Realization leads to God

[Swami]

I would like to introduce the concept of realization. Realization is the way to true knowledge. To realize means that you become aware of something that was always there. This is what I practice.

In the West, the theory for gaining knowledge is that it must be learned. On a very basic level I agree. However, you will not see the big picture. Besides that, you are wasting a lot of time and energy.

What many scientists do not understand is that we exist in consciousness. All knowledge is contained in it since we can not experience anything outside of it. You then ask, if we all possess consciousness, then why don't we know everything? Why do we learn as if things exist outside of our awareness? The problem is the mind and senses. They are limited. They create the illusion of something "out there". If you follow the full implications of what I am saying, then there is nothing out there to learn. That means it's already in you waiting to be "realized". Intuition is a form of realization and scientists already accept this! It is knowledge that comes to you without learning.

Where does God come in? It comes from you realizing that you are omniscient, and everything exist in you.

Is intuition a product of realization or learning?

Please offer me a scientific reason for relying on learning over intuition.

[brunumb]

I fear you peddle knowledge of the unknown and unknowable behind pseudoscientific and pseudopsychological psychobabble.

Throughout this thread all you've done is make claim after claim, while presenting others' unproven claims in a weak, sickening attempt to support the unsupported claims you claim.

I think you have summed up the situation quite succinctly. Pending demonstration of the truth of the claims there is no compelling reason to accept any of them.

[Swami]

I fear you peddle knowledge of the unknown and unknowable behind pseudoscientific and pseudopsychological psychobabble.

Throughout this thread all you've done is make claim after claim, while presenting others' unproven claims in a weak, sickening attempt to support the unsupported claims you claim.

I think you have summed up the situation quite succinctly. Pending demonstration of the truth of the claims there is no compelling reason to accept any of them.

I am not obligated to prove anything to anyone. My only duty is to provide evidence. If you reject the evidence then I move on. Many others accept my evidence so my insight is beneficial to them. My very first discussion topic on consciousness has close to 26,000 views. Very few have expressed disagreement.

It is also common to hear among the skeptics that meditation and the rest of Eastern philosophy provides nothing valuable. This is far from the truth. The truth is that many Western thinkers and scientists have flocked to the leaders and thinkers of the Eastern traditions, like the Dalai Lama. If Western science had all the answers, then why do they consult those, like myself? Why are there so many studies on meditation, and why are there plenty more areas being looked at?


This is a summit between neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama. The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking.

[Tcg]

I am not obligated to prove anything to anyone. My only duty is to provide evidence.

You've provided claims. Unsupported claims are not evidence.


Tcg

[brunumb]

This is a summit between neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama. The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking.

I guess that depends on one's unbiased point of view. The Dalai Lama has had an interest in science since childhood.

Over the span of several decades, the Dalai Lama met with leading scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and philosophers of science in cosmology, neuroscience, quantum physics, and psychology. He would invite them to his palace, Dharamsala. They would explain the complex concepts of the most recent scientific research, while red-clad monks furiously scribbled notes in the background. The Dalai Lama himself, leaning forward and listening intently, would respond with a “Hrum”. Then he would ask a question to them that would blow them away with its insight. He even stumped a scientist or two.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandeze ... 36fbb44484

Back in 2005 things were not so hunky-dory

The Dalai Lama is at the centre of an unholy row among scientists over his plans to deliver a lecture at a prominent neuroscience conference.

His talk stems from a growing interest in how Buddhist meditation may affect the brain, but researchers who dismiss such studies as little more than mumbo-jumbo say they will boycott the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in November if it goes ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/ ... reducation

The connection appears to be an interest in how meditation affects the brain. That seems to be a reasonable area of scientific study. Until compelling evidence to the contrary is provided, becoming one with the universe and all that stuff is just a load of woo and hokum.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 62:

I am not obligated to prove anything to anyone.

Well heck then, let me introduce all y'all to my wife, Morgan Fairchild.

My only duty is to provide evidence.

All y'all that confused that with compost, how's your flowers doing?

Many others accept my evidence so my insight is beneficial to them.

More with the vague, unsupported claims.

I wonder wouldn't it be more productive for us to start playing cow patty bingo, than to try to tie you down to actually presenting verifiable, confirmable data regarding your claims.

If you reject the evidence then I move on.

I don't doubt many a claimant'd rather just 'move on' than support their claims.

How "many" others accept your claims as truth?

C17. That's C17. Please mark your cards accordingly.

My very first discussion topic on consciousness has close to 26,000 views. Very few have expressed disagreement.

My data suggests there's over 26 MILLION people on this planet.

How's that square with "very few have expressed disagreement"?

It is also common to hear among the skeptics that meditation and the rest of Eastern philosophy provides nothing valuable. This is far from the truth.

Again with the vague, unsupported claims.

How far?

The truth is that many Western thinkers and scientists have flocked to the leaders and thinkers of the Eastern traditions, like the Dalai Lama.

How many, and more specifically, who of em?

If Western science had all the answers, then why do they consult those, like myself?

They like a good laugh, or done bet em money on the cow patty bingo?

Why are there so many studies on meditation, and why are there plenty more areas being looked at?

Folks gave up playing bigfoot patty bingo?

Regarding the presented image, and your quote...

This is a summit between neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama. The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking.

Don't it beat all, you didn't offer up even one question these folks asked, nor not one answer Mr. Lama provided.


The bottom line here is that all you can do is offer up assertion upon patty, upon patty upon assertion, while offering us no possible means to determine you speak truth.

It does seem a part of the human condition that a good -undetermined- many of us'd seek us answers that are ultimately unanswerable. We are an inquisitive species. Alas, just making claims is not a reliable way to answer the unanswerable.

[Tcg]

This is a summit between neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama. The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking.

The chart behind the Dalai Lama states, "Dialogue Between Russian Scientists and Buddhist Scholars." Russians are not considered "Western" and not all scientists are "neuroscientists." That's two strikes against this claim submitted as evidence of something or other. The third is that there is no reason to assume they are seeking direction from the Dalai Lama. Perhaps he held this conference to receive direction from them.


Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Swami in post #59]

1. You are not omniscient that is very demestraitivley falsafiable. You do not know what I did yesterday or the day before that.

In my worldview, there is a way to know.

Exactly what I said. You cannot tell me what I ate yesterday or what I did yesterday. No human can be or ever has been omniscient. You have a wrong worldview if it cannot describe our natural world or do what it claims.

2. If you are trying to say that the universe is everyone and everyone in the universe, then there is no creator or mechanism for creation. So then that would mean that we do not exist because there would be no energy to create the universe.
3. If you say that the energy for the universe existed before the universe, then what intelligence guided the universe to create the universe we know and love?
4. If you say we all created the universe, then you are surrendering your free will and this universe is nothing more than a Boltzmann brain and we are nothing more than random energy or energy that is being controlled by the collective sort of like the borg.
EarthScienceGuy,
You are engaging in a fundamental error. The answers to the origin and nature of the Universe can not be found by looking "out there". The answers lie within. Exploring the nature of consciousness led me to the very nature of reality.

You are incorrect in your assessment of my questions. The questions I asked were based on the world view of a one consciousness universe.

You've asked me about how the Universe was created, but I ask you how was consciousness created. Did it exist before the physical Universe?

This is your worldview. I do not believe that there is universal consciousness of all things. I believe that there is an eternal God that has always existed. And that he creates men with individual consciousness which is exactly what we observe in the world around us.

If you can not answer these questions, then you are not ready to know about the origin and nature of the Universe.

So it seems that your worldview does not have any answers to any questions. The origin and nature of the Universe are fundamental in any worldview. So is this universal consciousness eternal or was it created? Be careful there are consequences for either answer.

Observation tells us that we are all individuals, on a planet, that is circling a yellow star. As individuals, we can choose our own course of action, with the limited knowledge that we have to work at to acquire. Knowledge does not come from meditation but from studying the things that men have done before.
If science has the answers then why haven't they discovered the origin and nature of consciousness? I have discovered those answers using meditation.

Science has discovered the origin and nature of consciousness.
1. If the material universe had a beginning then the creator of the material universe would have to exist outside of time and space and therefore would have to be eternal.
2. Since the universe had a beginning and the Creator has to exist outside of time that would make the creator omniscience
3. Since the Creator would have to be eternal then He would also have to be omnipotent.
4. Since the Creator exists outside of time and space He would have to be omnipresent
5. Consciousness exists in individuals. Individuals do not share consciousness. Law is based on this premise
6. Humans were created with consciousness animals were not.
"Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations, and environments."

Problems with not making a distinction between Man and the Creator God.

If we are all part of the same consciousness, then is the consciousness good or evil. It seems to me that there is more evil done in the world than good or at least there is a lot of evil done so then that would make the consciousness basically evil. If this universal consciousness has existed from eternity past then so has evil.

Whereas if there is a distinction or separation between God and men then God is free to be good and holy and He can allow a man to make the choice of being evil. Evil then is when a man chooses to violate the laws of God.

We can even perform a little experiment and test this theory. You can sit and meditate on a subject and I will read a book on the same subject and we can then evaluate who attained the greater knowledge of the subject. I think we all know what the outcome of that experiment would be.
So you want others to prove it to you or for you. Why not do the field research yourself and develop your meditation.

Because you are the one that claimed a person can gain more knowledge from meditation than from studying books. So the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim.

"…the Venerable One meditated on himself for twelve years.

During the thirteenth year, in the second month of summer, in the fourth fortnight, the light (fortnight) of Vaisâkha, on its tenth day, when the shadow had turned towards the east and the first wake was over, on the day called Suvrata, in the Muhûrta called Vigaya, outside of the town Grimbhikagrâma on the bank of the river Rigupâlika, not far from an old temple, in the field of the householder Sâmâga 1, under a Sal tree, when the moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttaraphalgunî, (the Venerable One) in a squatting position with joined heels, exposing himself to the heat of the sun, after fasting two and a half days without drinking water, being engaged in deep meditation, reached the highest knowledge and intuition, called Kevala, which is infinite, supreme, unobstructed, unimpeded, complete, and full. (120) 2

I am sure any person would see and hear things after two days of sitting in the hot sun without eating or drinking. Meditation had nothing to do with it.

When the Venerable Ascetic Mahâvîra had become a Gina and Arhat, he was a Kevalin, omniscient and comprehending all objects; he knew and saw all conditions of the world, of gods, (p. 264)
men, and demons: whence they come, whither they go, whether they are born as men or animals (kyavana) or become gods or hell-beings (upapâda), the ideas, the thoughts of their minds, the food, doings, desires, the open and secret deeds of all the living beings in the whole world; he the Arhat, for whom there is no secret, knew and saw all conditions of all living beings in the world, what they thought, spoke, or did at any moment. (121) 1"
https://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe22/sbe2285.htm

I thought everything was one consciousness. So gods and hell beings are all part of the same consciousness. Who assigned the hell-beings to hell? Who decided what the hell-beings did/do was bad? People in a single consciousness cannot vote on whether something is good or bad because we are all part of the same mind.

[Swami]

The chart behind the Dalai Lama states, "Dialogue Between Russian Scientists and Buddhist Scholars." Russians are not considered "Western" and not all scientists are "neuroscientists." That's two strikes against this claim submitted as evidence of something or other. The third is that there is no reason to assume they are seeking direction from the Dalai Lama. Perhaps he held this conference to receive direction from them.


Tcg

The Dalai Lama (L) participates in a discussion on neuroscience at the Mind & Life Conference in Mundgod, India, Jan. 17, 2013. Photo courtesy of the Dalai Lama's office

[JoeyKnothead]

The chart behind the Dalai Lama states, "Dialogue Between Russian Scientists and Buddhist Scholars." Russians are not considered "Western" and not all scientists are "neuroscientists." That's two strikes against this claim submitted as evidence of something or other. The third is that there is no reason to assume they are seeking direction from the Dalai Lama. Perhaps he held this conference to receive direction from them.


Tcg

The Dalai Lama (L) participates in a discussion on neuroscience at the Mind & Life Conference in Mundgod, India, Jan. 17, 2013. Photo courtesy of the Dalai Lama's office

So what? Are they there to have the Dalai Lama perform brain surgery, or to discuss stuff?

People meet with people, it's kinda what we do.

If I have a discussion with the Pope, that doesn't automatically mean I believe or trust what he has to tell.


Swami, you're failing to offer some means by which we can confirm that "realization leads to God".

All you've got is assertion and some dude meeting people.

If you've obtained this omniscience you claim exists, then what color is my truck?



I'm coming to the realization our dear Swami would rather continue to make claims, only to ignore the notion that confirming the claim "realization leads to God" is solely a mental construct, devoid of any rational reason to conclude it is any form of truth.

[Tcg]

The chart behind the Dalai Lama states, "Dialogue Between Russian Scientists and Buddhist Scholars." Russians are not considered "Western" and not all scientists are "neuroscientists." That's two strikes against this claim submitted as evidence of something or other. The third is that there is no reason to assume they are seeking direction from the Dalai Lama. Perhaps he held this conference to receive direction from them.


Tcg

The Dalai Lama (L) participates in a discussion on neuroscience at the Mind & Life Conference in Mundgod, India, Jan. 17, 2013. Photo courtesy of the Dalai Lama's office

2013 MIND & LIFE DIALOGUE XXVI
Mind, Brain, and Matter: Critical Conversations Between Buddhist Thought and Science

This landmark six-day event, convened at the specific request of the Dalai Lama, brought together 20 of the world’s foremost scientists and philosophers with senior Tibetan scholars. Several thousand monks and nuns from numerous Tibetan monastic centers of learning were in attendance. In addition to critically engaging in important questions of mutual interest and challenge such as the fundamental nature of our physical world, the problem of consciousness, the nature and workings of our mind, and the interface of contemplative practice and scientific research, this conference also aimed to offer an educational forum, whereby the monastic students could learn about the historical development of science, and how science has come to shape the way we understand our world.

<bolding mine>

https://www.mindandlife.org/event/2013-mind-life-xxvi/

This is not exactly:

"The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking."

You claimed earlier.