Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program, page 49

privacy

Pages: << 46 47 48 49 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 14-5-2011 @ 08:38 AM by 547000

reply to post by Mary Rose

Perhaps real and complex fields can also be tapped into by Buddhists.

reply posted on 14-5-2011 @ 07:18 PM by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think Haramein's story and his approach to the pursuit of understanding are inspirational, and I suspect that his work is part of an overall paradigm shift in the pursuit of knowledge. I love the fact that he joins science with spirituality.

I hope the author of the article "Native Wisdom in a Quantum World" Glenn Aparicio Parry is correct in what he says about David Bohm's work and the merging of science with sprirituality for a better approach to understanding our universe:

. . . When Bohm speaks of the undivided wholeness of the cosmos and the superimplicate order that is behind and within all things, he invokes religious ideas of an ineffable and unknowable ground of being--Brahman, Tao, and so forth. The meeting ground for science and religion is indeed upon us. We live in very exciting times. Now is the time for dialogue across what is known as science and religion or spirituality, and between and among disciplines, in a search for what Buckminster Fuller called "comprehensivist" thinking--the largest patterned integrity that is trans-disciplinary and "wholistic" without borders, a nonhabitual, nondetermined, nonlocal thought that is connected with Spirit. . . .

reply posted on 18-5-2011 @ 02:08 PM by buddhasystem

reply to post by Mary Rose

You have a habit of answering your own posts. That seems strange.

reply posted on 18-5-2011 @ 03:21 PM by Mary Rose

reply to post by buddhasystem

Nothing strange about it at all. It's just a way to further comment on something.

reply posted on 21-5-2011 @ 04:12 PM by buddhasystem

reply posted on 26-5-2011 @ 06:18 AM by Mary Rose

reply to post by buddhasystem

No, presenting more information that is on the record for any member to respond to, or simply to be read by the world at large.

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 07:35 AM by Mary Rose

From page 40:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I used to practice meditation for quite a while, on a regular basis, first myself, than in a Buddhist temple under the guidance of a monk.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I do think that meditation is useful and important . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Does it provide information to a scientist he/she does not get in the lab, reading, talking to others, or any other input?

From page 46:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I never did get an answer to this question, did I?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

May be, may be not.

Meditation does help concentration and such, but it's not a source of info, as you framed it. You cannot extract data out of your meditation session.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

You make it sound as if data is the only type of info there is.

Maybe that's true for you, however.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I used data as an interchangeable piece. Switch it to "information" if you will, or structure. If you are hoping to tap into some occult knowledge of physics... What's the word Bob likes to use? Oh, here: bollocks!

You want to learn? Go to school.

So, meditation is good for concentration, but it does not provide a unique source of information to aid a scientist seeking a unified theory. You want to learn that? Go to school.

Is this a fair paraphrase?

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 10:52 AM by 547000

Either go to school or prepare to read a butt-load of books so you know what you're talking about. Otherwise you think silly things like casting out nines will give you something that breaks the laws of physics.

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 11:55 AM by Mary Rose

reply to post by 547000

You're not answering the question.

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 12:30 PM by 547000

reply to post by Mary Rose

No, it is not a fair paraphrase. Dreams sometimes inspire scientists, but they follow true by justifying their theories with evidence or mathematical deduction. In almost all cases you have to study science before you can create new theories. Meditation without background is utterly useless. So yes, go to school, and once you know what the hell you're talking about even drugs can inspire you. Creativity needs to be met with rigor.

edit on 15-7-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 12:42 PM by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
Meditation without background is utterly useless.

Thanks for your participation, but in my opinion, you still haven't answered the question.

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 12:46 PM by 547000

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
Meditation without background is utterly useless.

Thanks for your participation, but in my opinion, you still haven't answered the question.

No, it's not a fair paraphrase because you are leaving parts of it out.

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 01:02 PM by Mary Rose

reply to post by 547000

You're saying I left parts of your post out? When I quoted you "Meditation without background is utterly useless"?

Or are you talking about my paraphrase of the series of posts by buddhasystem?

reply posted on 15-7-2011 @ 11:57 PM by 547000

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

You're saying I left parts of your post out? When I quoted you "Meditation without background is utterly useless"?

Or are you talking about my paraphrase of the series of posts by buddhasystem?

Buddhasystem. To me it's not a fair paraphrase. There's nothing special about meditation you can't get from dreams or drugs, so the point about going to school still stands.

reply posted on 10-8-2011 @ 03:19 AM by Mary Rose

reply to post by 547000

You're putting meditation in a category with dreams and drugs and contrasting it with going to school/experimentation.

You seem to be saying, yeah, there's something about meditation as a source.

Perhaps if we were exploring a scientist you like in this thread rather than one you don't, there would not be such a heated, unpleasant debate.

reply posted on 10-8-2011 @ 03:47 AM by 547000

Meditation belongs in the category of dreams and drugs.

reply posted on 10-8-2011 @ 06:03 AM by Mary Rose

reply to post by 547000

I'm comfortable with meditation and dreams in the same category, but not drugs.

Perhaps a case can be made that a drug "opens up" the brain, or the mind, or whatever, but I don't know how we're supposed to know which insights are truth revealing itself, and which are just drug-induced chemical reactions.

Regardless, maybe one of these days someone will post about their experience with meditation as a source of inspiration for scientific endeavor. I like focusing on meditation rather than dreams, because you can choose to meditate, whereas dreams have to happen to you.

Pages: << 46 47 48 49 >> ^^TOP^^