If you read the book "God is not great" by the late Chistopher Hitchens It explains how it's possible that the universe can rise from nothing without any energy
I read part of that book, Chapter 2 : Religion Kills, but I particularly like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. ALBERT EINSTEIN All in theory my friend !
Ahhh, I see and SOCRATE_MMXII pointed that out already. I know now why you have posted at Buddhism there is no self, but unity. And you are right. It's a translation issue. You find at some translations self (lower case), which actually addresses the individual mind. You will notice of that when you read what's there explained. (home of thoughts) And the SELF = I am = Reality And at some other translations MIND = SELF The mind is a 'container' of thoughts, the place for the relative world with all its objects. The main attribute is a constant change in time. Objects were born and vanish (die). Such as all objects in time. The only attribute that is permanent in mind is the change. The Self is that what's left when the mind vanishes (when there are no thoughts). It's unchangeable, eternal, ever the same. The unity. The one without a 2nd. To be yourSELF. That what you really are.
I want just to add what IMHO must not to be missed at all these posts. SOCRATE_MMXII has found for himself what has made a change to the better (his own). That what I have described at post #117 and I have found 'something' as well, something that has made a change to the better. I think the intention here to post is to share this, nothing more. It can be picked to pieces by others. That's OK, since it's not meant to convince or to teach. Finally everybody has to go his own way. The posts here are to inspire, nothing more. We will always find inconsistencies at one's post, it's the topic's attribute, it's the attribute of the individual mind. The life of each own individual will reveal what's the right way, personally.
all this is heady stuff for an old cynic like me.. oh yes, i have read it all as it came in.. but why oh why, i ask you, my friends, should we want to understand the old universe at all? we are here for such a brief span of time.. many others have come and gone before us. and hopefully many others will come along after we are gone.. the old earth will spin along for quite a while yet.. whether we like it or not. whether we understand it or not. we might as well try to to enjoy the brief span of life that has been meeted out to us..
It are mostly 'the younger minds' that want to understand it. I wanted that as well. Now I am in the middle of my lifespan and I know, when I am at a beautiful place outside and enjoy the nature I 'understand' much more as I did when reading books when I was younger. Just to enjoy the moment of the day.
Most North American tribes "Native Americans" the word for God translates to "The Great Mystery".. To try and understand it is a fools errand however the ever evolving relationship to "The Great Mystery" is the path that all living things are on.. Enjoy the journey, "The good Red Road" http://frandancingfeather.com/first-environmentalists/
So according to you the the paintings and play is an inspiration of the self and the self is the medium through which we're inspired. Does that mean only the self exists during the creation of a play and painting and the rest are experiences by the self including the mind/body? Then how did the self come into existence without a mind and a body? 1- Daz loader 2- Play As you like it 3- Picasso paintings. Those are the things that came to my mind first. Note that these are the connected things which were last stored in my memory. Now let me tell you what comes to my mind when I think of “I”, that is myself. First thing is the approximate shape of my body as seen directly and in a mirror, then my experiences in the past including some from my childhood but mostly the recent ones; also the picture of my character as observed by me and also as described by others. I also note that I am not the same “I” of my early days. You tell me if the things that comes to your mind is any different from the above when you think of yourself. Please note these are all memories stored in the brain. “I” am just a memory in my brain. It is known by now that memory formation is a product of brain plasticity or synaptic plasticity. Long term memories are stored as synaptic links. As such I do not see any need for a “ghost” to reside in my brain for my body to function. Edit- please have a look here and here
My dear sid_16, I'm not a teacher, nor I wish to be, because teaching implies the mind hence thinking and all I want is to do is to contemplate the world I'm in. The mind cannot contemplate, just THE SELF. I realize there's nothing to understand, just BE. I found PEACE by stopping the questions and fighting "with life", because I AM LIFE, so I stopped fighting myself. From time to time, the mind tries to put me in different situations, but that's where I say STOP: there is no problem, there is no life&death situation. NO! There's nothing but illusion. Illusion created by the collective mind in we all "live". I'm sorry but that's not what I AM. I JUST AM and that's it.
Agree Yen sir. Events are laid out on the space time fabric and we can view them only one after another giving the feeling that time is flowing. But time being a coordinate of events cannot flow. It is our perception which flows or jumps from one event to another creating an illusion of time flow.
The best explanation about Self and mind is from Maharshi. Start of selected quotes: A figure on the screen in the cinema show appears to watch the whole world. What is the reality behind subject and object in the same show? An illusionary being watches an illusory world. You and the world are as real as the cinema figure and the cinema world. There are scenes floating on the screen in a cinema show. Fire appears to burn buildings to ashes. Water seems to wreck vessels. But the screen on which the pictures are projected remains unscorched and dry. Why? Because the pictures are unreal and the screen is real. So the world is a phenomenon on the single Reality, which is not affected in any manner. Reality is only one. When you are intend on the pictures you are not aware of the screen. But the pictures cannot be seen without the screen behind. The world stands for the pictures and Consciousness stands for the screen. The consciousness is pure. It is the same as the Self which is eternal and unchanging. Get rid of the subject and object and Pure Consciousness will alone remain. To know that the Self remains happy in its perfection is Self-Realisation. Its use lies in the realisation of Perfection and thus of Happiness. The idea that I am the body or the mind is so deep that one cannot get over it even if convinced otherwise. One experiences a dream and knows it to be unreal on wakening. Waking experience is unreal in other states. So each state contradicts the others. They are therefore mere changes taking place in the seer, or phenomena appearing in the Self, which is unbroken and remains unaffected by them. Just as the waking, dream and sleep states are phenomena, so also birth, growth and death are phenomena in the Self which continues to be unbroken and unaffected. Birth and death are only ideas. They pertain to the body or the mind. The Self exists before the birth of this body and will remain after the death of this body. So it is with the series of bodies taken up in succession. The Self is immortal. The phenomena are changeful and appear mortal. The fear of death is of the body. It is not true of the Self. Such fear is due to ignorance. Realisation means True Knowledge of the Perfection and Immortality of the Self. Mortality is only a idea and cause of misery. You get rid of it by realising the Immortal nature of the Self. End of selected quotes. My personal addition: When one is creating a painting or whatever, then one expresses the Self. The painting appears as object in the mind. The observer observes the painting as object which is an appearance of the Self. When the observer feels touched by the painting then he is able to see it as appearance from the Self, which is pure being. When the observer thinks it’s just an image (apart from him), then the objectifying process of the mind is in the foreground of this individual. Daz loader seem primarily address one’s mind, because to create it there is a lot of mind work needed. But in fact it’s not different to a painting or anything else which is created. Objects are always an appearance of the Self, reflected in the mind. (Consciousness). It’s the same with other things in life. The more you get touched (by them), the more ‘you’ are able to recognize its genuine character, which is the Self, which is not different to 'your character' ,It can be music, it can be art, it can be speech. Buddha came with a flower in his hand. Some objectified this and recognized nothing, but a man with a flower. Others felt touched massively, because they were able to recognize the Self in Buddha, which is one Self, the only Reality.
Thank you Yen for putting the thoughts in words. Only one monk smiled, thus becoming Enlighten. He saw himSELF as part of the SELF which he contemplated in the flower.
@sid_16 If all the posts which were written here are interesting and inspiring to you, then think about. But if they are rather confusing to you..I mean don't push yourself to find something in them if there isn't something to you. I mean when I was younger and would have read that....I guess I had to say, it's not my way to explore the Reality. And that's OK. The Reality is self-explained and every individual will experience it sooner or later. And then you will have to use your 'tools' when talking about, actually just as now. Have fun with the posts, if not, then no problem. They are not written to teach you and I don't have the power to teach you. Here is a little snapshot I have just made to all members. I thought it fits here well. It's a sculpture I had bought on Bali (btw Bali is not Buddhist). I talked to the artist and asked him how he has made it. He simply said: I picked a piece of mahogany wood.....and then I started to free Buddha who had been all the time in there. The sculpture is on the shelf in my living room besides of sculptures of different cultures / religions. When I have a look at it, its meaning has changed all the years. No matter what one sees in it, enjoy.
