Moderator: Moderators
Scientists confirm this insight.2 Valmiki replied:— Know, holy saint, that the things seen in this world are deceiving, even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. Therefore it is better to efface them in oblivion rather than to keep their memory. 3 All visible objects have no actual existence. We have no idea of them except through sensation. Inquire into these apprehensions and you will never find them as real.
viewtopic.php?p=908560#p908560I can see the good in your article but it looks like it is adopting the Christian view of things where God and the world are separate from us.
I have mentioned in passing way back when, that I followed through on this particular aspect of scripture when going through my Christian phase.
I sold all my possessions.
I left my wife and child behind.
I carried no money (although occasionally I was given money or found it and it had its uses.)
I carried no extra clothing except an extra pair of socks, and an old coat for when it rained (which it frequently does in my country.)
I also carried a pen, some colored pencils a few envelops and stamps so I could write of my progress and send to my wife.
Also a toothbrush.
I spent weeks 'on the road' in some kind of pilgrimage testing my faith and I would say that - had I not done so I would have abandoned Christianity and GOD as well.
As it turned out, I have since abandoned Christianity but certainly not GOD or for that matter Yeshua.
The stories that I have regarding that experience - that phase of my life - are many and very interesting. Of course they are subjective so are not subject to scientific review although there is nothing to stop scientists from doing the same and seeing what results are to be found, other than their focus is elsewhere and most would likely consider such a thing a kind of madness anyway.
Indeed, what I am sharing is just hearsay anyway. Only those who were close to me at the time could verify that I did do what I say I did, and even then they cannot know the details - how I survived the experience and what things I experienced during that time-period of my life - because yes - once I understood how it worked, I eventually went back into the 'system' but that didn't mean I didn't do the same things, again, and again, and again over a period of a few years.
In a nut shell this is where I learned first hand how serendipity worked, and how GOD can indeed provide, so in that I can testify that Yeshua was correct and something else I learned was that GOD provided through circumstance but ALWAYS this involved humans beings helping me along the way.
Those human beings of course, were all connected to the system, and in that I was very aware that although I was temporarily 'off the grid' I was still indirectly relying upon it. There was no 'mana from the sky' and nor was I given the ability to rub my hands together and produce bread.
Indeed, I can testify that for the most part, it was almost always non-Christians who helped me and on the odd occasion where I did 'seek out the believers' to ask for their help, they had a very hard time giving me that help and felt as if I was intruding and encroaching and putting pressure on them simply by doing what I was doing and being in a situation where I had to ask.
Generally though, I often didn't have to ask as - like I said - serendipity arranged it that way. People would offer.
Anyway, I can at least say that it works. It isn't easy and it certainly tests you to the limits but the reward as it were is indelible. Anyone willing to go through such a thing will never have reason to doubt again, and can only move forward 'in the spirit' as it were, no regrets.
In the troubled relationship between science and religion, Buddhism represents something of a singularity, in which the usual rules do not apply. Sharing quests for the big truths about the Universe and the human condition, science and Buddhism seem strangely compatible. At a fundamental level they are not quite aligned, as both these books make clear. But they can talk to each other without the whiff of intellectual or spiritual insult that haunts scientific engagement with other faiths.
The disciplines are compatible for two reasons. First, to a large degree, Buddhism is a study in human development. Unencumbered by a creator deity, it embraces empirical investigation rather than blind faith. Thus it sings from the same hymn-sheet as science. Second, it has in one of its figureheads an energetic champion of science. The current Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetans, has met regularly with many prominent researchers during the past three decades. He has even written his own book on the interaction between science and Buddhism (The Universe in a Single Atom; Little, Brown; 2006). His motivation is clear from the prologue of that book, which Donald Lopez cites in his latest work Buddhism and Science: for the alleviation of human suffering, we need both science and spirituality.
What does science get from such an exchange? At the least, it encourages alternative ways of thinking about reality. Yet there is one area in which dialogue between Buddhists and scientists could lead to genuine advances in understanding: the study of consciousness. Here, Buddhism offers something that science lacks — a tried and tested way of observing and altering, through careful attention to meditation, the subjective workings of the mind. Neuroscientists can show how the practices used by meditators result in physiological changes in the brain, but as several of the Dharamsala conference participants attest in the book, neuroscience does not yet have the tools to explore the various states of consciousness they experience. Buddhism seems to offer a kind of science of introspection.
Religion pretends it knows what the "big questions" are and then pretends it can answer them. It can't and it doesn't. Nothing but unverifiable claims made totally absent of any sufficient evidence.
Using Meditation to Gain Knowledge of Mental RealityGiven this broad definition of meditation, we find mentions of different types of meditations in the classical Buddhist texts.
For example, there is the classic mindfulness meditation, wherein the individual learns to pay deep attention to the minute processes within the flow of his or her breath or mental processes, while remaining undistracted by other sensory or discursive thought processes.
Then there is the meditation in the form of taking something as an object, such as when the person takes the fundamental truths of one’s condition like the utterly transient nature of one’s life, for instance, as the object of deep contemplation.
Then there is the meditation in the form of cultivation of positive mental qualities, such as compassion and loving kindness. Here compassion and loving kindness are not so much the objects of meditation; rather, the person seeks to cultivate these qualities within his or her heart.
There is also the practice of meditation as visualization or simulation, such as where the person visualizes himself or herself as going through the various stages of the experience of dying.
Your requests are dismissed. Please continue reading as I explain further...
https://www.yogabasics.com/learn/jnana- ... of-wisdom/In Jnana yoga, the mind is used to inquire into its own nature and to transcend the mind’s identification with its thoughts and ego. The fundamental goal of Jnana yoga is to become liberated from the illusionary world of maya (self-limiting thoughts and perceptions) and to achieve the union of the inner Self (Atman) with the oneness of all life (Brahman). Jnana Yoga utilizes a one-pointed meditation on a single question of self-inquiry to remove the veils of illusion created by your concepts,
It's not science, just Eastern flavoured woo.
Which adds to the mystery of why you continue to post on a site titled "Debating Christianity and Religion" in one of our subforums dedicated to debate.
No thanks. You've admitted nearly endlessly that you have no intention for providing any evidence for your claims. Why do you continue to post in a subforum that has the expectation of evidence being presented when you have no intention and perhaps not even any ability to do so?Please continue reading as I explain further...
I do not have to honor all requests. Your requests were out of place and that is why I declined to answer.
I've yet to see you answer any requests for verifiable evidence to support your claims. Why do you refuse to do so in a debate subforum?
