JLNobody wrote:Hep, I'm not thinking about physical changes WITHIN reality--the fact of change is the fundamental trait of Reality as I see ( Zen, the pre-Socratic Heraclitus and all that). I'm talking about the metaphysical entity we are calling Reality. THAT (whatever it may be) does not change, only its component parts. The changes regarding its component parts ARE its nature. In other words, we talking about different things.
By saying reality is a metaphysical entity are you saying reality is sentient? If it is why shouldnt reality be mutable?
Or if reality was sentient would it have a choice to be mutable or not to be mutable?
PK, interesting observation. I DO think of the Cosmos (in the Hindu's quasi-anthropomorphic metaphorical form of Brahmin) as becoming concscious of itself through the medium of sentient beings, all of which are aspects of itself. This is just my subjective sense, not defensible factual form of scientific knowledge--this topic is beyond the purview of Science. But Brahmin is "sentient" in the limited sense that all sentient beings are aspects (in the Hindu form of Atman) of Brahmin. To be sentient is to have a nervous system. The Cosmos (or its metaphoric expression: Brahmin) does not HAVE a nervous system, as does an animal, but it does contain beings that do.
Can the "Brahmin" store information? Does the "Brahmin" have a brain to store things or does it store them in the beings that are "controlled" by it?
Of course, it is dangerous to anthropomorphize the Cosmos as a form of conscious being--which I think is what the Hindus have done (and what Hegel had done, if I understand him). The "Mind" of Brahmin must be taken as something very different from human consciousness which requires a brain. But the alternative of a universe that is "dead as earth" is equally presumptuous. It's ultimately a mystery. The mystic's sense of Cosmic consciousness is something we cannot grasp or categorize in ordinary awareness and thought. I have no desire, however, to defend that position. If it is real, it is real. My support or denial have no effect.
JLNobody wrote:Of course, it is dangerous to anthropomorphize the Cosmos as a form of conscious being--which I think is what the Hindus have done (and what Hegel had done, if I understand him). The "Mind" of Brahmin must be taken as something very different from human consciousness which requires a brain. But the alternative of a universe that is "dead as earth" is equally presumptuous. It's ultimately a mystery. The mystic's sense of Cosmic consciousness is something we cannot grasp or categorize in ordinary awareness and thought. I have no desire, however, to defend that position. If it is real, it is real. My support or denial have no effect.
so is the Bramin physically alive or only mentally aware? Is the Brahmin aware of what is happening?
The framework of your question is inappropriate. I could not--assuming I knew--answer either yes or no.
pseudokinetics wrote:so is the Bramin physically alive or only mentally aware? Is the Brahmin aware of what is happening?
I think you're question might be helped along some if you would more clearly describe what you are asking. When is something physically alive? What does it mean to be mentally aware? For that matter, what is consciousness? (I'll bet we wonder about consciousness like people used to wonder about the ether.)
Echi, good point. We are caught in our web of presuppositions, notions needed to ask questions, but notions that are in themselves problematical.
By physical i mean is it able to move, and by mentally aware i mean to know what is happening around it.
Thanks, Twyvel, something to ponder for a good while.
I love the phrase "open secret", such a delicious oxymoron, like common esoteric knowledge. To me, the act of meditation is the realization that we "see" the Reality of our true nature/Brahma's nature whether we try to or not. WHATEVER we see IS "it." The "secret" is closed to us only when, and to the extent that, we cover it over with theoretical notions. Direct (effortless, naive, innocent, and UNKNOWING) seeing (i.e., meditation) can't miss it.
Yes, we can't escape it, but may we just fail to appreciate it?
By "appreciation" I mean both to properly value it and to recognize it.
There's just loving, no subject and object of love. From the beginning, there's nothing to disappear?
Why hide from awakening instead of embracing it?
pseudokinetics wrote:Why hide from awakening instead of embracing it?
Yeah. I've been wondering that, myself.
