Panspermia

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, at another level it would be wrong.
But at the level of our physical world the reality is the arisen dualism, and this is the reason why your Zen teacher would hit you severely if you offered him this answer. The mountains are mountains again. Ignore not the reality, grasp its nature, ignore not your self, grasp its nature and establish your personal point of attention herenow
😵

(My reaction to your posts are like a moth attracted to a light).
I would probably be one of those silly monks that were wanting to be hit by my master, while he would probably ignore me.

And,as you well know , ther is nothing to grasp, so any attempts by me would be futile, while my attention would be left lingering between worlds.

Originally posted by black beetle
"Worry not" was just an attempt to joke;
Your ego and my ego are noisy products of ours and are empty;
Your input is valuable to me too and I am thankful;

Always be well
😵

My sense of humour is not really that deep . It satisfies me and I laugh deeply and often, but I really couldn't say that others around me can always understand my sense of humour. I think they are looking in the wrong direction. They think I am laughing at something deeper, whereas,usually I am being titilated by the most adolescent of jokes. 😀😀😀

Originally posted by karoly aczel
(My reaction to your posts are like a moth attracted to a light).
I would probably be one of those silly monks that were wanting to be hit by my master, while he would probably ignore me.

And,as you well know , ther is nothing to grasp, so any attempts by me would be futile, while my attentiong would be left lingering between worlds.

Oh!

Meditation is OK, but words are merely notions -"nothing to be grasped" stands for the idea that there is nothing with own being that we can grasp with our conceptual awareness alone because everything arises as a result of the cause-effect law (the sole qualities that are not linked with the cause-effect law are space and nirvana).
Along with your conceptual awareness you have to use your non-conceptual awareness instead of using the former or the latter without justification, because then you cannot expand at the 8 directions. This means not that the reality as we perceive it is unreal, and this is the reason why the masters were using this seemingly brutal technique -whose aim was the immediate understanding of the multiple layers of reality and of the reality of the Floating World
😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
(My reaction to your posts are like a moth attracted to a light).
I would probably be one of those silly monks that were wanting to be hit by my master, while he would probably ignore me.

And,as you well know , ther is nothing to grasp, so any attempts by me would be futile, while my attention would be left lingering between worlds.

So in fact the masters where meditating at the level of Kriya Tantra and beyond, where the product of the non-conceptual focused awareness permits you to realize the nature of the existences at other levels of existence, which they all have different nature than the nature of yourself although they are all emanations of the same agent.
At this level of awareness the probabilities exist as dynamic potentialities although at the level of our physical world we remain aware of the severe differentiations (simply because of the collapse of the wavefunction). Of course, deep meditation reveals the fact that the differences occur once “your mind makes the decision to focus on, and thus pick, a specific probability” -in other words, they occur solely when you collapse the wavefunction.

Now it is obvious: when a teacher was aware of the fact that his students were merely repeating a fractal of the products of his meditation that he was transmitting directly from his mind to their minds, he was seeing clearly that these students were on their way to bring up a false theory of reality (a theory that is was not a product of their conceptual and their non-conceptual awareness herenow, that is -and you know the drill.

But, child of a noble family named karoly aczel, all the above are merely my own trap to get the fish; you have to construct your own trap in order to get your juicy fishes, yyyammmm; then get rid of the trap and do your thing until you feel like starving. And it seems to me that it would be silly to worship the trap; and it would be silly to construct a trap according to my notes; and it would be silly to declare my notes "holy scripture" and the fishes "absolute truth" because you followed my instructions in detail and you constucted a trap that earned you a juicy fish
😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
difference between those that form views based on the bible and me is that I'vwe formed my views from direct experience.

That is quite clearly not true. You have already admitted no personal experience with crop circles whatsoever yet you have formed view on them based on the writings of other people.

If they are all trying to sell books and perpetrating hoaxes then they are all very dedicated.
There could be a number of explanations. However the fact that many many books full of false information and false claims exist cannot be denied simply because of the contradictions between various books. If the books you refer to are correct, it would render all science books more or less false in part at least which would then beg the question as to what the scientists are selling or why they are perpetrating hoaxes.

