View Full Version : Conciousness?
AlanPartr
Nov13-03, 01:39 PM
I have just finished reading the ghost in the atom by P Davis and was intrigued by John Wheeler's interpretation of quantum theory where the wave function collapses when it enters the conciousness of an observer. I was wondering if since the book was published any progress has been made on this or whether it has been disproved.
Not conclusively either way, as far as I know. But I think the idea is mostly not accepted because it makes lots of assumptions, carries a lot of metaphysical baggage, and contains paradoxes like Wigner's Friend - basically a version of the schrodinger's cat problem with a human. Then, when the box is closed, and no one can observe the other, is the occupant real or are the experimentalists outside real?
If you take this to the extreme you could say the collapse of the wave function is the brain simply making an irreversible decision about which possibility to follow. How do we know that the other possibilities don't still exist outside our brain, provided our
brain sticks to it's story?
An unconscious observer works just as well.
Originally posted by Eh
An unconscious observer works just as well.
That response is getting smaller and smaller each time this issue's brought up, eh?
jackle, would you agree that our brains are made up of cells, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles? If so, what exactly is the difference, to a subatomic particle encountering another subatomic particle that is part of a brain, between that subatomic particle, and another that is a part of a rock, or a part of a glass of water?
Exactly Mentat. So why should the wave function collapse at all? If one particle can't collapse the wave function, or two, or three or three thousand, why should our brains? If it relys on consciousness perhaps the collapse is an illusion created by the nature of consciousness. This would explain why it relys on consciousness to 'work'. There is no other good explanation I have heard.
Maybe all those over-lapping realities are too much for us to focus on. We just experience one reality which evolves inside our consciousness. Out there, nothing has collapsed at all. This would mean that we are actually all alone in our own little world - a good reason for thinking up a better explanation fast!
Originally posted by jackle
Exactly Mentat. So why should the wave function collapse at all? If one particle can't collapse the wave function, or two, or three or three thousand, why should our brains?
That's the point, jackle, our brains have nothing to do with it. Particles do indeed collapse the wave-functions of other particles, through energetic reactions, but the point of my post was that whether the particle belongs to a brain or to a rock is irrelevant, and the wave-function will collapse regardless.
If it relys on consciousness perhaps the collapse is an illusion created by the nature of consciousness. This would explain why it relys on consciousness to 'work'. There is no other good explanation I have heard.
But it doesn't rely on consciousness. That (again) was the point of my post. Consciousness isn't even recognizable at the subatomic level, and the mathematics and physics of QM work just fine without the addition of the necessity for consciousness.
Originally posted by jackle
Horray![:)]
Huh?
Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point, jackle, our brains have nothing to do with it. Particles do indeed collapse the wave-functions of other particles, through energetic reactions,
Do we know that? I'm still unclear on the orthodox view of what collapses waves.
But it doesn't rely on consciousness. That (again) was the point of my post. Consciousness isn't even recognizable at the subatomic level, and the mathematics and physics of QM work just fine without the addition of the necessity for consciousness. [/B]
Except that consciousness creates them.
Originally posted by Canute
Do we know that? I'm still unclear on the orthodox view of what collapses waves.
Well, that's the thing about Theoretical Physics. There is no real "orthodox" view on most of the current issues. Energetic reactions can collapse wave-functions in different ways...it doesn't always occur, but sometimes it does.
Except that consciousness creates them.
Consciousness discovers them.
Maybe all those over-lapping realities are too much for us to focus on. We just experience one reality which evolves inside our consciousness. Out there, nothing has collapsed at all. This would mean that we are actually all alone in our own little world - a good reason for thinking up a better explanation fast!
Could it be "belief" or "faith" that an event will happen collapses the wavefunction?
What experimentation can demonstrate that consciousness can collapse waves or particles?
Consciousness was addressed by Albert Einstein.
"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.
Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."
We see our reality as we assume it exists
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, that's the thing about Theoretical Physics. There is no real "orthodox" view on most of the current issues. Energetic reactions can collapse wave-functions in different ways...it doesn't always occur, but sometimes it does.
This means that we know for certain that a conscious observer is not required to collapse a wave function. Are you sure about that? I thought it was still being debated.
Consciousness discovers them. [/B]
That's an odd view. Isn't mathematics the study of numbers?
Originally posted by Canute
This means that we know for certain that a conscious observer is not required to collapse a wave function. Are you sure about that? I thought it was still being debated.
Not exactly. It's still being debated whether consciousness plays a role in collapsing the wave function, but it is not under debate whether this is necessary (at least, not in purely mathematical terms).
That's an odd view. Isn't mathematics the study of numbers?
Consciousness discovers the relationships that exist in nature, and then creates (you were right about that, I just mis-read you) the mathematics to understand them.
Fliption
Dec11-03, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Canute
This means that we know for certain that a conscious observer is not required to collapse a wave function. Are you sure about that? I thought it was still being debated.
You are wise to question these things Canute. There are some very bold statements being made in this thread. It's a complicated topic and any serious study will leave many questions. Current research is still being done in this area and many questions remain. The best thing to do is to study as much as you can and try to understand it yourself to the best of your ability and develop your own view. This is one of those topics that is complex enough that three different people will give you three different spins depending on the view of reality they intend to support.
Fliption's right that you should continue to search for answers to these still-unanswered questions. However, there is one thing that cannot be disproven, merely on the basis of the fact that it is a negations, and negations can't be disproven...and that is that the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics work to describe the behavior of a particle very accurately, and can do so without the intoduction of conscious observation. The addition of the idea that consciousness is necessary is for the purpose of conceptualization and comprehension; and may indeed turn out to be true, but is not necessary for the mathematics to work, and is therefore (in my opinion) an unnecessary add-on that defies most of the things we know about consciousness and the brain.
Fliption
Dec11-03, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
and that is that the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics work to describe the behavior of a particle very accurately, and can do so without the intoduction of conscious observation. The addition of the idea that consciousness is necessary is for the purpose of conceptualization and comprehension; and may indeed turn out to be true, but is not necessary for the mathematics to work, and is therefore (in my opinion) an unnecessary add-on that defies most of the things we know about consciousness and the brain.
This is true because there is no number called consciousness. It's the interpretation of what the math means that is the struggle. As opposed to calling it an unnecessary addition, I think this step is crucial and scientific. Without it we have nothing but math.
I agree about keeping an open mind. My questions were intended to suggest that not everyone here was doing that. As Fliption said, there are some over-bold claims being made. As far as I'm aware the details of relationship between wave-collapse and conscious observation remain a mystery, or at least a matter of debate.
Originally posted by Canute
I agree about keeping an open mind. My questions were intended to suggest that not everyone here was doing that. As Fliption said, there are some over-bold claims being made. As far as I'm aware the details of relationship between wave-collapse and conscious observation remain a mystery, or at least a matter of debate.
The debate continues of this inexplicable relationship of wave-collapse and observations made by a conscious preception. Do we see reality as we assume it exists?
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summer99/goswami9901.htm
The interpretational difficulties of quantum mechanics can be solved with the hypothesis (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner, 1962) that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function. The paradoxes raised against this hypothesis have now all been satisfactorily solved (Bass, 1971; Blood, 1993; Goswami, 1989, 1993; Stapp, 1993). There is, however, one question that continues to be raised: Is consciousness absolutely necessary for interpreting quantum mechanics? Can we find other alternatives to collapse and consciousness as the collapser?
Some of these alternatives propose to modify quantum mechanics in a major way (for example, nonlinear theories); others are not philosophically satisfactory (for example, decoherence theories); still others invoke other questionable physical theories in order to make sense of quantum mechanics (Cramers, 19; Penrose, 1994). But there are two theories, one due to David Bohm (19), and the other called the many worlds theory (Everett, 1957), that still attract a lot of adherents.
In this short paper, we will argue that Bohm's theory is better interpreted with collapse of the wave function (and therefore, consciousness brought into the arena). As for the many worlds theory, even the latest versions of this theory requires special treatment of the conscious observer in order to make sense, and is thus a dualist theory (readers can verify this following the same general argument as Squires (1987)). Some final comments are also made about the implication of this reinterpretation for Bohm's philosophy of implicate and explicate order.
The Reinterpretation of Bohm's Causal Interpretation
Bohm's basic idea is to represent the situation of quantum mechanics with a wave piloting a particle, an idea he took from de Broglie (19). However, whereas de Broglie envisioned quantum objects as a physical wave piloting a physical particle, Bohm's waves are not physical waves; instead, they satisfy the Schroedinger equation. In other words, they are wave of possibility given by the quantum wave function. By writing the wave function as a product of two quantities -- the amplitude (whose square gives us the probability of finding the object in a given region of space) and the phase, Bohm does recover Newton's equation for a particle with coordinate x (and velocity v) evolving in a trajectory. The trajectory then is claimed to represent the real world of Newtonian vintage. The wave guides the trajectory through the so-called quantum potential in addition to whatever other force-field the object is under. This quantum potential is non-local and the effect of it continues even in empty space, so, for example, Newton's first law that objects travel in straight lines in the absence of any external forces no longer applies.
In the case of the double-slit experiment, for example, Bohm's particle equation can show us curved trajectories of how a particle may be able to go through one slit and still arrive at classically forbidden places on a fluorescent plate. How does the particle know that the other slit is open and veer itself to the quantum mechanically allowed places? Through the nonlocal influence of the quantum potential, which acts as a source of "active information."
Because the particle equation has been derived from the Schroedinger equation with only a little bit of redefinition of momentum (so that both momentum and position of the particle are simultaneously definable), it is assumed that Bohm's theory is equivalent to quantum mechanics (although there are some subtle differences). Bohm and his collaborators think that this is a causal interpretation of quantum mechanics because a classical trajectory has been calculated. But this thinking is fallacious.
The classical equation in Bohm's theory is not, strictly speaking, a space-time equation because the quantum potential depends on the wave function, which has no space-time existence until it is collapsed. Thus the causal discontinuity of quantum mechanics still remains because without wave function collapse, without knowing where the particle ends up, Bohm's method cannot be applied to calculate the particle trajectory.
Through sheer sophistry, Bohm and his collaborators avoid dealing with the fundamental problem of quantum measurement: why only one of the possibilities become actual in a measurement while all others do not. As Henry Stapp (1989) has already pointed out, the measurement problem is "bypassed" by assuming that the quantum potential forces the particle into one channel, although the other channels of the wave function remain empty. Stapp also points out that only the probability is testable even in Bohm's theory (as in quantum mechanics), not the quantum potential. In Stapp's opinion, a theory such as Bohm's that does not add anything tangible to quantum mechanics, but only adds extra elements on the basis of classical intuition, is not worth much investigation.
However, over the years, Bohm's theory has enjoyed a certain popularity and should not be dismissed off hand. Like Stapp, we believe that the measurement problem is not solved by Bohm's interpretation of his mathematics, but suppose we interpret Bohm's equations without any classical prejudice. What then?
Suppose we agree, as logic dictates, that Bohm's calculations are pertinent only in the aftermath of the wave function collapse, only when we know where the particle has ended up in a given measurement. Bohm's method then enables us to calculate the entire trajectory leading to the point of collapse. Thus the collapse can be seen to entail not only the possibility wave collapsing to a particle at the point of collapse, but the collapse of the entire trajectory going backwards in time.
Notice that, in this view, discontinuity of collapse remains: out of all the quantum possibilities a unique actuality is discontinuously chosen (by our observation and in our experience). But now we can go back in time and reconstruct the pathway of events in space-time leading to the event of collapse. We cannot relive these past events in the present moment, but there may be (fossil) remnants of these events now that may enable us to verify the validity of such a reconstruction.
Bohm has always emphasized how beautiful his theory is for understanding and appreciating quantum nonlocality as the action of the quantum potential. Yet Stapp's criticism cannot be denied: the quantum potential is not an observable. But under the action of the quantum potential, the calculated trajectories of Bohm's theory have unusual characteristics. Could these unusual characteristics be observable?
One such unusual characteristic is faster-than-light propagation. In the phenomenon of quantum tunneling, the time taken by a quantum object while going through the tunnel can be measured, and such measurements are now revealing a compelling case of faster-than-light propagation (Chiao). This, in our opinion, proves the usefulness of Bohm's theory.
Is such faster-than-light propagation against the theory of relativity? Hardly. We still cannot directly observe the object in its faster-than-light condition, any attempt to observe will destroy the tunnel. Speed-of-light limit applies to trajectories that are directly observable; the trajectories of objects in tunneling a' la Bohm are unobservable, so no challenge of relativity theory is necessary.
continued
Originally posted by onycho
[B]The debate continues of this inexplicable relationship of wave-collapse and observations made by a conscious preception. Do we see reality as we assume it exists?
[quote]Implicate and Explicate Order
In his philosophical writings, Bohm also also leaves us with the impression that reality comes to us via two orders, one implicate or implicit or hidden that guides the behavior of what is explicate or explicit, the order that we see, the order that is causal and objective. With a reinterpretation of Bohm's work, his philosophy of implicate and explicate orders also needs to be modified.
The implicate order is easily seen as the transcendent order of quantum potential where ontologically, the quantum wave functions or possibility waves reside. The explicate order, however, is neither causal nor objective. It is not causal because there is no way to calculate the trajectories of objects in it a priori and thus there is no reason to assume that they exist a priori, before the discontinuous wave function collapse. It is not objective, because the result of wave function collapse happens in our experience; collapse cannot be eliminated and neither can the observer from our description of reality. The collapse of the present event, however, brings about the collapse of an entire pathway of events leading to the present moment going backwards in time. These past "events" cannot be lived now, but certain remnants or memories of these events elicited now can reveal their implicit existence.
In the human dimension, the idealist interpretation is being used to construct a new science within consciousness that can treat not only the material world, but also our internal mental world, for example, a theory of creativity (Goswami, 1998). A creative experience is sudden and discontinuous, a quantum leap, according to this theory. Although many creative people describe their creative act this way, a considerable amount of controversy exists showing a lot of disagreement with this position. Bohm's ideas can resolve the controversy. Although discontinuity dominates the creative experience, after the event, if there is enough memory from the ex-post-facto collapsed past, then one can reinterpret one's experience as a continuous one, especially if one's prejudices are disposed that way.
In conclusion, with this straightforward interpretation of Bohm's work, we have demonstrated that collapse of the wave function and consciousness as the causal agent for collapse remains basic in any interpretation of quantum mechanics and any understanding of quantum measurement.
Originally posted by onycho
In conclusion, with this straightforward interpretation of Bohm's work, we have demonstrated that collapse of the wave function and consciousness as the causal agent for collapse remains basic in any interpretation of quantum mechanics and any understanding of quantum measurement.
QUANTUM THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
EVAN HARRIS WALKER
Here is some insight on the subject.
http://users.erols.com/wcri/CONSCIOUSNESS.html
[8)]
Onycho.
Thanks for that. It's funny how science cannot get rid of consciousness. It must be damn annoying. [b(]
Originally posted by Canute
Onycho.
Thanks for that. It's funny how science cannot get rid of consciousness. It must be damn annoying. [b(]
It is amusing to see the majority of the scientific community attempting to observe a chaotic universal reality becoming a state of conscious equilibrium.
Experimentation and results send many thinkers into a frenzied scramble to find alternative theories which would eliminate the need for a 'Watchmaker.' A general unified equation that fits the entire universe physics instead of string theories and involuted universes that have always been present.[g)]
People,
This is getting ridiculous. No offense, onycho, but nothing that's been posted here has shown that consciousness is necessary for quantum weirdness. The introduction of consciousness as a key player in QM is for the purpose of conceptulatization and comprehension, it is not necessary for the mathematics or for the physics.
Trying to discover quantum theories of consciousness is also a dead-end, AFAIC, since if consciousness were a quantum phenomenon, then thought would have to exist as discreet entities...and this cannot be the case, as per the homunculun problem of philosophies of the mind.
In short, the introduction of consciousness into quantum mechanics is just a desperate attempt to conceive of it, when (in my opinion) conception is almost completely irrelevant to use, and is thus not a worthy goal.
Originally posted by Mentat
People,
This is getting ridiculous. No offense, onycho, but nothing that's been posted here has shown that consciousness is necessary for quantum weirdness. The introduction of consciousness as a key player in QM is for the purpose of conceptulatization and comprehension, it is not necessary for the mathematics or for the physics.
Mentat, with all due respect, you have posted nothing that proves quantum weirdness must only be interpreted by currently known mathematics or physics.
Trying to discover quantum theories of consciousness is also a dead-end, AFAIC, since if consciousness were a quantum phenomenon, then thought would have to exist as discreet entities...and this cannot be the case, as per the homunculun problem of philosophies of the mind.
Respectfully quantum theories of consciousness is not a dead-end (AFAIC's canon) as consciousness reality would necessarily have to be left unexplained.
In short, the introduction of consciousness into quantum mechanics is just a desperate attempt to conceive of it, when (in my opinion) conception is almost completely irrelevant to use, and is thus not a worthy goal.
Your above opinion statement is a dichotomy on its face. For you to conceive that consciousness and quantum mechanics are irreconcilable is truly a desperate attempt to hold long held theories sacrosanct.
