What is Reality, Part 3...Reality as Eternal & Self-existent Truth

Reality as Eternal & Self-existent & the Truth, Part 3

Continued from:
What is Reality Part 1...Reality as Matrix
What is Reality Part 2...Reality as Self Created

By Reverend Mark Hunnemann

Countless people have had their faith either derailed or severe doubts were caused by issues regarding our origins. Hence, it is important that we understand the four basic answers to the origin of reality. In previous weeks we looked at 1 and 2 and saw their logical absurdity and unbiblical nature.
Unbiblical views always lead to irrationality.

1. Reality is an Illusion
2. Reality is self-created
3. Reality is eternal and self-existent
4. The self-existent Creator made reality

Today I want to look at the prevalent notion that the universe is eternal. Before we do that, I want to affirm my basic presupposition: the Triune God created the universe and has spoken to us in His Word. That being the case, I already know that this option (#3) is unbiblical and will, of necessity, lead to irrationality.

Having said that, unlike options 1 and 2 which are analytically false—false by definition and logically absurd—there is nothing analytically false about creation being eternal, though it does lead to irrationality because its unbiblical.

Once we’ve established that anything exists, then the notion of a self-existent cause is not only logically possible but logically necessary. Something HAS to be self-existent and eternal since something exists now.

If ever there were a time when there was absolutely nothing (and by nothing I mean absolutely nothing, not a vacuum full of energy, etc.) , then what could possibly exist now but ….nothing? Ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing, nothing comes.That is why philosophers say that the basic philosophic question is: why does something exist rather than nothing?

Everyone has heard of the theory of the Big Bang. The theory goes like this: 15-18 billion years ago there was a point of singularity that exploded  and expanded into our present universe. Prior to the explosion, all space, time, matter,and energy was compacted into a pinpoint. So goes this theory. Many cosmologists, and non-scientists, also assert  that this singularity existed for backwards eternity in a stable fashion. Or they assert that it created itself out of nothing. This latter explanation we shall dispense with as being analytically false. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

So, the 64 million dollar question is: what happened before the alleged Big Bang? And many astronomers and cosmologists answer by saying that they don’t have to answer that question. Really?!

“So, you’re telling me that you have created a model that allegedly explains everything, and existed forever, but you don’t have to explain what happened for backwards eternity before the ball of wax exploded?! No sir, that is a monumental cop out. You have to answer that question. And please don’t say that special laws existed then because that is known as special pleading in logic."

You see, backwards eternity is not simply a very long time. Not even a very, very, very, very long time—it is backwards eternity. And nothing in a singularity, no matter how compacted, could retain its energy forever. The notion of eternality of matter and energy is absurd for two reasons: it needs a cause, and no compaction of energy can simply be forever. Basic thermodynamics asserts this….and again one cannot plead for special physics laws at this point which have never been observed before, without special pleading and circular reasoning. Heisenberg’s and Planx’s work does not explain this phenomenon as some assert. It is not nothing causing something as its been erroneously interpreted.One reason many scientists are fleeing from the Big Bang, other than its intellectually suspect, is because it implies a finite beginning for the universe, which implies a Creator. Something has to be self-existent and eternal. I’ve lived long enough to see the “assured results of science” to be turned on its head again and again, so I’m not easily drawn into theories like the Big Bang.

As Warner Gitts of NASA said: “My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.”

For the rest of the time I’m going to explain the biblical view of origins, and at the bottom leave links to consider regarding the notion of the Big Bang, which I have serious doubts about, for biblical and scientific reasons. For example, given the huge explosion theory, there shouldn’t be galaxies—explosions expel matter outward and fairly evenly, and the beauty and symmetry of some galaxies are a thorny problem for the Big Bang theory. To me, the Big Bang is a cosmic cousin of the intellectually bankrupt notion of macro-evolution. Indeed, there is no way to square an old earth/universe with biblical teaching.

Theologians speak of God’s aseity as one of His attributes. Aseity has to do with the independence and self-existence of God. He alone is the Supreme Being, unchanged, self-existent and eternal, He exists by the necessity of His own Being. He cannot, not be. Human beings are contingent, derived creatures. There was a time when I was not, and I am constantly changing. But Ultimate reality is the Tri-personal eternal communion and love between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before there was space and time; before there was a universe, the Triune God has existed for all eternity. He, and He alone, can sufficiently explain the existence of His universe. Any attempts at autonomous reasoning at this point leads to unreal views of reality.

When God revealed Himself to Moses at the Burning Bush, which symbolized the inexhaustible energy and power of the self-existent Creator, He called Himself “I Am who I Am.” ..Yahweh. This covenant name of God conveys the truth that He alone is self-existent. All of His creatures, including the cosmos, are dependent upon Him for their existence. Any attempts to explain ourselves or reality apart from Him is sinful and leads to irrationality, as we’ve seen over and over.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Reality is not an illusion, its not self-created, it is not eternal. Instead, as this key verse states so clearly, God created the universe ex nihilo in the relatively recent past.

https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/

Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.

What is Reality, Part 2..Reality as Self-Created

By Reverend Mark Hunnemann

Continued from What Is Reality, Part 1...Reality As Matrix Illusion

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

This is the second in a four-part series on reality: how did the universe come into being? What is reality?

Anyone who is serious about sharing their faith effectively needs to understand the different views on how the universe came to be. Satan doesn’t just attack physically but through doctrines that dishonor God as both Creator and Redeemer. Unbiblical views of cosmology have led many people away from God and His precious gospel. That is why they are doctrines of demons.

The most basic philosophical question is: why is there is something rather than nothing? We looked at the first explanation for reality as an illusion last time, and saw its irrationality and unbiblical nature. Let me remind you of the four basic explanations of reality as we confront it.

1. Reality is an illusion
2. Reality is self-created
3. Reality is self-existent and eternal
4. Reality was created by self-existent God

So, this time we shall look at the notion that the reality we confront each day is self-created. Many who believe this notion don’t necessarily say this explicitly, but it’s what they mean.

The statement/proposition ‘self-created’ is what is known in logic as being analytically false. It is false by definition. It is a logical absurdity. Every unbiblical view of reality is at odds with biblical epistemology (view of knowledge and how we attain it) and logic, and leads to irrationality; these basic principles of logic are not negotiable.

For something to create itself, the effect has to be its own cause which flies in the face of not only logic but science as well; nothing has to create something; it has to exist before it existed; and it has to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. This violates the law of non-contradiction in order to create life. And as we said, all non-biblical views of origins violate logic at some point, and more importantly the Word of God, as expressed in Genesis 1:1 and innumerable other places. But, as we’ll see, the utter irrationality of this notion has not prevented it from popping up in various forms and becoming very popular.

Imagine this discussion: 1.“Who made the grass?”  “God did.”…2.”Who made you?” “God did.”…3.”Who made God?”  “God made Himself.”  Sorry, but not even the omnipotent, Living God could create Himself! It’s logically absurd. He’s always been, and He is the Supreme Being, from whom all other being is derivative…including human beings. To be, or not to be..that is the question. Indeed!
During the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the French Encyclopedists (e.g. Diderot, d’Holbach)asserted that the ‘God hypothesis” was no longer needed as a sufficient cause of the universe. In place of God, they posited spontaneous generation as the causal factor behind all reality. Things just simply begin to be.

For example, they noted  that there was a puddle in the road, but soon after mosquitoes were being formed. Hence, it appeared that the insects were spontaneously generating(self-creating). Without the benefit of microscopes many such anomalies must have appeared as mysterious. However, as thinking people, these folks should have remembered the basic maxim-ex nihilo nihil fit—out of nothing, nothing comes, and they should have come to the conclusion: “We don’t know.” But they seized upon these examples because of their anti-God assumptions and extrapolated them backwards to creation—self created.

Today the notion of spontaneous generation has been thoroughly debunked as ludicrous in scientific circles. We now know that there all sorts of microscopic entities that can explain many of the past mysteries. You may recall this being discussed in High School biology.

Surely the notion of spontaneous generation is passé, right? Not so fast because there is the field of physics! One Nobel Prize winning scientist stated that the universe came into existence by a ‘gradual spontaneous generation’! In other words, you can’t get something from nothing quickly but, given enough time, it will happen! Sheesh.This reminds me of the saying: “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” What this Nobel Prize winner is asserting is still self-creation, which is logically absurd. No matter how long the interval, spontaneous generation cannot occur.

The Hubble Telescope has given us astonishingly lovely pictures of God’s cosmos. It has also caused one very famous astrophysicist to say that that 15-18 billion years ago the universe exploded into being. The key word is ‘being’. If had said that 18 billion years ago matter was shaped into its present form, then there would not have been anything logically wrong with his comment (though you many disagree with the time factor) But, my question to this astrophysicist is this: what was there before this explosion? Non-being…nothing? To say that the “universe exploded into BEING” is making an ontological and philosophical statement. If that’s what he is saying, then that is philosophical nonsense. Non-being cannot explode into being. Or, nothing cannot explode into something. Maybe that’s not what he meant, but there are others who would argue in this fashion.

The esteemed Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist, co-authored “The Grand Design” in which he argued that the universe was self-created. This notion is absurd, as we’ve seen, because it would have to exist before it existed…or there was an effect without a cause. All of his comments about gravity miss the obvious point: where did gravity come from?  If he is going to say that the universe is self-creating then he needs to be stick to it and frankly say that nothing created something…but the most intelligent people can shroud absurdities in so much abstruse language that it sounds profound, when in reality it is absurd nonsense.

The most frequent form of self-creation today is creation by chance. Since I was in college, I developed a fascination with cosmology and cosmogony, but I am not a scientist, nor the son of a scientist! I am definitely not a physicist.  I applaud the developments in the area of theoretical physics.
However, I can observe and analyze the way that they interpret the data and the conclusions drawn(which is often subjective and hidden assumptions peek through)as well as their propositions to see if they are rational. One doesn’t have to be a physicist to see if their propositions are logically absurd or not.

Arthur Kessler stated that the reigning principle of chance in physics made God an anachronism; outdated and unneeded.

Over and over we hear highly intelligent scientists assert that the universe was created by chance. It was created by the impersonal plus time plus chance.

Take an example of flipping a coin. What are the chances of it landing on ‘heads’? Fifty-fifty. But what did ‘chance’ have to do with the outcome of the coin flip? Nothing, it is simply a way of speaking of mathematical possibility.

However, the notion of chance has taken on mythological status—even ontological status. Ontology has to do with being. But when you thing about it, chance is nothing. It is not a thing. It does not have extension or energy. It is no-thing, nothing. Chance has no power because it is ontologically nothing. It has no causal power. Again, chance is merely a way of expressing mathematical probability regarding an event, but it can’t cause anything.

However, many physicists and other scientists assert that chance created the universe! Not a chance! Yet, if you dress your verbiage up in enough abstruse, technical details, as scientists often do, they get away with saying that chance created the universe, when chance can’t even flip a coin!

When scientists state that the universe was created by chance, then they are necessarily implying that it was self-created, which is a logical absurdity.  You may couch it in scientific jargon so that it seems profound, but it isn’t. It grieves my heart to see so many college students mis-led by the logical jibberish of professors that sounds so persuasive to them regarding the origins of reality.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

Wrong views of reality and how the universe came into being have to be debunked if we are going to be faithful to Christ. And some views of origins naturally lead to occult activity (e.g. illusion). Hence, we need to lovingly ‘destroy’ arguments raised up against the knowledge of God…but do so with tears.

When I was in college, I coined a term for myself which I wanted to use as rule: seek epistemological humility. It seemed to me that many of my professors were quite the opposite. They were seeking knowledge of God’s world in an autonomous fashion, and that always leads to hubris and irrationality. Autonomous thinking is the attempt to analyze and interpret God’s world apart from God’s Word. Does that sound wise to you? Remember Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge/wisdom.”

In physics, and in every academic field, it is important to be able to say “I don’t know or I don’t understand” when we bump into a mystery we can’t unravel. In God’s world we should expect and rejoice in mysteries. That is proper epistemological humility before God’s wondrous, and mystery filled creation, which reveals His wisdom and other attributes(Romans 1:18ff). However, it is quite another thing to say, in light of these mysteries: “Nothing is producing this event.” In order to say that, one would have to know all the variables yet unknown to science. In other words, one would have to be omniscient to say: “It had to be nothing that caused that event, because it seems unfathomable and contradictory to me.” That’s not only bad theology, its bad science as well.

Self-creation is absurd because the effect has to precede the cause, or nothing gives rise to something. More profoundly, it is anti-biblical. We know from scripture this blessed truth: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Amen.

Since God is your Creator then you are accountable to Him. And since He is infinitely holy, then we all have fallen short, way short, of His glory.  Your problem is not metaphysical; it is moral and spiritual. You don’t need to overcome your finitude by union with the Absolute. No, we need a Personal Savior from our sins. Jesus died and rose again so that we might have eternal life. We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the cross, plus nothing. Lift up your empty hands of faith today and bow before the Lord as your Savior and Master, and the angels will sing in heaven over your eternal salvation!

Next time we’ll look at reality as self-existent and eternal.

Here is part 3: http://eyeontheparanormal.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-reality-part-3reality-as.html

Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.

What is Reality, Part 1...Reality as Matrix Illusion

By Reverend Mark Hunnemann

What is reality…what is really real? If one is serious about defending their faith, then they need to wrestle with this issue. Though there are innumerable variations in the answers to this question, they can all be subsumed under one of these four answers. Reality is:

1.    An illusion
2.    Self-created
3.    Self-existent and eternal
4.    Created by self-existent, eternal God

How do we explain the world that we experience and perceive on a moment by moment basis? In this blog we’ll consider the explanation that the world is an illusion.

My presupposition is that the Triune God exists and has spoken to us in His Word. Hence, intellectual autonomy is foolish, self-destructive, and leads to irrationality. Intellectual autonomy is the view that people have the right to examine and define God’s world/reality without being subject to God’s revelation. How can anyone imagine that ignoring the Master of created reality could be a wise decision? It only leads to profoundly unreal views of reality.

In Proverbs 1:7 (the organizing principle of Proverbs) we are told that we must fear the Lord (loving reverence)if we are to be able to attain a correct understanding of God’s reality/world. Lack of this fear will lead to folly and unreality. Knowledge and wisdom are closely related but there is a distinction: knowledge is a correct understanding of the nature of the world (reality) and our relationship to it and God as creatures of the great King. Wisdom is the acquired knowledge of how to live in God’s world in a way that is pleasing to Him, and that includes right thinking. A teachable heart before Yahweh as the only God is the key to growing in both knowledge and wisdom.

In the Matrix movies, especially the first two, an obvious theme is that of illusion and reality. This is not a movie review, so I’m not going into detail regarding it but only mention it because it was enormously popular and borrowed themes that have become popular in recent days.

Neo discovers he is living in an illusory world, and it raises important questions: is what we perceive really an illusion? Can we trust our perceptions?

It seems that the movie series borrowed heavily from Gnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Neo-New Age ideas which have become ensconced in our culture. There are variations in their conception of reality being illusory but the main theme is that mankind has become ignorant of our true condition. We have become ignorant of our inner divinity, and the goal is not salvation but enlightenment. At the risk of over-simplification (because each of the religions mentioned above has a different idea of how this illusion started and the specifics of the illusion) each one does see life, in some sense, as an illusion.

Let’s not miss the forest for the trees: the consistent theme between all the worldviews mentioned above is the denial of the distinction between the transcendent Creator God and His creation. Instead, in one form or another, they affirm that whatever divinity exists is entirely immanent—coextensive with the universe…to the extent that it really exists. Again, the variations are so mind-boggling that it’s difficult to know where to start. So, let me quote from Walter Martin:

“Illusion or Maya….The material world to monists and pantheists is not real in the sense that it is a lower form or low vibration of the Higher Existence (God) or the Highest Vibration (Spirit). If all is God or all is One, then what we think is reality is said to be an illusion of Spirit; it is a slow vibration of the same substance which then takes on the illusionary (solid form). If we speed it up, it would disappear as spirit.” (W Martin, The Kingdom of the Occult, pg 210).

Some go so far as solipsism which is the view that only my mind is real and all else is a dream or illusion. One problem with this “game” (and I don’t know anybody who seriously believes this view) is how you express this view to another ‘person’? You HAVE to assume another person/mind exists outside your own. Forgive the crudity, but when I first heard this argument as an 18 year old philosophy major, I thought to myself: “Well, a good swift kick to the shin would show the utter stupidity of that game!” I stick by my initial, crude reply…it doesn’t pass the existential test—what we know intuitively about reality.

So, how does a Christian respond?

1. First, with Jeremiah (ch 9:1) we should weep for our generation that has become so lost that it has become unhinged from reality as a result of jettisoning God; they deny the very reality in which they live. What a horrible mess our quest for autonomy has brought about.

2. If one states that all reality is an illusion, then that assertion is itself an illusion, and therefore not true.

But what does a biblical worldview say about reality being an illusion?.God does not have to have “His papers stamped” by us, so I humbly presuppose that the Triune God exists and has spoken true truth to us about Himself and HIS reality. There’s plenty of evidence to support Christianity, but that’s beyond the scope of this blog.

3. Genesis 1:31 is God’s perspective on His material creation. Despite the invasion of sin later (ch.3) the creation retains its goodness (1 Timothy 4:4)and reveals God’s attributes Romans 1:18ff). This verse states that God looked at ALL he had created and declared it “very good”…there is a sense of wonderment and delight in all that God had created…physical and spiritual. Space and time was created first and then the rest of universe, with the earth as His temple. So, you have an objective reality being created in the finite past, AND God rejoicing in His objective creation. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, God is transcendent: the Creator is distinct from His creation. Distorted views of reality begin by confusing this crucial distinction—creator and creation become co-extensive, and the fundamental duality (not dualism) at the heart of reality is lost. In the biblical view there is God, and everything else…the universe. In the biblical view, God is both transcendent and immanent—the Holy Spirit and supremely in Jesus Christ.

In many Neo-New Age ideas, there is a primacy of the spiritual; in some sense it is more real…or the material is altogether illusory.That view is on a collision course with the Genesis account of the creation of reality. Even some Christians view the spiritual realm as more important, but that’s not the biblical view.

As C.S. Lewis said: “God must love matter because He made so much of it!” How true!

4. In a biblical worldview, the spiritual and material realms are both real and neither is more important, nor is either an illusion. The notion of the world as an illusion is utterly foreign to the Hebraic mindset and a biblical worldview. Moses was acutely aware of pagan distorted notions of reality and this creation account is utterly unique in the ancient world in its view of objective reality in relation to the transcendent God. Moses was educated in the myths and magick of ancient Egypt, and it was into this cultural setting which was steeped in paganism, polytheism, pantheism, ect that Genesis was written; to refute these demonic delusions and illusionary thought. Moses self-consciously wrote Genesis to show that the only Living God created all things and to clear up distorted views of reality.

 5. Genesis 1-2 God presents the material world as objectively real, independent of our senses. What we see IS real because it was created by God, the author of all life. It certainly was not created by an inferior or even evil god. The first three chapters of Genesis provide the fundamental presuppositions of reality which the rest of the bible rests upon. So, it is no wonder that Jesus and Paul refer back to these chapters in dealing with controversies of their day, providing us with a model for dong the same.

6. The notion of the world being illusory undercuts the scientific enterprise. In Genesis 1:28 we are given the cultural mandate to have dominion as God’s image-bearers. We are to lovingly take care of God’s good creation and explore it. AN Whitehead and Oppenheimer, neither of whom were Christians, said that modern science could have only started in a biblical worldview/milieu because it assumes that a reasonable God created a reasonable universe which can be discovered by our reason. The notion of the world as an illusion, could never have given birth to modern science.

7. The entire drama of redemption was enacted in space and time on the earth. To assert that the material realm is an illusion is to imply that the cross of Christ was an illusion as well. Certainly that is a doctrine of demons.

8. Prophesied in Isaiah 65 and re-stated in Revelation 21-22, heaven will be here on a renewed earth. Hence, we see the eternality of the material realm is central to God’s plans for eternal glory. In Romans 8 the physical realm groans for freedom now, and since Jesus’ death was cosmic in scope, when He comes back the entire physical cosmos will be freed from the ravages of sin. Heaven is not an illusion—it is the dwelling place of God. And we shall see Him face to face forever here on this renewed earth. Praise God!

9. Basic reliability of sense perceptions:

I made the earth and created man on it;

it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,

and I commanded all their host.

For thus says the Lord,

who created the heavens

(he is God!),

who formed the earth and made it

(he established it;

he did not create it empty,

he formed it to be inhabited!):

“I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:12, 18)

Notice the train of thought in this text. First and foremost it is God-saturated! He states over and over that He is the One who created reality. We must perceive His creation through His eyes. There is an affirmation of the Genesis account of Yahweh as the Creator of the objective heavens and earth…which existed before any human perception of it—God’s perception is primary! Second, God states that He created this world so that it would be habitable and inhabited; especially by mankind who alone are made in His image. If God created the world specifically to be inhabited then that has enormous ramifications.

Yes, the world is fallen and full of sorrow and suffering, but the answer is not to deny the reality of reality or suffering, but to see it and weep, and seek to alleviate its effects.

From the outset, God created the world to be inhabited by all sorts of creatures but primarily by His image bearers. And as such He gave us our sense perceptions in order to function and relate to the world and to each other.

Are our senses reliable? If you place an oar in the water, it appears different than it is, but that is due to an optical illusion, and not an illusion at the heart of reality or a denial of what I call: THE BASIC RELIABILITY OF THE SENSE PERCEPTIONS.

Immanuel Kant asserted that we could only see the phenomena but not the real thing in itself (noumena) In other words, we can’t trust our sense perceptions to give us an accurate understanding of reality itself. How sad, but that is what happens in autonomous thinking—it leads to irrationality and unreality.

However, He who made the world and sees it, also made our eyes and all the five senses in order to function fruitfully in His world. And He also made the categories of our finite brains to correspond to external reality. Is that not what you expect God to do if He created us to live fruitfully on this earth? What we see with our eyes, and our brains process, does correspond to reality external to us. Why? Because God created the world to be inhabited.. Hence, He gave us the necessary tools to inhabit it fruitfully and to carry out the cultural mandate in Genesis. So, for Christians, there simply is no problem with whether we can trust our perceptions of reality. When God brought the various animals before Adam in order to name them, the assumption is that Adam saw God’s creation clearly and accurately enough to be able to taxonomize it. In order to till the garden and enjoy its beauty, then all five senses had to be functional.

God made our senses and so we can joyfully affirm and know that we can trust the basic reliability of the sense perceptions. God created them, so any notion of their unreliability would be impious. The same God who made all of reality, also made His image bearers to be able to accurately perceive and categorize external reality.

However, if we are random products of evolution, then all we are is matter/energy in motion, and our skulls filled with brain gas, leaving us with no basis to trust either our thoughts or our perceptions of the world. How can we know, in the macro-evolutionary scheme, that external reality conforms to our perceptions of it? We couldn’t.

Dear friends, the world is not an illusion. Not only did God create and rejoice in the material reality He created, but our eternal existence will be lived out on a new earth! (Revelation 21-22)

Jesus did not come to save us from ignorance relating to an illusion, but to save us from the wages of sin. The drama of redemption was accomplished in space and time on this objective planet. And Jesus died in order to set the cosmos free as well—all of created reality, (Romans 8) from the effects of the historical Fall. Thus, for followers of Jesus, the material realm is not an illusion to flee from but the renewed earth will be the arena in which we shall experience His goodness for all eternity!  And that is no Matrix…it is utter, sweet, real, reality!

Read Part 2 here: http://eyeontheparanormal.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-reality-part-2reality-as-self.html

Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.

Dalai Lama Speaks on Physical & Mental Comfort

By Yeshe Choesang, The Tibet Post International

Riga, Latvia: - 'The material development provides relatively short-lived physical comfort, but not mental peace,' the spiritual leader of Tibet His Holiness the Dalai Lama said during first day of his two days of teachings in Latvia.

Many thousands of audiences gathered at the Kipsala International Exhibition Centre in Riga, the capital of Latvia, on 5 May to hear the teachings of Heart Sutra by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate emphasized why religion or spirituality is relevant in today's world and answered it by explaining that spirituality is related to inner values and so to inner peace. "If material and technological development brought complete peace and happiness, people in advanced, developed countries should be really happy, and yet many are not. Material development provides physical comfort, but not mental peace," His Holiness said.

"We may feel pain and pleasure on a sensory, physical level, or on a mental level. Pleasure on a sensory level, like that derived from watching sport or listening to beautiful music is relatively short-lived, whereas satisfaction on a mental level, for example, love and faith, which do not depend on our senses, is more durable," His Holiness responded and said.

The Buddhist spiritual leader. said that 'while physical pain can be subdued by mental satisfaction, mental unease is not allayed by physical comfort. If we are worried, stressed or frightened, having a beautiful house or listening to delightful music brings little relief. A disturbed mind is not calmed by mere physical satisfaction.'

Questioning about his practice, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said he had been meditating on love. He noted a sparkle in his eyes that indicated his tremendous satisfaction. "On the other hand I've met billionaires who have all they need and more who are very unhappy. Scientists have findings that show that a calm mind is good for our physical well-being. They also have evidence that mental training can change our attitudes, enabling us to be happier. Our human intelligence can be a source of happiness, but if misused it can also be a source of stress and worry."

The Buddhist leader said that 'only human beings develop religious faith. Such faith may have begun with worship of the sun, but in time the idea of God the creator emerged and with it the idea that since he created everything, there is a spark of God in everyone. All religions convey a message of love and compassion and because hatred is an obstacle to that, they teach tolerance and patience. And because greed is also an obstacle they teach simplicity and contentment. Non-theistic traditions like the Samkhyas, Jains and Buddhists instead of turning to a creator, teach the law of causality, the principle of cause and effect, which resembles a scientific view.'

Going through the 'Heart Sutra', His Holiness explained that things exist in dependence on other factors, so they do not exist independently. Emptiness does not make things empty; phenomena themselves are empty, because they do not have independent existence. He alluded to the interdependence between cause and effect, that something is a cause only because there is an effect.

The 'Heart Sutra' shows that independent existence is an illusion by saying "Form is empty, emptiness is form." Emptiness is a property of the form, and form is the basis of the property of emptiness. When you look for form, you find emptiness. This is what undermines clinging to intrinsic existence. He remarked that consciousness too is empty and mentioned that meditation on emptiness is effective in undermining our negative emotions; it is not just an intellectual exercise. Negative emotions are not of the nature of the mind; they do not taint its luminosity.

original link: http://www.thetibetpost.com/news/international/4014-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-speaks-on-physical-and-mental-comfort

Dalai Lama Speaks on Physical & Mental Comfort

By Yeshe Choesang, The Tibet Post International

Riga, Latvia: - 'The material development provides relatively short-lived physical comfort, but not mental peace,' the spiritual leader of Tibet His Holiness the Dalai Lama said during first day of his two days of teachings in Latvia.

Many thousands of audiences gathered at the Kipsala International Exhibition Centre in Riga, the capital of Latvia, on 5 May to hear the teachings of Heart Sutra by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate emphasized why religion or spirituality is relevant in today's world and answered it by explaining that spirituality is related to inner values and so to inner peace. "If material and technological development brought complete peace and happiness, people in advanced, developed countries should be really happy, and yet many are not. Material development provides physical comfort, but not mental peace," His Holiness said.

"We may feel pain and pleasure on a sensory, physical level, or on a mental level. Pleasure on a sensory level, like that derived from watching sport or listening to beautiful music is relatively short-lived, whereas satisfaction on a mental level, for example, love and faith, which do not depend on our senses, is more durable," His Holiness responded and said.

The Buddhist spiritual leader. said that 'while physical pain can be subdued by mental satisfaction, mental unease is not allayed by physical comfort. If we are worried, stressed or frightened, having a beautiful house or listening to delightful music brings little relief. A disturbed mind is not calmed by mere physical satisfaction.'

Questioning about his practice, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said he had been meditating on love. He noted a sparkle in his eyes that indicated his tremendous satisfaction. "On the other hand I've met billionaires who have all they need and more who are very unhappy. Scientists have findings that show that a calm mind is good for our physical well-being. They also have evidence that mental training can change our attitudes, enabling us to be happier. Our human intelligence can be a source of happiness, but if misused it can also be a source of stress and worry."

The Buddhist leader said that 'only human beings develop religious faith. Such faith may have begun with worship of the sun, but in time the idea of God the creator emerged and with it the idea that since he created everything, there is a spark of God in everyone. All religions convey a message of love and compassion and because hatred is an obstacle to that, they teach tolerance and patience. And because greed is also an obstacle they teach simplicity and contentment. Non-theistic traditions like the Samkhyas, Jains and Buddhists instead of turning to a creator, teach the law of causality, the principle of cause and effect, which resembles a scientific view.'

Going through the 'Heart Sutra', His Holiness explained that things exist in dependence on other factors, so they do not exist independently. Emptiness does not make things empty; phenomena themselves are empty, because they do not have independent existence. He alluded to the interdependence between cause and effect, that something is a cause only because there is an effect.

The 'Heart Sutra' shows that independent existence is an illusion by saying "Form is empty, emptiness is form." Emptiness is a property of the form, and form is the basis of the property of emptiness. When you look for form, you find emptiness. This is what undermines clinging to intrinsic existence. He remarked that consciousness too is empty and mentioned that meditation on emptiness is effective in undermining our negative emotions; it is not just an intellectual exercise. Negative emotions are not of the nature of the mind; they do not taint its luminosity.

original link: http://www.thetibetpost.com/news/international/4014-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-speaks-on-physical-and-mental-comfort

Training the Mind: Verse 8

Training the Mind Verse 1

Training the Mind Verse 2

Training the Mind Verse 3

Training the Mind Verse 4

Training the Mind: Verses 5 & 6

Training the Mind: Verse 7

In the final verse, we read:

May all this remain undefiled

By the stains of the eight mundane concerns;

And may I, recognizing all things as illusion,

Devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.

The first two lines of this verse are very critical for a genuine practitioner. The eight mundane concerns are attitudes that tend to dominate our lives generally. They are: becoming elated when someone praises you, becoming depressed when someone insults or belittles you, feeling happy when you experience success, being depressed when you experience failure, being joyful when you acquire wealth, feeling dispirited when you become poor, being pleased when you have fame, and feeling depressed when you lack recognition.

A true practitioner should ensure that his or her cultivation of altruism is not defiled by these thoughts. For example, if, as I am giving this talk, I have even the slightest thought in the back of my mind that I hope people admire me, then that indicates that my motivation is defiled by mundane considerations, or what the Tibetans call the “eight mundane concerns.” It is very important to check oneself and ensure that is not the case. Similarly, a practitioner may apply altruistic ideals in his daily life, but if all of a sudden he feels proud about it and thinks, “Ah, I’m a great practitioner,” immediately the eight mundane concerns defile his practice. The same applies if a practitioner thinks, “I hope people admire what I’m doing,” expecting to receive praise for the great effort he is making. All these are mundane concerns that spoil one’s practice, and it is important to ensure that this is does not happen so we keep our practice pure.

As you can see, the instructions that you can find in the lo-jong teachings on transforming the mind are very powerful. They really make you think. For example there is a passage which says:

May I be gladdened when someone belittles me, and may I not take pleasure when someone praises me. If I do take pleasure in praise then it immediately increases my arrogance, pride, and conceit; whereas if I take pleasure in criticism, then at least it will open my eyes to my own shortcomings.

This is indeed a powerful sentiment.

Up to this point we have discussed all the practices that are related to the cultivation of what is known as “conventional bodhichitta,” the altruistic intention to become fully enlightened for the benefit of all sentient beings. Now, the last two lines of the Eight Verses relate to the practice of cultivating what is known as “ultimate bodhichitta,” which refers to the development of insight into the ultimate nature of reality.

Although the generation of wisdom is part of the bodhisattva ideal, as embodied in the six perfections, generally speaking, as we saw earlier, there are two main aspects to the Buddhist path-method and wisdom. Both are included in the definition of enlightenment, which is the non-duality of perfected form and perfected wisdom. The practice of wisdom or insight correlates with the perfection of wisdom, while the practice of skillful means or methods correlates with the perfection of form.

The Buddhist path is presented within a general framework of what are called Ground, Path, and Fruition. First, we develop an understanding of the basic nature of reality in terms of two levels of reality, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth; this is the ground. Then, on the actual path, we gradually embody meditation and spiritual practice as a whole in terms of method and wisdom. The final fruition of one’s spiritual path takes place in terms of the non-duality of perfected form and perfected wisdom.

The last two lines read:

And may I, recognizing all things as illusion,

Devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.

These lines actually point to the practice of cultivating insight into the nature of reality, but on the surface they seem to denote a way of relating to the world during the stages of post-meditation. In the Buddhist teachings on the ultimate nature of reality, two significant time periods are distinguished; one is the actual meditation on emptiness, and the other is the period subsequent to the meditative session when you engage actively with the real world, as it were. So, here, these two lines directly concern the way of relating to the world in the aftermath of one’s meditation on emptiness. This is why the text speaks of appreciating the illusion-like nature of reality, because this is the way one perceives things when one arises from single-pointed meditation on emptiness.

In my view, these lines make a very important point because sometimes people have the idea that what really matters is single-pointed meditation on emptiness within the meditative session. They pay much less attention to how this experience should be applied in post-meditation periods. However, I think the post-meditation period is very important. The whole point of meditating on the ultimate nature of reality is to ensure that you are not fooled by appearances can often be deluding. With a deeper understanding of reality, you can go beyond appearances and relate to the world in a much more appropriate, effective, and realistic manner.

I often give the example of how we should relate to our neighbors. Imagine that you are living in a particular part of town where interaction with your neighbors is almost impossible, and yet it is actually better if you do interact with them rather than ignore them. To do so in the wisest way depends on how well you understand your neighbors’ personality. If, for example, the man living next door is very resourceful, then being friendly and communicating with him will be to your benefit. At the same time, if you know that deep down he can also be quite tricky, that knowledge is invaluable if you are to maintain a cordial relationship and be vigilant so that he does not take advantage of you. Likewise, once you have a deeper understanding of the nature of reality, then in post-meditation, when you actually engage with the world, you will relate to people and things in a much more appropriate and realistic manner.

When the text refers to viewing all phenomena as illusions, it is suggesting that the illusion-like nature of things can only be perceived if you have freed yourself from attachment to phenomena as independent discrete entities. Once you have succeeded in freeing yourself from such attachment, the perception of the illusion-like nature of reality will automatically arise. Whenever things appear to you, although they appear to have an independent or objective existence, you will know as a result of your meditation that this is not really the case. You will be aware that things are not as substantial and solid as they seem. The term “illusion” therefore points to the disparity between how you perceive things and how they really are.

Next week a new blog series will begin.