The Image of God

[ralis]

The problem with your statement is that scientists already view data through their own beliefs, preconceptions, prejudices, biases, and opinions.

 

What some people consider Mythology also, can in fact sometimes be validated through science. In that case, Mythology ends up not being so mythological after all.

 

You are positing an erroneous conclusion about the scientific method. Research scientists never proceed from belief systems in an attempt to prove a belief. Scientific research is a process of of asking questions, and inference i.e, deductive reasoning from given facts. Notice I said facts, not opinions, not innuendos or any belief system at all. Show me one scientific theory that was arrived at by using belief systems.

 

Here is a primer on the scientific method that may help and also the process Sir Isaac Newton used to understand gravity and formulate classical mechanics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

 

http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html

[doc benway]

In reading the preceding I was struck by the inherent difficulties in trying to explain the 'spiritual' in words--especially when one is attempting to evaluate the great variety of prescriptions for spiritual growth--moving toward God. So many words, so many interpreters of those words, so many different places on the road (Tao).

 

Perhaps most problematic is trying to fit the ineffable essence within the framework of conventional logic. Are religion, spiritual beliefs and faith aids to realization or obstacles? Which comes first, seeing the connection of all things (as Steve notes), or recognizing that all things are illusory. Are these contradictions of each other, or do they synthesize somewhere outside the framework of logic?

 

At this point in time my own view is that logic and faith(s)--including in the Tao--need to be set aside as soon as practicable in one's developmental process. Rather than believing of disbelieving particular principles or teachings, one needs to learn to suspend both belief and disbelief (at east temporarily) in favor of just becoming available.

Seeing the connection of all things can be equivalent to recognizing that all things are illusory in my view. What are "things"? "Things" are defined by boundaries. These boundaries are created by the mind to help it deal with the whole, which is largely incomprehensible and very tough to deal with from a practical point of view. Once the underlying connection is felt, the boundaries no longer exist, and so "things" no longer exist. The thing has no inherent is-ness, it just just that which is defined by a bounary. Same for the self.

 

The question of whether there is any-thing vs no-thing, wave vs partical, DO vs Brahman, and all that is another topic that I feel is ineffable and not worth too much attention. After all, what does it matter? Here we are, we are matter, we are holograph, we are illusion, we are strings, we are God. Just words. We are or we are not, that is indisputable, no need to name it.

 

I think this is a wonderful statement and worthy of emphasis -

"At this point in time my own view is that logic and faith(s)--including in the Tao--need to be set aside as soon as practicable in one's developmental process. Rather than believing of disbelieving particular principles or teachings, one needs to learn to suspend both belief and disbelief (at east temporarily) in favor of just becoming available."

I would make one comment on it - I think faith is different. To me, faith is the "just becoming available." Most people use faith and belief interchangeably and they are very different. Belief is the hope that the explanation you are attached to (and is not yet verified(able)) is correct. Faith is having the confidence to let go all beliefs and all logic and expectations and being open to what remains as being what it is - the truth, reality, whatever you want to call it. Faith is the courage to let belief go and accept what remains - being available to the truth.

[stan herman]

Faith is the courage to let belief go and accept what remains - being available to the truth.

 

 

I like that

[Birch]

"the thing has no inherent is-ness, it just just that which is defined by a boundary. Same for the self."

 

I agree with you Steve and I reckon that nevertheless, such boundaries are important. Why they're important? Well, without them, you'd become all that is. Or at the very least, not yourself:-)

 

But I'm not sure whether you'd be conscious of it - if you were all that is. So to be conscious, don't you need something else, or some things else? And if you have them, why attempt to stop having them? Ok, off on a ramble with this one...whoops.

[doc benway]

"the thing has no inherent is-ness, it just just that which is defined by a boundary. Same for the self."

 

I agree with you Steve and I reckon that nevertheless, such boundaries are important. Why they're important? Well, without them, you'd become all that is. Or at the very least, not yourself:-)

 

But I'm not sure whether you'd be conscious of it - if you were all that is. So to be conscious, don't you need something else, or some things else? And if you have them, why attempt to stop having them? Ok, off on a ramble with this one...whoops.

Good point about boundaries - without them, life would be pretty dull.

Now, I'm not sure that the boundaries are a condition on consciousness.

That's a really interesting question. If there is no separation, how does consciousness arise? What is there to be aware of and what is there to know that awareness exists? Hard to put this into words...

Hmm, not sure about that. Perhaps it is the very illusion of separation, Maya itself, that is necessary for consciousness to arise.

After all, what are we if not the eyes and ears through which the universe is aware of itself?

I wonder if one of our Buddhist brothers or sisters will weigh in on this as they are very well versed in theoretical descriptions of consciousness and non-duality and so on.

[suninmyeyes]

Good point about boundaries - without them, life would be pretty dull.

Now, I'm not sure that the boundaries are a condition on consciousness.

That's a really interesting question. If there is no separation, how does consciousness arise?

 

Hey,I feel inspired to add few words,

I believe that consciousness is.A very fabric of existance.It does not arise ,it may be discovered depending on the point of view.Desires arise probably due to the boundaries and to keep life alive on many levels.

Everything else is a joke.If there is anything else.hahaha

 

Check this out ,it is from a Zulu legend about creation as narrated by C.Mutwa:

'In the beginning nothing existed but Fertile Darkness,floating on the invisable River of Time.There was no sun,nor light of the moon:no earth,no place to stand,no vegetation,no waters,no roaring ocean,no brooks or rivers,no animals,no people.Nothing existed and darkness that oversperead all.

