Enlightenment 101

Originally posted by KneverKnight
C60 is the most common fullerene, right?
I take it that the buckyball/DNA concurrence is not coincidence?

I think the knowlege that wave properties can be proven for matter that has the same diameter as a DNA strand , is something for metaphysics.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I remember reading a book (The Tao of Physics?) it was quite a while ago. The book was concerned with coincidences between some "Eastern" thought and modern physics.
One of the ideas explored was the nature of light: is it a particl ...[text shortened]... resistant to "ordinary" methods.
It seemed like a Zen riddle.

I read Capra's "Tao of Physics" and Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" years ago, and assumed that these authors were persuing a viable track in linking theoretical physics with the perennial philosophy and the mystical search. And then I happened upon Ken Wilber's anthology, "Quantum Questions", in which Wilber takes a swipe at Capra and Zukav for their efforts, suggesting that they are confusing issues by trying to blend two distinct approaches to truth. In Wilber's anthology he presents the philosophical writings of the 20th century's greatest physicists, people like deBroglie, Eddington, Einstein, Bohr, Jeans, etc., and pretty much demonstrates conclusively that all of these men were profound philosophers and spiritual thinkers, as well as just scientists. And all of them, without fail, were clear about the need to keep the scientific and spiritual quests distinct from each other, so as to prevent muddying of the waters, so to speak.

Over the years I came to agree that that point is very valid. The scientist is primarily concerned with the analysis of the objective world. He's not concerned with his own consciousness, in the subjective sense. He's a child of Aristotle, functioning out of the subject/object split, the approach that has given birth to technology and the scientific mindset as we've come to know it.

That's fine for what it is, but it shouldn't be confused with the philosophic or spiritual inquiry. The scientist is concerned with knowing external reality (from atom to galaxy); with intellectually understanding it. The mystic, the spiritual seeker, is concerned with knowing himself/herself; and ultimately, with bridging the subject/object split in a direct, experiential fashion.

So science and mysticism are two distinct, valid approaches to truth, but running parallel to each other, not in the same track.

Originally posted by mokko
Alright, on track now. It's been alot of years since I read that book but superconscience IS what I was talking about. (and superego)

I remember it teaching techniques on how to reach our superconscience through meditation. As I recall i ...[text shortened]... ferent healings. Is anyone familiar with what I'm talking about?

The "superconscience" as you're describing it pretty much aligns with the description of levels of consciousness found in the Vedantic traditions of India. And yes, meditation is one of the best methods for "uncovering" our deepest mind-potentials, without question. Although for many Westerners, meditation alone is often not enough, often some sort of basic psychotherapy is often a good supplement to the process of unlocking these deeper potentials. Modern society is very confused and disconnected in many ways, and as a result there seems to be a great deal of repression around. Both therapy and meditation can be effective ways to release repressed energy, freeing it up for penetrating deeper in the mind.

Regarding "astral traveling" or "astral projection", this is also known as "out of body experience" (OOBE), and is taught in some of the Vedantic yogic, Tibetan, and Taoist traditions. I was taught by an Eckanker initiate long ago to induce these states, and it was quite shocking when I first successfully "traveled out of body". Now I tend to view these things as elements of altered states of consciousness, something like a more powerful version of lucid dreaming (when you know that you are dreaming). They can be very effective openers, good for people of a stubborn intellectual nature, not all that dissimilar from power drug experiences. See Carlos Castaneda for more on that. Robert Monroe's books ("Journeys Out of the Body" was his first and best, imo) are excellent writings on the out of body experience.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
I read Capra's "Tao of Physics" and Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" years ago, and assumed that these authors were persuing a viable track in linking theoretical physics with the perennial philosophy and the mystical search. And ...[text shortened]... uth, but running parallel to each other, not in the same track.

Metamorphosis: "The mystic, the spiritual seeker, is concerned with knowing himself/herself; and ultimately, with bridging the subject/object split in a direct, experiential fashion."

From the Encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) written by John-Paul II: Introduction "Know Yourself"

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P2.HTM

"Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

2. The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the truth.1 This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth; 2 and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12)."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P2.HTM

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
I read Capra's "Tao of Physics" and Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" years ago, and assumed that these authors were persuing a viable track in linking theoretical physics with the perennial philosophy and the mystical search. And ...[text shortened]... uth, but running parallel to each other, not in the same track.

I remember at the time I read that book there was a debate between the physics and philosophy departments, not about that specifically, but having to do with the philosophers claiming that some aspect of the physicists' work violated logic. The physicists claimed the philosophers' logic didn't go far enough, or something like that. They had some thing called "quantum logic" up their sleeves.
I attended the debate, but most of it was WAY over my head as a first-year English major. 😛 Plus, it was quite a while ago ...
I did get the distinct impression that there was a major rift, feelings were running high that day.


Where did the idea of Plotinus' "One" come from, I wonder? It reminded me of the concept of "suchness" in that both seem to be ideas impossible to describe because any description must use elements of the world to create a model of the thing being described and the world arises from the One. It's like trying to take water overflowing from a cup to make a model of the cup.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Metamorphosis: "The mystic, the spiritual seeker, is concerned with knowing himself/herself; and ultimately, with bridging the subject/object split in a direct, experiential fashion."

From the Encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) written by John-Paul II: Introduction "Know Yourself"

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P2.HTM

"Moreove ...[text shortened]... then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12)."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P2.HTM

I wonder if, 500 years from now, the world's major religions will accept one another's views as legitimate truth.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
But let's look for one moment and simply ask the question, "what is it that has been with us for our whole life? -- in a fashion that has been essentially consistent?

We can't really say anything external on that level, be it friends, family, or objects, as all these have been changing and coming and going, for the most part. We can't even reall ...[text shortened]... ill silent presence" is always there, even if we get caught up in noisy, distracted thinking.

I agree with you that a very basic form of awareness, or consciousness exists with us (as with all living beings) from the very beginning.

I also agree that there is an interior sense of "am-ness" that exists with us from the beginning.

However, almost simultaneously (if not simultaneously), there is another concept or sense that exists with us from the very beginning - a sense of the Other.

When a baby is feeling hungry, or uncomfortable because its nappy is soiled, what does it do? It does not just squirm around. It does not fail to recognise (in a very basic, even animal, sort of way) its predicament. It cries. Physically and intuitively, the baby (as do all living things) recognises that there exists the Other person or entity in its world that it must reach out to.

The baby might think it is the centre of the Universe because its needs are met at its every whim and gesture. But it does not make the mistake of thinking that it is the Universe.

This sense of Other-ness precedes our awareness of ourselves, precedes our self-consciousness, precedes our ability to comprehend our roles as thinkers, choosers and lovers.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I wonder if, 500 years from now, the world's major religions will accept one another's views as legitimate truth.

Only in case we'll all convert to moral and cultural relativism.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Only in case we'll all convert to moral and cultural relativism.

Which would be a bad thing?
Because you ain't gonna convert all the Hindus ...
(To RC, that is)

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Is anyone here interested in the idea of enlightenment?

I'm not referring to the phase in the development of European thought/culture commonly referred to as "the enlightenment". I'm referring to the idea of a spiritual realization so profound and of such depth as to revolutionize the way one views reality, God, truth, the purpose of life, etc. ...[text shortened]... ve achieved it? And more importantly, do you desire such realization/understanding for yourself?

Well according to 'the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy' the answer to 'life, the universe, and everything' is.......42! I had always thought it was 18 and a half but...I was wrong, I guess.

No, but I have found the spiritual realization you speak of can be found in having a personal relationship with God, through Jesus Christ! This has been a very real, very personal experience for me that has indeed changed my life. It effects every thought I have, every encounter, every perespective, and all for the better! I know it sounds very corny but they don't say 'I've seen the light.' for nothing. A relationship with Christ has that effect!

Originally posted by chinking58
No, but I have found the spiritual realization you speak of can be found in having a personal relationship with God, through Jesus Christ! This has been a very real, very personal experience for me that has indeed changed my life. It effects every thought I have, every encounter, every perespective, and all for the better! I know it sounds very corny b ...[text shortened]... y don't say 'I've seen the light.' for nothing. A relationship with Christ has that effect!

So does shock therapy.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Which would be a bad thing?
Because you ain't gonna convert all the Hindus ...
(To RC, that is)

Being tolerant towards other convictions and or beliefs doesn't necessarily mean we have to be adherents of moral relativism.

I believe there are universal truths and values, like for instance Human Rights.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Being tolerant towards other convictions and or beliefs doesn't necessarily mean we have to be adherents of moral relativism.

I believe there are universal truths and values, like for instance Human Rights.

It's a start.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
It's a start.

Believing in Universal Human Rights is not a stance you can find in moral and cultural relativism. Maybe that's a good reason not to become a relativist, right ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Believing in Universal Human Rights is not a stance you can find in moral and cultural relativism. Maybe that's a good reason not to become a relativist, right ?

A damn good reason.