Like this: evolutionist often claim that creationists are wrong , and vice versa. Historians often dismiss claims by other researchers because they are 'clearly wrong' and these researchers findings dont fit in with their own, well-researched accounts of history. ETC. (So many people are trying to claim they have the truth and the other guy (or chick) is wrong .)
At some point, you either have to take it on trust from someone, or you have to come up with a methodology for rooting out the good from the bad, the right from the wrong. I personally believe that the scientific method is the best solution.
You will notice that for nearly every topic you have mentioned thus far except evolution and history, you will not find a single article in their favor in a peer reviewed science magazine. Now if something is true and a number of people have evidence that it is true, the one would expect that someone could present that evidence in a way that was understandable by other and testable by an independent person. Why is is that in nearly every one of the things you listed earlier, there is nobody willing to present such evidence in a scientifically testable manner?

Why cant evotuionist and creationist theories be modified to accomodate both beliefs? Or why cant different histories be slightly modified to incorporate alternative theories on history?
Because the modification only manages to create a third claim that is now actually incompatible with the first two. Doesn't solve anything does it?
Besides science is not about making everyone happy, it is about determining the truth. If some people don't like the truth, then tough.

Originally posted by black beetle
So in fact the masters where meditating at the level of Kriya Tantra and beyond, where the product of the non-conceptual focused awareness permits you to realize the nature of the existences at other levels of existence, which they all have different nature than the nature of yourself although they are all emanations of the same agent.
At this level o ...[text shortened]... ollowed my instructions in detail and you constucted a trap that earned you a juicy fish
😵

Ah! Yes . I am constructing my own trap. If it only catches one fish it will be worthwhile...'Specially since I'm a vegetarian.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is quite clearly not true. You have already admitted no personal experience with crop circles whatsoever yet you have formed view on them based on the writings of other people.

[b]If they are all trying to sell books and perpetrating hoaxes then they are all very dedicated.
There could be a number of explanations. However the fact that many m ...[text shortened]... e happy, it is about determining the truth. If some people don't like the truth, then tough.[/b]

(I just got home and have trouble focussing. I will answer your post in the morning.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is quite clearly not true. You have already admitted no personal experience with crop circles whatsoever yet you have formed view on them based on the writings of other people.

[b]If they are all trying to sell books and perpetrating hoaxes then they are all very dedicated.
There could be a number of explanations. However the fact that many m ...[text shortened]... e happy, it is about determining the truth. If some people don't like the truth, then tough.[/b]

I do believe tis thread is winding down. Your comments have given me much thought throughout the day(s). Cheers.

1.I've formed a view on crop-circles based mainly on the pictograms themselves. I thought they would be hard to make from ground-eyes-view. Admittedly I've come across a lot of 'info' which substantiated their inexplicable nature- none of which I can at this point verify , and yes, all of which may be crap.

2.I think scientists and evolutionists and new-agers are all searching for truth. Not all of them ,sure, but then there are always rotten apples in any cart.

3.I beleive the path of an electron could not be suitably scientifically tested only predicted to some degree. (Am I right there?) We take for granted the existence of electrons however we cannot reliably test them.

4.What was Einstein on about 'the theory of everything'? Would that theory have been totally scientific, or could it only have been worked out if it had a non-scientific element, and therefore not total science?
What do you reckon? Was Einstein onto something with this venture? Lets face it a theory of evertything would certainly clear up a lot of problems with science (and religon).
(I dont know my self. The jury for me is out on this one.)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I do believe tis thread is winding down. Your comments have given me much thought throughout the day(s). Cheers.

1.I've formed a view on crop-circles based mainly on the pictograms themselves. I thought they would be hard to make from ground-eyes-view. Admittedly I've come across a lot of 'info' which substantiated their inexplicable nature- none of ...[text shortened]... s with science (and religon).
(I dont know my self. The jury for me is out on this one.)

karoly,

Perhaps this thread is winding down so I hope you don't mind if I say what I think remain the irresolvable disagreements between us.

Fundamentally we have two related issues:

1) You are not committed to methodological naturalism.

2) You don't seem committed to assessing evidence within the disciplines of logic and reason as exemplified by the scientific method.

Therefore this thread is a bit like one side trying to play hocky whilst the other plays water polo.

That is to say you are involved in one kind of language game and twhitehead (for example) in another.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
karoly,

Perhaps this thread is winding down so I hope you don't mind if I say what I think remain the irresolvable disagreements between us.

Fundamentally we have two related issues:

1) You are not committed to methodological naturalism.

2) You don't seem committed to assessing evidence within the disciplines of logic and reason as exemplified ...[text shortened]... to say you are involved in one kind of language game and twhitehead (for example) in another.

Agreed. Yes that was well put. I feel I'm playing water polo and I really dont expect anyone to play my sport, however there is still some common ground with other sports, though it will never be totally compatible with anyelse other than other water polo players.

I am separated in my thinking not only on this site , but by others around me generally. And yet I was guided to this unpopular position by following life's prompts,(or so I believe). No one has been able to give me any really good reasons for not holding my position. However I really dont recommentd it to anyone else. There is much trouble associated with holding these type of views...
Like I said: I tried 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Agreed. Yes that was well put. I feel I'm playing water polo and I really dont expect anyone to play my sport, however there is still some common ground with other sports, though it will never be totally compatible with anyelse other than other water polo players.

I am separated in my thinking not only on this site , but by others around me generall ...[text shortened]... There is much trouble associated with holding these type of views...
Like I said: I tried 🙂

I'll just pick up on one thing you said:

No one has been able to give me any really good reasons for not holding my position.
I think they have scored what could be considered perfectly good hockey goals. They don't count in water polo though do they?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Agreed. Yes that was well put. I feel I'm playing water polo and I really dont expect anyone to play my sport, however there is still some common ground with other sports, though it will never be totally compatible with anyelse other than other water polo players.

I am separated in my thinking not only on this site , but by others around me generall ...[text shortened]... There is much trouble associated with holding these type of views...
Like I said: I tried 🙂

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/index.cfm

Check this guy out Charlie. I was driving home and heard him on the radio. I think he is right up your alley. His book called The End of Materialism. It is something you are probably already aware of, but if not merry Christmas.🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'll just pick up on one thing you said:

[b]No one has been able to give me any really good reasons for not holding my position.
I think they have scored what could be considered perfectly good hockey goals. They don't count in water polo though do they?[/b]

I kinda meant outdside of cyberspace-in the real world. Like when these 'contact'-type experiences were happenning the people around me could also feel something weird going on at the time. I'm sure they have dismissed it now as false memories or whatever-but I remember.
Apparently when we are young we are open to all sorts of mysterious phenomena, which quickly gets dismissed by parents and schoolteachers as a wild imagination.
I have a friend who says she saw 'invisible strangers' who would come and visit her some nights. She was terrified, but of course her parents dismissed them as bad dreams and nothing more.

Originally posted by joe beyser
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/index.cfm

Check this guy out Charlie. I was driving home and heard him on the radio. I think he is right up your alley. His book called The End of Materialism. It is something you are probably already aware of, but if not merry Christmas.🙂

Why thank you JB. No I have not come across Charles Tart before. His work seems very measured and thorough and no doubt a very good place to start researching psycic phenomena (if the introduction and reviews are anything to go by.)
BTW how did you know my name was Charlie? I haven't written you a personal message, have I? Anyway ,its all good. I was just wondering, 's all.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I kinda meant outdside of cyberspace-in the real world. Like when these 'contact'-type experiences were happenning the people around me could also feel something weird going on at the time. I'm sure they have dismissed it now as false memories or whatever-but I remember.
Apparently when we are young we are open to all sorts of mysterious phenomena, wh ...[text shortened]... She was terrified, but of course her parents dismissed them as bad dreams and nothing more.

Try as you might, you won't tempt me into the water. Besides, think of the poor horses, they're not good swimmers you know.

More seriously, I also mean in the real world. You have your interpretation of your experiences, other people have a different way of assessing things, which you don't buy into. Therefore, they cannot give you a 'good' reason for you to change your interpretation because you don't share a common notion of 'good'*

* Not to be confused with more general forms of moral good of course.