But there was a trouble ,a stirring in the darkness,a desire arouse in the River of Time,a desire for something,for Fertile Darknes to give birth to something out of Nothing.It was a strange mating between Time and Nothing,but from it came one tiny spark of Living Fire.

And the Living Fire was consciousness;it began to know things;..'

Edited May 28, 2011 by suninmyeyes

[doc benway]

Hey,I feel inspired to add few words,

I believe that consciousness is.A very fabric of existance.It does not arise ,it may be discovered depending on the point of view.Desires arise probably due to the boundaries and to keep life alive on many levels.

Everything else is a joke.If there is anything else.hahaha

 

Check this out ,it is from a Zulu legend about creation as narrated by C.Mutwa:

'In the beginning nothing existed but Fertile Darkness,floating on the invisable River of Time.There was no sun,nor light of the moon:no earth,no place to stand,no vegetation,no waters,no roaring ocean,no brooks or rivers,no animals,no people.Nothing existed and darkness that oversperead all.

But there was a trouble ,a stirring in the darkness,a desire arouse in the River of Time,a desire for something,for Fertile Darknes to give birth to something out of Nothing.It was a strange mating between Time and Nothing,but from it came one tiny spark of Living Fire.

And the Living Fire was consciousness;it began to know things;..'

That's a beautiful story and I appreciate your comments. My choice of word, "arise," was not very skillful.

I guess I mean something more along the lines of, would there be consciousness without boundaries?

And one could similarly ask would there be boundaries without consciousness?

It seems to relate to Daoist theory of mutual arising - Wu Ji giving birth to Tai Ji, undifferentiated vs differentiated.

[Aaron]

If I am made in the Image of God, I have serious worries about the nature of the universe.

 

I tend to think that the whole notion of God comes from our own fears of not knowing. I think once we cease worrying about not knowing, then we no longer need God. We can look at the world as it is and see the purpose within it. Then perhaps we will really begin to see God.

 

Aaron

[C T]

Good point about boundaries - without them, life would be pretty dull.

Now, I'm not sure that the boundaries are a condition on consciousness.

That's a really interesting question. If there is no separation, how does consciousness arise? What is there to be aware of and what is there to know that awareness exists? Hard to put this into words...

Hmm, not sure about that. Perhaps it is the very illusion of separation, Maya itself, that is necessary for consciousness to arise.

After all, what are we if not the eyes and ears through which the universe is aware of itself?

I wonder if one of our Buddhist brothers or sisters will weigh in on this as they are very well versed in theoretical descriptions of consciousness and non-duality and so on.

I would imagine that boundaries are instinctively set by individuals out of a deep feeling or sense of lack, so deep that it literally overrides every other conscious sense that we think makes up this identity we insist on calling 'me, myself and I'. As Ernest Becker had observed, "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation (extreme lack) - yet it is life itself that awakens this very knowledge, and so tendencies arise that makes us want to shrink from life". (paraphrased)

 

Similarly, Norman Brown made a parallel remark, "The ultimate problem is not guilt but the incapacity to live. The illusion of guilt is necessary for an animal that cannot enjoy life, in order to organize a life of non-enjoyment."

 

Since its impossible for the ego to absolve the self's seeming sense of lack, a kind of perpetual dilemma is set in motion, and no matter what an individual resolves to do, this shadow cannot be shaken loose. So the problem is very fundamental. It needs addressing at the core of one's being, and to this end demands unflinching honesty and using radical responses that could ultimately mean rediscovering and putting into effect very basic, simple virtues like mere patience and endurance. Through patience and endurance, coupled with the knowledge/faith that all things are impermanent, we set the psycho-physical stage towards facing our fears, leading eventually to freedom from such. Perhaps such a freedom creates the right causes for consciousness to seep out of the restraints often mistakenly thought to be bound tightly and limited to the 6 human senses.

 

Just a small reflection on what you have shared, Steve. Thanks for the insights! Very good ones too.

Edited May 29, 2011 by CowTao

[doc benway]

If I am made in the Image of God, I have serious worries about the nature of the universe.

 

I tend to think that the whole notion of God comes from our own fears of not knowing. I think once we cease worrying about not knowing, then we no longer need God. We can look at the world as it is and see the purpose within it. Then perhaps we will really begin to see God.

 

Aaron

Nicely said.

[doc benway]

I would imagine that boundaries are instinctively set by individuals out of a deep feeling or sense of lack, so deep that it literally overrides every other conscious sense that we think makes up this identity we insist on calling 'me, myself and I'. As Ernest Becker had observed, "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation (extreme lack) - yet it is life itself that awakens this very knowledge, and so tendencies arise that makes us want to shrink from life". (paraphrased)

 

Similarly, Norman Brown made a parallel remark, "The ultimate problem is not guilt but the incapacity to live. The illusion of guilt is necessary for an animal that cannot enjoy life, in order to organize a life of non-enjoyment."

 

Since its impossible for the ego to absolve the self's seeming sense of lack, a kind of perpetual dilemma is set in motion, and no matter what an individual resolves to do, this shadow cannot be shaken loose. So the problem is very fundamental. It needs addressing at the core of one's being, and to this end demands unflinching honesty and using radical responses that could ultimately mean rediscovering and putting into effect very basic, simple virtues like mere patience and endurance. Through patience and endurance, coupled with the knowledge/faith that all things are impermanent, we set the psycho-physical stage towards facing our fears, leading eventually to freedom from such. Perhaps such a freedom creates the right causes for consciousness to seep out of the restraints often mistakenly thought to be bound tightly and limited to the 6 human senses.

 

Just a small reflection on what you have shared, Steve. Thanks for the insights! Very good ones too.

I need to think about this for a while - very good stuff.

Thanks