Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's how I would word it. Bringing focus/clarity and purity to mind facilitates the potential of it realizing That which is ever-present and Self-revealing/evident. The problem with mind is one of its functions - Ahamkara (ego, I-maker, appropriating function) - appropriates That as its own, as in "I exist" and "I am conscious" vs. "I Am Existence Itself" and "I Am Consciousness Itself". It is loath to relinquish sovereignty.
Self = Atman = Brahman without a second on the level of Absolute (intrinsic) reality. Body, mind and everything else we experience are on the level of apparent/relative/transactional (extrinsic) reality and here ego is a nexus but only because it's illumined by That which Is.
All of objective reality possesses only extrinsic existence dependent on that which is intrinsic existence (not possesses but is existence itself). An extrinsic appearance of and within That which is intrinsic.
I think you may have a point. Spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanism shown in qed. Those processes, at our level of reality match's alive. Everything else you said is true. A bit woo-ey for me, but at least it is something real.
Let yourself go and and know that you are the universe experiencing.
Yes, until he brought up Jesus saves, the river of fire, the dross, and the reproductive cycle of god. I always thought Mystic is recycling Advaita with a Christian touch.
Yeah, that's kind of how I see it. In fact, I see all religions and spirituality recycling the facts that spacetime is exchanging information via the mechanism of QED.
Some people focus on beauty and love as the common weave. Some of us just don't. And its no biggie really. Until it is a biggie.
Problem is science isn't going to cut it because anything science can investigate just isn't It. Science deals with the material, not the Immaterial, the effable, not the Ineffable. Honestly, it's a disservice to both science and spirituality to apply one in an attempt to explain the other.
Advaita is a far cry from dogma because it insists one not believe but explore and discover for one's self. It just provides a framework, tools and pointers for the exploration and they've been perfected over thousands of years.
There's no reason why one cannot embrace both science and a spiritual tradition so long as both sets of tools are deployed in the right context. Actually it's quite beautiful.
Science deals with what is. I would shy away from saying science deals with material and not immaterial. That is just not true. Science deals with whatever is there. It doesn't deal with what isn't there.
I think you may have a point. Spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanism shown in qed. Those processes, at our level of reality match's alive. Everything else you said is true. A bit woo-ey for me, but at least it is something real.
Let yourself go and and know that you are the universe experiencing.
Taking it to the next level even the fundamental laws of nature aren't It. Even the ones we aren't even close to understanding. The position of Advaita is they are all just appearance of and within the Absolute. All Maya. If it were any other way the Absolute wouldn't be the Absolute.
About as far as I would go is it's possible our conception of a Unified Field is in fact the Absolute, but if that's the case we'll never know it in an intellectual sense. It's beyond objectification.
I not only agree with this characterization of science and experience of Oneness, I embraced it when I tried to explain how what I experienced could conceivably be true using science (and succeeded). The difference is that the meaningless explanations and mumbo jumbo in the esoteric explanations were not enlightening. It was the opposite because I could not see or imagine ANY rationale for WHY ANY of it exists at all under the unchanging timeless nonsense in esoteric literature.
It is extreme hubris to insist that an ancient tradition reveal to you, Mystic, in language that you approve. The fact is you have been trying for what 15 years to explain on this forum your pet theories and nobody, except Arach, believes you, much less understand you. The ancients on the other hand without compromising their terms have “spoken†to millions of hearts and minds, who have eagerly sought to learn the language. You are only incurring ridicule.
You lose, Mystic. Come to Jesus.
Taking it to the next level even the fundamental laws of nature aren't It. Even the ones we aren't even close to understanding. The position of Advaita is they are all just appearance of and within the Absolute. All Maya. If it were any other way the Absolute wouldn't be the Absolute.
About as far as I would go is it's possible our conception of a Unified Field is in fact the Absolute, but if that's the case we'll never know it in an intellectual sense. It's beyond objectification.
I don't totally agree that is it. It may be for us but not what we evolve into. We may be like a 3 week old fetus in the the tummy of mother absolute.
Science deals with what is. I would shy away from saying science deals with material and not immaterial. That is just not true. Science deals with whatever is there. It doesn't deal with what isn't there.
But your last line is spot on.
From the perspective of Advaita Immaterial is beyond physics. Thought is even considered material but subtle matter. Immaterial = Spirit, God, Brahman, SatChitAnanda however one wishes to label it.
The most pertinent practice for Self-realization in Advaita is Vedantic Meditation/Self-inquiry, and the process is negating anything and everything that can be labeled, even the "I" thought. What's left is It and It can't be known directly but It can be "known" just like a face can only know itself by its reflection however it still "knows" itself regardless by the very fact it can see and know its own reflection. In other words it implicitly "knows" it's the knower.
Yeah, that's kind of how I see it. In fact, I see all religions and spirituality recycling the facts that spacetime is exchanging information via the mechanism of QED.
Some people focus on beauty and love as the common weave. Some of us just don't. And its no biggie really. Until it is a biggie.
No, Mystic was appropriating Advaita while denigrating it, the wisdom of ancients while denigrating them, and wanted desperately to be recognized as a new age mystic who has a scientific proof for god. Dont minimize his foolishness by smearing all religions and thoughts with the same brush. You are just enabling him for your own purposes.
I don't totally agree that is it. It may be for us but not what we evolve into. We may be like a 3 week old fetus in the the tummy of mother absolute.
That's okay because I don't expect or want anyone to simply believe. I'm really not even advocating anyone investigate for themselves unless they have an earnest and heartfelt desire to do so.
Advaita's view is beyond radical and a grievous assault on egoic identity. That last bit is the really difficult part, especially for the Western mind and understandably so.
From the perspective of Advaita Immaterial is beyond physics. Thought is even considered material but subtle matter. Immaterial = Spirit, God, Brahman, SatChitAnanda however one wishes to label it.
The most pertinent practice for Self-realization in Advaita is Vedantic Meditation/Self-inquiry, and the process is negating anything and everything that can be labeled, even the "I" thought. What's left is It and It can't be known directly but It can be "known" just like a face can only know itself by its reflection however it still "knows" itself regardless by the very fact it can see and know its own reflection. In other words it implicitly "knows" it's the knower.
Yes, I get the religious part and I understand the self help parts. I am ok with that. I am not really ok with science deals with material and "we" deal with the immaterial. It just isn't the most reliable way to state it.
Science deals with what is there to the best of our ability. It keeps a keen eye on error and bias and tries to remove it so we can see the absolute in more detail. I think of it like science giving you a magnifying glass and saying "here, take a closer look".
Imagine, those people so long ago wondering what it is. We have a glimpse. You are correct, for some it doesn't matter. But when people talk about things like a guy dying and rising for our sins science can't do anything with that. We can't help anybody with that claim or seeking "help" to understand.
Now your claim, well that's a different story. Somebody asks us about "is this adviata possible?" we can look them in the face and say "yes, its not only very possible it looks like it might true" and then hand them off to you. Given them confidence to help themselves be as they truly are.
Even tho I personally lack belief, in the process you are using, for myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