Is not it a paradox? This is a well known paradox in the philosophy of mind and has been used as an objection against the materialist thesis (that everything that makes up the human mind is physical). Suppose in the year 2500, and teleportation technology has been perfected for use on humans in interstellar travels. This is how the human teleporter works: instead of actually sending you (with all of your atoms) through space-time, it simply scans your body, capturing all the information on every subatomic particle in your body at an instant (assume that they got around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), at which point your body is destroyed (don't worry, you are put under anesthesia for the procedure), while the information of those atoms gets transmitted to the destination, where a machine will synthesize an exact replica of you (exactly the same down to the subatomic level) using new atoms. You then wake up in a different galaxy (after the anesthesia wear off - and the anesthetic would also be 'teleported' by the way), with all your memory before the teleportation intact, convinced that you have survived the procedure. Of course the atoms are all new, but isn't the new body still the same 'you'? (In real life, every atom in our body eventually gets replaced anyway.) Now let's add a twist. Instead of destroying your original body, it is preserved during the scanning process. So now we have 2 copies of you: the original one, and the replica. Both of them are identical down to the last atom, and should be behaviorally indistinguishable (because they have the same physical makeup, materialism states that they must be identical in every way.) But surely you can't be in two places at once! If 'you' survived at all, isn't it obvious that you survive as your original self, not the clone? But what's the difference between your original self and the clone anyway? Both of you would behave in exactly the same way, and both would have the same thoughts (at least initially, when there has been no divergence in the environment). So did you really survive the procedure after all? If you didn't, doesn't that point to the existence of something other than your physical body including the information contained within the arrangement of the atoms? Is there a difference between the scenario with one original body and one clone, and the scenario where I destroy your original body, and create two(or more!) clones instead? In each case, is it so clear that 'you' will survive, and survive in one of the individuals/clones? From my point of view, I prefer using a more mundane example - one that all of us have experienced: sleep. Each time we wake up, we feel that we are the same person as the one we were the night before, because there is a sense of continuity. The fact that nobody is able to 'clone' us during our sleep ensures that our identities remain unique. Imagine if I clone your body during sleep and destroy the original body, your clone would still wake in the morning, unaware of what has happened. Nobody could ever tell the difference between your clone and your original self. The fact is that when we wake up each morning, we are no more certain that our bodies are the original ones anyway. You would not notice if I replaced your brain with an exact replica. So it is not the temporal-spatial continuity of our bodies that ensure our psychological continuity, but rather, our memories (encoded in a physical form) together with the information-processing apparatus capable of using them. As for the dilemma about 'multiple self', I don't think my response can satisfy everyone , but here it is: I think we should give up on the idea of the existence of an immutable, essential 'core' of ourselves. There are no real selves, only the semblance and perception of them - and it's a mistake to treat such impressions as a 'real' entity. So if I make five clones of you, then 'you' would survive as 6 individuals - even though there won't be a united 'you' who get the experience of all 6 persons at the same time. The question: 'who would you survive as?', tempting and obvious it may be to ask, makes no sense because there was never a real self to begin with.
OK, it's your way of seeing things...I respect your point of view, but this doesn't mean that mine has to be the same. Or should it be? P.S. Yen, that's beautiful, peaceful and inspiring. Thank you.
To Mr Yen and Mr SOCRATE_MMXII; I'm extremely sorry if any of my question irritated/ annoyed you in any way . Its because of my skeptic nature. So from now I won't ask any skeptical question and it is my last post to this thread. I continued enjoying the thought provoking posts of all the contributors here and its really enlightening to be here. thanks and bye, sid_16.
@sid_16: my dear friend, you're not annoying me with your questions, not at all. The thing is WE seek for the answer in different directions: You search for it outside, when I realized that the "outside world" cannot and will not answer my essential questions so I turned inside. And I had my questions answered. That's it. In fact, I thank you for initiating this discussion. It made me realize once again the fragility of the mind against the test of time. Now it hit me: the mind cannot stand the test of its own concepts. For this, I thank you again, dear sid_16. If we wouldn't have had this discussion, maybe I have never realized this. PEACE. Later edit:here's a text from Tantra Sara that explains better what I've said so far: "Above of those who don't know are those who find out or read Above of those who find out or read are those who memorize Above of those who memorize are those who understand Above of those who understand are those who apply Above of those who apply are those who obtain results Above of those who obtain results are those who have success in obtaining paranormal powers Above those who have obtained paranormal powers are those who attain the Absolute, gaining the wisdom in which everything is possible."
Sid_16 You don't have to be sorry for anything. If somebody here has to be sorry about something that it's me. Namely sorry about that you have got the impression skeptical statements are not welcome here. I know you are clever and kind. And I respect you as person and as MDL member. I have posted your way of thinking reminds me of my way when I was younger. How could there be anything wrong then? The only experience that is different (probably due to my age), I later in life recognized that my questions actually haven't been answered. My post's #134 intention was made to avoid that you might feel not to be welcome at this thread. I wanted you to continue with your thoughts and not to let my posts push you in some way. My posts might be also annoying or irritating to somebody. But never as personal intent. What's exceptional at this thread and that's probably the reason is that 2 members, SOCRATE_MMXII and me have similar experiences and terms. And so there is a sort of imbalance. I thank you sid_16 for your thread. And it's almost always the contrary. The others feel annoyed, irritated or even laugh about MY way to think. Some even think I am crazy, feel proselytized by my words. A lot of my friends are scientists, but nobody has studied something about religion, theology. I know one Doctor of Physics, 2 Doctors of Chemistry, all three close friends and they came from a elite university. Also one who collects data of CERN Switzerland. Our discussions are always controversy. But very inspiring. Last time when I discussed with my doc. of Physics we had discussed about the BBT. And about that what is left when t=0 and if it is different to Reality. But everybody feels welcome to discuss. You have the right to be skeptical. To be skeptical is a way to evaluate and curiosity is the direction to make up the mind. Let me talk something more of my life. To me happened one of the greatest moments when I was 10 years: My Chemistry teacher got Hydrogen and Oxygen, mixed both colorless and odorless gases relation 2 to 1 and ignited the mixture. Bang! There was build heat and water a complete new substance with completely new characteristics. Humans can create water!!!! Before I thought water is on earth, but humans cannot 'create' it. Or later when synthesizing new organic molecules. Molecules that have never been on earth before!! A complete new structure with its own structural formula. This is science I have been excited. What will happen when I add them to isolated brain cells of a particular region of the brain? How react microorganisms on it? Is it able to cure? What about of humans psyche? Will the substance alter it? But from where 'comes' that substance? I have synthesized it in the lab, yes. I have applied my knowledge I have studied, yes. So my mind is able to synthesize, yes. Why are some plants here that create molecules which they never need to live? Why can some plants here cure humans' diseases? A pure scientist applies his knowledge and acts in 'his' world. He probably creates something innovative. I always wanted to know more, more than science is able to answer....so I came to other input. When I have to teach students (Chemistry) then I have to teach theory and models of Reality. I can say light is a beam, wave or a bunch of photons, I can use the atom model of Niels Bohr or the orbital model. It depends always on what section of science you want to explain. So a model / theory is able to work as means to explain limited coherences. The model is an image of the reality and the theory the description to it. A great scientist is IMHO able to know about the real benefit, which is relative. He is flexible in the way he thinks and has the freedom to use different points of views. A bad scientist uses his knowledge as to be the ultimate truth. He doesn't allow room for interpretation, variations. When I teach my students I don't explain the mind or the Self, this is not my job. But I always try to inspire them by talking about different aspects. And I say the meaning of a model is to mimic an particular aspect of something. Nothing more. Light is neither a ray nor a wave nor a bunch of photons. Relative to a mirror light behaves as ray. To explain the phenomenon interference, light can be seen as waves which extincts and amplifies each other at special places. And light is weakened when going through matter, so some photons are absorbed. But can we know what light really is? I support the freedom of different POV's, always. And I warn students to have fixed, inflexible ideas of a phenomenon. Everything is relative. If you like to post here again, you are welcome, always, sid_16 .