« Back in samsara again | Main | Two really different Zens »

November 30, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bob, in defense of The Zennist he would argue there is a huge difference between a scientific assumption, sometimes called a theory, and fact. The Big Bang is a perfect example of such confusion.

I think the Zennist must have had a poor science education or maybe a bad teacher, bad grades or something else that led to this aversion.

WuWeiTV your dragging this blog down even further: Here are some of the more charitable comments from from the Nassim Harramein wikipedia delete discussion:

"Weak delete A Google scholar search reveals only 8 hits. He exists but isn't very notable for a scholar. Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, don't delete the article, but reword it to explain that he is another fringey new-age nutcase/crackpot with absolutely no academic credibility. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)"

Here is a link to a fascinating presentation entitled 'Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields' given by Nassim Harramein which provides an interesting scientific model with regard to this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE

Guru Steve:

1) The Zennist is not hero-worship he writes all the time about self-reliance ...

2) "He made NO assertions" - really? I think he made quite a few, about the eightfold path, about the skandhas, about samsara, nirvana, the luminous mind, - all of the Buddha-Dharma is "no assertion"? He also said what is WRONG many times, for instance, eternalism and nihilism. That was very assertive. Scientism is a form of eternalism (Western mataphysics) because it posits something as objectively existing "out there", independently therefore it basically says objectivity/matter has self-nature which is anti-Buddhist par excellence. The core teaching of the Buddha is that nothing objective has self-nature.

3) He was skeptical ONLY of SOME ontological projects, not of all. To quote the philosopher/psychoanalyst Lacan: "Everyone has an ontology, you can't avoid it." - Some have naive ontologies, some have complex; some have enlightened ontologies.

4) If you can predict something it doesn't mean you understand anything about it. For instance when they still believe the Sun gravitates around the Earth ,they could "predict" that the Sun will come up every day because it orbits around the Earth. like all universe does since "Earth is the center of the universe"

5) Zennist posted on his other - now defunct - blog very convincing proof that Nagarjuna's stuff was based on the Lankavatara Sutra.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo