According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.
If there is only empty space, with no suns nor planets in it, then space loses its substantiality.
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements…are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind.
Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations—in short, by metaphysics.
By becoming attached to names and forms, not realizing that they have no more basis than the activities of the mind itself, error rises…and the way to emancipation is blocked.
In our thinking…we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to high degree independent of the sense impression which originally gives rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object “a real existence.” …By means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations…appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed.
I teach that the multitudinousness of objects have no reality in themselves but are only seen of the mind and, therefore, are of the nature of maya and a dream. …It is true that in one sense they are seen and discriminated by the senses as individualized objects; but in another sense, because of the absence of any characteristic marks of self-nature, they are not seen but are only imagined. In one sense they are graspable, but in another sense, they are not graspable.
The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of “physical reality” indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.
While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.
Reblogged from: purpleaggregates on Tumblr
Wow! Brilliant to juxtapose the Two. Much to digest for our tiny minds….I loved Buddha’s parable of the raft!!! Love, Linda
Whoever originally composed this was brilliant. I love to see “science meets the spiritual” because the only separation is in the beliefs of mankind. I love it!!!!
I love to see science meets spirituality as well. My husband will love this, going to share it with him. (He however, doesn’t believe in the Big Bang Theory). As for me I don’t think theories that are proven should be call Laws and visa versa, if they are not proven beyond doubt theories! (We argue this way of thinking, but I think it makes perfect sense.) I don’t think Einstein’s “Theory” of Relativity should be called “Enstein’s Law of Relativity”. Just my way of thinking… LOL
Let me correct, my fingers type faster than my brain. I THINK theories that are proven should be called Laws and if they are not proven then they are Theories! That’s it!
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity should be “Law of Relativity”!
Geezzzzz, I should proof before I hit enter.
I do it too, Sammi. No worries! I’m one who hesitates to take anything as absolute but what I find in Silence, and even that I don’t hold onto too tightly. Whenever we as human intellects think we’ve gotten something absolutely figured out it’ll fall apart eventually. A new twist will be discovered. As the saying goes, “laws are made to be broken”. But science is the result of curiosity, and I’m in love with curiosity. I wouldn’t want to live a life without it. Science and spirituality walk side by side. They are not competitors and they don’t rule each other out. They’re simply different perspectives of the same existence. It’s so cool!!
Have you read, “The War of Worldviews” (Science vs. Spirituality), by Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow. It is an excellent read. It is written in a debate format, I found so interesting, I could barely put it down. Although they debate, you can see where science and spirituality do walk side by side, if not hand in hand. But personally, I found Leonard although very smart very arrogant at times that he didn’t need to be. But, it just made the book that much more interesting for me.
I haven’t read it, however it sounds interesting! That’s the thing about debate, it’s so hard to keep the ego from posturing. Gosh, we’ve been so trained to see difference, difference, difference that when that veil starts to crumble people scramble to try to put it back together again! lol Thanks for the suggestion!
You are very welcome. I think you will find it as fascinating as I did.
Pingback: Photo of Einstein Reading a Book « Dispensable Thoughts
Pingback: A noble truth: the activating of agonizing (suffering) « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci