Conciousness?

onycho

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.

onycho

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.

Canute

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

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

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

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/ikonbo...t=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.

onycho

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/kahluaw...e/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

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

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/kahluaw...e/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.

onycho

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pelastration

[B}

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. [/B]

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.

onycho

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....

Canute

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.

Canute

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

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?

Canute

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

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."

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?

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/b...ude_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.

Similar Threads for: Conciousness?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Non-linear universe and thoughts on conciousness	General Discussion	2
Is Conciousness only available in Three-Dimensions?	General Physics	56
[SOLVED] Double helix and conciousness	General Discussion	5

phoenixthoth	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/ikonbo...t=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.