this teacher has videos on Youtube:

What is Buddhism by Prof. Malcolm David Eckel

[ttruscott]

...

I see a mystery as something that is not knowable, mystical or even magical. That paints eastern philosophies as somewhat obtuse. ...

The great mystery I find is why the eternal consciousness, whether consciously or unconsciously, created all the illusion of the physical and the illusion of the mental that led to all the illusions of suffering in our illusional reality???

What was the point?

At least Christianity, needing free will to have our love and holiness to be pure and true which allowed evil to be created by some, has a point and a logic to it.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

The great mystery I find is why the eternal consciousness, whether consciously or unconsciously, created all the illusion of the physical and the illusion of the mental that led to all the illusions of suffering in our illusional reality???

What was the point?

Actually the mystics have that covered very well in great detail. I'm not going to bother trying to explain it here, but to say that you don't understand the point to mysticism is to simply state that you don't understand these philosophies or you have never studied them in depth with a sincere desire to know how they explain these things.
[/quote]

At least Christianity, needing free will to have our love and holiness to be pure and true which allowed evil to be created by some, has a point and a logic to it.

Peace, Ted

Actually I would disagree with you on this completely. Free will does not explain why people suffer in this life.

The whole idea that we were given free will so that a God could "test" us to see whether or not we would use it wisely requires that he could not know without "testing" us what is in our hearts and minds. Yet this very same religion demands that this God knows precisely what's in our hearts and minds. Thus no 'testing" should be required.

It also doesn't explain why there exist mentally ill people, etc. Mysticism does offer reasons why mental illness can exist in this world. But mental illness makes absolutely no sense at all in a world where a God is "testing" people on their use of Free Will. On the contrary mental illness is the complete anti-theist of any Free Will based theology.

So the very existence of mental illness pretty much insures that any theology that is based on the idea of a God who is testing people's use of Free Will is clearly a false theology.

Free Will is a very lame excuse for a theology actually.