Originally posted by january:
this seems to be a classic example of using science to mix with exaggerated theories of united consciousness of buddhism to rev up its credibility.
Could it be two things that just happen to talk about the same thing by coincident.
What i cannot believe about parts of Buddhism is its claim on united consciouness and high level of consciouness. In this topic, there is alot of purely explanatory stuff with observants from mindful observations.
mindful self observation, thinking about it is not enough for scientific discovery of knowledge and does not really hold.
It leads to more and more explanatory theories and jargon which is not proven or applicable.
Scientist who study on quantum are those who really spend effort to and money to discover bits and bits of quatum nature and Buddhism just mix their discovery and say buddhist already have such consciouness and their theories are true.
I think you didn't read the posts I posted in your forum previously.
This is not theory. Spirituality/Buddhism provides scientific method for you to see for yourself, it is not some theories that you have to believe.
Anyway, as I told Herzog previously:
What I meant by scientific method?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (See also Lakatos.)
* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method[attribution needed] argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
In Buddhism and Mystical/Contemplative traditions, whatever Spiritual Realities that was claimed, such as Causal and Non-Dual consciousness, all of these fulfills
ALL the criterias of a Scientific Method. Spirituality is a form of Science, and Science does NOT mean just classical physics, it is not limited to physical realities nor what can be perceived through our eyes -- just what fits into 'Scientific Method' above can be considered as Science.
I also posted this previously in this topic:
Also see: Ken Wilber - Spirituality and the 3 Strands of Deep Science -- watch the whole thing ESPECIALLY after 6:00 -- Spirituality IS a form of science but don't mix up biology with physics, even though they are interrelated.
If tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of mystics and contemplatives since history and even today has realised and experienced the same reality, and that there are methods and steps you can take to realise/experience it yourself, you can't just dismiss and doubt it. Neither are they inapplicable. (This is already discussed in the other topic)
This has absolutely nothing to do with theory at all -- like I said even among sgForummers, there are almost 10 people who have awakened to Causal/Non-dual levels of consciousness and I can name them, and this is not exaggerated or something
This is real, and some of them do write their meditative experiences in diary and even put them on the web in blog-like format, some of them share and discuss their experiences, even in my forum. There are more awakened people than you actually thought -- probably because you never looked into this before, and probably because the awakened people never bothered to talk about their experiences publicly. But doesn't mean they don't exist.
What 'rev up credibility', this is plain silly. You seriously think I have some kind of dark agenda for writing all these
I merely speak from facts and people's experiences.
Please do read this article as well, this is all spoken from experiential account and not theory:
Excerpt from The Simple Feeling of Being -- starting from
There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot believably doubt my own consciousness in this moment.