« Relative and absolute nihilism | Main | The emptiness of representational thinking »

January 21, 2015

Comments

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

I would not be here, except the spirits I talk to wanted to say this:

Would you read the Bible, invert the Christian cross and call yourself a Satanist? No, that would be hypocritical. Why then wold you study science, invert materialism and call it Buddhism? How is this any different?

Mind is a scientific term for that which arises from matter. To invoke it in any sense, is to invite deception. If there is no such thing as matter, there is no such thing as the mind. If materialism is wrong, it is ALL wrong.

The true nature of reality has not been discovered by materialist science. Their conclusions are false. To invert their conclusions is also false.

Reject false notions; do not invert them.

Rebellion is not religion.

"Perhaps their greatest crowning achievement was the invention of the Big Bang and black holes. Of course, nobody as seen either and never will."

---

A black hole cannot be seen per definition; because it doesn't let light escape due to the gravitational pull. We can deduce its existence from the effects it has on its surroundings.

But there are scientists who agree with you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/black-holes-dont-exist_n_5885940.html

This woman who is a theoretical physicists says black holes are mathematically impossible.

As for the Big Bang, the idea was created by a Catholic priest if I'm not wrong, who was also a scientist, so your Catholic-scientific connection has even empirical support.

I don't know enough about this to comment, but I learned in University about many indirect proof for the Big Bang that seemed convincing. But who knows? What's important is that at least to me, the Big Bang doesn't seem to contradict the Buddha's teachings. Buddha spoke of contractions and expansions of the universe, if I'm not wrong, in the canon? Correct me if I'm wrong, I got an impression that that's implying a pulsating Universe; and sounds consistent with the Big Bang... after all, the standard cosmological model doesn't exclude the possibility of many consecutive Big Bangs, infinitely many, contractions and expansions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo