immortal

As I have said many times its simply because of the vitriolic position that he holds on religion. His conclusion is what is dishonest because religion should not be dismissed so easily unless otherwise there is positive evidence to account for the commonality of religious experiences and a religious claim should not be dismissed unless it is falsified and also it should not be accepted very easily either. I want to put forward God as a scientific hypothesis, if it is falsified then yes its right to dismiss the notion of god, if it is testified then we all should accept his existence whether you want to revere him or not is left to you. If it cannot be falsified put it in the pool of metaphysical ideas. Its so simple and why bother calling or labelling a group broken, is it that important than the truth? If I happen to remember I quoted his words to show you that I know some of his thoughts from my past experiences with him.

That's not the definition of transcendent unity which I have, its not simply a feeling, I don't call feelings as transcendent unity. We laugh, we cry, we get excited and these all are feelings but its not a transcendent unity. Transcendent unity is non-dualistic thought, its the place where all the opposites meet into a single unity. The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as— The Effective and the Ineffective. Fullness and Emptiness. Living and Dead. Difference and Sameness. Light and Darkness. The Hot and the Cold. Force and Matter. Time and Space. Good and Evil. Beauty and Ugliness. The One and the Many. etc. - Seven Sermons to the Dead, Carl Jung. For me transcendent unity has a locality, a local existence, its not simply a feeling. Nope, that seems to be your preaching and its not the consensus of religious scholars investigating different religions. "Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason." - Aurobindo That's what Plotinus claimed and the adherents of these different tradition claim, you have to support your assertion with something in order to show that ancients were liars and that they invented gods just to socially control people other than your wishful thinking. If I was just talking about feelings of awe like you then there is obviously no need to assume the existence of deities.

What you are not understanding is that introspection towards that feeling of something greater but hard to describe, a transcendent unity is what led these ancient traditions to discover the existence of deities. According to the psychologist David Fontana, mandala's symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises." Its double standards to believe in some kind of transcendent unity and at the same time not believe in the existence of deities because one cannot exist without the other. Either both exists or both doesn't exist. That's the basic theory.

This concept of numinous is a specific type of idealistic concept and that whatever exists including this empirical universe cannot exist independent of Self consciousness, or in other words it is a top-down approach to the view of the cosmos that the empirical universe is a simulated virtual reality which means the brain, the planets, the supernova and all the awe that exists in the cosmos doesn't exist independent of us. That's where deities or their light rays come into the picture, the altered states of being are due to the influence of these light rays who structure our body and mind, the traditional religious view just for you to give an example is that people go to sleep due to the influence of the light rays of the goddess Usha Devi1 of the Rig Veda. 1. The goddess of dawn. Aurora Of Roman mythology. Psychologists who view things only from the phenomenal world think that people enter sleep due to different brain wave activities. http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/sleep_stages.htm The question is if the traditional view is true then how can changes to one's brain chemistry or brain mapping affects one's experiences and the answer to that is you have no control over your actions and everything the cause as well as the effect is a simulated reality and free will is just an illusion. The traditional view of the Karma lingpa's teachings of the peaceful and the wrathful deities is that all phenomena appears as the activities of the peaceful and wrathful deities and hence the whole cosmos is working under the influence of these light rays. That's an another common feature of these religious traditions that deny any notion of free will whatsoever whether you take the Gnostic view or the view of the Vedic Aryan religion. Eosteric Christianity - Spiritual freedom from moral codes - but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election. Exoteric Christianity - Spiritual enslavement to morality - with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself. - Elaine Pagels - The traditional Vedic Aryan View. As I said this concept of the numinous is quite idealistic and I doesn't want to argue for one particular pantheon of gods but for a common single theory of the existence of these light rays of a different ontology which can take the form of anthropomorphic gods and also influence the functioning of the cosmos.

You cannot escape from the truth of your own religion, Can you? Playing the numbers game won't help you, I gave you long reason why non-theistic Buddhists are not genuine Buddhists, the numbers of non-theistic Buddhists worldwide is irrelevant. Atheistic Buddhists don't know that atheistic Buddhism is simply dead, they are nothing different from the people who insist that earth is flat and deny that there are no gods in their religion. BTW, who said Buddhists don't believe in deities? who said Buddha didn't taught about deities? http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf Its quite clear that one has to believe in the existence of these deities to achieve nirvana and that's what Buddha taught. Modern Buddhists who are ignorant of the Vajrayana traditional view can go to any extent in twisting the dharmakaya and even distorting the sensitive traditional views, right? I am quite happy to see scholars and philosophers like Dr. Alan Wallace and Jonathon Duqette even though they are from the same academic world are beginning to realize that the traditional view should be given much credence which modern Dharmic people cannot see it lacking simple common sense. You might not post anymore without giving some justification for this, but I really don't care because they themselves are at a loss and making fools of themselves.

The simple popularity of a belief doesn't make it to be true. The misrepresentation of the traditional view that these deities are symbolic and aid only in meditative practices rather than believing in their existence as it is, is something which has happened over the years and it needs a fixing.

Quite a few members have asked me about this jewel thing but I am not sure what concept they have in mind. Actually the meaning of it is quite esoteric and don't understand how much of it is turning out to be true. One needs to read the teachings in the Tibetan Buddhism to understand it and they have explicitly explained it. http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf Just read it once. Its true that westerners don't know that the orthodox traditions seriously believe in the existence of these deities and I actually don't find any good academic scholar even talking about it in his works, so for people hearing it for the first time might find it ridiculous but its actually quite an intellectual topic. What's interesting is that these light rays or coloured jewels also embody the deities of the Vedic Aryan religion, if one reads the Secret of the Vedas by Aurobindo one can get a glimpse of it but the deities described in the Vedas are different but the theory is the same. The Neo-platonic Christianity especially the Valentinian monism also has the same theory but the Aeons described in them are different, Carl Jung's cosmogony or his seven sermons of the dead also describe the same theory but again his is a completely different pantheon. Dr. Alan Wallace is right in putting forward such a hypothesis. and he further concludes.

I sort of expected that because they don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its only to learn about the religion. One cannot go there and argue Buddhism is wrong or Christianity is wrong. It was not intended, well I don't know what the moderators there found so offensive about, if one is not allowed to back up evidence to support their position and reply to an another member explaining one's own position then how can truth come out of such a discussion. They think I am ridiculing Buddhists while all along I am arguing for the existence of deities in the Vajrayana tradition which was in the best interests of Buddhism. No one is arguing that these deities exist externally which is an another strawman made against my view. If people ignore evidence and simply say you're entitled to your opinion then even if you try with another 100 Buddhist forums the effort is simply in vain to make them realize how wrong some of their pre-conceived notions are. Honestly speaking the Vajrayana tradition takes the existence of these deities very seriously and the so called non-theistic or atheistic Buddhism is a vehement lie born out of ignorance.

We can use negative theology and the current empirical evidence to determine which doctrines are feasible for our cosmos and which aren't. In negative theology we don't assert God is this or God is that but instead figure out what God cannot be and in that way one can judge whose beliefs are real and whose are false. Its not a personal opinion or faith or belief. That seems to be your fundamental belief. Nope, I just showed you why the beliefs of orthodox religions cannot be real. Things have changed and the gaps in evidence which was there before to support my view are slowly closing.

They just don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its their rule. They have moved the thread to the same faith debates you can contribute here - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/142512-dharmic-only-buddhism-theistic.html

I don't go by fairy tales dude, I go by empirical evidence. BTW, how do you know what my beliefs are? Yes, I can, all evidence is in favour of a hypercosmic god, if that disturbs people from orthodox religions as well as atheists then its not my problem. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize.html You simply assumed that I can in no way support my assertions and to prove that now you're going and saying I set up a strawman, the concept of hypercosmic god is there in all the religions of the world and if people ignore this and continue to hold on to their false beliefs then yes obviously they are not true religious people. If you happen to think that someone who is from the orthodox religions whom you're arguing with is religious then you're mistaken because you have not yet met with the kernel of truth of religion.

Yes, I see a huge difference in how people with in the tradition interpret the scriptures and how scholars who study them only for academic purposes interpret it. Remember its people who are with in the tradition who have the practical knowledge to design the mandala for that respective deity and invoke it. Yes.

Okay, fine, you wish to discuss it in a Buddhist forum so it be, follow here - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/buddhism-dir/142512-buddhism-theistic.html#post3173466 Let's see how it goes but don't assume that it will be the opinion of genuine Buddhists from the far east, that forum too has the same ethnicity problem as this one.

As I have said it many times there is no truth in the orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Hindu religions, they have never ever upheld the torch of the kernel of truth. Just because majority of the religious people are emotionally attached to these doctrines doesn't mean we should not question their validity. Take Christianity, there were many other gospels and doctrines that existed in pre-Christian times but the truth got suppressed and only those doctrines which suited a certain political criteria to control people went through as orthodox Christianity. Take Hinduism, they know that Vedas and the Upanishads are the basis for their religion but yet they continue to worship Rama, Krishna because a careful analysis of Vedas and the Upanishads shatters their cornerstone beliefs. They no longer take the Vedas and the Upanishads seriously. The doctrine that is espoused in the oral tradition of Judaism like Midrash, Talmud, Zohar, Mishnah etc is completely different from the doctrine of the religious people who believe in the literal truth of the bible. On the whole all scientific evidence is pointing in favour of a hypercosmic God which none of these orthodox religions predicted it or believes in it and hence we can safely ignore the doctrines of these orthodox religions which don't have any truth in them and the evidence is actually in favour of Gnostic cosmogony. Therefore the opinions of these orthodox religious people who blindly follow their religions without questioning them doesn't represent the opinion of all religious people.

That's not what I said, people who believe in the end of the world stuff and who want the end to happen in their own life time or see it as too important are not truly religious people and yes irrespective of whether the great tribulation happens in our life time or will happen sometime in the future or has already happened in the distant past has no affects on your path to enter the kingdom of god, its almost irrelevant. Its quite easy to justify that. "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)

Its true that cleansing is an internal thing, people doesn't somehow magically become righteous by receiving a divine potion, one needs to work hard for it with his own will. That's the point I am making, Christ has each within him whether a human, angel or a mystery (Gospel of Philip), its not like Christ is not there now and somehow will come and reside in you during the end times or the second coming, that's silly. So if it is a metaphor then the second coming, the great tribulation doesn't make any sense, I think its a prophecy and it should be taken literally that a ruler will command over all the world. You're right about the cleansing thing, yes it is an internal thing. I have got no idea, as I have told I am not so interested in such a eschatology.

All versions have a common belief so definitely its not against only one specific version of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki Kalki (Devanagari: कल्कि), translates to 'Eternity,' 'White Horse,' or 'Destroyer of Filth' and is the final incarnation of Vishnu, foretold to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, our current epoch. Puranas foretell that he will be atop a white horse with a drawn blazing sword. He is the harbinger of end time in Hindu eschatology, after which he will usher in Satya Yuga. The name Kalki is a metaphor for eternity or time. Its origins may lie in the Sanskrit word kalka which means foulness or filth. Hence, the name translates to the 'destroyer of foulness,' 'destroyer of darkness," or 'destroyer of ignorance.'[1] Another etymology from Sanskrit is 'white horse.' The Vishnu Purana also explains: When the practices taught in the Vedas and institutes of law have nearly ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that divine being who exists of His own spiritual nature, and who is the beginning and end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon earth. He will be born in the family of Vishnuyasha, an eminent brahmana of Shambhala village, as Kalki, endowed with eight superhuman faculties. By His irresistible might he will destroy all the mlecchas (Barbarians) and thieves, and all whose minds are devoted to iniquity. He will reestablish righteousness upon earth, and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as clear as crystal. The men who are thus changed by virtue of that peculiar time shall be as the seeds of human beings, and shall give birth to a race who will follow the laws of the Krita age or Satya Yuga, the age of purity. As it is said, 'When the sun and moon, and the lunar asterism Tishya, and the planet Jupiter, are in one mansion, the Krita age shall return. —Vishnu Purana, Book Four, Chapter 24 Gobind Singh writes in the Sri Dasam Granth: When there is incest, adultery, atheism, hatred of religion, no more dharma, and sin everywhere, the impossible Iron Age has come; in what way the world will be saved? For the helpless, the Lord Himself will manifest as the Supreme Purusha. He will be called the Kalki incarnation and will be glorious like a lion coming down from the mountain. Sheshnaga, Indra, Shiva, Ganesha, and Chandra will eulogise Him; the ganas, the ghosts, fiends, imps and fairies, all will hail Him; Nara, Narada, Kinnars, and Yakshas will play on their lyres in order to welcome him. The sounds of drums will be heard; the tabors, the musical glasses, rababs and conches will be played, And hearing the sounds of large and small, the enemies will become unconscious; He will look splendid with bow, arrows, and quiver; he will hold the lance and spear and his banners will wave; he will strike blows with his lance, mace, axe, spear, trident andshield; The tyrants will flee like the leaves flying before the strong gust of wind —Sri Dasam Ganth, 118, 140-149 [8] Which is not different from Jesus on a white horse. “Worship God: For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; And he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, And in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; And he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: And his name is called the Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, Clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, That with it he should smite the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron: And he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness, and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:11-16 Just because institutional religions and other organized religions form the majority of religious people doesn't mean that what they say is the opinion of all religious people.

Its not genuine religious people who want the end to be near, its politicians and other organisations who want the end to be near by misusing a few religious texts. Much of the Bible eschatology and the end-time scenario is because of the Book of Revelation and this book has been misused through out the human history to justify their evil acts of non-violence. Not only there are people who seriously believe this they literally want nations to raise against nations and kingdoms against kingdom. Its highly disturbing to live in such an environment. http://38.121.103.33/node/187 http://www.god.tv/node/183 I as a theist have no interest in such an end of the world eschatology, I am more interested in realized eschatology and returning to fullness because you can always enter the kingdom of god any time irrespective of whether the end is near or not, you don't have to wait till the judgement day because there were other revelation books which got suppressed just because they taught how to know the divine and achieve salvation in this world, right now and did not divided people into believers and non-believers but instead treated all humans equally. Elaine Pagels' New Book Offers 'Revelations' On The Book Of Revelation

Perhaps its time for you to reassess your thinking then. Wallace is a Buddhist scholar and as he says those who think that Buddhism is non-theistic are inexcusably ignorant. You may not wish to study it and you can go on ignoring the scholarly evidence and continue to show double standards but religious scholars will study it and they will realize that this was the core doctrine of Buddhism. Your personal wish-thinking has no bearing in reality and in scriptural evidence. Perhaps you didn't fully read what Wallace said, Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, don't try to make it as a separate sect. Its time to realize how esoteric Buddhism really is. Everything in Buddhism is made esoteric, just because you think that such a core concept doesn't exist in the eight fold path to nirvana doesn't mean that the people of Vajrayana tradition doesn't know to interpret the same core concepts from the same scriptures which you study. You talk of the eight fold path to Nirvana but what you don't understand is that the mandala of the peaceful and wrathful deities is the place of Nirvana and peace and this is the core essence of mandala worship. Every genuine Buddhist will go through this path as the main essence of Buddhist teachings is to achieve Buddha-hood. Again depends on the school of thought, Mahayana Buddhists do see a ground of being for everything where as Madhyamikas and Yogacaras neither say that the unity does not exists nor do they say that it exists. They say its beyond existence and non-existence. The question to all Buddhist voidists or illusionists is if everything is an illusion or a projection of the mind then from where did the mind came from? Speculating on this thought reveals that the mind is the product of a divine God who is the supreme Aeon of the mandala from which both the objective world of five elements as well as the subjective world of metaphysical mind, intellect and sense organs emanated and he is the place where all the opposites reconcile into a non-dual unity. I am not a Christian but I revere Christ, I am not a Brahmin but I revere Savithru, I am not a Buddhist but I revere Buddha, I am not a Gnostic but I revere Abraxas. "In Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity in bodily form." (Colossians 2:9) "Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15). "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip) "People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27) "Isha vashyam idam sarvam jagathyam jagath" Everything in this world is covered by God. - Isha Upanishad "Everything that discrimination taketh out of the pleroma is a pair of opposites. To god, therefore, always belongeth the devil. This inseparability is as close and, as your own life hath made you see, as indissoluble as the pleroma itself. Thus it is that both stand very close to the pleroma, in which all opposites are extinguished and joined. God and devil are distinguished by the qualities fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Effectiveness is common to both. Effectiveness joineth them. Effectiveness, therefore, standeth above both; is a god above god, since in its effect it uniteth fullness and emptiness. This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas. It is more indefinite still than god and devil. That god may be distinguished from it, we name god Helios or Sun. Abraxas is effect. Nothing standeth opposed to it but the ineffective; hence its effective nature freely unfoldeth itself. The ineffective is not, therefore resisteth not. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general. It is unreal reality, because it hath no definite effect. It is also creatura, because it is distinct from the pleroma. The sun hath a definite effect, and so hath the devil. Wherefore do they appear to us more effective than indefinite Abraxas. It is force, duration, change. The dead now raised a great tumult, for they were Christians." - Seven Sermons to the Dead, Carl Jung. ALL PHENOMENA APPEAR AS THE MANDALA OF THE PEACEFUL AND WRATHFUL DEITIES. THESE DEITIES DISSOLVE AS A RAINBOW IN THE SKY. RELAX THE MIND IN THE NATURAL STATE WHICH IS THE UNION OF APPEARANCE AND EMPTINESS, FREE FROM COMPLEXITIES. ALL SOUNDS ARE THE SPEECH OF THE WRATHFUL AND PEACEFUL DEITIES. THIS EMPTINESS SOUND DISSOLVES AS THE DRAGON'S VOICE OF THUNDER DISAPPEARS IN THE SKY - Tibetan Buddhism Its disappointing to see people who claim themselves to be Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc themselves don't know what are the true doctrines of their own religions. Nope, mandala worship is the core teaching of Buddhism and its not such a bad idea to worship the agnisoma mandala or the pleroma of God. That is not the conclusion of religious scholars worldwide. The Conclusion is introspective religious thinking leads to genuine metaphysical truths and knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature and of how the cosmos is actually working. Conclusion "While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover,the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence,or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanishads may well have influenced the writings of early Mahayana thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well." - Alan Wallace

Its very clear from A Wallace's point that Buddhism is not non-theistic, a very careful analysis of the scriptures shows that the concept of Aeons in gnostic Christianity is the same concept of gods that exists in Buddhism. All these religions have a single theory and they take the existence of these Aeons very seriously. If you want to know what is the correct concept of gods that exists in Buddhism then you should read this. http://www.turtlehill.org/khen/zhikhro.pdf What are these peaceful and wrathful buddhas? This is nothing different from Paul's Pleroma theology which are explicitly stated in the Pauline epistles and the correct term to use is "Aeons" because the term gods is corrupted with too many vague meanings. So I am basically talking of Aeons or Buddhas and genuine Buddhists do take the existence of these buddhas very seriously and its the very core of Buddhism. These gods or Aeons are not scoundrels, eastern religions or gnostic christianity does not entertain such thoughts all the peaceful and wrathful deities are manifestations of the Self and they are with in the Self and hence they should be happily accepted as part of things which resides in the Self and one should get through it. This is Buddhism. Hindus don't believe in Brahman, they only believe in astrology and practice a few festivals without themselves being aware as to what they are doing. Jiva, Ishvar and Brahman is in the Vedas and the Upanishads and they were called as Vedic Aryans and not as Hindus. Buddhism is another offshoot of the vast number of eastern religions and it was very much prevalent in the time of Shankara and even though they accepted the core teachings there were minute difference between Advaita of Shankara and the emptiness of Buddha. Shankara strongly criticizes the teachings of Buddha in his Brahma Sutras. http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/ShankaraGC.pdf General assessment of Buddhist philosophy "No further special discussion is required. From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. [buddhist philosophy] has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a guide in the practical concerns of life. Moreover, the Buddha,3 by presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy — teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of consciousness-only, and general emptiness — has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously. Thus, the Buddha's doctrine must be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness." - Shankara Most people don't understand Advaita, advaita and most forms of Buddhism actually recognize a noumenon and doesn't teach about emptiness. As you have quoted speculating Buddhist philosophy makes one go mad because buddhism is a series of contradictions which leads you to the ultimate truth. Non-dual Advaita as a doctrine is different on its own and it can be clearly seen in the writings of Shankara. "We have now refuted both the Buddhist Realists, who maintain the (momentary) reality of the external world, and the Buddhist Idealists, who claim that only consciousness exists. The third variety of Buddhist philosophy (Madhyamaka Voidism), that is, the view that everything is empty (that is, that absolutely nothing exists),2 is contradicted by all the recognized means of knowledge [perception, inference, the verbal testimony of Scriptures, etc.] and therefore requires no special refutation. The reality of the phenomenal world is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge. Its existence cannot be denied without a convincing proof of its non-existence (or "emptiness"), for a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the standard means of knowledge must be accepted in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary." - Shankara Shankara refutes the Buddhist realists who maintain the reality of the external world, he refutes the Buddhist idealists who claim that only consciousness exists and he also refutes the doctrine of emptiness or void where nothing absolutely exists. The correct doctrine of Advaita is this as espoused in the scriptures as well as by the great Acharyas is this. This view which was recently put forward by Bernard D'Espagnat is known as open realism which says that there is "something" real the existence of which does not hinge on thought. This is the view towards which the recent experiments in quantum mechanics have taken us and since these are facts established from experiments it refutes thousand other philosophies. The five elements, mind, will, memory, sense organs are all anthropomorphic Aeons according to Advaita and they all emanated from the Self(Brahman). Paul's pleroma theology of Aeons is nothing different from the concept of devas or deities in Buddhism and the Vedic theology and the concept of Vedic gods like Indra,Soma, Agni, Pushan, Mitra, Aruna are nothing different from paul's pleroma theology and the concept of peaceful and wrathful Buddhas in Buddhism. This is the point which A Wallace is making in his work "Is Buddhism really non-theistic?" and the answer is that no they have their own pantheon and they have their own Buddhas or Aeons and Buddhism is theistic because they take the existence of gods very seriously and their entire doctrine is dependent on them. Yes, you're at a lost. The message is to know both the manifested as well as the unmanifested. Its wrong to worship only the empty Self and its also wrong to worship only the gods because they both lead us to a great darkness. The correct method is to worship them together.

This is what I call a sheer double standards. If you doesn't want to believe in gods go find yourself an another religion or simply admit yourself that you're an atheist but for god sake don't misrepresent eastern religions and don't be so dogmatic about the non-existence of devas in these religions. B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7Only ignorant people think that Buddhism is non-theistic. Gnostic Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, Vedic Aryan religion, Neoplatonism, Carl Jung's Red Book have so much in common between them I wonder how such seemingly disconnected cultures have come up with such identical theories of the origin of the cosmos with such a core agreement. This is a remarkable new finding which needs further investigation. And the reason that the scientific community gives as to why they ignore such evidence is that they were all on LSD. Very funny.

If its all in the mind then how can the mental and the physical can be different. Cartesian duality of the mental and the physical is not feasible, either cognitive science will reduce mind entirely to the brain or a new science will map the physical entirely to a metaphysical mind. Penrose is right in saying that humans can solve problems for which no algorithm exists and hence the thought process of humans has to be non-computable, there is nothing in the current physics which can account for a non-computable process and he takes a top-down approach. Instead of arguing that platonic values are embedded in space-time at planck scales if he had argued that platonic values exists in a platonic realm and mathematicians just discover the absolute truths already existing there then that would have been the the correct theory of the emperors new mind. If strong AI is found to be impossible then the existence of a metaphysical mind is inevitable.

You accused me of mind-reading him and as I have shown you I didn't do that. This thread isn't about Inow and I like to generalize things and criticize only for the positions which people hold on to. Lets look at the scale of theism/atheism. I agree with Dawkins that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and that it needs to be tested and falsified like any other hypothesis. I doesn't want to believe, I want to know. For Carl Jung, James Hillman, Devudu and others - “Gods are real. And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of existence, all aspects of human life.” -James Hillman For Dawkins and others - Gods are figments of human imagination. Both the camps cannot be right, either one has to be right and the other one has to be wrong and I think there is bigotry on both sides. Its wrong to preach to someone that its unlikely that a god exists and in the same way its wrong to preach to someone that its very likely that a particular god exists. I always wanted to know what is the purpose of a religious forum on a science site but any ways I want a clear cut scientific investigation on the God hypothesis and not just someone's public opinion, this isn't politics, this is reality. Having investigated the kernel of truth of religion I like to have a more liberal view than showing such extreme intolerance towards religion.

I know but it doesn't end there. There is a core agreement in the religious experiences and doctrines of Gnostics, Vedic Aryans, Neoplatonists, Tibetan Buddhists, Judaism, Carl Jung and many other works. I doesn't want to load all of them here and as you can see there are from different timelines and disconnected places. So tell me what's going on, it deserves an explanation. I hope you don't dismiss this as wishful thinking.

There have been many attempts to link both of them in the past and have failed miserably. The reason for all such failures have been a lack of basic necessary knowledge in the compared disciplines. "Anyhow, these problems are reminders that a certain expertise in the compared disciplines, as well as a fair knowledge of their historical and theoretical issues, are indispensable." While others tried to link it epistemologically and failed miserably I like to keep them separate and argue that only the conclusions about the nature of reality of these two disciplines are converging which is turning out to be the right view. "As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind." As many philosophers and scholars continue studying it they will soon realize it.