The Tao comes before words. — T Clark

Yes, I feel that was what he was pointing to.

The English translation of the word “Tao” could very well be “the way of nature”. The way of nature comes before words. The name of something, is not the thing itself, rather just an abstract representation. Direct experience, is the way that we perceive nature, so if I’m pointing to the moon, one may look at my finger or where it’s pointing, but whatever one sees will be experienced directly.

It is my belief that Lao Tzu was pointing out how, where and why words fail. What is a word after all, but a sound made in the air, representing something which is not a sound in the air. The Tao itself, may not be reduced to a sound in the air, with the claim that’s what it is. However, it may be pointed to, like pointing a finger at the moon.

Hi Present Awareness

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy
— scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”.
— Present awareness

I think there is potentially a good debate here, because various famous names including Steven Hawking, have offered the 'splitting of nothingness into matter and anti-matter' as a way to have spontaneous creation, (seemingly out of nothing), but in a way that preserves the balance of mathematical equations. They do this because they struggle, like everyone else, with matter of origin.

What I don't see, is how this relates to the subject here. If you wish to pursue it, can you either explain how it is relevant here, or set-up a new discussion thread? Thanks. — Gary Enfield

The origin of the first cell and it’s evolution, assumes that there was such a thing as a first cell. If matter and life “always” existed somewhere in an infinite universe, there would not be a first cell, just as there is no first minute of time or last number in math, in which one more digit may not be added.

If everything in the universe has always existed, there is no need for creation, simply just a constant changing of forms. Prior to your current form, you were two separate cells living in two different bodies. Our birth is just an arbitrary date in which we left our mothers body, but our existence in one form or another has always been infinite.

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy — scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”.

↪Present awareness
I'm sorry but are you trying to argue that life predates the the big bang?

In fact it feels like you're saying that the universe outdates the big bang??

I must explain that nothing outdates the big bang as it is the first event in any history, present or future.

Carbon based life forms, as you can tell from the name, evolve from carbon, which was only created after the big bang. — scientia de summis

It is my philosophy that the Big Bang is a local event in an infinite universe. The vast distances involved, means that the light from the next closest universe has not even arrived here yet. Our universe is only a teenager, roughly 13.7 billion years old, however there are possibly billions of other universes of different ages scattered throughout infinity. It is not possible to prove any of this of course, it’s just a theory, like our current Big Bang, is only just a theory.

I don’t believe it is possible for something to come from nothing and so everything that exist now, has always existed in some form. Forms are constantly changing, no form is permanent, even the sun itself is middle aged and will die out at some time billions of years in the future.

Numbers do not exist! Humans have invented numbers as a way of expressing certain concepts. The concept of one apple plus one apple equals two apples is fundamental, but is only a concept which humans may imagine. To any other animal on the planet earth, there is no such thing as one apple or two apples, there is only apples.

Are you talking a better world for people in general or a better world for you, in particular?

Philosophy is a way of looking at things and if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change,

Even though your cherished philosophy may differ from mine, it’s never been about whom is right or wrong, it’s always been and always will be about the true nature of things.

When I order off a menu, I believe I have a choice as to what to eat. Once a choice has been made, one might say it was determined, pointing to the fact that what happened in the past may not be changed.

There are physical laws which determine physical outcomes, but is consciousness physical? The hard problem of what consciousness is and how it arrises, needs to be resolved before one may discount the possibility of free will.

yes, why not make a story out if it?

Life did not have an origin, it was always here, just like the universe itself. Life arrived on earth by comet, which carried frozen life forms in a state of deep hibernation. Once thawed out in the warm waters of the earth, life began to multiply and evolve.

Not exactly, the Sun is moving in orbit around the galaxy, and up and down through the galactic plane like a revolving frill. — Paul S

Agreed. However, I was not referring to the same point in space, but rather the same starting point (season) in relation to the next orbit of Earth around the Sun. The Sun itself is traveling thru the galaxy and the galaxy is moving away from other galaxies, as you mention. The motion of stars, planets and galaxies follow predictable patterns nevertheless.

On one hand, it is deterministic in the sense that everything that will ever happen already exists and cannot change. On the other hand, if QM is right, it is indeterministic in the sense that it is not possible to logically derive a single outcome from initial conditions and laws of physics (laws of physics being regularities in the structure of spacetime and distribution of matter in it), which means that a single future state cannot be predicted from past states. — litewave

I agree that “ everything that will ever happen, already exists” but disagree that it “cannot change”. Everything that might exist, exists in potential only, and that which actually does exist, is in a state of constant change.

The light on the surface of the Sun is a little over 8 minutes in the past from Earths perspective and the light here and now on Earth won’t reach the next closest star for about 4 1/4 years into the future, from Earth’s perspective. Past, present and future, exist in a continuous unbroken stream and it all depends on one’s position in the space/ time continuum, as to what may be observed.

Future states may be predicted from past states. Take the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun for example. Every 365 days, the Earth is back to the starting point in it’s orbit. The position of Mars may be predicted and a rocket ship may be sent there! However, things like how a woman might react to any given situation, may not be predicted with accuracy!

That which does not exist, may not be measured, therefore it is infinite. We call it SPACE, because it’s not there. That which may be measured, for example a Planck length, exists within that which is not there, empty space.

The non-existence of empty space may not even be talked about because it doesn’t exist. However, by not being there, room for that which IS there, is abundant and endless.

no textual basis — baker

Simply because something is written in text, does not make it true! It becomes laughable when a self proclaimed expert, like the one in the Fake Buddha Quotes posted above, deems himself an authority on what was said and what was not said, simply based on ancient text, which are impossible to verify.
You are much too attached to your ideas Baker, and so you suffer when people disagree with you.
Buddha was right, when he observed that “attachment, is the ROOT cause of all suffering”.

Music does communicate, but we have to learn its language.
— Bitter Crank

How? If math is the language of the universe, then what's music the language of? — Shawn

Music is the language of the soul. Words are vibrations in the air, sounds made to represent things which are not sounds. Music is also vibrations in the air, however, the meaning of music is not a reference to something else, but rather a reference to itself, in regards to tone, rhythm, frequency and the relationship of pitch. Music is “understood” by the feelings that it invokes in the listener and that is why everyone doesn’t like the same music!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
One may choose to believe the words attributed to the Buddha or Jesus Christ, or not, that is the beauty of freedom of religion.

↪Present awareness Nope. I'm not the one making stuff up. — baker

Humans make stuff up, that’s what we do! We make up language, to communicate ideas. We make up stories for book, music for mood, movies for entertainment, inventions for convenience like washing machines and dishwashers.

baker
486
↪Present awareness So you don't have personal experience, nor can you quote actual sources, but still you can make claims about nirvana ... — baker

You are in the same boat Baker, unenlightened and without a clue on what nirvana IS. Philosophy does not claim to be fact, simply a view on how things might be.

*sigh*
Are you enlightened? — baker

I haven’t experienced an enlightened moment, therefore I do not KNOW what enlightenment IS, do you?

If I were to play the fool, perhaps temporarily don the mantle of so-called divine madmen, I would say, in accordance with Wayfarer's philosophy and in line with the Buddhist practice of avoiding dualistic paradigms, "neither is it true that there's such a thing as nirvana, nor is it true that there's no such thing as nirvana"
:lol: — TheMadFool

Well said! The hat of a divine madman suits you!

My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true?
— Present awareness
Do you mean the things you ascribed to the Buddha? No. — baker

Good.

Those whom seek nirvana, will not find it and those whom do not seek nirvana will also not find it and yet nirvana may still be found, nevertheless!

It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you?
— Present awareness
One cannot just ascribe to someone some words just because they "make sense to one". That's bestial.

"This makes sense to me, therefore, [insert name of favorite religious/spiritual figure] said it" --????? — baker

I agree. However, I’m not suggesting that one puts words in a religious figures mouth, but rather that the accuracy of what was actually said thousands of years ago, by various religious figures, is debatable. My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true?

Yes, and the same may be said about Jesus Christ. In the days before tape recorders and YouTube videos, hearsay was about all most had to go on and the stories would be embellished over hundreds of years of repetition. It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you?

There is no such thing as an enlightened person, there is only an enlightened moment. All religions are based on someone else’s words. If you google Buddhism, the text will be there.

Wikipedia gives the following definition:

“As expressed in the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, the goal of Buddhism is to overcome suffering (duḥkha) caused by desire, attachment to a static self, and ignorance of the true nature of reality (avidya).[7] Most Buddhist traditions emphasize transcending the individual self through the attainment of Nirvana or by following the path of Buddhahood, ending the cycle of death and rebirth.[8][9][10]”

The words attributed to the Buddha have formed the basis of the Buddhist religion. After achieving enlightenment, the Buddha taught that “desire is the root cause of all suffering” and that “everything is impermanent, so avoid attachment and cultivate appreciation for all that IS, here and now.
My understanding of Nirvana is that it is not a goal of meditation but rather a resulting state of mind, once all mental disturbances cease.

In Buddhism, desire of any kind leads to suffering. Nirvana is the absence of desire, a presence of mind which is neither for or against whatever IS in the present moment.

This is my view on electromagnetic energy.

If you were on the surface of the Sun, the light which left there 8 minutes ago would be considered to be in he past, however, that same light would be just arriving at Earth and be considered to be in the present. If you were standing on the surface of another planet 10 light years away, that same light would reach you 10 years into the future from Earth’s perspective. Electromagnetic radiation, which travels in all directions in an unbroken stream, exists indefinitely. The light which left the earth during the period of the dinosaurs is still out there, traveling through space. In this sense, there is no difference between past, present and future. It all depends on where you are located in space.

By physics, I mean the properties of matter and energy.

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
— Einstein — Luke

People who believe in physics, know time to be an illusion. The difference between past, present and future does not exist. Everything in the universe, always has been and always will be, here and now.

In the practice of zen, a “koan” is a question which has no logical answer, like “what is the sound of one hand clapping”? Nevertheless, the student is expected to meditate on the question and give an answer to the zen master.
“This sentence is false” is a paradox in language. If it’s true, then it’s not false and if it’s false, then it’s true.

There is no ending point in time. No matter how far back one goes in time, one may always go back another year. Time is not finite it is infinite.

The starting point is now and one may measure as far back or forward as one wants, the reason it is referred to as infinity.

The present moment IS the starting point. Since time is just a measurement and nothing may be measured sooner then NOW, now becomes the starting point for all measurements of time. The present moment does not arrive because it is already here and it does not leave because it is still now, whenever I ask what time it is. Since it is NOW everywhere in the universe, there is nowhere one may go where it isn’t now. The universe and everything in it, has always been here and now, in various different forms, with the Big Bang being just a local event in an infinite universe. Saying all this, doesn’t make it true of course, it’s just a point of view I happen to like at the present moment.

if I’m going in a circle, is it possible to go MORE in a circle then I’m already going?

To attribute powers to something which may or may not exist to begin with, seems like an odd starting point to any discussion.

↪EricH
So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times.
— EricH — Bartricks

Is it possible to have something more infinite then infinity? How could something that goes on without end, have MORE without end?

One may not “prove or disprove” God’s existence, one may only believe or not believe. One does not believe in God based on evidence, but rather based on faith. Faith does not require evidence, hence that is why it is called faith. Faith in a God as creator of all things, would make this God very powerful indeed!

I believe that there are limits to human imagination, however, I also believe it is possible to imagine a being or thing which does not have limits. All sorts of Gods have been imagined by all kinds of human cultures and who’s to say which one is right or even if any of them are right?

Let us imagine a God so powerful, that he could make an entire universe from absolutely nothing. A square circle would be child’s play to such a being.
As a human. I can’t imagine how either of those things could be done, but who am I to judge those whom believe it is possible?

take the colour green, for example, you say it and I say it, but there is no way of knowing whether we are both seeing the same colour, only that we are both calling the colour that we do see “green”. Seeing colour is a personal experience, which would make it impossible to describe to someone whom was blind from birth. Only when two or more people share the same or similar experience, may it be pointed to and a sound made to represent what it will be called.