The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.
selfAdjoint
Dec16-03, 09:57 PM
The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.
Onycho, you can assert this, but you won't find many real practicing quantum physicists who would sign on to it. There has been a great effort in the last decades to get rid of the "consciousness thing" which was emphasized IMHO not by the Copenhagen school but by Wigner.
The Copenhagen view was that QM was about doing experiments with prepared materials, and the only conscieousness was that of the ordinary physicists going about their busines in their laboratories.
It was Wigner who proceded to analyze the lab intruments as quantum systems in themselves, with wave functions to be reduced, and eventually convincing himself, like a new Decartes, that only the consciousness of the experimenters remained unreduced,and therefore was the cause of the wave reduction of the whole shebang.
Not many physicists ever bought Wigner's vision, but mystics jumped on it merrily. Physics has been digging out ever since. The modern theories of decoherence and consistent histories represent the professional physicists' attempt to deal with interpretation questions in a non-woozy manner.
So you can expect to meet resistance whenever you attempt to introduce the "consciousness is needed to collapse the wave function" meme on a serious scientific board.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Not many physicists ever bought Wigner's vision, but mystics jumped on it merrily. Physics has been digging out ever since. The modern theories of decoherence and consistent histories represent the professional physicists' attempt to deal with interpretation questions in a non-woozy manner.
So you can expect to meet resistance whenever you attempt to introduce the "consciousness is needed to collapse the wave function" meme on a serious scientific board.
As you say, "modern theories of decoherence may attempt to deal with
with interpretation questions in a non-woozy manner" but the important point for the measurement problem is that it is decoherence in the measuring apparatus which transfers the quantum property of a microscopic system into something real and distinguishable -- and observationally meaningful -- in the macroscopic world.
After impressive proofs of a string of theorems establishing the equivalence of measurement data and microscopic properties, the equivalence of the respective probabilities, and the outcome of repeated measurements of the same system with respect to the same observable, Omnès (1994, p. 338) derives the general form for state vector reduction. Ironically, in light of the comment sometimes made that decoherence offers merely a "calculational tool" (Kiefer 1991, p. 379), this rule for state vector reduction emphatically does not describe a real physical process; it is, instead, merely a computational convenience for predicting the outcomes of measurements. State vector reduction, on the other hand, may be dispensed with altogether as an actual physical process. Instead, the wavefunctions of measuring apparatuses and the like could, in principle, be followed in minute detail, nonetheless turning up -- on account of decoherence in the measuring apparatus -- the very same results. With its stipulation that macroscopic objects behave classically (a stipulation, incidentally, which is explicitly inconsistent), the Copenhagen interpretation guarantees the same calculational result, but on the present view both the quasi-classical macroscopic behaviour and the mathematical rule of state vector reduction can instead be derived.
Whether decoherence answers all the philosophical questions we'd like answered, and in particular whether it overcomes John Bell's (1990) criticism of interpretations of quantum mechanics which start and end by pointing out that quantum theory gives the right answers -- interpretations which he derides as 'For All Practical Purposes'.
I fear that modern physics may believe that they are digging their way out but in my humble opinion may just be digging a deeper hole.
radagast
Dec17-03, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by onycho
Mentat, with all due respect, you have posted nothing that proves quantum weirdness must only be interpreted by currently known mathematics or physics.
Shifting the Burden of Proof argument flaw.
You are making the unusual claim, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence supporting it. It is not the burdon of proof of others to disprove it.
Add onto that, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.
Originally posted by onycho
Mentat, with all due respect, you have posted nothing that proves quantum weirdness must only be interpreted by currently known mathematics or physics.
What do you mean? Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical theory. It is used to describe physical phenomena. Why should it be anything but mathematics and physics? What else should there be?
Respectfully quantum theories of consciousness is not a dead-end (AFAIC's canon) as consciousness reality would necessarily have to be left unexplained.
Conscious reality?
Your above opinion statement is a dichotomy on its face. For you to conceive that consciousness and quantum mechanics are irreconcilable is truly a desperate attempt to hold long held theories sacrosanct.
Tell me which of the following you disagree with, please:
1) Your brain is made of cells.
2) Cells are made of molecules.
3) Molecules are made of atoms.
4) Atoms are made of subatomic particles.
5) Subatomic particles are the ones that are observed performing "weird" acts, due to quantum Uncertainty.
6) The brain, being made up of trillions of subatomic particles, isn't recognizable at the subatomic level.
7) Consciousness takes place in the brain's processes.
If all of these things are true (and current science holds all of the them to be so, but I'm asking for your opinion), then the conclusion is that consciousness is unrecognizable at the quantum level.
The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.
So, there's no objective world?
selfAdjoint
Dec17-03, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by onycho
As you say, "modern theories of decoherence may attempt to deal with
with interpretation questions in a non-woozy manner" but the important point for the measurement problem is that it is decoherence in the measuring apparatus which transfers the quantum property of a microscopic system into something real and distinguishable -- and observationally meaningful -- in the macroscopic world.
I fear that modern physics may believe that they are digging their way out but in my humble opinion may just be digging a deeper hole.
First, I wish you would give a cite, if not a link, to these long texts you post. It's like arguing with a shadow.
Second, it's hilarious that these deep thinkers think they are critiquing quantum mechanics when it just goes ahead discovering new hings about the universe while they remain stuck like little kids trying to assemble a kit that has both mysticism and quantum in it, and they just can;'t get them to fit together.
Sorry about the general rather than particular level of this post, but as I said, arguing with a shadow.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Second, it's hilarious that these deep thinkers think they are critiquing quantum mechanics when it just goes ahead discovering new hings about the universe while they remain stuck like little kids trying to assemble a kit that has both mysticism and quantum in it, and they just can't get them to fit together.[/B]
Yeah, it's funny how many scientists and philsophers are prone to it. Perhaps it's because the mechanisms of quantum mechanics and the nature of matter and consciousness remain a bit of a mystery.
Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, it's funny how many scientists and philsophers are prone to it. Perhaps it's because the mechanisms of quantum mechanics and the nature of matter and consciousness remain a bit of a mystery.
Good observation. Philosophy has often tried to unify the most mysterious of phenomena with each other...I don't know why, but this seems to be the case throughout history. For example, when the "essence" of "life" was not understood, people tried to unify this mystery with the mystery of physicality vs. sprituality.
Originally posted by Mentat
Conscious reality?
Tell me which of the following you disagree with, please:
If all of these things are true (and current science holds all of the them to be so, but I'm asking for your opinion), then the conclusion is that consciousness is unrecognizable at the quantum level.
So, there's no objective world?
Actually I choose to temporarily disagree with all of your statements. Reality may be somewhat different than conventional wisdom.
Your number 7 may be the reverse of conventional theory in a wholly physical universe.
For just a moment step outside of your fixed point of reference.
Consciousness may create all perceived reality in a dimension of timelessness or a singularity.
A localized perception of a reality where:
1) Your brain is made of cells.
2) Cells are made of molecules.
3) Molecules are made of atoms.
4) Atoms are made of subatomic particles.
5) Subatomic particles are the ones that are observed performing "weird" acts, due to quantum Uncertainty.
6) The brain, being made up of trillions of subatomic particles, isn't recognizable at the subatomic level.
7) Consciousness takes place in the brain's processes.
A dimension where human intellect finds finite limits but which allows humanity to merrily preceed to create experimental theories and observable findings.
Of course this premis would neither be measurable nor quantifiable and therefore easily discounted as metaphysical.
But then of course I could be wrong......
Originally posted by onycho
Consciousness may create all perceived reality in a dimension of timelessness or a singularity.
A localized perception of a reality where:
1) Your brain is made of cells.
2) Cells are made of molecules.
3) Molecules are made of atoms.
4) Atoms are made of subatomic particles.
5) Subatomic particles are the ones that are observed performing "weird" acts, due to quantum Uncertainty.
6) The brain, being made up of trillions of subatomic particles, isn't recognizable at the subatomic level.
7) Consciousness takes place in the brain's processes.
Of course this premis would neither be measurable nor quantifiable and therefore easily discounted as metaphysical.
But then of course I could be wrong...... [/B]
You could be, but I doubt it. The trouble is that your no. 7 isn't true if you're right. Much of the contents of consciousness may derive from the brain, but if consciousness 'creates all perceived reality' then it creates the brain.
Originally posted by Canute
You could be, but I doubt it. The trouble is that your no. 7 isn't true if you're right. Much of the contents of consciousness may derive from the brain, but if consciousness 'creates all perceived reality' then it creates the brain.
Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.
Ergo the human brain, the universe, particles, energy and all the fixed physical laws maybe nothing simpler than a 'dimensional consciousness.'
It is very safe for all physicists, cosmologists or humanity to assume that we actually exist in a universe where primary forces, life forms and our senses are reality and solid. This dimension might even be a hologram which is known to be divisible infinitely and still each divided portion maintains the original form.
But as you say, "I doubt it."
Originally posted by onycho
[B]Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.
Ergo the human brain, the universe, particles, energy and all the fixed physical laws maybe nothing simpler than a 'dimensional consciousness.'
As in the 'emptiness' of Buddhism or the 'Zero ontology'.
It is very safe for all physicists, cosmologists or humanity to assume that we actually exist in a universe where primary forces, life forms and our senses are reality and solid. This dimension might even be a hologram which is known to be divisible infinitely and still each divided portion maintains the original form.
Sorry, don't get that.
Originally posted by Canute
As in the 'emptiness' of Buddhism or the 'Zero ontology'.
Sorry, don't get that.
In the measurements of a single hydrogen atom, the nucleus is so small that even photons cannot strike it so to be seen with the best electron microscope. The single electron is postulated to move around the nucleus in an orbit that does not decay.
If that nucleus could be enlarged to approximately a 4" diameter, the electron orbit would be approximately 8 miles out. If you extrapolate this fact to the known universe, approximately 99.99% would be space and the remainder particle matter. Not taking into account any other invisible matter that maintains gravitation which prevents the universe from expanding rapidly to nothing.
Einstein postulated that matter is condensed energy which can at times become matter or return to the energy state. QM introduces the uncertainty principle with particles ability to instantly communicate with other particles at unimaginable distances.
What exactly is real in this chaotic universe of particle/energies that arrange themselves in ways to form life, consciousness, matter and what makes the laws of nature stable?
The String Theory and all other accepted physics in a wholly physical universe seems inadequate to explain our reality. There has to be something very different to explain existence.
It would seem that all theories of physical laws in this universe are as valid or invalid as another.
Originally posted by onycho
The String Theory and all other accepted physics in a wholly physical universe seems inadequate to explain our reality. There has to be something very different to explain existence.
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.
Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.
You are correct about the Buddist philosophy which claims that all things arise out of emptiness.
But the Buddist philosophy also believes that sentinent beings arise from the same emptiness. Plato also believed in the same concepts but was most likely not aware of the Buddist theology.
Many scientists today also believe in these same concepts of all matter, energy and the entire universe arising out of the so-called Big Bang.
The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe.
[ur]http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Holographic_universe.htm[/url]
Noel Huntley, Ph.D.
Ouspensky, in his book A New Model of the Universe, states that everything is everywhere and always. Physicist John Wheeler of Princeton states that the geometrodynamical quantum foam of superspace represents a superhologram of the universe, and physicist Jack Sarfatti's interpretation of this quantum superspace is that the wormholes connect all parts of the universe directly to every other part. Leading physicist David Bohm stresses quantum interconnectedness and unbroken wholeness. Charles Muses and Arthur Young refer to objects as superhologram images. Science writer Michael Talbot reiterates that thought processes are holographic in that all thoughts are infinitely cross-referenced with all other thoughts. Physicist Keith Floyd states that holographic models of consciousness make such brain processes as memory, perception, and imaging clearly explainable. Science writer Fritjof Capra speaks of the universe as a hologram, in which each part determines the whole
Unfortunately there is no way to prove something so preposterous which questions an orthodox physical universe.
Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.
Originally posted by onycho
Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.
The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route? There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.
[8)]
Originally posted by onycho
Actually I choose to temporarily disagree with all of your statements. Reality may be somewhat different than conventional wisdom.
Your number 7 may be the reverse of conventional theory in a wholly physical universe.
For just a moment step outside of your fixed point of reference.
Consciousness may create all perceived reality in a dimension of timelessness or a singularity.
A localized perception of a reality where:
1) Your brain is made of cells.
2) Cells are made of molecules.
3) Molecules are made of atoms.
4) Atoms are made of subatomic particles.
5) Subatomic particles are the ones that are observed performing "weird" acts, due to quantum Uncertainty.
6) The brain, being made up of trillions of subatomic particles, isn't recognizable at the subatomic level.
7) Consciousness takes place in the brain's processes.
A dimension where human intellect finds finite limits but which allows humanity to merrily preceed to create experimental theories and observable findings.
Of course this premis would neither be measurable nor quantifiable and therefore easily discounted as metaphysical.
But then of course I could be wrong......
Not only could you be wrong, but you are challenging a large construct of knowledge, that has been gathered over centuries. I'm not saying it couldn't be wrong either...in fact, I challenge it all the time (when the opposition is in favor of it...the so-called "devil's advocate" approach), but not here. If you have some reason to postulate that it's wrong, then I'd like to see what the flaw is. Otherwise, science is innocent 'till proven guilty, eh? [:)]
Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.
Wrong. All materialist reductions end in that which can be reduced no further. Whether because spacetime loses meaning at any scale smaller than that, or because it literally has no mass but nonetheless exists, this is always (AFAIK) the case.
Originally posted by Rader
The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route?
There just might be another route to an objective world than the two you mentioned. The indeterminism of 'freewill' which could enter into a chaotic universe becoming a simpler state of equilibrium. A system which is initially disorder (Big Bang) and which ultimately arranges itself into a state of homeostasis. The proverbial rearrangement of unrelated and chaotic particles into a universe where the immutable laws of physics can be more or less observed.
There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.
It seems that you have arrived at the very essence of the debate. Has this universe and its laws always been present in a timelessness infinite now or was there a beginning of everything?
The SAS construct is side-stepped by many simply because of that very indigestible concept of Consciousness. A reality being outside of any objective equation where a unified theory of all things and places exists.
The concept of 'purposeful evolution' is a malediction to the very concept of a Creator in the current world of physics and cosmology.
I actually held on to the illusion that there was some sense of order to the universe.... I am now convinced that we are all living in a Chagall painting—a world where brides and grooms and cows and chickens and angels and sneakers are all mixed up together, sometimes floating in the air, sometimes upside down and everywhere.
ATTRIBUTION: Susan Lapinski
Originally posted by Mentat
Not only could you be wrong, but you are challenging a large construct of knowledge, that has been gathered over centuries. I'm not saying it couldn't be wrong either...in fact, I challenge it all the time (when the opposition is in favor of it...the so-called "devil's advocate" approach), but not here. If you have some reason to postulate that it's wrong, then I'd like to see what the flaw is. Otherwise, science is innocent 'till proven guilty, eh? [:)]
You are absolutely correct. Science had constructed a well postulated mass of knowledge over many centuries until some little German patent clerk overturned conventional wisdom.
It is better not to risk loss of observable truth than to chance error.
ATTRIBUTION: William James
Originally posted by onycho
The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route?
There just might be another route to an objective world than the two you mentioned. The indeterminism of 'freewill' which could enter into a chaotic universe becoming a simpler state of equilibrium. A system which is initially disorder (Big Bang) and which ultimately arranges itself into a state of homeostasis. The proverbial rearrangement of unrelated and chaotic particles into a universe where the immutable laws of physics can be more or less observed.
Gee now i know i am not alone in the universe. Thoughts are not mine. Was that a statement, or do you perceive it as i do?
There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.
It seems that you have arrived at the very essence of the debate. Has this universe and its laws always been present in a timelessness infinite now or was there a beginning of everything?
Lets choose the latter, beginning of everything. Lets look at some evidence. We can answer that, with the data we have. CBR confirmation, understanding of when the laws were set, a basic picture of evolution from the Big Bang til now, conscious self aware humans to conceptualize all this.
But then we have the problems, 99.9 percent of everthing is empty space, we can only account for a small percent of that in weight, we are in 4 differnet aware or dream states, we are aware, before our sences tell us they happen. Lot like an illusion.
The SAS construct is side-stepped by many simply because of that very indigestible concept of Consciousness. A reality being outside of any objective equation where a unified theory of all things and places exists.
That has been my point many times on other threads. There is a lot of evidence on our evolutionary level, where we can confirm to good probability, that consciousness is independent of the objective reality. So then which is reality?
The concept of 'purposeful evolution' is a malediction to the very concept of a Creator in the current world of physics and cosmology.
Nothing is motionless in this objective universe. Nothing with motion has no purpose. Purpose demands choice and choice free will. Free will creates duality. Negativity arises out of duality. Negativity is the illusion. The other side is positivity or unity which sees no sides.
Question: Why does an illusion have to evolve?
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
Gee now i know i am not alone in the universe. Thoughts are not mine. Was that a statement, or do you perceive it as i do?
Now only paranoia is sure that there is one behind the many. Whatever you think and do are yours alone just as you attempt to disparage concepts foreign to your experience. Do you perceive my meaning?
Lets choose the latter, beginning of everything. Lets look at some evidence. We can answer that, with the data we have. CBR confirmation, understanding of when the laws were set, a basic picture of evolution from the Big Bang til now, conscious self aware humans to conceptualize all this. But then we have the problems, 99.9 percent of everthing is empty space, we can only account for a small percent of that in weight, we are in 4 differnet aware or dream states, we are aware, before our sences tell us they happen. Lot like an illusion.
So you are in possession of data and evidence of basic laws you know to be valid? Do you have four dream or illusion states in which you also hear voices?
That has been my point many times on other threads. There is a lot of evidence on our evolutionary level, where we can confirm to good probability, that consciousness is independent of the objective reality. So then which is reality?
To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.
ATTRIBUTION: Dietrich Bonhoeffer
pelastration
Dec18-03, 09:14 PM
Instead of going in semantics about consciousness I spent some days on the design of still images and animated images on the mechanism of consciousness. On http://www.mu6.com/consciousness2.html you will find three animated gif's showing the attention shift essential in the whole discussion, and our individual perception of reality.
Don't forget I come to this concept only based on one postulate about spacetime.
Originally posted by pelastration
Instead of going in semantics about consciousness I spent some days on the design of still images and animated images on the mechanism of consciousness. On http://www.mu6.com/consciousness2.html you will find three animated gif's showing the attention shift essential in the whole discussion, and our individual perception of reality.
Don't forget I come to this concept only based on one postulate about spacetime.
Albert Einstein
"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds."
Onycho
You said - "The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe".
How does your view differ from the Buddhist view? It seems to be the same, as far as it goes, and aside from the fact that you're theorising rather than experiencing.
Originally posted by onycho
You are absolutely correct. Science had constructed a well postulated mass of knowledge over many centuries until some little German patent clerk overturned conventional wisdom.
I'm so pleased that you mentioned this, since I've been meaning to explain the following point, but have had no opportunity:
Occam's Razor coincides with the old adage, "if it's not broke, don't fix it". Occam's Razor would call any assumption "additional", if this new assumption was not for the purpose of "patching up" a "break" in the previous conception. There was something wrong with Newtonian Mechanics (actually, there were a few things wrong with it), and Einstein saw that. So, he "patched up" the "crack". In doing so, he made his theory more accurate than the previous theory and thus Occam's preference of lesser assumptions doesn't apply. However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, and thus your idea (while possibly correct) requires an additional postulate...meaning that it's worse off by Occam's Razor.
Originally posted by Mentat
...However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, [/B]
Hmm. Except perhaps their existence and fundamental nature.
Originally posted by Canute
Onycho
You said - "The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe".
How does your view differ from the Buddhist view? It seems to be the same, as far as it goes, and aside from the fact that you're theorising rather than experiencing.
Canute I never denied that I was theorizing about reality of consciousness vs. a wholly physical universe.
The Buddhist view is significantly different from my construct of all reality existing as our 'freewill' assumes it exists. No solid particles, no energy, no universe and nothing but only a function of consciousness that creates mathematics and Big Bangs. Buddhism instead says:
Buddhist psychology
http://www.geocities.com/scimah/Buddhistteachings.htm
The nature of the mind
'...The mind is neither physical, nor a by-product of purely physical processes, but a formless continuum that is a separate entity from the body. When the body disintegrates at death, the mind does not cease. Although our superficial conscious mind ceases, it does so by dissolving into a deeper level of consciousness, called 'the very subtle mind'. The continuum of our very subtle mind has no beginning and no end...'
I don't believe in Transcendental Meditation either...
Originally posted by Mentat
Occam's Razor coincides with the old adage, "if it's not broke, don't fix it".
So Newtonian 'classical' mathematics dealt with the macro world of our daily experience and this upstart German Jew clerk saw that long held constructs were 'broke' and needed 'fixin.'
Classical mechanics was the physics of forces, acting upon bodies. It was often referred to as "Newtonian mechanics" after Newton and his laws of motion. Classical mechanics was subdivided into statics (which deals with objects in equilibrium) and dynamics (which deals with objects in motion).
...So, he "patched up" the "crack". In doing so, he made his theory more accurate than the previous theory and thus Occam's preference of lesser assumptions doesn't apply.
So to "patch up that crack" Einstein and his contemporaries stepped out of the box of human observation, 'welded' the crack and wove a totally new construct of the micro level of particle activity which explained the 'cracked' observable mechanics of Newton's mathematical genius.
However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, and thus your idea (while possibly correct) requires an additional postulate...meaning that it's worse off by Occam's Razor.
How can an additional postulate explain that very troubling consciousness by any part of QM?
Albert Einstein
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Onycho
Sorry, I still can't see where your view differs (in outline) from that of Buddhists. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your view.
Originally posted by Canute
Onycho
Sorry, I still can't see where your view differs (in outline) from that of Buddhists. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your view.
Cantu please understand I don't believe that man's finite mind or consciousness has the ability to actually understand the exact nature of all things. The fact that genius minds around the world plod along with attempts at solving the 'unified field theory' ultimately, in my humble opinion, is just beyond human ability. Einstein said it best, "I want to know the thoughts of G-d, and the rest is detail."
Please forgive me if I misstate Buddhist philosophy in which the Buddha believes in the reality of mass, matter, a physical body and brain with a consciousness that is outside of the physical being. They see problems and suffering which arise from confused and negative states of mind, and that all our happiness and good fortune arise from peaceful and positive states of mind. Buddha Shakyamuni taught a theology for gradually overcoming our negative minds such as anger, jealousy and ignorance, and developing our positive minds such as love, compassion and wisdom. Through this we will come to experience lasting peace and happiness. Buddha believed that these methods work for anyone, in any country, in any age. Once humans have gained experience of them for ourselves we can pass them on to others so they too might enjoy the same benefits.
While I picture a dimension where nothing exists and the only reality is a flowing 'freewill' consciousness which exists in timelessness. For a short segment of 'time', consciousness experiences is allowed to perceive existence that we assume has boundaries, QM, weak and strong forces.
The only reason that I even suggest such an absurd theory is that there is a possible innate self-awareness property in particles. But then if my construct had validity, those same particles don't exist.
Originally posted by onycho
Cantu please understand I don't believe that man's finite mind or consciousness has the ability to actually understand the exact nature of all things.
I'm sure we can't understand all the details. But why can't we understand the basic truths?
The fact that genius minds around the world plod along with attempts at solving the 'unified field theory' ultimately, in my humble opinion, is just beyond human ability.'
A unified field theory is a human construct, not a feature of reality. It doesn;t really matter whether we understand it or not, we invented it.
Please forgive me if I misstate Buddhist philosophy in which the Buddha believes in the reality of mass, matter, a physical body and brain with a consciousness that is outside of the physical being. They see problems and suffering which arise from confused and negative states of mind, and that all our happiness and good fortune arise from peaceful and positive states of mind.
Yes this is a misstatement, and yes, I forgive you. [:))]
Buddha Shakyamuni taught a theology
I rather doubt that. Buddhism is a metaphysic, not a theology.
for gradually overcoming our negative minds such as anger, jealousy and ignorance, and developing our positive minds such as love, compassion and wisdom. Through this we will come to experience lasting peace and happiness. Buddha believed that these methods work for anyone, in any country, in any age. Once humans have gained experience of them for ourselves we can pass them on to others so they too might enjoy the same benefits.
Ok.
While I picture a dimension where nothing exists and the only reality is a flowing 'freewill' consciousness which exists in timelessness. For a short segment of 'time', consciousness experiences is allowed to perceive existence that we assume has boundaries, QM, weak and strong forces.
Ok, Buddhism again.
The only reason that I even suggest such an absurd theory is that there is a possible innate self-awareness property in particles.
I don't find it absurd. Try a search on microphenomenalism or panpsychism. Both well supported by philosophers to this day.
But then if my construct had validity, those same particles don't exist. [/B]
They do and they don't. Depends where you're standing. Call them epiphenominal and it solves the dilemma.
If consciousness is "the reality" we are the by-product of one of a infinite number of multiverses. To think contrary would be ego-centric. We create our own reality inside Reality.
David R. Hawkins; The eye of the I, The limitation of perception imputes to events in the world an invisible, magical force called "casuality". It confuses necessary condition as bieng causes. It also confuses temporal sequence with causality. "Events do not really happen", in Reality. These are arbritrary attractions that are the result of selective, sequential focusing. In Reality, no events are occurring; therefore, no explanations are necessary. In Reality, creation is continuous. The unmanifest becomes manifest. Each observation, however is couched in mentalizations of time and location and therefore ostensible sequence. These are only mentations, how the observable comes about. It is created out of consciousness. Nothing in the world causes anything else. All is interwined in a holographic dance wherin each element influences every other element but does not cause it. Cause is an epistemological invention and is only that of a mentation. The artifact of mentation creats spurious conundrums which then require the spurious explanation of causality to "explain". In Reality, the absoluteness and totality of Creation leaves no vacancy to be filled with any explanatory thought form such as cause. Totality is complete and requires no cause. Cause is force; creation is power.
God is power not force.
What could possible be the reason for consciousness acting this way? Maybe its because, beauty is the best way of describing the Creator. The beauty of Creation is in all its diversity.
In Doñana Spain lives the koo koo bird. Yes you have seen his icon on all koo koo clocks. He lays his eggs in other nests. He wastes no time warming his eggs when others can do it. He spends his time, on other usefull things, contemplating what no one has time for. So if anyone calls you koo koo, remember that it has another deeper meaning.
[8)]
Link to the 70 sciences to study conscientiology.
http://www.mundoiac.org/English/Sciences/Conscientiology/SubdisciplinesOfConscientiology.asp
Originally posted by Canute
I'm sure we can't understand all the details. But why can't we understand the basic truths?
Throughout the centuries basic truths or hypothesis' have been accepted by the scientific world only to eventually be replaced by newer models. How are we to know that today's knowledge or truths are truly immutable?
A unified field theory is a human construct, not a feature of reality. It doesn;t really matter whether we understand it or not, we invented it.
Sorry about the use of the word 'solve' the Unified Field Theory when in fact the search for same by human beings remains elusive. Any invention of a basic formula for a 'Unified Field Theory' must necessarily mean that we have a well defined understanding of the physics which occurs at any point in the universe.
Yes this is a misstatement, and yes, I forgive you. [:))]
Very civil of you to forgive.
I rather doubt that. Buddhism is a metaphysic, not a theology.
Metaphysic is the philosophical study of being and knowing while Buddhism has a particular theology system or school of religious beliefs and teachings of the Budda, i.e.;
NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH OF BUDDA: The members of the path are defined in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere as follows:
Right View of the Four Truths;
Right Intention governed by renunciation (non-sensuality), non-ill-will, and non-cruelty (harmlessness);
Right Speech in abstention from lying, slander, abuse and gossip;
Right Action in abstention from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct;
Right Livelihood for bhikkhus as that allowed by the Rules of the Discipline, and for laymen as avoidance of trading in weapons, living beings, meat, intoxicants, and poisons (AN V);
Right Effort to avoid unarisen and to abandon arisen evil, and to arouse unarisen and to develop arisen good;
Right Mindfulness of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness as given in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta -- that is, contemplation of the body as a body, of feelings as feelings, of states of consciousness as states of consciousness, and of ideas as ideas;
Right Concentration as (any of) the four jhana -meditations.
Ok. Ok, Buddhism again.
Thye do and they don't. Depends where you're standing. Call them epiphenominal and it solves the dilemma.
I'm not certain that particle existence or lack thereof is in any way causal,linked together or does it appear to solve any dilemma.
phoenixthoth
Dec20-03, 05:29 PM
consciousness may be a by-product of a mathematical self-awareness structure.
under "russell's paradox, the achilles heel of solipsism," i basically postulate with more details that it's all the same thing.
also the article on SAS's explains what i'm talking about; it was written by max tegmark and is available here:
http://alephnulldimension.net/toe.pdf
if it all works out, it will unify not only the four forces but also consciousness.
Originally posted by onycho
Throughout the centuries basic truths or hypothesis' have been accepted by the scientific world only to eventually be replaced by newer models. How are we to know that today's knowledge or truths are truly immutable?
You're talking about scientific 'truths', which I agree can never be known to be true. I'm talking about what is really true.
Sorry about the use of the word 'solve' the Unified Field Theory when in fact the search for same by human beings remains elusive. Any invention of a basic formula for a 'Unified Field Theory' must necessarily mean that we have a well defined understanding of the physics which occurs at any point in the universe.
And then we'll have another scientific theory that we can't know is true, and so on ad infinitum. Science is fine if you want gadgets and so on, but it is not concerned with truth. Not even scientists claim that it is.
Metaphysic is the philosophical study of being and knowing
'Metaphysic' is a noun, used to stand for a metaphysical system. You're thinking of metaphysics, which is the study of reality, or what lies beyond physics.
"Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." Alfred North Whitehead
while Buddhism has a particular theology system or school of religious beliefs and teachings of the Budda, i.e.;
I wish you'd stop talking nonsense about Buddhism. It is not a theological system. And even if all the teachings of the Buddha were thrown away it wouldn't change a thing. Many people have discovered the truth of Buddhism without even knowing it existed. It is a metaphysic, an understanding of reality not derived from doctrine or belief in some teaching or other.
Technically it is not even a religion, although that's being a bit pedantic.
I'm not certain that particle existence or lack thereof is in any way causal,linked together or does it appear to solve any dilemma. [/B]
Sorry but I can't find any meaning in that.
consciousness may be a by-product of a mathematical self-awareness structure.
"Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists', or 'My mental states are the only mental states.'
Most may disagree with the following construct but the concept is intriguing.
The TOE (Theory of Everything) may now be a reality and has been the subject of heated scientific debate raging for the last decade.
About 1448 BCE, a type of Rosetta stone was said to be inserted into this dimension of human consciousness. In a sum total of 304,805 letters (a total of 26 individual letters) which is much like a long single strand of DNA which encrypted to form a type of blueprint for the Theory of Everything. These letters when seen as a dimensional hologram, form into closely related events in recorded history. It is thought that the entire formation of everything has been encrypted into this multi-grouping letter formations.
Now the very long letter sequence has apparently been unlocked by powerful computers and which had initially been broken by a distinguished mathematician, and later corroborated by world-famous academics. After extensive peer review of the ELS code, the report was published in the respected journal Statistical Science in 1994, Vol 9. Given the consequences of this research, it was inevitable that some people would take exception to the findings. Despite the integrity of the research and the researchers, critics have made many strong attempts to refute the research and discredit the researchers.
For most of critics, the issue was not the existence of codes; it’s the implication, which runs contrary to their a priori assumptions. This view is best expressed by one of the critics. When challenged “What evidence would be enough to convince you that the codes exist?” she responded “No amount of evidence. “I know that the code was written by human beings!”
Scientific evidence rests on facts, demonstrated through repeated experimentation and independent verification. This has been done, and is the basis of a significant reliance on the authenticity of the code.
So what have the critics found? That theoretically one could cheat. That by surreptitiously not using an objective list of pairs of words, or by playing around with many alternative spellings of words, or by breaking basic rules of grammar, or by not considering minimal ELSs, one could concoct a contrived list and deceive people into believing that an objective experiment was performed.
This is precisely the method used by the critics to create “counterfeit” codes in Moby Dick; this is also the technique used in most of the popular books on the Codes.”
The only difference between the scientists opposed to codes, and the non-scientific use of codes is that the critics admit that their results were obtained through selective choices of data, i.e. cheating. Their claim however, is that the original codes researchers cheated in this same way.
To summarize, there are no scientists who claim that any hidden codes actually exist in different texts. Their claim is the opposite-that in fact, there is no such thing as a codes phenomenon in any text, and that the experiments performed and published are fraudulent.
The debate proceeds….
Originally posted by Canute
You're talking about scientific 'truths', which I agree can never be known to be true. I'm talking about what is really true.
The truth has never been of any real value to any human being—it is a symbol for mathematicians and philosophers to pursue. In human relations kindness and lies are worth a thousand truths.
ATTRIBUTION: Graham Greene
And then we'll have another scientific theory that we can't know is true, and so on ad infinitum. Science is fine if you want gadgets and so on, but it is not concerned with truth. Not even scientists claim that it is.
There are only a few of us that now the truth and we are not telling...
'Metaphysic' is a noun, used to stand for a metaphysical system. You're thinking of metaphysics, which is the study of reality, or what lies beyond physics. "Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." Alfred North Whitehead
I wish you'd stop talking nonsense about Buddhism. It is not a theological system. And even if all the teachings of the Buddha were thrown away it wouldn't change a thing. Many people have discovered the truth of Buddhism without even knowing it existed. It is a metaphysic, an understanding of reality not derived from doctrine or belief in some teaching or other.
Enough with Buddhism. Many people have discovered the TRUTH OF BUDDHISM until eventually they found it also just another illusion.
Technically it is not even a religion, although that's being a bit pedantic.
Technically even atheism is a religion with it's own dogma.
Onycho
Have you ever considered doing some research before forming your opinions? Or is that too much like hard work?
Originally posted by Canute
Onycho
Have you ever considered doing some research before forming your opinions? Or is that too much like hard work?
Sometimes the impressions of your intellect outweighs your ability to be civil.
I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.
--Albert Einstein
phoenixthoth
Dec21-03, 11:55 AM
maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what i'm talking about is meditating. i'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html
Originally posted by onycho
Sometimes the impressions of your intellect outweighs your ability to be civil.
Perhaps you're right. My apologies. But you should not make claims about Buddhism (or anything else) without some understanding of it. It gets people annoyed. Try consistently writing nonsense about science on a science thread and see how civil people are. I was hoping you'd back off, but you kept going.
Anyway, I don't want a row. Just please find a bit out about Buddhism before asserting incorrect things about it. You make it sound ridiculous.
May the sun always shine on your tent [:)]
Canute
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what i'm talking about is meditating. i'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html
I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head.
Interesting link. It's an unusual article from a computation researcher.
You might like this. It's the best online resource for consciousness papers. Almost every view is there in depth.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what i'm talking about is meditating. i'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html
The homeopathic and its related esoteric healing arts article is very interesting and raises some interesting concepts.
There are only a few problems that seem apparent:
1) The author indicates that by using homeopathic medicine or meditation, healings have occurred mysteriously. She even gives one example about the healing of her own child with infantile autism.
Unfortunately many mysterious healings occur on a rather irregular and random basis even without using any of the therapies indicated in the article.
2) The author tends to the "metaphysical view of consciousness which is rooted in a quasi-mathematical definition of its mechanism."
In my opinion, this construct is ultimately doomed to failure as any definition of consciousness or self-awareness is so ambiguous that it might be easier to measure the boundaries or dimensions of the universe in which we assume exists.
I feel that all one can do is wax philosophically about whether consciousness or awareness is formed in the brain or is outside of the physical world.
Originally posted by Canute
Perhaps you're right. My apologies. But you should not make claims about Buddhism (or anything else) without some understanding of it. It gets people annoyed. Try consistently writing nonsense about science on a science thread and see how civil people are. I was hoping you'd back off, but you kept going.
Anyway, I don't want a row. Just please find a bit out about Buddhism before asserting incorrect things about it. You make it sound ridiculous.
Your apology accepted and please accepts my own contrition for assaulting your own beliefs in Buddhism. I had no conscious intent to annoy anyone in writing 'nonsense' as actually I intentionally plagiarized a small portion of a Buddhist site which laid out some of its religious tenets as proof text.
Probably we all are guilty to some extent of bias towards our own personal beliefs. In an earlier post to which nobody responded, I was espousing my own beliefs in a debate about the accuracy of statistical probabilities in the Hebrew text of the five books of Moses.
Hope we can continue our discussions without animosity.
Originally posted by onycho
Your apology accepted and please accepts my own contrition for assaulting your own beliefs in Buddhism.
yeah, let's start again. But please note, I'm not talking about my beliefs. I'm talking about what Buddhism is. (You can assault my beliefs as much as you like. I like to test them to the limit.).
I had no conscious intent to annoy anyone in writing 'nonsense' as actually I intentionally plagiarized a small portion of a Buddhist site which laid out some of its religious tenets as proof text.
Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).
Probably we all are guilty to some extent of bias towards our own personal beliefs. In an earlier post to which nobody responded, I was espousing my own beliefs in a debate about the accuracy of statistical probabilities in the Hebrew text of the five books of Moses.
Was that the stuff about codes? Interesting idea, but I must say I thought it was flawed mathematics.
Hope we can continue our discussions without animosity. [/B]
Absolutely.
radagast
Dec22-03, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Canute Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).
That's well said.
Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.
A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.
Trying to take anything said in Buddhism as some a form of fact/dogma/doctrine or even teaching, should be done with great care. Buddhism makes use of analogy and metaphor to an extent I've only seen, within other religions, in Taoism.
pelastration
Dec22-03, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by radagast
That's well said.
Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.
A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.
Correct.
phoenixthoth
Dec22-03, 03:02 PM
there's a relevant article on be-ness and consciousness to be found at the website http://www.duerden.com . the except i'm referring to can be found as the entry posted here:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38
on Oct. 22 2003,9:05. the post just before that from "the eye of the I" by david hawkins may also be relevant.
Originally posted by radagast
That's well said.
Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.
A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.
I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged. The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.
Definition of religion:
http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html
Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.[/quote]
The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.
http://www.zianet.com/kahlua/kahluawebsite/timeline/BUDDHISM.htm
BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.
Trying to take anything said in Buddhism as some a form of fact/dogma/doctrine or even teaching, should be done with great care. Buddhism makes use of analogy and metaphor to an extent I've only seen, within other religions, in Taoism.
Actually what you are talking about is two simple factors to any form of fact/dogma/doctrine or teaching.
Many people take religions or beliefs as either
1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical
In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.
Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.
I should know.....
phoenixthoth
Dec22-03, 03:38 PM
the classical religions take the approach of salvation in the sense that God is "up there" somewhere in a distant heaven. the transcendence of God.
buddhism take the approach of enlightenment. while a higher power isn't specifically mentioned, it is my view that this treats God as an immanent entity; not "up there" but within as well. the immanence of God. actually, there are quotes in the bible that support this. one of them says that if you seek the kingdom of God, righteousness will be added to you and another states that the kingdom of God is within you.
my personal view is a synthesis of the two. God is immanent and transcendent.
pelastration
Dec22-03, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by onycho
I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged. The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.
Definition of religion:
http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html
Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.
The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.
http://www.zianet.com/kahlua/kahluawebsite/timeline/BUDDHISM.htm
BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.
Actually what you are talking about is two simple factors to any form of fact/dogma/doctrine or teaching.
Many people take religions or beliefs as either
1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical
In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.
Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.
I should know..... [/QUOTE]
Does Kabbala is part of Judaism? I don't know. But I know Kabbala, it's a psychotherapeutic system (i.e. following introspective paths, passing Daath, etc.). Also the valueing of letters is also a kind of believe. Maybe this is part of some of the groups you referred to.
Originally posted by pelastration
Does Kabbala is part of Judaism? I don't know. But I know Kabbala, it's a psychotherapeutic system (i.e. following introspective paths, passing Daath, etc.). Also the valueing of letters is also a kind of believe. Maybe this is part of some of the groups you referred to.
Kabalah is a late mysticism that is not a part of the religion of Judaism.
"Kabbalah - Also spelled Cabala. It refers to the mystical interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. It has two principal written sources. Sefer Yezira is a third century work which purports to present a series of monologues given by the patriarch Abraham. The second, Zohar is a mystical commentary on the Torah written by Moses de León in the 13th century. As a religious movement, it appears to have started in 11th century France, and then spread to Spain and elsewhere. It influenced the development of Hasidism in the 18th century."
Classical Judaism is not concerned with the mystical or metaphysical aspects of existence. Kabbalah arose by a group of men (above) who saw the underlying mystical universe in orbs or lights each with a meaning. There is no more validity in this construct than there is to any of our musing about consciousness and externalizing multiple dimensions with a String Theory of Things.
Judaism's basic tenets or beliefs are that the truth of 'things' is known only by an unseen omnipotent Hand that created 'everything' in timelessness. That mankind has a reason for 'being' and that meaning is the ability to assist in some way the continuing creation process that occurs from nano-second to nano-second. Science believes that matter and energy constantly evolve and change which makes up our assumed universe.
No one has died and come back to tell us if and what reality is and no near-death experience has occurred. With such knowledge, there would be no questions remaining, ergo no freewill choice necessary.
Kabballah is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity.
Originally posted by Canute
[B]yeah, let's start again. But please note, I'm not talking about my beliefs. I'm talking about what Buddhism is. (You can assault my beliefs as much as you like. I like to test them to the limit.).
Great... Testing Buddhism to the limit is fantastic but like abstractions and consciousness, in my limited opinion, there is no known ways to perform double-blind studies or experiments to verify what we feel is 'the truth.'
Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).
Again, I do not wish to question your understanding that Buddhism is in some way an underlying understanding of the basis of reality. The only problem I can see is in the substantiation and not in the fact that Buddhism has persisted for so many centuries. Like the codes, the ultimate truth of all will eventually in time be known without any doubt.
Was that the stuff about codes? Interesting idea, but I must say I thought it was flawed mathematics.
Yes that 'stuff; was about the codes which remains under intensive debate by those who may have stumbled on something that exists or as the opponents’ state, has no encryption or meaning whatsoever.
Time seems to pass before any new constructs of the physical universe is accepted and the truth of one side or the other will eventually be known. The mathematics and the statistical program have been verified by many but there are many others who use their own math in an attempt to debunk the probabilities that the codes exist.
Time will tell....
Originally posted by onycho
I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged.
If people take offense when their beliefs are challenged that's their problem. Beliefs should challenged regularly imo, like changing the oil on your car.
The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.
Definition of religion:
http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html
Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.
This definition is why Buddhism is not a religion.
The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.
For goodness sake, how can one have a religion with no God in it? I'm getting bored saying this over and over again to you. There's no harm in calling it a religion most of the time, (as most people do) since it is in some ways very like a religion. However when when you start knocking religion you have to leave Buddhism out and knock it separately. It is not a religion by any normal definition, if it strictly applied.
BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.
This is a very misleading definition, but not actually incorrect I suppose.
Many people take religions or beliefs as either
1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical
How can a religion be literal, or a belief be metaphorical? What do you mean.
In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.
Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.
I should know..... [/B]
I'll take your word for it, although I thought Judaism had a mystical tradition.
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the classical religions take the approach of salvation in the sense that God is "up there" somewhere in a distant heaven. the transcendence of God.
buddhism take the approach of enlightenment. while a higher power isn't specifically mentioned, it is my view that this treats God as an immanent entity;
Then, sorry, but your view will be wrong, formed before you have done your research. There is no fundamental God in Buddhism, immanent or otherwise.
my personal view is a synthesis of the two. God is immanent and transcendent. [/B]
Hmm. Isn't there a contradiction in believing both at the same time?
radagast
Dec23-03, 12:51 PM
Canute,
While I don't care if Buddhism is consider/defined a religion or not, by your own statement [the definition of a word is dictated by it's use], Buddhism is a religion. Most people consider it a religion, as they do Taoism, and use it that way in speech.
Neither Taoism or Buddhism qualify as religions by certain definitions, but that's at least as much a function of how people associate religions with dieties, because that is the religions they are used to.
To consider Buddhism/Taoism not a religion, then you have other things that are discordant in the definition of things - the fact that Buddhism/Taoism have priests, temples, nuns, monks, and many of the trappings that are usually strictly associated with religion.
Some definitions of religion encompass Buddhism as a religion, some don't, but in the same dictionaries, Buddhism is virtually always defined as a religion. How can you reconcile that one definition says no, but a more specific one says yes? Could it be that the generalization of the former definition was imperfect or incomplete?
Originally posted by radagast
Canute,
While I don't care if Buddhism is consider/defined a religion or not, by your own statement [the definition of a word is dictated by it's use], Buddhism is a religion. Most people consider it a religion, as they do Taoism, and use it that way in speech.
Neither Taoism or Buddhism qualify as religions by certain definitions, but that's at least as much a function of how people associate religions with dieties, because that is the religions they are used to.
To consider Buddhism/Taoism not a religion, then you have other things that are discordant in the definition of things - the fact that Buddhism/Taoism have priests, temples, nuns, monks, and many of the trappings that are usually strictly associated with religion.
Some definitions of religion encompass Buddhism as a religion, some don't, but in the same dictionaries, Buddhism is virtually always defined as a religion. How can you reconcile that one definition says no, but a more specific one says yes? Could it be that the generalization of the former definition was imperfect or incomplete?
I agree with everything you say here. This is a balanced view, based on the fact that Buddhism has many of the trappings of a religion. However I have never seen a definition of 'religion' that includes Buddhism if that defintion is applied strictly.
Calling it a religion doesn't matter too much for most of the time. But occasionally atheists criticise Buddhism on the grounds that it is a religion, so they've heard, and therefore it must be theistic. Then all the definitions need to be clarified a bit.
phoenixthoth
Dec23-03, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Canute
Then, sorry, but your view will be wrong, formed before you have done your research. There is no fundamental God in Buddhism, immanent or otherwise.
right. i know there is no God in buddhism. that's why i said it was my view, though it's not just mine.
[/quote]
Originally posted by Canute Hmm. Isn't there a contradiction in believing both at the same time? [/QUOTE]
no, there isn't though one could call it a duality not unlike the dual nature of certain things in quantum mechanics. the unity is that God is everywhere, including here and including "up there."
Questions about Buddhism.... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)
If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?
Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?
What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth. Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?
Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm
However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic (although it has much in common with them). Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion of God (as some atheistic writers have done). It is principally concerned with developing a method of escape from the worldly ills.....He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the worlds to come. It is this task that informs most of the discourses of the Buddha which later came to be compiled into the various Canons of Buddhism.
radagast
Dec24-03, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by onycho
Questions about Buddhism.... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)
If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth. Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha? See explanation above. Nirvana isn't another place.
Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.
You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.
You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.
Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings.
Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.
Originally posted by radagast
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
Questions:
1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the indvidual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?
2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/MAHAYANA.HTM
The Mahayanists developed a theology of Buddha called the doctrine of "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya. The Buddha was not a human being, as he was in Theravada Buddhism, but the manifestation of a universal, spiritual being. This being had three bodies. When it occupied the earth in the form of Siddhartha Gautama, it took on the Body of Magical Transformation (nirmanakaya ). This Body of Magical Transformation was an emanation of the Body of Bliss (sambhogakaya ), which occupies the heavens in the form of a ruling and governing god of the universe.
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
Questions:
1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as apposed to Theravada Buddhism?
The Tantric Buddhists, on the other hand, developed a different methodology from this insight that the world is unreal. Just because the physical world doesn't exist doesn't mean that one should reject it. On the one hand, if the physical world doesn't exist, that means that one cannot commit right or wrong. As a way of proving that one is enlightened, all sorts of forbidden acts should be engaged in: fornication, thieving, eating dung, and so forth.
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?'
As a Westerner, the concepts of Buddhism are very difficult to understand or intellectualize as stated in the following.
To comprehend one must first have discipline and restrain the mind through meditation and introspection, without the use of logical thinking, avoiding the pitfalls of verbalization. The ultimate aim is to obtain an entirely new view of all experience. And the key word is Satori (enlightenment). This is the experience the Buddha sought in lonely and quiet meditation, and this is the mystic "enlightenment" that every person can find.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Having had a Kensho experience doesn’t mean you are Enlightened any more than sinking a one-time jump shot means you are ready for the NBA. The difference is years of practice, practice, practice. The scholar Robert Thurman says that the classical Indian texts give a description of complete Enlightenment as being something akin to what we might describe in modern terms as "cleaning out our unconscious." The process is long and difficult; the Indian texts describe it as taking many lifetimes to accomplish.
You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.
You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose? These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.
The Four Noble Truths (4)
1. There is suffering
2. Caused by craving
3. Relief is possible
4. via 8-fold path:6
a. Right view
b. Right resolve
c. Right speech
d. Right conduct
e. Right livelihood
f. Right effort
g. Right awareness
h. Right meditation
phoenixthoth
Dec24-03, 02:13 PM
i would say, not knowing anything, that the reasons to follow the eightfold path are worlds different from the reasons to follow the ten commandments.
radagast: Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'.
is that the ego death or sublation of the ego that's painful?
Human consciousness seems to be aware and know, by its expression through all religions and philosophies', that there is one commandment, that incluids all commandments. It is expressed in different ways. The expressions are as different as the races and cultures. The expression, awareness and knowing, is also different on the individual level of consciousness. Thou shalt love they neigbor as thyself. The problem is putting it into practice. In my humble opinion, once put in practice, enlightnment should come there after.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo
[8)]
phoenixthoth
Dec25-03, 10:53 PM
hence my current signature:
love the world as yourself for, in truth, It Is.
this also relates to a couple of poems i've written with the words "It Is" in it.
Originally posted by Rader
Human consciousness seems to be aware and know, by its expression through all religions and philosophies', that there is one commandment, that incluids all commandments. It is expressed in different ways. The expressions are as different as the races and cultures. The expression, awareness and knowing, is also different on the individual level of consciousness. Thou shalt love they neigbor as thyself. The problem is putting it into practice. In my humble opinion, once put in practice, enlightnment should come there after. Gloria in Excelsis Deo
[8)]
Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?
There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.
The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.
There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.
radagast
Dec27-03, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
Questions:
1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the individual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe????? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?
2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
Questions:
1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Didn't you read anything I said??? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.
2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?
I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.
How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?' All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Not in my understanding of what your asking.
Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse??? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.
There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.
"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Action and meditation.
By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought.
If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.
Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.
You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.
Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?
The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.
The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?
Originally posted by onycho
Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?
There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.
I was referring to the present, but since you mention also the past. Does something have to be written down to be known? Is not humaness that commandment? Did free will just leap into reality or was it a lesser thing that evolved into human free will? Is anything erroneous or is it just the interpretation of it?
Read this quote from scripture.
http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/24-0003.htm
The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.
Translation from language to language the words may change some, but not a meaning, only the interepretion. Someone who understands something does not always put it into practice, through love and compassion good can be practiced. For me what you write means the same. To me the word commandment pertains more to the moral or spirtual side of things and laws are manmade.
There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.
Yes but if all us humans have free will, then the question could be asked, if we are all conscious aware humans why do some practice good and others evil? Do all humans have the same awareness? Is there more good done in the world than evil?
To answer all these questions, it could be said that thoughts and meanings have an undivided fied of movement. All eventualities have a previous choice and ordination of synchronous events. Clear ideas have there roots in a caotic state but that is only the perspective of the present.
[8)]
wahoo q
Dec27-03, 05:47 PM
consciousness does not equal perception
pelastration
Dec27-03, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by onycho
1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation,
He did. Cfr. the Tathagata Womb in the Lankavatara Sutra.
About that sutra: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra
The text: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm
The essence: "Emptiness is the word, really, which is better to use than God, because with God we start feeling there is some person. So Buddha never uses God, he always uses shunyata ? emptiness, nothingness. In the center you are a non-being, nothingness, just a vast space, eternally cool, silent, blissful." http://www.purifymind.com/EmptyCup.htm
The essence of the Universal Womb as explained in the Anuradha Sutta
To Anuradha: STRESS.
Buddha: "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-086.html
If you take the time to understand my multi-layered spacetime membrane you will find out that Prior-Geometry (Das "Feld" of Einstein) is the empty Tathagata Womb with is ruled by 'stress' , and by this stress-dynamic can create and start the Karmatic wheel of matter, energy and life.
That Tathagata Womb is omnipresent in all, since it is the gravity-membrane that is the essence of everything: interconnective stress.
Originally posted by onycho
Questions about Buddhism.... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)
If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?
From emptiness.
Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?
Sort of. Nirvana is not really a world to come. It is the rest state, the limit case, of consciousness, in which 'self' ceases to be and there is just being/non-being (emptiness/fullness etc).
What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth.
There is if you give it a greater purpose.
Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?
I'd say a state of Nirvana is an absence of intellect. We depart from it as a result of desire and confusion. (I'm not a Buddhist but this is how I see it).
Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.
Buddhist ethics, lifestyle, behaviour etc., derive from their ontology. In other words the practice of compassion, detachment etc. follow logically from an understanding of the fundamental emptiness that underlies existence. On the one hand the practice of these things helps one achieve a state of eternal bliss (emptiness), and on the other the experience of emptiness (bliss) leads one to practice them. As I understand it to a Buddhist nothing exists but consciousness in the final analysis. This is how Buddhism escapes the endless regressions of substances entailed by physicalist ontologies.
Originally posted by radagast
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs.
I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.
Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?
Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this.
(Agree with the rest of what you said)
Sorry to post so much but I feel radagast's reply to this was misleading. (Probably this will be as well).
Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
The Buddha's teachings are all about the creation of the universe. They explain its existence, or at least they explain how to understand its existence.
Questions:
1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the indvidual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?
Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.
2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind.
1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Yes. But by suffering they do not necessarily mean great pain or tragedy. It is simply that if one exists as a 'self' in time then suffering is inevitable, since all things are impermanent, including any state of non-suffering. Whatever you value that is impermanent you must lose, whatever pleasure you have must cease, all good things come to end etc.
2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
No, not at all. Ultimately one seeks to escape suffering by transcending the cycle of death and rebirth. In the meantime one practices detachment and desireless enjoyment. Buddhists seek permanent escape, an eternal lack of suffering, not a brief period of military service.
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as apposed to Theravada Buddhism?
Not as far as I know. Drugs are usually frowned upon, and eating dung is unnecessary.
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
I think 'intuition' is the wrong word. Experience is the thing. Buddhism is not irrational so it helps to think about it, and thinking is encouraged. However non-thinking is also encouraged. Ultimately enlightenment comes from experience and cannot be achieved by reason alone. In the same way no amount of thinking about the colour red would allow you to know what red is, the experience of red it is what 'red' is.
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
No. Emptiness is not exactly unconsciousness.
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
Escape from suffering is a side affect of enlightenment, not the definition of it.
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Only the most skilled reach a point where they might make such a vow, and I suspect only the very skilled fully understand the meaning of it.
If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
I would say no. The reference to Gods in some schools of Buddhism is very self-contradictory. I feel they are there as a way a helping people to make progress and see beyond them to the truth, but I'm not sure.
radagast
Dec29-03, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Canute
I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.
Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?
I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.
It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.
What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.
Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.
Why do you think I have the tagline I do?
I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.
Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?
Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.
Another interpretation is a little harder to explain in this type of forum. I'll only say that the birth and death it refers to have more to do with the birth/death of simple experiences, and the marks they make on your psyche [karma]. It's touched on, peripherally, in one of the last chapters of Novice to Master.
It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this. Agreed. No matter what is said about it, it would be incomplete, and easily open to misinterpretation.
radagast
Dec29-03, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Canute Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.
I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.
The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind. I would agree.
Originally posted by radagast
Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?
It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more.
It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.
LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.
Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.
Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy. [:)]
I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.
Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?
Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.
All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.
There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma.
Originally posted by radagast
I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.
Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.
It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.
I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.
The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.
radagast
Dec29-03, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Canute
Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.
It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.
I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.
The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.
Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.
I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.
radagast
Dec29-03, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Canute
It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more. I can only say that we disagree on this point. I've studied Buddhism for thirty years and been sitting regularly for close to ten. My study hasn't shown me what your's has shown you.
Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy. [:)]
I guess it's a little more than that. We are held in a monastary like setting - no chairs, no leaning against the walls, no rest for our legs, no lying down until lights out (midnight). Our schedule starts at 4AM and runs until Midnight. All sitting, whether meditation, eating, or free periods are on the floor. Given most are like me, in that we live most of our lives with chairs, sitting on the floor is hard on the knee and hip joints, at least by the second full day. I find it worse than most, given my knees are quite inflexible and a lotus position is something I can barely imagine. Attempting it would likely result in a call for ambulance services, with a high probability of power tool involvement. [:)]
Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?
Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?
This isn't the forum for me to go into this. If you are curious, read Ambivalent Zen. I will say that on my first retreat - only a short three day affair. By the afternoon of the first full day, being I was my instructors first student to attend (and my walking out would be an embarrassment to her), plus the fact I had non-refundable tickets and thought I'd be spending the next few days in the airport if I left, I felt extremely trapped. I even contemplated 'accidentally' tripping down the stairs, in hopes that I would break something and have an honorable way out. At the end of that retreat I was more certain I'd never come back to one of them, than I have been of anything else in my life.
I came back to the next one, six months later. I haven't missed but one since, and that was for surgery.
All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.
All, hmmm, don't tell my teacher. I'm hoping to be ordained in the coming year and I'd hate for him to find out I'm not skilled. [:)]
I do not know what sect you belong. It doesn't sound as if you've read much outside your sect, though. Zen literature is replete with many who would disagree with you. Batchlor's Buddhism without Beliefs is an obvious one. I believe it was Suzuki that said, when asked what happened after death - "I wouldn't know, I am not a dead zen master".
Some sects, such as Tibetan and Theravaden, are strong believers in the life/rebirth cycle, but this isn't universal.
There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma. I'd be real careful about saying 'anything' about all Buddhists. For almost anything you can say there is, at least, one sect or school that will disagree. Shinsho, Pure Land, Theravaden, Chan, the Zen schools of Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Nicherin, Tibetan, Indian - they all have some quite diverse views on virtually all aspects of Buddhism. Virtually all have concepts of enlightenment, emptiness, overcoming samsara, some idea concerning karma, but each has a distinct view on all of these. The Tibetans views on rebirth are almost the same as the reincarnation views of the Hindu while the Japanese the ideas of Karmic transfer after death to be much more along the lines of simple cause and effect - that your life actions affect others. Believe what you wish, but in my reading, I've found that there are a couple of core threads that connect all Buddhists, but to make carte blanc statements about them is almost a guarantee of being incorrect.
Originally posted by radagast
Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.
I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.
There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. But I'd argue that our ability to experience directly is sufficient to ultimately transcend differences of interpretation. A Buddhist would assert this from experience. I can't do that unfortunately, but I believe it's true. However I also agree that it's very easy to mistake an interpretation for the thing itself. As you know Buddhists avoid this problem by never asking or answering direct questions about it.
Originally posted by radagast
I can only say that we disagree on this point. I've studied Buddhism for thirty years and been sitting regularly for close to ten. My study hasn't shown me what your's has shown you.
Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?
I guess it's a little more than that. We are held in a monastary like setting - no chairs, no leaning against the walls, no rest for our legs, no lying down until lights out (midnight). Our schedule starts at 4AM and runs until Midnight. All sitting, whether meditation, eating, or free periods are on the floor. Given most are like me, in that we live most of our lives with chairs, sitting on the floor is hard on the knee and hip joints, at least by the second full day. I find it worse than most, given my knees are quite inflexible and a lotus position is something I can barely imagine. Attempting it would likely result in a call for ambulance services, with a high probability of power tool involvement. [:)]
I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.
Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?
No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad.
This isn't the forum for me to go into this. If you are curious, read Ambivalent Zen. I will say that on my first retreat - only a short three day affair. By the afternoon of the first full day, being I was my instructors first student to attend (and my walking out would be an embarrassment to her), plus the fact I had non-refundable tickets and thought I'd be spending the next few days in the airport if I left, I felt extremely trapped. I even contemplated 'accidentally' tripping down the stairs, in hopes that I would break something and have an honorable way out. At the end of that retreat I was more certain I'd never come back to one of them, than I have been of anything else in my life.
I came back to the next one, six months later. I haven't missed but one since, and that was for surgery.
Interesting. Why did you go back?
All, hmmm, don't tell my teacher. I'm hoping to be ordained in the coming year and I'd hate for him to find out I'm not skilled. [:)]
I'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?
I do not know what sect you belong. It doesn't sound as if you've read much outside your sect, though. Zen literature is replete with many who would disagree with you. Batchlor's Buddhism without Beliefs is an obvious one. I believe it was Suzuki that said, when asked what happened after death - "I wouldn't know, I am not a dead zen master".
Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?
I'd be real careful about saying 'anything' about all Buddhists. For almost anything you can say there is, at least, one sect or school that will disagree. Shinsho, Pure Land, Theravaden, Chan, the Zen schools of Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Nicherin, Tibetan, Indian - they all have some quite diverse views on virtually all aspects of Buddhism. Virtually all have concepts of enlightenment, emptiness, overcoming samsara, some idea concerning karma, but each has a distinct view on all of these. The Tibetans views on rebirth are almost the same as the reincarnation views of the Hindu while the Japanese the ideas of Karmic transfer after death to be much more along the lines of simple cause and effect - that your life actions affect others. Believe what you wish, but in my reading, I've found that there are a couple of core threads that connect all Buddhists, but to make carte blanc statements about them is almost a guarantee of being incorrect. [/B]
Very true, and thanks for pointing it out so politely. [:)]
I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.
I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects.
radagast
Dec31-03, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Canute
There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. But I'd argue that our ability to experience directly is sufficient to ultimately transcend differences of interpretation. A Buddhist would assert this from experience. I can't do that unfortunately, but I believe it's true. However I also agree that it's very easy to mistake an interpretation for the thing itself. As you know Buddhists avoid this problem by never asking or answering direct questions about it.
Dismissing origins, I would agree that many who've attained sufficient self-realization would be less 'argumentative' than those of use lower down on the path.
radagast
Dec31-03, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Canute
Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?
This is from what I've read and experienced, so you have to take it with that large grain of salt. Much of what I've come to understand is that the ultimate reality we learn about, as Buddhist, concerns the reality that starts at our senses and proceeds through our consciousness. When it really boils down, that is the only reality we can truly experience. We all have to make certain agreements as to what we believe each other is experiencing, but there's little or no way of knowing that for certain. IMO, this is the reality and most important understandings we strive to know.
I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.
Our's isn't for everyone. That said, until you've attended a multiday retreat, do not expect them to be all easy and etheric affairs.
As for the pain: We learn as Buddhists that pain isn't suffering. You know this as an intellectual idea. Have you experienced it. This is an important function, IMO, of the pain of sesshin [retreat]. Having gotten deep enough into the meditation [indeed, the pain is a good motivator], so that the pain isn't an important factor, I've experienced this first hand. This can teach you a lot about dealing with the things which cannot be avoided in life.
[answering about attending retreats] No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad. I don't usually speak of it, myself. Not in many years. Because the pain is no longer suffering, at retreats.
Everyone will view the 'discomforts' of retreats differently. If it's part of a strongly spiritual pursuit, it's less likely you'll view it as important or that notably either. Considering that I started this after I was forty, that my limbs had all the flexibility of uncooked linguini, and that I was a little apprehensive, it hit me much harder than most. Still, I've attended retreats with other zen groups [those not near as ascetic as ours], and the discomfort is still there. I still left with a soreness as if I had dug ditches for three days, after years of physical inactivity.
Interesting. Why did you go back? The million dollar question. I, and many I've known that attend these things, can tell you all the ghastly reason you wouldn't want to go, yet we have little way of putting into words the spiritual benefits we get from sesshin.
I've noted many changes in my habits and reaction patterns over the years. Some due to my daily sitting, some more easily attributed to the deep affects of sesshin. This isn't something I could tell you. If you have a chance to attend one, please do. You won't regret it (at least not after the fact [:D] ).
I'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?
Most Zen schools would not interpret Nirvana as a place or existence outside of our everyday lives. Your school may interpret it differently. Until I die, I certainly couldn't answer anything about what happens after my life.
Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?
Yes.
I view each school as being a different path toward enlightenment. Some are more suited to one type of person, other schools suited to other types of people.
I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.I have to be careful myself. I've been known to make blanket statements about Buddhism being non-theistic, and others that are more reflective of my experiences. We all do this.
I suspect that most Buddhist teachers would find that all Buddhism is alike. Not necessarily in it's method, but in it's goals. I have seen much difference in a lot of the details that would almost form a cosmology or view of reality. I don't know if this is all metaphorical in nature, or they all accept basically different things. I'm just not that knowledgable. I tend to think that many of the scholars are even more deluded on these points, in that it's often easy to take metaphor as real.
I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects. I think, on the points that really count (as viewed by someone enlightened), they probably don't. Not having arrived at such a place, I can only compare what I experience, read, and see. I tend to think of the different sects much as I would view the differences between karate and aikido - they don't look alike, they have different philosophies (some almost diametrically opposed), and have different methods, yet they are both valid arts of self-defense and both can be spiritual paths (if practiced correctly). Not a great analogy, but hopefully it get's my point across.
I don't want you to take anything I've said as gospel. practice with some groups and see which harmonizes with you. As my teacher tells me, believe what you experience, not what's been said here.
Radagast
You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.
To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.
While there is some disagreement about the details of cosmogeny etc in Buddhism I did not think that there was any disagremeent about this basic ontological assertion. The non-dual nature of underlying reality makes it impossible to conceive or discuss properly, but I see all references to brahman, bliss, emptiness, fullness, nirvana etc., as being to the ultimate non-dual substrate of existence. It has recently been christened the 'zero ontology' by some philsopher or other whose name I've forgotten.
I take this for granted but perhaps, if as a Buddhist you don't agree, I'm wrong to do this. I'm going to do a bit of checking around just in case, but nothing I've ever read or experienced so far has contradicted this view (until this conversation).
phoenixthoth
Jan2-04, 11:09 AM
is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?
can it be defined or would defining (not to mention naming something) represent a contradiction of nonduality? is it an entity, a state, a being, an aspect in the "field" of consciousness, all of the above, none of the above?
what is the relationship between avalokiteshvara and existence?
reincarnation question. upon "reaching" a state of nonduality (nirvana?), does the reincarnation cycle end?
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
[B]is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?
As far as I know Avalokiteshvara was a lord who achieved enlightenment.
pelastration
Jan3-04, 09:04 AM
In Tibetan Buddhism the Avalokiteshvara is also called Tschenresi. It incarnates in Bodhisattva's. The Dalai Lama is also considered such re-incarnation.
Originally posted by radagast
Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe????? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?
Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?
Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.
Questions:
1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence? [/quote]
Didn't you read anything I said??? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.
No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.
Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?
I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.
It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.
Yep it certainly appears you are correct on this point.
All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.
So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is achieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Not in my understanding of what your asking.
Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.
Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.
Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.
----
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse??? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.
Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement??? When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha.
There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.
You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Action and meditation. By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought. Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.
How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.
Then what are you saying????? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?
Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?
Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?
The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.
By whom and for what reasons?
The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?
Yes of course as ultimately all consciousness has no difficulty in their end-journey to enlightenment no matter how many times one empties one's head of thought or how many reincarnatons one has to reach for a return to the flow of the ultimate truth.
radagast
Jan5-04, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Canute
Radagast
You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.
To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.
Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.
Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real.
radagast
Jan5-04, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe????? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?
Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.
I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.
As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.
Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?
radagast
Jan5-04, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?
Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.
An atheist, as defined as one who has no belief in a god, isn't inconsistent with most Buddhist schools and is almost required (by
some peoples views) within the Zen school of Mahayana Buddhism.
I do not know if my teacher is atheist or not - it's not come up. My intellectual understandings of the Buddhism have come thru thirty some odd years of reading books on it, plus the ten years of intense practice of it. Just some of the books that would back up the things I've said are Buddhism without Beliefs, The Three Pillars of Zen, Novice to Master, Instructions to the Cook, Nothing Special, The Wisdom of No Escape,A Flower Does Not Speak, One Arrow, One Life, Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, and Fudochi Shimmyo Roku. There are others, but these were off the top of my head.
Do you follow any practice of Buddhism, if so what kind? Otherwise, what is your source of information?
Questions:
1) Is [b]suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Didn't you read anything I said??? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.
No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.
Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.
Suffering and pain are related - hence my statements. In the west, most don't know the difference in the two.
Buddha being a great teacher or a empty headed person is both a bifurcation flaw (being their are infinitely more possibilities than those) and a flawed analogy - since it doesn't relate to what I've been trying to say.
If you are contesting that pain is part of life and suffering is optional, then state this clearly, plus why you disagree - otherwise I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?
I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.[
It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).
This doesn't address my answer. I stated I'm not qualified to answer questions on Tantra and you run off on a perpendicular path.
You're thoughts are not clear - certainly not in relation to the argument at hand.
Insults are non-productive to this discussion.
As to the trinity of bodies - these are fine ways of conceptualizing three types of existence. To assume that they have to infer a three-part 'diety' is incorrect. In zen, these would be see as types of existence we all experience, at some time or another. This is certainly my interpretation of Buddhist intellectualism. Either they refer to dogma, something antithetic to every Buddhist school I've read much on, or it refers to someones belief, and can be taken or left by the practitioner.
All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.
So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?
It isn't a cause and effect type of thing. Meditation doesn't cause you not to feel pain or not to suffer.
When a mother enters a burning house to save her child, she barely notices the pain from the serious burns she receives. I assume you've heard of this type of occurence. When the child is safe, even though know the pain would be less (because the injury isn't as fresh), the suffering would typically come upon her full force.
This is an unconscious and natural way in which the typical suffering reaction is overriden.
The more I've meditated, the more I've understood how to make sure the pain I've felt isn't turned into suffering by my mind. Having passed some 30 kidney stones, this has come in handy.
Is the ultimate enlightenment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is achieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Not in my understanding of what your asking.
Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.
Then don't let me stop you.
Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!
I would hardly consider that enlightenment, but certainly there are cases where enlightenment has occurred thru other than meditative means, possibly including drugs, and a least one case, poison. Buddhism is but one path, not the only path.
Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.
It doesn't seem that it's the rest of you, just you questioning me, but I'll answer just the same. Why is it that some times you have a small pain and it bothers the hell out of you, yet other times (say playing a sport) a much greater pain is ignored?
This is the difference between suffering and pain. Pain is the physical sensation, suffering is when it effects you negatively.
I saw a great example when I took my cat to the vet. He needed to get a shot, which the vet gave him. He was highly unnerved by all the sounds and smells of other animals (dogs specifically), so barely noticed the shot. Had I tried to give him the same shot, at home, when he wasn't worrying about being eaten by large dogs, he would have screamed bloody murder and tryed to remove the arm giving him the shot. This is a small difference between pain and suffering.
Have you ever been in a fight when you were angry? You barely notice the pain when you're fighting, but it hurts like hell afterwards.
Are you old enough to remember the Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire, in Viet Nam, protesting the war. These monks were able to overcome the suffering of being emolated, until they died.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.
Emptying one's head of intellect?? Where the hell did you get that? The use of intellect to attain enlightenment is doomed to failure, but it's hardly the same thing as emptying ones head. I get the feeling you haven't a clue what we've been talking about. The experience of Emptiness isn't emptiness in your head. Christ! Where the hell have you been getting your information about Buddhism, the back of a Cheerio's box?
I'm certain that the experiences that are felt by someone enlightened can be duplicated by artificial means - I am under no delusion that enlightenment is some magical or metaphysical condition. Just because the feelings can be duplicated, doesn't yield the more important aspects of self-realization. The deep down, true understanding of your mind and how it works - why you feel certain ways, act certain ways, and and the ability to overcome the knee-jerk mental reactions that occur when someone acts a certain way (antagonistic or otherwise) toward you.
radagast
Jan5-04, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
----
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse??? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.
Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement???
You are attempting to use a straw man argument, misrepresenting what I've said, to riducule my arguments - without directly addressing them, then using the horrid events in history to sway the audience (via pity), even though this had nothing to do with the argument.
Had it been a simple statement or question, then that would have been different.
Had all those people who entered the concentration camps been highly skilled at meditation and had learned to overcome suffering, to a great degree, then yes they would not have suffered as much. They would still have felt the pain and would still have died - just not had to deal with the suffering as much.
When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha. No, are you going to use this as a forum to debate the ideas I've presented, or use semantics to try and win a verbal victory?
If I have no beliefs, and you do, then we believe differently. Does that satisfy you question?
[B]There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.
My beliefs haven't been presented - since I have none. What I've experienced, and what I've read I've used to counter certain unsupported statements made by you. How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.And yours a straw man argument. I've never said meditation was sitting around without thoughts in your head - this is your claim.
Most will say that meditation is the process of calming your thoughts and observing how they arise. Understanding how they arise, understanding the gap between trigger and reaction [within the mind], and understanding the relationship between the cortical and the emotional is critical to self-realization.
The more I read from you the more I get the feeling you're on some form of crusade, against what exactly I'm not sure, only that you've designated me to be on the other side.
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.
If you need me to.
1) you say Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?
2) This implies that god is required for a purpose, and the without god there is, ultimately, no purpose served.
3) Implied, but not stated, is that purpose must come from without (apparently from god).
4) Performing an action, to get a benefit, can be seen as a purpose for said action.
If you are assuming that attaining enlightement serves no purpose beyond death, then I take this to be a misunderstanding and withdraw my response.
Otherwise the assumption (3) is unstated, and is unsupported from what I can tell. This means it has to be accepted as true by all parties, supported by other evidence, or it cannot be used to derive the conclusion. Same with (2).
Since many, myself included, consider the benefits of enlightenment to be the purpose of working toward it, it has a purpose. If you mean, as in a purpose in life, this is what a person designates it to be. My purposes in life are my own, they may mean nothing to you, but they are still valid purposes to me.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.
Then what are you saying????? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?
This is a point of semantics. I consider Buddhism a religion because of the definitions I choose.
If you consider religions to require (a) diety(s) and strong beliefs, then Buddhism would not be considered a religion. If you consider a religion to be a strongly spiritual practice, having many of the typical trappings associated with religions (temples/churches, priests/pastors, monks, nuns, et. al.) then it is.
If you choose definition one, you don't consider it a religion, definition two, you do. I would have thought this was fairly obvious.
The most commonly accepted usage, even in the west, is the Buddhism is a religion. I believe it was Canute that was saying it wasn't a religion (for reasons of definition 1).
Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?
Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?
No one, aside from yourself, possibly. I would have thought that was self-evident.
The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.
By whom and for what reasons?
Certainly by most Buddhists. I am aware of many others that accept it as true or at least highly probably.
Why? Because they make sense to those that accept them.
radagast
Jan5-04, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by onycho
...[/B]
In the debate/dialogue we've engaged in, I cannot see any coherent rhyme or reason your posts.
You've presented many things about Buddhism that don't seem to be reflective of what I've seen as common to most Buddhism.
Where do you get your information?
You seem to have something against either, Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, or me in particular. If so, perhaps it's best to articulate these specifically, rather than tangentially in responses to my posts.
You seem to believe I am lying, with respect to relating certain things I've experienced. If you consider my words or me to be dishonest, why continue to debate?
I guess it boils down to this, you seem to have some particular axe to grind, it's just not clear what.
Originally posted by radagast
Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.
Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real. [/B]
I'm sorry but there's almost no truth at all in any of that, and it's very misleading indeed. This is not a Buddhist view, or even a non-dual one. I say this bluntly because you are making a lot of assertions here which you have no right to make.
If you're going to keep going please back your words up with some references. I doubt that you'll find any to support what you've said here.
Originally posted by radagast
[B]Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.
I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!?
You have not understood Buddhism then.
radagast
Jan5-04, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Canute
I'm sorry but there's almost no truth at all in any of that, and it's very misleading indeed. This is not a Buddhist view, or even a non-dual one. I say this bluntly because you are making a lot of assertions here which you have no right to make.
If you're going to keep going please back your words up with some references. I doubt that you'll find any to support what you've said here.
Do you consider Buddhism to accept that Dualism is reality?
What exactly are you saying, that non-dualism isn't something discovered from within Buddhist practice - because that was what I was saying.
Please clarify.
Onycho
I think you've asked skeptical but reasonable questions. Don't believe the answers you've been given above. I'm not a Buddhist so I don't usually get drawn on its specifics, but this is at least closer to the truth.
Suffering is partly to do with pain, but more generally, and more deeply, it is to do with impermanence. However wonderful our existence it is impermanent. This impermanence, if one is overly attached, is a fundamental cause of suffering. This suffering we usually accept fairly unthinkingly. We live, we die, our friends die, our loved ones die etc. All is change, as science asserts. We accept this as inevitable, but it is nonetheless suferring in the Buddhist sense.
The transcendence of suffering is achieved to some extent by practicing detachment, compassion and so forth. However ultimately it involves becoming one with the emptiness that underlies existence and thus becoming beyond impermanence. This is an ontological claim about reality. It asserts that a non-dual 'substance' underlies physical existence, and that this is (something akin to) consciousness in what might be called its ultimate rest state. (aka bliss, Brahman etc), and that sufficient self-realisation leads to the recognition of this.
This claim is supported by Plato's assertion that we cannot know reality, Colin McGinns 'mysterianism', which suggests that consciousness predates spacetime, Penrose's work on Goedel and much else besides. It is an ontological (and epistemelogical)claim and it was made by the Buddha, and by thousands of other people as well, Buddhist and non-Buddhist.
Buddhists have a rational metaphysic which deals with origins as well as epistemology, behaviour, life style and so on. There are disgreements between schools of Buddhism as to the details, although these are usually just different ways of looking at the same thing on analysis, but there is no disagreement on basic ontology, on the origins of existence. Whether this Buddhist metaphysic is true or false is a matter of debate, but that Buddhism has a complete metaphysic is not debatable. To paraphrase Alfred North White Buddhism is a metaphysic giving rise to a religion, whereas Christianity is a religion in search of a metaphysic.
Buddhism makes great use of metaphors, it has to. But the metaphors are used to point towards what is actually true about reality. It is not just a self-contained system of symbols.
radagast
Jan5-04, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Canute
You have not understood Buddhism then.
Canute,
You can accept what you wish.
You have stated that you don't
adhere to a specific sect or school, nor, if memory serves
have attended intensive retreats.
I've been Buddhist for 30 years, the last 10 practicing fairly
seriously with a specific school, within a specific lineage, and working toward ordination.
I've heard/read/experienced nothing that supports your beliefs, concerning the origins of the universe in Zen. Few, if any, in other lineages and schools.
I hope you don't mind, but this is a point I will disagree with
you on.
Buddhism Without Beliefs, by Stephan Batchelor. It's a reference I will use in this case.
radagast
Jan5-04, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Canute
[B]Onycho
Suffering is partly to do with pain, but more generally, and more deeply, it is to do with impermanence. However wonderful our existence it is impermanent. This impermanence, if one is overly attached, is a fundamental cause of suffering. This suffering we usually accept fairly unthinkingly. We live, we die, our friends die, our loved ones die etc. All is change, as science asserts. We accept this as inevitable, but it is nonetheless suferring in the Buddhist sense.
The transcendence of suffering is achieved to some extent by practicing detachment, compassion and so forth. However ultimately it involves becoming one with the emptiness that underlies existence and thus becoming beyond impermanence.
If anything I've said seems to disagree with the above, then I apologize. This does agree with my experiences.
This is an ontological claim about reality. It asserts that a non-dual 'substance' underlies physical existence, and that this is (something akin to) consciousness in what might be called its ultimate rest state. (aka bliss, Brahman etc), and that sufficient self-realisation leads to the recognition of this.
This is not universally accepted in Buddhism. Specifically, in Zen, this is often viewed as a way the mind can relate to the outside world, but not, of necessity, reality. To claim it has to be reality implies that it's either dogma, or directly experienced. Any direct experience of this would be impossible to distinguish external objective reality from internal subjective reality of the above state.
So either you believe it as fact/dogma, don't accept it, or accept it as irrelavent because it's subjectively real.
Originally posted by radagast
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.
Then you don't have any faith or belief in the emptyness of mind in which you meditate to receive enlightnment?
I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.
Then why do you follow the Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]if you choose or accept what you personally believe and eliminate some of the significant teachings of Buddha?
As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.
Only the enlightenment at the ultimate level of understanding instead of simply escaping suffering! We all are the particles of the origin and also the particles of the Buddha himself.
Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?
What has self-realization to do with emptying your mind of all thought? To know the origin of 'things' accomplishes a level of self-knowledge on the plane of total inner-peace with the universe.
Self-realization and knowledge are indistinguishable.
I am not the Buddha but many call me the 'Blessed Reverend.'
radagast
Jan5-04, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.
Then you don't have any faith or belief in the emptyness of mind in which you meditate to receive enlightnment?
Faith and belief - in the sense of acceptance without evidence, no. I've seen many who I respect attain some level of enlightenment, therefore it's not faith. Though enlightenment is a good goal, it really is an abstract concept (to me), so isn't a great motivator. I started meditation to live life more in the present. Since, I've gotten other benefits (some related to being present in the here and now). These have helped motivate me to keep practicing.
Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken.
I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.
Then why do you follow the Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]if you choose or accept what you personally believe and eliminate some of the significant teachings of Buddha?[/quote]
Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.
As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.
Only the enlightenment at the ultimate level of understanding instead of simply escaping suffering! We all are the particles of the origin and also the particles of the Buddha himself.
Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.
Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?
What has self-realization to do with emptying your mind of all thought?
Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.
To know the origin of 'things' accomplishes a level of self-knowledge on the plane of total inner-peace with the universe.
This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.
Self-realization and knowledge are indistinguishable.
Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.
I am not the Buddha but many call me the 'Blessed Reverend.' Why, are you ordained? What faith/religion?
Originally posted by radagast
Faith and belief - in the sense of acceptance without evidence, no. I've seen many who I respect attain some level of enlightenment, therefore it's not faith. Though enlightenment is a good goal, it really is an abstract concept (to me), so isn't a great motivator. I started meditation to live life more in the present. Since, I've gotten other benefits (some related to being present in the here and now). These have helped motivate me to keep practicing.
I'm certainly glad for you that you have obtained positive benefits in the here and now through meditation. I too have seen some who have obtained peace and enlightenment thru the process in learning and discovery of existence.
"Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken."
Oh but I seem to remember in a previous post this is exactly what you enunciated when referring to Buddhism. I choose not to look back to earlier posts with which to quote your own words.
Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.
Who or what made Gautama Buddha an authority on enlightenment? Where is the empircal proof?
Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.
Your terms are not different from what I am trying to communicate. Striving for self-realization is basic to the ultimate understanding of the infinite self. You are using sophistry in your attempt at intuitive self-realization.
Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.
But I have.... that is the point..
This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.
You might say the same thing for your own construct of Buddhism. It also needs some documentation or reference for validity, otherwise it can be dismissed with all other belief systems.
Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.
Knowledge as said in previous posts is a dichotomy to Buddhism. As nothingness and emptyness are apparently necessary for eliminating suffering.
Why, are you ordained? What faith/religion?
I was being facetious and am not ordained. The 'Blessed Reverend' was used in the black comedy 'The Loved Ones.' The title or authority bestowed seems to be the equivalent of stating that the Buddha title was the singular "authority" on enligtenment.
Sorry for my poor attempt at sarcasism..
Radagast - This is weird. I can't understand your views at all given that you've practiced Buddhism for so long. They are not recognisably Buddhist. Onycho, who believes (incorrectly of course [:)]) that Buddhism is just another belief system (I think), seems to have a better understanding of what those 'beliefs' are. It's quite confusing.
radagast
Jan5-04, 07:04 PM
Canute, I too am confused. Often what you say is as perceptive and descriptive as to what I've experienced.
Then there are statements that seem to contradict everything I've ever read or experienced (such as the statement that non-dualism didn't have anything to do with Buddhism).
Or perhaps more oddly the statements that Buddhism isn't a belief system (which I agree with), then only to turn around and claim that the beliefs you have are the only ones valid for a Buddhist. Very confusing.
Personally, I dislike discussing the intricacies of Buddhism in an open forum, simply because the vocabulary is extremely overloaded. Terms that Buddhist often use (such as emptiness) are not understood by others, who assume the more mundane meanings. I have no doubt that you understand emptiness at a deep, experiential level - from hearing what you've said - yet Onycho and others either have no clue what we are speaking of, or worse misinterpret it as Onycho has.
We both know the much of Buddhism is described using metaphor and other mechanisms to describe the experiential, which others have no referents for. This always leads to their confusion, or worse, their conviction that they understand.
I can only say that it seems you are familiar with types of Buddhism very different from Zen. This doesn't mean that the essentials are the not the same, but the differing vocabularies form a subtle minefield, which, I believe, are giving us problems at levels removed from where we believe.
Perhaps, if you wish to discuss these differences further, PM would be better setting. I have little doubt your experiences are genuine, but this type communication is difficult at best, doubly difficult in a public forum. If not, then we should simply agree that we disagree.
I wish you well in your spiritual pursuits.
radagast
Jan5-04, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast "Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken."
Oh but I seem to remember in a previous post this is exactly what you enunciated when referring to Buddhism. I choose not to look back to earlier posts with which to quote your own words.
Then you have misunderstood or I misspoke. There is a quieting of the mind that's important in meditation, but this isn't the end all and be all of meditation.
[B]Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.
Who or what made Gautama Buddha an authority on enlightenment? Where is the empircal proof?
First, you are avoiding the point being made. That I accept Gautama as an authority on enlightenment, but not Cosmology.
The descendents of his teaching have impressed me that the teaching is valid concerning enlightenment. If you feel differently, then by all means don't accept his ideas - I'm, in no way, trying to force them on anyone. I was only trying to explain and clarify my views on them.
If Gautama was an invalid teacher, yet his students managed to gain the skills and knowledge in the interveneing 2500 years, then it's the same to me. I'm not being taught by Guatama, my teacher is a little be more recent.
Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.
Your terms are not different from what I am trying to communicate. Striving for self-realization is basic to the ultimate understanding of the infinite self. You are using sophistry in your attempt at intuitive self-realization.
You have no clue as to the mechanisms and means of my practice, yet you are knowledgeable enough about them to claim I am intentionally decieving either myself or you? If you detected a bit of incredulity in my tone, you heard correctly.
I chose to ignore the insult.
I cannot tell whether you are extremely offbase, in terms of what you believe I accept as true (regarding what it means to become self-realized), or that you have an extremely different view of what self-realization means and are just implying that I am extremely wrong. The former is likely to never be rectified, given the poverty of this medium, and the latter is a difference of view that I have not and do not intend to debate.
Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.But I have.... that is the point.. Well then, your attempts to communicate your point have failed.
This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.
You might say the same thing for your own construct of Buddhism. It also needs some documentation or reference for validity, otherwise it can be dismissed with all other belief systems.
If we are talking about what Buddhism is defined as via layman oriented descriptions, then the dozen or so books I listed earlier should suffice.
If you mean as to what Buddhism is, in terms of a being a belief system, I find that interesting: You are told of a system that is experiential, by core nature. It is said to advocate that it's practitioners accept what they experience as true, with it's only point of faith in that the practice will lead some place worthwhile.
You both claim it's a belief system, then require proof that it isn't in terms of references and documentation - which would imply a belief system. The only way you can get the proof you ask for is by experiencing it, which you apparently are refusing to do, then claiming it's a belief system because there's no evidence you can be shown.
Do you see the circularity of this line of reasoning.
Buddhism is, at it's very core, experiential. Enlightenment cannot be shown to you anymore than someone else can go to the rest room for you. When we talk about Buddhist teachings, what we are talking about is the pointers to the path, that each person must walk alone. There is no proof/evidence for or against the effects and claims, other than what one experiences for himself. All the books, words, letters, histories, et. al. are meaningless without the experience. No matter how long you are described what the color purple is, if you've been blind from birth, the words are just words - yeilding nothing. Buddhism is about learning ones own mind. How can that be told to you by someone else. How can proof of this, or evidence of this, be given in books or any place, other than in your own mind.
That the practice will lead somewhere is a point that is either accepted as probable/possible by a potential practitioner, or not. Seeing the effects it has on others, is a type of evidence, so it's not the blind faith of theistic religions, but it's still a type of belief. If you call this a belief system, then we definitely have a difference of opinion on definitions. One belief doesn't form a system. This is the type of belief I had when I started learning Chemistry. I had no guarantee that it would be worth anything or be reproducible by me.
Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.
Knowledge as said in previous posts is a dichotomy to Buddhism. As nothingness and emptyness are apparently necessary for eliminating suffering.
OK, and your point is?
The dichotomy, I feel certain, doesn't make sense to you. Having not experienced what is meant by emptiness, the only meanings you have will give you an extremely different view of what that means - an erroneous view, IMO. The fact you use the terms nothingness and emptiness together give me the strong impression you are completely off-track, in terms of any clue as to what that means.
I was being facetious and am not ordained. The 'Blessed Reverend' was used in the black comedy 'The Loved Ones.' The title or authority bestowed seems to be the equivalent of stating that the Buddha title was the singular "authority" on enligtenment.
Well, there are many many Buddhas. It is only a title that means enlightened one. So, it does tend to re-enforce the idea that a Buddha is an authority of becoming enlightened. But only because of the semantics of the word. If you meant Gautama, then that would pretty well screw all of us born after his death, since he wouldn't be around to teach, judge, and be the authority on enlightenment. His teachings are only of value to me, in what is reflected thru my teacher.
There are certainly some sects, schools, and definitely some practitioners that would definitely fall into the category of a belief system, I only speak to the commonality the runs thru Buddhist teachings/practice (as I see them), with a stronger, than is fair, shading from the Zen sect (given it's what I've studied the most).
It seems, from our discussions, that it's important for you to somehow show that Buddhism is a belief system.
Why?
From the outset I wish to state that I am not apposed to any person's beliefs or strivings for ultimate release from suffering. The following paragraph seems to answer some of my questions about the many faceted beliefs and sects of Buddhism.
"Buddhist, nirvana is simply an escape from the world of suffering. It is like a candle that had been burning with a hot flame (representing our suffering in the cycle of reincarnation) being suddenly extinguished. Once a flame is out, there is no point in questioning where it went. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence."
I choose to believe that nothing ever ceases to exist and there is some meaning to life in this plane or dimension. Also that self-interest, greed, or sin does not necessarily result in suffering as a consequence. My concept is that there is an ultimate Wisdom which is the causitive factor for all existence and man's finite mind attempt to comprehend the meaning is fruitless.
The Buddha seeking something outside of the suffering of others reportedly had after long meditation a 'flash of sudden insight' leading him to his conclusions about fleeing 'suffering' as a result of selfishness and egotism. That man goes through a continuous reincarnation state until achieving the highest level resulting in the 'self' going out of existence is no more valid than my construct.
In my ignorance of Buddhism, I see that the Buddha found no necessity for existence except to seek the state of nirvana perfection. That in Buddhism a state of non-existence is the ultimate level of attainment.
Then let me live in my ignorance and believe there is an ultimate reason for it all.
Originally posted by onycho
"Buddhist, nirvana is simply an escape from the world of suffering. It is like a candle that had been burning with a hot flame (representing our suffering in the cycle of reincarnation) being suddenly extinguished. Once a flame is out, there is no point in questioning where it went. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence."
That's seems about right. But note that 'out of existence' may not mean what you think it does. It fact it almost certainly doesn't.
I choose to believe that nothing ever ceases to exist and there is some meaning to life in this plane or dimension. Also the fact that self-interest, greed, or sin does not necessarily result in suffering as a consequence.
I go along with that.
My concept is that there is ultimate Wisdom which is the causitive factor for all existence and man's finite mind to attempt to comprehend is fruitless.
I don't see how wisdom can cause existence. It seems to be a mismatch of categories.
I also strongly disagree with the idea that our potential knowledge is so limited.
The Buddha seeking something outside of the suffering of others apparently had a 'flash of sudden insight' leading him to his conclusions about fleeing 'suffering' or selfishness and egotism.
That's like saying that Einstein is famous for having had a good thought on the way to work one morning. You may find it better to forget about suffering for a while and approach Buddhism from another angle.
That man goes through a continuous reincarnation state until achieving the highest state resulting in the self going out of existence is no more valid than my construct.
What is your construct?
In my ignorance of Buddhism, I see that the Buddha found no reason for existence except to seek Nirvana perfection. That in Buddhism a state of non-existence is the ultimate level of attainment.
In a way yes. But there is far more to it than that, and in way this is quite wrong.
Then let me live in ignorance and believe there is a reason for it all. [/B]
Ok. Although I'm not sure why you belive that in order to believe that there is a reason for it all you have to be ignorant.
Originally posted by Canute
That's seems about right. But note that 'out of existence' may not mean what you think it does. It fact it almost certainly doesn't.
Then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of Buda’s nirvana if not the ending of conscious existence.
I don't see how wisdom can cause existence. It seems to be a mismatch of categories.
Please note that I capitalized the first letter in Wisdom. Perhaps I should have used a different word and simply stated that in my concept, Wisdom is actually another name for the Designer of all things. The irreducible complexity of the universe we inhabit presumes such an unknown entity. Statistical probability for the chaotic formation of even the simplest structure, i.e., a human skin cell, is less than 0.
Unfortunately creationism has little to do with Buddhist philosophy.
I also strongly disagree with the idea that our potential knowledge is so limited.
Then the question becomes how finite is the intellect of man? Your word 'knowledge' implies that the conscious mind is ultimately able to comprehend or know infinite Wisdom. Of course the answer to that conundrum cannot be validated.
That's like saying that Einstein is famous for having had a good thought on the way to work one morning. You may find it better to forget about suffering for a while and approach Buddhism from another angle.
Okay, I'll go along with your analogy. But by what methodology did the Buddha find his teachings and search for an escape from Suffering? Apparently the word suffering is not an exact translation for the Buda’s self-realization process.
What is your construct?
The possibility that our assumed reality is in actuality a giant hologram in a timeless dimension. That consciousness is on a continuum which never changes but for a short span of perceived time is able to choose a path for good or evil.
In a way yes. But there is far more to it than that, and in way this is quite wrong.
Then please enlighten me as to the Buda’s search for nirvana.
Ok. Although I'm not sure why you belive that in order to believe that there is a reason for it all you have to be ignorant.
Human ignorance is a shared reality.......
olde drunk
Jan6-04, 12:07 PM
why does any view of our experience need to include suffering???
needless to say, if you believe that suffering is to be admired or necessary, then you will have suffering.
if you believe that the conciousness(ours) continues to grow and expand, then at some point you will accept the idea that suffering is nothing more or less than another experience. THEN without a belief in suffering, you will stop suffering.
ignorance is simply being denied the necesary information to make a better decision. it is not the basis for the human reality.
our reality is a framework wherein our conciousness can be focused intensely through a brain, body, emotions, etc so we can learn to manipulate our overall energy potential.
yahoo, nirvana is our next level of development. actually, some might choose to visit the life of prehistoric man as a view of nirvana. or was that the garden of eden??
phoenixthoth
Jan6-04, 01:02 PM
is nirvana the realization of unity, aka nonduality, and by that i'm trying to capture in words, quite poorly as you can see, something like "achievement" of unity though achievement is a terrible word. or maybe the being in unity. or being at one (ah! still dual!). or being one. or being. being.
is it possible to be "in" nirvana and believe you are not thus resulting in experiences "like" not being "in" nirvana? is that the state of most people for i have heard that everyone is already "at one" they just don't realize it.
from "meditation in action" by chogyan trungpa in the chapter "the manure of experience"
it may be a great kind of violence, oor great laziness, but one has just to take that particular quality and not regard it necessarily as a fault or blockage, for that [i]is[/is] the bodhi which is in him; it is the seed, or rather the full potentiality for giving birth--he is already impregnated by bodhi. as one particular scripture says, "since buddha-nature pervades all beings there is no such thing as an unsuitable candidate."
thus, is there any truth to the statement, "we are all enlightened but we just don't know it," or "we are all enlightened but we just aren't aware of it?"
or am i way off the mark in suggesting that nirvana, bodhi, and budda-nature are related?? as you can tell, i know nothing of buddhism and i'm just guessing. a rather long treatise i'm sure can be written about the relationship between the following that i'd like to know more about: samadhi, bodhi, budda-nature, bodhisatva, satori, nirvana, enlightenment, and Awakening.
i want to reemphasize a point i made earlier for the casual passerby wondering why "consiousness?" has turned to a discussion of buddhism. when you study consciousness or psychology, i think the error of scientists is to not reasearch completely. by golly, every individual has a psyche and a consciousness and the examination of one's own psyche and consciousness plays an important role in the study of consciousness and psychology in addition to studying others' psyches and consciousnesses. two exercises for examining your own psyche and consciousness that seem to work well are journalling and meditation. the right way to journal is to just journal and not editorialize yourself. no one has to see it. there's often a strong urge to not journal and it's not just laziness. i think it's also partly a fear of knowing what's inside.
olde drunk
Jan6-04, 01:41 PM
to me, these terms are best viewed as the end of the 'human experience'.
if we really think about it, there can not be a heaven, hell, purgatory, nirvana, limbo etc. the best way for me to remember this was to picture myself in heaven with any and every thing at my beck and call. how many lobsters can i eat?? how long can i continually have sex?? how many lotteries can i win??? how beautiful is beautiful??? gawd, BOOOOOOOOOORRRING!!!!
as for hell, etc, if there ain't no heaven, then its corollary needn't exist either!
i know, i know, this is overly simplistic! unfortunately, all the esoteric ideas and convoluted theories do not hold up to deep examination and experiential proof. i can only 'experience truth', MY truth. not believing in a mythical afterlife is my truth. i am eternal, i just don't go to heaven or hell.
again, these terms are used by religious organizations to romanticize an idea from Buddha, Christ, Mohamed, Sidartha, etc etc. isn't it funny that we can read and appreciate Ghandi's words without getting caught up in a debate about their meaning? his words were recent, in our language and they have not been given a devine lable. no time or need for someone to translate and embellish.
thank you,
phoenixthoth
Jan6-04, 02:03 PM
i'm starting to wonder if heaven, hell, purgatory, the garden of eden, and earth are the same place. one thinks about such things as "heaven on earth" or "hell on earth". one will then "be" in a "place" one is "aligned" with and one's "alignment" depends on one's consciousness and disposition. i think one's person change change the way the environment is perceived thus resulting in feelings that this is hell on earth or this is heaven on earth.
matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
now how can a sword turn every way? imagine you are the one holding that sword and it is pointed at yourself. no matter where you turn, it is always pointed at yourself; it turns every way. drop the sword and enter the garden.
thomas 18
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Canute
Then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of Buda’s nirvana if not the ending of conscious existence.
Tentative answer coming up. Nirvana is inexplicable ex hypothesis in Buddhism. However that doesn't mean it cannot be alluded to, pointed to if you like.
Words are used by different people in different ways, but roughly speaking Nirvana is synonymous with emptiness, Brahman, oneness, fullness, is-ness and other terms. It cannot be refered to directly because, like Spinoza's God, it is an entity (non-entity) that has no external attributes. It is non-dual, and thus cannot be perceived, conceived, described, named etc, since all these was of knowing it are dual. 'Dual' in this sense is tricky to explain and I've never managed to do it well. (But Irish philosopher Wu Wu Wei and Chuang Tsu do it pretty well and would show up in a search).
There is nothing mystical about the idea but it can be very hard to grasp intellectually since all thinking is dual, and thus we are trying to think about something that cannot be properly thought about. (Told you I was no good at explaining).
One reason it can't be talked about properly is that it is an experience, not a thing, and experiences are impossible to communicate ('incommensurate' is the usual term). But there are deeper reasons. Any assertion about this experience (state of being) is wrong, because any assertion will inevitably assign properties to this state that it does not have. Thus it is wrong to say it exists, yet wrong to say it doesn't. There are two ways of looking at it, two aspects, and the correct way is to synthesise these into a unity. (A bit like saying that we can conceive of a wave, and we can conceive of a particle, but we can't conceive of something that could be both, yet such a thing must exist). In non-dual philosophy there are no 'antimonies' (or little else, depending on, yes, your point of view). (Existence is absolutely entirely dual, but emptiness, which underlies existence, is not).
Hmm. Got lost there. The main point is that Nirvana exists yet it doesn't, depending on which way you choose to look at it. We are forced to adopt a viewpoint in which these properties are either true or false, but all such viewpoints are untrue views. (It may help to relate this to Galilean relativity and motion).
This sounds as if Nirvana is out of reach of human knowledge. But this is not the case. Rather it is out of reach of human reasoning.
That's a rubbish explanation, sorry. If you try a search on 'non-dual', 'Advaita', sunyata etc. you'll do better.
Basically the epistemilogical logic follows Aristotle and Popper in that it asserts that certain knowledge is achieved only when the knower is identical with the known.
This is difficult to grasp, which may be why Plato asserted that we were chained to our perception of the world as shadows, not just that we prefered that point of view.
It is important to note that adherents of the non-dual world-view call it an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy, theory or belief. This is because they claim to know it is true, as opposed to just speculating that it is. Considering the arrogance and boldness of this claim it is interesting that nobody has ever been able to successfully refute it.
Please note that I capitalized the first letter in Wisdom. Perhaps I should have used a different word and simply stated that in my concept, Wisdom is actually another name for the Designer of all things. The irreducible complexity of the universe we inhabit presumes such an unknown entity. Statistical probability for the chaotic formation of even the simplest structure, i.e., a human skin cell, is less than 0.
Your Wisdom sounds a lot like Plato's Ideas, and is not all that far from a Buddhist view of things. But in Buddhism there is no designer. Rather there is just the interaction of conscious beings, each of whom does a little of the design work, usually unintentionally. Thus humans create maize or, say, a general desire to stand on two legs creates the conditions under which a gene for standing upright can bestow fitness etc).
Unfortunately creationism has little to do with Buddhist philosophy.
In Buddhism creation is all there is. Everything is always beginning.
Then the question becomes how finite is the intellect of man?
Partly that is the question, but knowledge is not always dependent on intellect. This is where Goedel becomes relevant. Providing the answers to undecidable questions, as we know we can do, is a good example of how our knowledge can outstrip our reasoned proofs, under all circumstances.
Your word 'knowledge' implies that the conscious mind is ultimately able to comprehend or know infinite Wisdom. Of course the answer to that conundrum cannot be validated.
Not in third-person terms. But many claim that it can in first-person terms. Emptiness is not even name-able in third-person terms. (This is both an epistemilogical and ontological claim).
Okay, I'll go along with your analogy. But by what methodology did the Buddha find his teachings and search for an escape from Suffering? Apparently the word suffering is not an exact translation for the Buda’s self-realization process.
The concept of suffering is a quite sophisticted one, and central to Buddhism. But it is not the be all and end all of Buddhism. Suffering is in a sense a symptom, the cure for which lies in achieving a true understanding of reality, which in turn requires self-realisation. In other words Buddhism does not suggest tackling suffering head on any more than a doctor would deal with symptoms and forget their cause. It teaches how to achieve sufficient self-realisation to understand the truth about existence and by so doing to understand the nature of suffering and the means of transcending it.
It's a very practical approach (Buddhism has been called 'the serious pursuit of happiness') but not an easy one. Buddhists talk of progress towards bliss in terms of zillions of lifetimes. (In my own case I suspect even this might not be long enough). However they also talk about it in terms of being just one small step. Apparent contradictions are endemic to non-dual desriptions of things, if it wasn't then those descriptions wouldnt be non-dual).
The possibility that our assumed reality is in actuality a giant hologram in a timeless dimension.
Do you mean like this: (not my capitals)
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977
That consciousness is on a continuum which never changes but for a short span of perceived time is able to choose a path for good or evil.
Roughly the Buddhist view.
Then please enlighten me as to the Buda’s search for nirvana.
As I understand it the Buddha set out to understand suffering and ended up understanding existence. He concluded that consciousness is fundamental and that in its limit state it is a non-dual experience that is eternally blissful. He asserts that 'we' all can achieve this state, but not without effort, introspection and the banishing of all our day to day assumptions in favour of certainties.
Human ignorance is a shared reality....... [/B]
I suppose it is really. Buddhists call it confusion rather than ignorance, for it is possible to be very knowledgeable about that reality, but just be confused about how to put all that knowledge together in a way that makes sense.
Thus Buddhism has no disagreements with science over scientific matters, and considers physicalists confused rather than ignorant. In fact in certain respects Buddhists have great regard for ignorance.
In a lot of ways Theosophy agrees with Buddhism, so you might like this:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm
phoenixthoth
Jan6-04, 02:27 PM
despite your humble opinions to the contrary, i think you did a more than adequte job of explaining it. one has but to read it enough times to understand it. the minimum times one must read it to understand it is 0, of course. it is also 1000 and one.
i love the jewel quote.
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
one has but to read it enough times to understand it. the minimum times one must read it to understand it is 0, of course.
Lol. Brilliant. (And thanks).
phoenixthoth
Jan6-04, 02:52 PM
the main point for a "reason-worshipping" scientist is the following:
Partly that is the question, but knowledge is not always dependent on intellect. This is where Goedel becomes relevant. Providing the answers to undecidable questions, as we know we can do, is a good example of how our knowledge can outstrip our reasoned proofs, under all circumstances.
one can ask how can you know something you can't reason, you can't prove?
i ask how can you have faith that reason is necessary for knowledge? prove that.
Originally posted by Canute
It cannot be refered to directly because, like Spinoza's God, it is an entity (non-entity) that has no external attributes. It is non-dual, and thus cannot be perceived, conceived, described, named etc, since all these was of knowing it are dual. 'Dual' in this sense is tricky to explain and I've never managed to do it well.
There was a great Jewish philospher Moses Maimonides (Rambam) who tried to explain the unknowable nature of the Creator.
You can only describe the Creator in negative attributes as positive attributes can in no way describe that which is undescribable who has no form, shape, dimensions, substance or anything else the human mind can conceive.
Example:
positive attribute: The entity is the greatest of all manifestation.
or He is greater and mightier than all.
negative attribute: There is NONE who is a greater manifestation or
there is NONE mightier than He.
Since there is a dual description of nirvana which cannot be described cogently, can this concept of nirvana be described in a negative manner that would give some concept of Buda's revelation?
(But Irish philosopher Wu Wu Wei and Chuang Tsu do it pretty well and would show up in a search).
Irish philosphers???
One reason it can't be talked about properly is that it is an experience, not a thing, and experiences are impossible to communicate ('incommensurate' is the usual term).
Question: How then did the Buda communicate this experience to his adherents without any certainty of a thing?
But there are deeper reasons. Any assertion about this experience (state of being) is wrong, because any assertion will inevitably assign properties to this state that it does not have. Thus it is wrong to say it exists, yet wrong to say it doesn't.
You are right or maybe wrong about the duality of Buddist thought process.
Hmm. Got lost there. The main point is that Nirvana exists yet it doesn't, depending on which way you choose to look at it. We are forced to adopt a viewpoint in which these properties are either true or false, but all such viewpoints are untrue views. (It may help to relate this to Galilean relativity and motion).
The human mind demands absolutes for understanding unless of course one has the mind of emptyness.
This sounds as if Nirvana is out of reach of human knowledge. But this is not the case. Rather it is out of reach of human reasoning.
That sounds fair. If the Buda was not a demi-god, then nirvana was out of his reach as well according to your own statement.
In Buddhism creation is all there is. Everything is always beginning.
If everything always has a beginning and creation is always there, then was there a start to everything or was there an infinite reincarnation?
It's a very practical approach (Buddhism has been called 'the serious pursuit of happiness') but not an easy one. Buddhists talk of progress towards bliss in terms of zillions of lifetimes. (In my own case I suspect even this might not be long enough). However they also talk about it in terms of being just one small step. Apparent contradictions are endemic to non-dual desriptions of things, if it wasn't then those descriptions wouldnt be non-dual).
If you measure ZILLIONS of lifetimes, then you are talking about an infinite universe, as the Big Bang has not had times for that many reincarnations.
Do you mean like this: (not my capitals)
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977
Did you mean that this jewel incrusted net by Avatamsaka Sutra was a metaphor for understanding unreality or an illusion that was merely assumed to exist? The hologram decribed is merely a reflection in a dimension that when cut into segments are exact copies of the original hologram. A sort of illusion as seen in our life experience.
As I understand it the Buddha set out to understand suffering and ended up understanding existence. He concluded that consciousness is fundamental and that in its limit state it is a non-dual experience that is eternally blissful. He asserts that 'we' all can achieve this state, but not without effort, introspection and the banishing of all our day to day assumptions in favour of certainties.
So the Buda (1)sets out (2) understands (3)concludes and (4) asserts things that he came to understand in his own conscious mind even in the absence or presence of thinking. Do any of the above statements constitute proof of some eternal truth?
In a lot of ways Theosophy agrees with Buddhism, so you might like this:
Your site was very interesting but it is my understanding that Theosophy is a system of beliefs and teachings of the Theosophical Society, founded in New York City in 1875, incorporating aspects of Buddhism and Brahmanism, especially the belief in reincarnation and spiritual evolution.
Ergo, Theosophy is considered as part of the philosophy of the Buda.
Originally posted by onycho
There was was a great Jewish philospher Moses Maimonides (Rambam) who tried to explain the unknowable nature of the Creator.
You can only describe the Creator in negative attributes as positive attributes can in no way describe that which is undescribable who has no form, shape, dimensions, substance or anything else the human mind can conceive.
Example:
positive attribute: The entity is the greatest of all manifestation.
or He is greater and mightier than all.
negative attribute: There is NONE who is a greater manifestation or
there is NONE mightier than He.
Since there is a dual description of nirvana which cannot be described cogently, can this concept of nirvana be described in a negative manner that would give some concept of Buda's revelation?
Afraid not. Negative implies positive, as your example shows.
Irish philosphers???
Yeah, a very famous one. Here's some of his words.
"That implied Unicity, the totality of undivided mind, is itself a concept of its own division or duality, for relatively - relatively being relative to what itself is - it cannot or known at all.
All that could ever be known about it is simply that, being Absolute, it must necessarily be devoid of any kind of objective existence whatsoever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its appearance".
Wu Wu Wei from 'The Ultimate Understanding' Ramesh Balsekar.
Not trying to browbeat you, but just to give an impression of how common this view is here are some different expressions of it.
"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."
Lao Tzu - Translation adapted from Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching Baltimore: Penguin (1963), p. 91.
Mathematician Robert Kaplan, a fan of Parmeniedes, puts is more straightforwadly:
“The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “
Robert Kaplan ‘The Nothing That Is’
Also physicist Erwin Schroedinger (can't find the original source at the moment):
Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge....It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two ‘I’s’ are identical, namely, when one disregards all their special content—their Karma.....When a man dies, his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.
Question: How then did the Buda communicate this experience to his adherents without any certainty of a thing?
He didn't. He just did his best to help and encourage them to have the experience for themselves.
You are right or maybe wrong about the duality of Buddist thought process.
I agree.
The human mind demands absolutes for understanding unless of course one has the mind of emptyness.
That sounds right ay first glance but I've never thoughty about it like that. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. (Emptiness is an absolute).
That sounds fair. If the Buda was not a demi-god, then nirvana was out of his reach as well according to your own statement.
No. Just ultimately out of reach of his reasoning.
If everything always has a beginning and creation is always there, then was there a start to everything or was there an infinite reincarnation?
Buddhists agree with others that something cannot come from nothing. The cosmos is eternal, timeless, both or neither. In Buddhism it is both or neither, depending on how you look at it, but has to be explained as eternal or timeless because of the way we think and conceive.
This sounds paradoxical, which is a key attribute of true statements about reality in Buddhism. But it isn't actually paradoxical on analysis.
If you measure ZILLIONS of lifetimes, then you are talking about an infinite universe, as the Big Bang has not had times for that many reincarnations.
Yes.
Did you mean that this jewel incrusted net by Avatamsaka Sutra was a metaphor for understanding unreality or an illusion that was merely assumed to exist?
It's a metaphor for dependent existence and the phenomenal world. The Jewel Net's own existence, (or rather the existence of the jewels), is dependent on what underlies it, namely emptiness.
The hologram decribed is merely a reflection in a dimension that when cut into segments are exact copies of the original hologram. A sort of illusion as seen in our life experience.
Ok. What underlies the hologram in this theory?
So the Buda (1)sets out (2) understands (3)concludes and (4) asserts things that he came to understand in his own conscious mind even in the absence or presence of thinking. Do any of the above statements constitute proof of some eternal truth?
No they don't. Such a proof is impossible ex hypothesis is Buddhism. This is why experience plays the central role, rather than incomplete axiomatic systems of proof.
Your site was very interesting but it is my understanding that Theosophy is a system of beliefs and teachings of the Theosophical Society, founded in New York City in 1875, incorporating aspects of Buddhism and Brahmanism, especially the belief in reincarnation and spiritual evolution.
I thought that the European Theosophical societies predated this, but you may be right.
Ergo, Theosophy is considered as part of the philosophy of the Buda. [/B]
Again you may be right. I know very little about its roots. I've never bothered to explore it much because I thought it was complete nonsense until recently.
Just found this by accident. It seemed relevant and it's very good. It's an essay about Gnosticism and Buddhism in 'The Matrix'.
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_fr_intro.html
Originally posted by Canute
Just found this by accident. It seemed relevant and it's very good. It's an essay about Gnosticism and Buddhism in 'The Matrix'.
The Matrix is, at its core, a film with a moral plot. We, the viewers, like the heroes, are in on a secret: The reality that forms the lives of millions of human beings is not real. The world that seems real to most people is in fact a computer-generated simulation, but almost no one knows it. In reality human beings are floating in liquid in machine pods, with tubes connected to them in a grotesque post-apocalyptic world where the sun is blotted out.
Interesting essay you found Canute.
Many of the thoughts in this very interesting philosophical movie are my own as well but I think that there is a much deeper concept being missed.
Who, what and how is the illusion of reality generated in this computer-generated (or giant hologram) simulation that humans individually perceive as real and earthbound? Accordingly, all the laws of nature, physics, biochemistry, gravity, energy are just constructs of our consciousness.
I personally believe that like the double helix DNA encoded protein molecules that we assume to form the differentiation of one fertilized ova into all the varied tissues, complex organization of enzymes, hormones and all the millions of the human being irreducible complexity there in reality exists a similar encoded string of encrypted letters that form a code which represents the blueprint for the creation of all things.
The base is 26 separate individual letters comprising a total of some 304,805 letters in a long multilayered hologram which is in my opinion encrypted to be this very real blueprint that like the DNA molecule forms the nature of our conscious awareness of all existence in our virtual reality.
Looking at this from my perspective also requires an omniscient prime force that is responsible for all things including this blueprint encrypted code. That force also exits in a timeless state that scientists predict to exist around the very extreme gravity collapsing of dead stars.
Thereby there is a reality as suggested by your Matrix movie that not only puts us in an assumed place and time but trapped by bounds in which humanity cannot go beyond like traveling backward into time or flying with our arms to the nearest galaxy we imagine being present in our mind vats.
But this concept is only my individual construct which is limited by our finite ability to know any reality. Maybe there are hidden signs that are right in front of us which can lead us to some heretofore unknown truth.
phoenixthoth
Jan8-04, 07:03 PM
Who, what and how is the illusion of reality generated in this computer-generated (or giant hologram) simulation that humans individually perceive as real and earthbound? Accordingly, all the laws of nature, physics, biochemistry, gravity, energy are just constructs of our consciousness.
that is the million dollar question, now isn't it?
that those are constructions of our consciousness is simply too outragous to be true, is it not?
i can't prove the answer, but i am lead to believe that our consciousnesses as well as the other things you mentioned, are the constructs of a consciousness greater than our individual consciousness. i do not believe, however, that it is a computer though in accordance with max tegmark's ensemble theory of everything paper, it may be a self-aware, and possibly aware of us, logical-mathematical framework that we exist in the context of. this uber consciousness itself may be apart of a greater uber consciousness and then the question is what, if any, is the greatest, uber uber consciousness of all consciousnesses? i believe it may be logic, perhaps many valued logic, itself for that is the most general mathematical structure in existence. so the hierarchy may be like this:
our consciousness is or is like a diff-able manifold of dimension q.
the uber consciousness is or is like the multiverse is or is like a manifold of dimension r. q <= r. i'm going to guess for no reason that q=5 and r=11.
...
the uber uber consciousness is logic not having dimension per se.
this uber uber consciousness has other names given by different people, some way less popular than others and if i named them here, what i just wrote may lose all credibility (if it had any to begin with).
pelastration
Jan8-04, 08:11 PM
just watch your own thinking. It is all the time shifting attention. Three seconds on your coffee, then 10 sec. on your computer, then 1 sec. on pain in your left knee, then 15 sec. on the girl on the street, ... all the time shifting from one level of reality (inside body, visual sensoring outside, auditive radio, etc). It's a shift of various frequencies/dimensions. These dimensions have each a number of memories and possibilities to adapt their memories.
That's all.
Consciousness is a global body system, not just a brain system.
Just analyze for three minutes yourself and see how many impressions of different kind and intensity goes through you. Observer yourself. And try to write it down. Then tell us. [t)] Describe us 3 minutes of your consciousness. OK? Try it, Do it!
pelastration
Jan8-04, 08:27 PM
My three minutes:
- hear a song on the radio: Golden brown.
- look to my browser and see in the left corner the color gray. A nice color.
- My emailer has a red flag.
- my jeans gives a friction on my knees.
- a little pain in my head on the right side.
- notice that I blink my eyes
- observing myself and ask myself what to write
- another song on the radio ... don't know it ... it makes me nervous.
- don't want to spend the time to change radiostation
- touching my noze
- I spelled noze ... the spelling-corrected indicated it with a red line. I changed it to nose.
- I drink a bite of my beer.
- my right jupiter finger tinkles
....
So maybe 4 minutes ...
What's yours ... ?
When I reread the first line I notice that indeed past ... I can remember but ... it's no longer NOW.
phoenixthoth
Jan8-04, 08:34 PM
do you hear the grasshopper? [:))]
pelastration
Jan8-04, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
do you hear the grasshopper? [:))]
sure. [:D]
http://www.hashish.co.uk/
pelastration
Jan8-04, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
do you hear the grasshopper? [:))]
What about your 3 minutes? [6)]
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.