Stuh, that is correct, of course. My speculations, which might change in no time at all, are made for the sheer excitement of it. They are joyful guesses, I admit. But it is less joyful than just quietly examining, without thought and judgement, what is passing through my consciousness at any moment.
Gel, that's right. THAT, playing music and painting are the most fun I can have with my pants on.
JLNobody wrote:Stuh, that is correct, of course. My speculations, which might change in no time at all, are made for the sheer excitement of it. They are joyful guesses, I admit. But it is less joyful than just quietly examining, without thought and judgement, what is passing through my consciousness at any moment.
[/color]
JL, That statement you just made that I highlighted in red, you separated an intelligence that watches from an intelligence that is being observed, who/what watches?
Quote:Gel, that's right. THAT, playing music and painting are the most fun I can have with my pants on.
I assume that with pants-off activities included, scuba diving takes the cake?
Wonderful question, Gel. The answer, from my perspective, must be very convoluted, and is certain to be misunderstood by some. But let me try. There is a Hindu saying that I cited frequently here. Tat tvam asi (that art thou). It is an expression of non-dualism. I am not a subject that is metaphysically (ontologically) distinct from an object. Perceptions of the world of objects and my thoughts and sensations do not happen TO me; they ARE me. The Hindus have a wonderful metaphorical language of cosmic entities, two of which are relevant here. One is Brahma, the total unity of ultimate reality which includes me. It, Brahma, the universe, does not surround me; it is me, and you and all things and processes. Brahma is like a diamond, in my understanding at least, with an infinite number of facets. Some of these are called Atman(s). My consciousness of the world is not "mine" in the sense of little mind or ego. It is Brahma in the form of the Atman that is my true Self (with upper case S).
Let me post this before I lose it. I'll be back.
With infinite oversimplication (not with Occam's Razor, but with a blunt axe), Brahma is like a hand with an infinite number of fingers, each finger an Atman representing all the centers of awareness, like yours and mine. Now when I look at, say, a vase, my Atman represents all the forces generating the experience of seeing the vase. These are all the factors such as my nervous system, air pressure, gravity that keeps on the floor, optic principles and the energy that appears as light. I could go on forever (in principle not in practice) listing all the necessary and efficient causes producing my vision of the vase. These factors are my Atman, and they are the same as Brahma. And they are all me, not my ego--that is illusory. So in a sense when you ask me who observes. I must say, with Twyvel, that nothing observes. This means that no one thing (e.g., a "me") observes. This may be grossly counter-intuitive, but EVERYTHING, as my Atman, observes the vase. Remember that my true Self is my Atman, and my Atman, as well as yours, is in truth Brahma. Indeed, you and I are everything and you and I are one. Sorry. The magnificent complexity of this is that Brahma is also the vase (and all my actual and possible "objects" of perception). The universe of Brahma is both the world I see and the true me that sees it. Understood? Notice how this "model" avoids dualism, the separation of Brahma's infinite expressions into contrasting objects versus subjects. When I see the vase, Brahma is seeing itself. This reflects a Cosmic dynamic pluralistic Unity. A form of (appreciate the paradox) pluralistic monism. I must stress that this clumsy excuse for a conceptual model of the situation to which your question refers is NOT a form of Buddhist or Hindu Vedanta enlightment. It is just a conceptual caricature which we consider as an object to our subject. In meditation, when done in a refined manner, one does not have such thoughts (meditation is not contemplation), one simply loses the sense of a subject (a "me") who is viewing a separate object (a "vase" or whatever). There is ONLY observing or observation sans agent. I and all else merge: tat tvam asi. It is a great sense of freedom. But when one is not prepared for this, as Asherman notes, it can be very scary, like having one's foundations kicked out from under him. Sometimes zen monks, I have read, when about to experience this "satori" have a panic attack, a feeling that they are about to die. And their egos do in fact die (or more accurately, the illusion of ego ends). From that point on--to the extent that they maintain this perspective--their fear of death dissolves, for what we really fear is not the death of the body but the death of the ego.
Quote:factors are my Atman, and they are the same as Brahma. And they are all me, not my ego. That is illusory. So in a sense when you ask me who observes. I must say, with Twyvel, that nothing observes. This means that noone thing (e.g., a "me") observes. EVERYTHING observes in the form of my Atman which is Brahma (everything.)
Nobody is saying that people are 1 thing. But we have the abstract reasoning capacity to group things and refer to them using arbitrary language as "one" to make communication easier! This does not mean we consider them 1 thing. We know that there are many many things such as optical nerves and blah blah necessary to see something...when we refer to a person, we refer to the "brahma" of that person (as you so put it).
Stuh, I and Tywvel and Fresco have stressed that dualism is essential to our physical existence. We must behave AS IF our egos were real, and we must objectify the world of "things" into objects of pursuit and avoidance. The ego illusion and dualism have survival value for the species. They are useful fictions. I'm quite certain that zen masters and most yogis spend most of their day in the dualistic mode ("Me" interacting in a world of "not-MEs"). But they see it for what it is, a dream; they see through the fiction. The Buddha, the awakened one, very likely shared the dreams of his desciples, but he was aware that he was dreaming. And that is just as good as being awake.
Please be so kind as to reexamine my last post. I edited it for clarity
while you were writing.Thanks.
I have just edited this post as well (6-21-04)
Geligesti
stuh505
JLNobody
jnhofzinger
BoGoWo
twyvel ReX
You gentlemen (or ladies,ofcourse), present your arguments with such erudition that it has been a pleasure to read your philosophical stance on the very delicate questions that this thread has given
birth to.
I would appreciate your take on my post that I have presented today on the question of rationalization of our belief systems because your differing positions on reality would offer , I am sure,
a plethora of insights and satories that would be
intellectually fascinating . Please have a look at the
thesis with your usual critical eye ,and let me have
the pleasure of reading your responses.
JLNobody: Your exquisite content leaves me with only potential typos to address, so that I may better understand your point of view. "And whatever Ultimate Reality is, I am, and you are, an expression of it. This assumption is the basis for the promise of mystical techniques as a path to philosophical and personal growth." Premise of promise, and in either case, would you care to elaborate (briefly)?
Gelisgesti: When you're as new to the forum as I am, you're bound to make the mistake of reinventing the wheel
Sorry, and I'll try and read all of it within this week, but man, 34pages! :p
I'll try and keep my input, inadequate understanding and questions to a minimum in the meanwhile
Alikamir: Will do
ReX wrote:JLNobody: Your exquisite content leaves me with only potential typos to address, so that I may better understand your point of view. "And whatever Ultimate Reality is, I am, and you are, an expression of it. This assumption is the basis for the promise of mystical techniques as a path to philosophical and personal growth." Premise of promise, and in either case, would you care to elaborate (briefly)?
Gelisgesti: When you're as new to the forum as I am, you're bound to make the mistake of reinventing the wheel
Sorry, and I'll try and read all of it within this week, but man, 34pages! :p
I'll try and keep my input, inadequate understanding and questions to a minimum in the meanwhile
Alikamir: Will do
No apology needed ..... all I meant was that my lazy nature precludes any un-neccessary typing
Alikamir, will endeavor.
JL, your Brahma = my universal intelligence ..... that which gives cohesion to all that is ...... that which sleeps in awareness and wakens into consciousness ...... that which observes without looking, knows without watching. The voice that speaks through the hand at the keyboard.
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
Albert E.
Thanks for that, Gel; here's another:
Albert Einstein wrote:The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Gelisgesti wrote:.........BoGoWo
Have I some how invited your sarcasm? If so please explain as I do not intend to suffer it without response.
Not mentioned because they did nothing to support my arguement or, I thought, deny it, are the existence of 'peripheral' chemoRECEPTORS that suplement the central bodies and guess what, they survived.
It would appear that the intelligent designers of your particular model suffered major deficencies.
Occult??? How lame. You reveal much of your thought processes.
sorry to have not responded Gel; but alikimr said virually exactly what i would have!
ReX wrote:Analyzing.....................hands.
not bad at all for a "self labeled" 'layman'!
jnhofzinser wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:There is an intelligence operating in all things in all that is known.
.........I believe that Gel is using "intelligence" to refer to the "design hypothesis" indicated above, which ought to be considered quite legitimate.
I refer to this particular universe, as being the 'blatantly obvious" one; we could only be sitting here, discussing a universe in which 'life' were possible, if this were such a universe; and the 'parameters' were exactly what they "are"!
Sorry for the multiple posts here; just catching up
from all the above, it seems a possible agreement here (speaking of course for myself), is that if consciousness is a phenomenon resulting from 'life' (perhaps more, perhaps not), then 'cosmic consciousness, rather than being an allusion (or delusion) to the 'mythic', is the composite consciousness formed by the sum total of "all" life on this planet, or, for that matter, in this universe!
BoGoWo wrote:I refer to this particular universe, as being the 'blatantly obvious" one; we could only be sitting here, discussing a universe in which 'life' were possible, if this were such a universe; and the 'parameters' were exactly what they "are"!
Nobody (er, not even Nobody) will disagree with this. The question is: how did such an "obvious" universe come to be? We give it the name "intelligence" by projection: given that we are intelligent to observe it, there must be something "sufficient" to account for that intelligence. This "sufficient something" could be a mystical one, a theological one, or a statistical one. But it is more legitimate to assign it the name "intelligence" than to act as if it were not necessary
jnhofzinser wrote:.........Nobody (er, not even Nobody) will disagree with this. The question is: how did such an "obvious" universe come to be? We give it the name "intelligence" by projection: given that we are intelligent to observe it, there must be something "sufficient" to account for that intelligence. This "sufficient something" could be a mystical one, a theological one, or a statistical one. But it is more legitimate to assign it the name "intelligence" than to act as if it were not necessary
I take this as a case of anthropomorphosizing; you are assuming that this universe is all about "us" the sad little naked apes, doing our best to rid this planet of any sign of life, by whatever means we can devise.
Whereas it is about everything - that particular everything that this universe incorporates, and compared to a supernova, and it's effects on the surrounding vacuum, my sneezing is not highly competitive!
In my post of June 20th. above I inadvertandly
forgot to mention tcis and fresco who also participated in this great thread. Please have a look at the "rationalization of our belief systems"
post and let me have the benefit of your thinking on the matter.
While I am at it, (which I acknowledge to be a very unorthodox way of working within A2K ), I really would also appreciate hearing from thethinkfactory ,joefromchicago perception
and hodgepodge,.....whose views on other matters I came across elsewhere . Thanks to all of you who will indulge me in this exercise.
