doc benway

I would tend to disagree with you on this point. It seems to me that those who connect with "universal consciousness" personally and directly have no need of gods or other creations of the mind. It tends to be folks who feel separate, who do not feel a connection, who feel insecure and in looking for security create gods. Another question that I think might be worthy of consideration in this context is - What is our relationship as human beings (or any living creature, for that matter) to our environment? Are we same or other? Continuous or discontinuous?

Nice post. I find it fascinating to explore this border of where I end and other begins. And what it means that something is in MY consciousness, and so on... Fun stuff. Interesting - electron interactions. Why not? Very interesting to think about where and how sentience may arise. And is it possible for sentience to see into the nature of itself? The overlap of physics and metaphysics is fascinating - ever read Amit Goswami? Was there such a state? If so, what would it have been like? I have no clue... But I think I would look at it a bit like death. In other words, death being the interval between life, as life is the interval between death. Singularity could be the interval between existence or manifestation, and existence the interval between singularity. All very entertaining to consider. Could the emergence of sentience have been the end of singularity and the beginning of manifestation? It would certainly make sense with the whole idea of "matter" and "consciousness" being inter-related and interdependent. The only problem is that I"m not sure I believe in a beginning and end. I believe in now, that's about it. Everything else is maybe so, maybe not...

And that's what counts, my perspective is my problem - your perspective's you problem! Or opportunity...

Of course it does, the universe is self aware, the rock is not other than the universe. I love ya brother! You fucking rock killer!

I love you exactly as you are! Worried about it? Not anymore - I used to be obsessed, now I still find it very interesting but more entertaining than distracting. Realizing that I'll never understand it but if I stop trying to, I'm already living it... that helped.

Excellent point - my apologies if I sound preachy. I've given up discussing this stuff with the gen. pop. entirely for that very reason. I only discuss it with other like-minded fools interested in worrying about this metaphysical crap, like us. That is why I hang out here. And I don't mean to preach - just sharing my perspective and understanding relative to the question at hand, that is every bit as flawed and inaccurate as anyone else's. PS - Q: If I feel a oneness and MH feels a twoness, who is "correct"? A: Both, I think....

We're in the Vedanta subforum! DODODODODODODODODODODODODODODODO!

The flaw in your logic is that it fails to recognize the underlying connection between the experiencer and the experienced. Between the organism and environment. Between the sentient and the non-sentient and between one sentient and another. The oneness of existence. The separation of consciousness and matter is an artificial premise which is inaccurate. The rock will never exist in the absence of its perception. Some undefinable 'potential to do work' exists, and is the substrate of the brain as well as the rock it observes. But it is the unique characteristics of the brain that brings "rock" into existence out of that ambiguous potential. Perception defines it - and the perception may be immediate or may be distant in space, time, or both. We exist in a universe that is aware of itself, and we're mediators of that self awareness. And we feel very separate, but that's an illusion created by the very characteristics that allow us to serve in that role. It's ironic. But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not. And it's very interesting that is often felt in association with or maybe even as a consequence of something terribly traumatic.

No, you're too fixated on an individual consciousness. There is always more than that. If I am comatose there are others to recognize my brain's existence. That is an artificial example. There is always matter and consciousness. Matter is anything that consciousness feels is other. But as you say, matter is energy, the capacity and activity of doing work - change. Consciousness evokes matter out of this and consciousness is made of matter at the same time - Consciousness is THAT- to quote Nisargadatta. If you see a green leaf, the leaf is not green. It is the nature of your eye to see green, not the leaf. Another eye might see red or whatever. The "material universe" is equally a reflection of your unique perceptive characteristics, the way your antennas are tuned, as well as that undefinable capacity for work and change. They arise mutually to use the Daoist slang

Event Horizon With infinite potential Awareness explodes!

I have a very firm mattress with a pillow-top which makes it very comfy. I use a single memory foam type pillow, also, which is great.

Great contributions to this thread! I hope I don't spoil it.... What does it matter? Taijiquan exists, it's spirit exists, it's origins in human and spiritual endeavor exist. It's effectiveness exists (in a precious few who train long and hard enough). I'm not too concerned with debate over a legendary figure, be it Jesus, Zhang San Feng, Buddha, Lao Zi, or whomever. What counts is the mythology, the archetypes, the inherent value in the methods and ideas, and the fact that we still practice and celebrate it today. Yay! Sorry to disagree but... My perspective as both a student and teacher of Taijiquan is a bit different. I don't find a knowledge of theory to be an advantage in how someone learns or practices Taijiquan. I find the practice to be an experiential and 'de novo' art. The theory is the mind's way of telling itself it "understands" after the fact, which is a matter of our inherent insecurity. I don't believe that the theory created the art. My teacher has always said that the martial arts came first. People figured out with their bones and blood how to use softness and sticking in combat. Later, the brain made a theory of it or linked it to existing theory. My students' progress has little or nothing to do with theoretical knowledge. It has to do first with learning physical movements through imitation and repetition. Second, with turning inward and feeling the movement from the inside out in a profound and thorough manner. And third, connecting that awareness to others and extending that feeling into and around them. The theory is literally an afterthought. It's an image of the experience made up of mental symbols. -quan = martial skill, so in Taijiquan we're talking about developing skill in fighting. It was many generations before the characters for Tai Ji were applied to the martial art, further evidence to support the theory came later. There is no question that the internal component exists and is important. And there are places you will never get In Taijiquan without an associated Daoist meditation practice (also according to my teacher, which I fully agree with). And the meditation practice is equally experiential and does not depend in any way on Daoist knowledge or theory. The theory is, again, a symbolic representation of an experience. I was helping to teach a Bagua seminar this weekend and one of my students was struggling and getting very frustrated with the 8th palm change. I watched him digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, watching the intellect confusing itself trying to understand, and convincing itself that it was not going to get it, and needed to stop. I interrupted the cycle, refused to allow him to talk about it or think about it and got him physically focused on simple imitation and repetition and he got it, no problem. Then comes the months and years of repetition, the inner work, and the application. Then theory can say it understands (or even created) all of that... meh So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you that Taijiquan is much more than external physical movement but the internal part is NOT theory. It is an additional and challenging experiential practice in and of itself. It is separate from theory. And no knowledge of theory is a substitute for the practice. One of the greatest things I've taken from my Taijiquan training is awareness of the limitation of the intellectual and theoretical and the importance of balancing it with the experiential - the un"know"able. There is certainly intellectual, social, practical, etc.... value to Daoist theory, but I advise caution regarding the dangers of assuming one "knows" something like Taijiquan or Daoist meditation as a result of understanding theory. Great point. What exists, exists. It is there. Whatever it is/was that gave rise to the existence of Taijiquan in this world is/was here and is available to those who seek it with appropriate diligence and respect. Perhaps Zhang San Feng was the Steve Jobs of the 14th century and perhaps not. Very good points. I have always been a skeptic - my father's son. I've also woken up enough to understand that many things I previously dismissed, make perfect sense. It's all a matter of perspective. Whether Zhang San Feng is archetypal or literal is less important to me than seeing the value and assimilating what is being presented. Having an open mind not to dismiss and the humility to show due respect are two things I've been working on.

So how about the converse? Is consciousness required for a brain to exist?

We are equally defining and limiting a thing whether we are telling what it is or what it is not. So then, tell me what consciousness is not?

What do you mean not fair? You don't know what it is but you know that it couldn't possibly be what underlies it all... In fact, whatever underlies it all will certainly be beyond anything we can "know"

It's not selfish for me to live my life as I see fit Selfishness is expecting you to live your life as I see fit. Two people come together and each creates a different reality around them. She is at peace with a messier level of life than you are. I'm not judging who is right or wrong So you need to find balance and you can't always find it and it takes a lot of work in every relationship sooner or later. I like to look at what the situation tells me about ME, not the other person, and go from there. Then I can usually see the other side better somehow.

I'm an INFJ - 22/38/25/11, along with John Calvin, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Nicole Kidman... Talk about a party!

The Scythians lived in what is now the area referred to as Tuva. Present day Tuvans, however, are not descendants of the Scythians. I do know that there have been some impressive finds of gold in the tombs of the Scythian kings. That's about all I know. I'm a fan of Tuvan music, that's how I've heard of this.

It is nothing to focus on and the fear and bliss are natural and will pass, and return, and so on.... Consider opening your eyes slightly. It can help avoid mental distractions like the one you describe, which can be more distracting than "real" visual stimuli. Some Daoist traditions look slightly downward and inward, to the nose for example, with a soft focus and the lids half closed. It feels forced for a while (like a mudra or propr tongue position) but eventually happens "of itself."

It occurred to me today that To follow a guru is religion, To open oneself to the whole world is spirituality

We have a FAQ here. I personally don't see a need for a separate FAQ for each sub-forum but if you or others want to work on that, I'll support it. Not my bag, baby...

I don't think the structure and format of the site matter one iota. Anyone who is genuine in their intent to join with others online to grow spiritually, can find a place and quality people here. If any one of us thinks the quality of contributions has deteriorated it is because we have failed to make a better contribution personally. Post what you want, where you want, with respect and civility. If someone thinks your opinion is not orthodox enough for a sub-forum that's their cross to bear, not yours. Pointing the finger at others or the forum itself is a cop out. Lamenting about folks who've left for whatever reason is a waste of time. Be the change you want here or look elsewhere. It's a natural cycle. Peace.

For many people, to believe in God means to separate oneself from God. When you can let go of the separation, you are that, and it is the way it should be. Cool cartoon!

I agree - great idea Scott. I'll probably get involved as well, life permitting. That said, anyone ever see the "Bullshit" episode on the 12 Steps by Penn and Teller? If so, what did you think of it? They seemed to make some valid points, although they generally do establish an agenda and then go after it one-mindedly.

LI WEI