Enlightenment

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]First you must accomplish by meditation that there are no absolute truths and that it's ultimately impossible to make an affirmation about anything.

I would say that the experience of clarity we’re talking about is prior to thought/conceptualization, and is ultimately ineffable in that all attempts to describe it are back in thinking-mind, making c ...[text shortened]... t, might like it).

All of this is, of course, talk in the domain of thinking-mind... 🙂[/b]

I really have to think a bit about that before going deeper, but I'd say we're talking about two clarities.
We are part of the environment, that one is clear to me.
Some nice concepts that Zen stuff has, have to dig it up.

For the religious men too, it's good to broaden horizons and think about other philosophies. Don't stick with your made up belief, I beg you.

Originally posted by serigado
I really have to think a bit about that before going deeper, but I'd say we're talking about two clarities.
We are part of the environment, that one is clear to me.
Some nice concepts that Zen stuff has, have to dig it up.

For the religious men too, it's good to broaden horizons and think about other philosophies. Don't stick with your made up belief, I beg you.

We are part of the environment, that one is clear to me.

Agreed; 100%. The only reason I just say of, rather than “part of” is to stress that we are necessarily connected, and cannot be lifted out, so to speak, like pieces (parts) of a jigsaw puzzle.

Don't stick with your made up belief, I beg you

I undoubtedly have made-up beliefs. Since all beliefs arise from the engagement of our consciousness with the world in which we live, we cannot separate ourselves from the process (I suspect the “self-reference” problem is inescapable, and simply needs to be acknowledged—the “grammar of our consciousness” is inescapably part of the “syntax of the universe” ). That does not mean that all beliefs carry equal weight, or that a belief doesn’t stand in need of justification. Am willing to drop any beliefs that I conclude are erroneous.

I study and have studied a number of philosophies/religions. The point of Zen is to get behind the thinking-believing activities of the mind long enough to see them for what they are in a state of clear perception.

There is no belief there. We make beliefs and conclusions later (accurate or inaccurate). For example, because there seems to be in almost all cases a sense of harmony within oneself and one’s environment in that clear-mind state, someone might make all sorts of metaphysical speculations about the cosmos from that—I only take it as reflecting the basic coherence of the universe in which and of which we are, which seems pretty straightforward in terms of empiricism and reason as well.

__________________________________

Questions: (1) From the point of view of physics, does it make sense to speak in terms of the cosmos as ultimately a whole, a totality, even from the point of view of a cosmos comprised of manifold-universes?

(2) From the point of view of philosophy, are we not still able to think in terms of the cosmos of which we are, and to which we have access so to speak, as a totality? That is, if multiple universes are totally disjunct from one another, we can’t even know if they are there (other universes would have to have some observable impact on our own for us to know of their existence, beyond simple speculation).

Am happy to change my thinking... 🙂

I study and have studied a number of philosophies/religions. The point of Zen is to get behind the thinking-believing activities of the mind long enough to see them for what they are in a state of clear perception.

There is no belief there. We make beliefs and conclusions later (accurate or inaccurate). For example, because there seems to be in almost all cases a sense of harmony within ones ...[text shortened]... to know of their existence, beyond simple speculation).

Am happy to change my thinking... 🙂[/b]

I undoubtedly have made-up beliefs. Since all beliefs arise from the engagement of our consciousness with the world in which we live, we cannot separate ourselves from the process (I suspect the “self-reference” problem is inescapable, and simply needs to be acknowledged—the “grammar of our consciousness” is inescapably part of the “syntax of the universe” ). That does not mean that all beliefs carry equal weight, or that a belief doesn’t stand in need of justification. Am willing to drop any beliefs that I conclude are erroneous.


I was not talking to you , when I said "stick with made up beliefs" but to whomever else would read the post 🙂
Your position is to commend.


About the questions


Questions: (1) From the point of view of physics, does it make sense to speak in terms of the cosmos as ultimately a whole, a totality, even from the point of view of a cosmos comprised of manifold-universes?


Yes it does. Everything is energy, either in the form of radiation or matter. Local manifestations like stars, planets, life are explained due to interaction of forces (gravity, electromagnetism, etc) that help to lower locally the entropy. But ultimately all is energy and follows the same principle (to be as lazy as possible).



(2) From the point of view of philosophy, are we not still able to think in terms of the cosmos of which we are, and to which we have access so to speak, as a totality? That is, if multiple universes are totally disjunct from one another, we can’t even know if they are there (other universes would have to have some observable impact on our own for us to know of their existence, beyond simple speculation).


As beings we gained conscience only a few thousand years ago. For how long free thinking as been around? We are only in the very beginning and only starting to explore ourselves and the universe. We know many things compared to 50 yrs ago, but a lot more are to discover. There might be one "universe", multiverses, anything.
We can't even understand what time is. It really doesn't worry me.
What as no answer doesn't deserve to be asked.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]
I undoubtedly have made-up beliefs. Since all beliefs arise from the engagement of our consciousness with the world in which we live, we cannot separate ourselves from the process (I suspect the “self-reference” problem is inescapable, and simply needs to be acknowledged—the “grammar of our consciousness” is inescapably part of the “syntax of the univ what time is. It really doesn't worry me.
What as no answer doesn't deserve to be asked.

[/b]Ah yes--I mis-read that; sorry.

Thanks for the answers. 🙂