“There is no compelling Astrological evidence that Science is anything more than a modern superstition.” Stephen James – Astral Engineer – I guess everything is perspective!

WOW!!! Such clarity…. I am impressed and that takes some doing!

Clever, the English word, “inert” is used by Indian vedic scholars as a substitute for the Sanskrit word “achit”. Shake your fist at them instead of me. This is my field of study and I love it and I am able to represent it adequately. Your superior attitude toward it is based on ignorance. For instance if you can discuss with me what is meant by the non-dual nature of reality (whether or not you subscribe to it) without googling then you might appear intelligent. To me you sound like a Christian denouncing Darwinian Theory who can’t even explain what that theory says. Just because we now receive our gossip from the internet instead of from clay tablets doesn’t mean this knowledge originating thousands of years ago is outdated. It has quite a following today.

Consciousness cannot be studied empirically because just as space, it can’t be studied apart from the objects appearing in it. There isn’t anything to see. The difference between space and consciousness however is that consciousness is self-aware. It knows that it is. It is the experiencing agent that is, like space, independent of and unaffected by the objects appearing in it. Thoughts, feelings and perceptions are the objects appearing in consciousness, the experiencing agent which is you. It is your direct experience that you are the unaffected, ever-present, non-changing witness of thoughts, feelings and perceptions. You are not the things appearing in you. Your intrinsic nature is “ananda”. That is a sanskrit wording meaning “bliss”. If you say that isn’t your experience then you are being distracted by the thought objects appearing in you. There’s a cure for that ornery distraction. It’s called “self-knowledge”.

I remind you that denunciations don’t constitute a valid argument. If you want to play with the big boys you have to act like one of them.

Go on boys. Keep telling yourself that the atheist who uses actual dictionary definitions of words, is the one behaving like Scientologists – not the one whose making up his own definitions of words to suit his metaphysical ideas found in 4,000 year old scripture. See how that one sells on a street corner.

And I feel pretty confident if Mike had a problem with anything (or the volume of what) I’ve said so far, he would’ve asked me to stop replying quite a while ago. But since neither of you can be bothered to use a rational argument other than, “Oh you poor, scared, angry, close-minded thing; you must be willing to put aside everything you’ve learned in 20 years of studying neurology, neuro-chemistry and human psychology, and listen to my magical theories about how the mind exists independently from the functions of the brain,” you can keep spouting YOUR ad hominems at empty air.

That was a good movie. Got nomination for best actor, as i recall.

But, you are quite right about how scientists go about things. One puts up a theory, then it becomes everyone’s job (in the scientific community) to more-or-less shoot it down. If it holds it holds. If it is proven as fact it is no longer a theory but rather a self-evident truth.
Hawking deserves so much praise not only for sharing insights that push the boundaries of the observable, but he also needed to invent a method of communication of those advanced thoughts despite several handicaps that were rapidly progressive despite his youth. He did all that he did while having a brain that was constantly under attack.

🙂

Ooh yeah, the God Particle too. Fascinating. If one understood the God Particle and could manipulate it, wouldn’t that make manifesting easier…

Would love to talk with you about this too. Ask Mike for my email, if you’d like to also.

The cult aspect strengthens the scientific approach, naturally, as one rejects relative comparison and the other thrives by it.

“On the whole, people want to be good, but not too good and not quite all the time”.

I did warned you about CleverT , didn’t I , dear Roger ?

There isn’t any difference between CleverT’s ideas and those of the Scientologists. I can perceive you having the best of the intentions ,and your willingness to explore other angles of anything is quite obvious. But there is such a thing as being too well-intentioned. One must learn when to change gears. :-)))