Matter or consciousness?

[Marblehead]

I was deeply devoted at a certain stage...that kind of devotion is out of love, not fear of judgement. To be able to love without selfishness...simply surrender. That opens up many closed doors...

 

Yes.

 

However, ... Hehehe ...

 

We know I have a problem with that word "surrender", right?

[Marblehead]

The gods IMO are phenomena as much as anything else. Unfortunately what can happen with them is they can gain autonomy from their creator and start appearing to others.

 

After reading this a word popped into my mind: Superconsciousness.

 

That is when, after attaining full consciousness and seeing life for what it really is, we start seeing things that are not a part of reality and they gradually become real to us.

[Apech]

As with everything we have define what we mean by gods. I find most people are confused by the Judeo-Christian concept of God where as there is only one god he/it stands for Absolute reality. So we get the idea that this God, a person or supreme being is equivalent to the Absolute ... which creates all kinds of problems. Monotheism is really a kind of concealed duality.

 

The ancient view of gods is that they are nothing but power or energy concealed in forms. Polytheism such as you find in the ancient world and in Hinduism is very different to monotheism. As there is no limit placed on the Absolute then it is conceivable that it can manifest in many forms and 'levels' as intelligences of all kinds ... not just plants, animals and humans. Worshiping such intelligences becomes very different from going to church on Sunday and can be more about remembering that energy (or whatever we want to call it) or consciousness is at the root of all we perceive and that the variety of its forms is an expression of its total creativity.

 

There are different perspectives to be had is all I am saying.

[Birch]

You're right all the way Apech. When I was referring to them (the gods) I really did mean to point out their autonomy as a definite psychic extant "thing" with influence on people's beliefs and actions. Did the creators of monotheisms know what they were doing? I think in this respect it's one of the things I appreciate about the "just scenary, empty" advice in Bhuddist practice. If in the course of meditation you start seeing ideas and words as sparkly colourful objects with definite forms and boundaries, you can perhaps understand how this could go down for the practitioner if they don't heed the "just scenery" advice! The notion goes "don't feed it/them" or "whatever you feed" but what that doesn't really say enough IMO is related to the autonomy gained (even temporarily) by psychic productions. And IMO the only way this would be possible even is through continuity of consciousness.

[dwai]

As with everything we have define what we mean by gods. I find most people are confused by the Judeo-Christian concept of God where as there is only one god he/it stands for Absolute reality. So we get the idea that this God, a person or supreme being is equivalent to the Absolute ... which creates all kinds of problems. Monotheism is really a kind of concealed duality.

 

The ancient view of gods is that they are nothing but power or energy concealed in forms. Polytheism such as you find in the ancient world and in Hinduism is very different to monotheism. As there is no limit placed on the Absolute then it is conceivable that it can manifest in many forms and 'levels' as intelligences of all kinds ... not just plants, animals and humans. Worshiping such intelligences becomes very different from going to church on Sunday and can be more about remembering that energy (or whatever we want to call it) or consciousness is at the root of all we perceive and that the variety of its forms is an expression of its total creativity.

 

There are different perspectives to be had is all I am saying.

Most of my conversations with atheists seems to hinge on thier definition of "god". You point out quite accurately that pantheistic or panentheistic societies dont have poblems of absolutism ir exclusivist positions because they are open to infinite posibilities. Indeed the "Gods" are reference models at various levels, intellectual, ethical, energetic. I consder them as gateways to the inifinity, especially for those who arent naturally inclined for difficult practices such as jnana yoga (the way of knowledge). To each his/her own...

[dwai]

Yes.

 

However, ... Hehehe ...

 

We know I have a problem with that word "surrender", right?

By being wu wei are you not "surrendering" to Dao?

Isn't the priary nature of wter also surrender?

Edited November 18, 2011 by dwai

[Marblehead]

By being wu wei are you not "surrendering" to Dao?

Isn't the priary nature of wter also surrender?

 

Great questions! Let's see how I do.

 

Wu wei is submersion, not surrender. We submerge and become one with Tao.

 

One can submerge oneself in water. The primary nature of water is to seek the lowest places; in the valley lakes and oceans. These lowest places become places of rest - not surrender.

 

Yes, I understand that your philosophy teaches 'surrender'. The concept is good as long as we don't say that we surrender and just give up. Surrender to the powers that will carry you forward. I like that.

[doc benway]

The biggest problem I have with the concept of "universal consciousness" is that the next step for most people is the creation of gods. I just can't go there.

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?

[Marblehead]

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.

 

After a short consideration, I agree with you; therefore I disagree with me too. (I think you are more right than I was.)

 

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?

 

Yeah, I think this would still be an on-topic consideration.

 

The only way I can speak to it fairly is to conduct a confession.

 

I used to think that I was separate from my environment. After all, if I didn't like it I could change it or if nothing else, move to a different environment.

 

Even after I considered myself a man of the path of Tao I still considered myself a separate manifestation of Tao - a separate individual.

 

But then, maybe fifteen years ago I realized that I am no different from whatever environment I am in. I am a part of it - my localized realm of Tao. Without my environment I could not exist, I am, bottom line, totally dependant on it. And it goes too that the environment I have created in my little place on the planet is dependant on me as well else it would return to its natural state.

[doc benway]

 

But then, maybe fifteen years ago I realized that I am no different from whatever environment I am in. I am a part of it - my localized realm of Tao. Without my environment I could not exist, I am, bottom line, totally dependant on it. And it goes too that the environment I have created in my little place on the planet is dependant on me as well else it would return to its natural state.

I agree with you.

There is no such thing as an isolated living organism.

In fact, I think this is the realization and experience that Wu Wei and Daoism in general is pointing us toward.

You are not an organism in an environment - you are an organismenvironment.

The design of the system is such that you are blessed with the sensory apparatus and awareness that has the side effect of creating the illusion of separateness.

 

So let's take it to the next level. If you are not other than the environment, neither is any other living organism.

The entire system is holistic.

So then we come to consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation of this organismenvironment somehow.

I don't know how it arises or where it resides but, like you as an organism, the associated consciousness is not other than the consciousness of all other living things. So there is a universality of consciousness. Like the illusion of being separate based on our sensory apparatus, there is a similar illusion of independent consciousness.

 

There are ways to explore this further. Thinking about emotion, for example. All humans experience the same spectrum of emotion to varying degrees - fear, excitement, anger, jealousy, it's all a universal human experience.

And I would postulate that there is no consciousness in the absence of life and no life in the absence of consciousness.

Even in the case of a coma, there are still feedback and regulatory mechanisms in place that would qualify as awareness at some level. And the fact that we are not separate from the environment also implies that, even if I were permanently comatose, I am still aware because I am the organismenvironment, not an isolated and independent entity, therefore the loss of one person's individual consciousness does not render that individual absent of consciousness because they are not separate from the environment.

 

So, I hope I'm not trying too hard here. I'm not trying to convert, but if one is Daoist, that must eventually lead to an understanding or experience of oneness - organism and environment, and all the rest of it seems (to me at least) to follow naturally from there...

 

Just some cool crap to think about.

[dwai]

Great questions! Let's see how I do.

 

Wu wei is submersion, not surrender. We submerge and become one with Tao.

 

One can submerge oneself in water. The primary nature of water is to seek the lowest places; in the valley lakes and oceans. These lowest places become places of rest - not surrender.

 

Yes, I understand that your philosophy teaches 'surrender'. The concept is good as long as we don't say that we surrender and just give up. Surrender to the powers that will carry you forward. I like that.

 

submerge meaning "sink" right? Or is it floating? Isn't floating with the current another form of surrender?

[Marblehead]

 

So, I hope I'm not trying too hard here. I'm not trying to convert, but if one is Daoist, that must eventually lead to an understanding or experience of oneness - organism and environment, and all the rest of it seems (to me at least) to follow naturally from there...

 

Just some cool crap to think about.

 

You are slick, Steve. Hehehe.

 

I can know only what I can know. Sure, I can imagine but I do try to keep that to a minimum here at the TTB.

 

Yeah, for me, you tried too hard. Hehehe.

 

No, I'm not going to relegate my consciousness to my chair even though I sometimes think with my butt.

 

I do agree that our environment is multifaceted but I think it is going too far to attribute capacities and capabliliies of one manifestation to another. All things has their own 'thusness'.

 

A raock is a rock until it is worn down and becomes a stone and the stone is a stone until it becomes a grain of sand.

[Apech]

....

 

A raock is a rock until it is worn down and becomes a stone and the stone is a stone until it becomes a grain of sand.

 

You made me think of this ....

 

To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.

 

 

William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

<h2></h2>

... what's a raock by the way ... did I miss a geology lesson ... or did you mean ruach ... Hebrew for spirit (?) lol

[3bob]

More properly translated as:

 

If you're one with the Tao, to the end of your days you'll suffer no harm.

 

(Henricks' translation)

 

With 50-100+ (or who knows how many?) major translations of the TTC floating around it is hard to say which is more "proper". The one I use is from a Chinese person who is very familar with the writings. Besides if one does not also relate experientially to the TTC in various degrees besides only relating in an intellectual or philosophical way, (thus only in part) then we tend to have never ending debates of "maybe it means this or maybe it means that?". Which pretty much happens with any of the "spiritual" type of teachings.

[Marblehead]

You made me think of this ....

 

<h2></h2>

... what's a raock by the way ... did I miss a geology lesson ... or did you mean ruach ... Hebrew for spirit (?) lol

 

Hehehe. A rock is a rock by any other name.

 

Yes, I know that saying. It's not part of my philosophy though.

[Marblehead]

With 50-100+ (or who knows how many?) major translations of the TTC floating around it is hard to say which is more "proper". The one I use is from a Chinese person who is very familar with the writings. Besides if one does not also relate experientially to the TTC in various degrees besides only relating in an intellectual or philosophical way, (thus only in part) then we tend to have never ending debates of "maybe it means this or maybe it means that?". Which pretty much happens with any of the "spiritual" type of teachings.

 

But Bob, I am an Atheist and a Materialist; you are a rather spiritual person. It should be a given that we will not always agree when we get into these kinds of discussions.

 

I rather enjoy it when you guys gang up on me. Great challenge for my ability to remain thinking logidally and rationally without getting my emotions involved in the discussion.

 

And yes, the TTC is the most often translated text after only the Christian Bible. And all translators are going to translate it "their way".

 

So we pick the one or ones that 'feel' right to us and there we are.

 

My consciousness tells me that matter is matter. Some of it is capable of self-awareness and some of it isn't.

 

Hehehe. I just got us back on topic.

[3bob]

But Bob, I am an Atheist and a Materialist; you are a rather spiritual person. It should be a given that we will not always agree when we get into these kinds of discussions.

 

I rather enjoy it when you guys gang up on me. Great challenge for my ability to remain thinking logidally and rationally without getting my emotions involved in the discussion.

 

And yes, the TTC is the most often translated text after only the Christian Bible. And all translators are going to translate it "their way".

 

So we pick the one or ones that 'feel' right to us and there we are.

 

My consciousness tells me that matter is matter. Some of it is capable of self-awareness and some of it isn't.

 

Hehehe. I just got us back on topic.

 

MH, "So we pick the one or ones that 'feel' right to us and there we are".

 

Ok, that sounds like a more "proper" way to put it. By the way since generally accepted science has no proof one way or the other about most of the subjects at this site like: Tao, "God" or gods, saints, masters (etc.) I don't really understand how an atheist can claim being logical or science based... although I do see how being skeptical or an agnostic of some type is logical, since they have no proof and or they are not automatically closed off to the idea of pending proof(s) yet to be come... Btw, for those that have "blind faith" about subjects like these yet have no direct experience of same would also be un-logical (in the sense of what could be termed "spiritual science") in not being skeptical or of not being of some type of agnostic persuasion until they have such proof(s) one way or another.

 

Om

Edited November 19, 2011 by 3bob

[dwai]

But Bob, I am an Atheist and a Materialist; you are a rather spiritual person. It should be a given that we will not always agree when we get into these kinds of discussions.

 

I rather enjoy it when you guys gang up on me. Great challenge for my ability to remain thinking logidally and rationally without getting my emotions involved in the discussion.

 

And yes, the TTC is the most often translated text after only the Christian Bible. And all translators are going to translate it "their way".

 

So we pick the one or ones that 'feel' right to us and there we are.

 

My consciousness tells me that matter is matter. Some of it is capable of self-awareness and some of it isn't.

 

Hehehe. I just got us back on topic.

Isnt that your onditioned consciousness? Or do you not gree tht consiousness can be unconditioned?

[Marblehead]

... about most of the subjects at this site like: Tao, "God" or gods, saints, masters (etc.)

Om

 

What?

 

Taoism is about living a practical life. Lao Tzu never spoke of God. Chuang Tzu never spoke of God. The term "God" was something they said was beyond talking about (or something similar).

 

My posts are probably 95% about living a practical life. That is what Taism is about. We Taoists do not talk about what cannot be talked about.

 

But anyone is free to talk about God all they want. If the concept comes up in a discussion I am a part of I will likely comment to the concept.

 

BTW Neither Lao Tzu nor Chuang Tzu ever told us that we were supposed to get down on our knees and pray to some entity that we had created in our own mind.

[Marblehead]

Isnt that your onditioned consciousness? Or do you not gree tht consiousness can be unconditioned?

 

Great observation! Great question!

 

Yes, during most of my waking hours my consciousness is conditioned. During sleep and during meditation I would say that this consciousness (or unconsciousness) is unconditioned.

 

I have stated elsewhere that I accept and hold to the idea of 'inspired awareness'. I would call this unconditioned consciousness also.

[3bob]

What?

 

Taoism is about living a practical life. Lao Tzu never spoke of God. Chuang Tzu never spoke of God. The term "God" was something they said was beyond talking about (or something similar).

 

My posts are probably 95% about living a practical life. That is what Taism is about. We Taoists do not talk about what cannot be talked about.

 

But anyone is free to talk about God all they want. If the concept comes up in a discussion I am a part of I will likely comment to the concept.

 

BTW Neither Lao Tzu nor Chuang Tzu ever told us that we were supposed to get down on our knees and pray to some entity that we had created in our own mind.

 

What?

Note: there was a coma after the word Tao. But I can see why you apparently chose to string or lump all of the examples together (which I did not mean to do in that way) to support your point. As for you saying, "We Taoists" that sounds like an assumption to me since those that practice under the name Taoists or Taoism have a much, much greater range than just atheist, materialist, etc., regardless of also dealing with the practical concerns of the worldly life you mention. Also the TTC constantly alludes to (with talk) about that which cannot be circumscribed with talk, thus it sounds like another assumption along such lines on your part when you use the word "we". Btw, I never said Lao Tzu or other Taoists said we are supposed to get down on our knees in the way you state and project. As for various entities some may be projections depending on the person practicing, but that does not mean all entities are, for there are great soul beings that do exist and thus they can not be dismissed as make believe projections.

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Hi Bob,

 

It is not my intention to have an arguement with you about various religious beliefs. To the best of my recall I have never tried to denigrate any religion since I have been a member here at TTB.

 

What?

Note: there was a coma after the word Tao. But I can see why you apparently chose to string or lump all of the examples together (which I did not mean to do in that way) to support your point.

 

Yes, I did notice that and I understood it to be lumped into the same category as "God" which, IMO, is an error.

 

As for you saying, "We Taoists" that sounds like an assumption to me since those that practice under the name Taoists or Taoism have a much, much greater range than just atheist, materialist, etc., regardless of also dealing with the practical concerns of the worldly life you mention.

 

I have never spoken negatively about Religious or Alchemic Taoism. I can't remember how many times I have reminded people that I am a Philosophical Taoist and it is from this position that I always speak. When others try to lead me into a discussion of religious or spiritual aspects of various religions I always resist.

 

My words exactly regarding "We Taoists" was: We Taoists do not talk about what cannot be talked about. What a "Duh" statement that was. There was no additional meaning to what I said other than exactly what I said.

 

Also the TTC constantly alludes to (with talk) about that which cannot be circumscribed with talk, thus it sounds like another assumption along such lines on your part when you use the word "we".

 

Yes, we can speak about some of the attributes that we can observe. These are called the processes of nature and of Tao. So we talk about the attributes. But to assume attributes that do not exist, IMO, is an error. But then I have never insisted that anyone else believes as I do. I have said that many times as well on this forum. To use something I don't believe in to argue against my understanding is fruitless.

 

Btw, I never said Lao Tzu or other Taoists said we are supposed to get down on our knees in the way you state and project. As for various entities some may be projections depending on the person practicing, but that does not mean all entities are, for there are great soul beings that do exist and thus they can not be dismissed as make believe projections.

 

Om

 

Yes, I was being extreme in order to make a point. I have never met a soul who lived outside a body nor have I ever spoken with anyone who was able to convince me that they exist. Therefore I do not believe such things exist. Now, this is "ME", personally. It doesn't matter what anyone else believes regarding this. Everyone has the right to believe these concepts however they wish to believe them.

 

I have never tried to turn anyone to become an Atheist. I have no such desire. But I will not hesitate to express how I believe just as you have the right to express how you believe. But I will not allow anyone to tell me that my belief is somehow wrong or misguided. And that's the way life is.

[3bob]

Hi Bob,

 

It is not my intention to have an arguement with you about various religious beliefs. To the best of my recall I have never tried to denigrate any religion since I have been a member here at TTB.

 

Yes, I did notice that and I understood it to be lumped into the same category as "God" which, IMO, is an error.

 

I have never spoken negatively about Religious or Alchemic Taoism. I can't remember how many times I have reminded people that I am a Philosophical Taoist and it is from this position that I always speak. When others try to lead me into a discussion of religious or spiritual aspects of various religions I always resist.

 

My words exactly regarding "We Taoists" was: We Taoists do not talk about what cannot be talked about. What a "Duh" statement that was. There was no additional meaning to what I said other than exactly what I said.

 

Yes, we can speak about some of the attributes that we can observe. These are called the processes of nature and of Tao. So we talk about the attributes. But to assume attributes that do not exist, IMO, is an error. But then I have never insisted that anyone else believes as I do. I have said that many times as well on this forum. To use something I don't believe in to argue against my understanding is fruitless.

 

Yes, I was being extreme in order to make a point. I have never met a soul who lived outside a body nor have I ever spoken with anyone who was able to convince me that they exist. Therefore I do not believe such things exist. Now, this is "ME", personally. It doesn't matter what anyone else believes regarding this. Everyone has the right to believe these concepts however they wish to believe them.

 

I have never tried to turn anyone to become an Atheist. I have no such desire. But I will not hesitate to express how I believe just as you have the right to express how you believe. But I will not allow anyone to tell me that my belief is somehow wrong or misguided. And that's the way life is.

 

Hi MH,

 

MH: "...that we were supposed to get down on our knees and pray to some entity that we had created in our own mind"

 

3bob: Many people would take the connotation given above as a description of them having or suffering from delusions, thus counter to:

 

MH: "I have never tried to denigrate any religion since I have been a member here at TTB"

 

3bob: yet imo you have directly implied (while standing on thin ice) that someone else's belief, religion or more importantly experience is somehow wrong or misguided?

 

Oh well, many people would say, "we still like ya..."

 

 

Om

[Marblehead]

3bob: yet imo you have directly implied (while standing on thin ice) that someone else's belief, religion or more importantly experience is somehow wrong or misguided?

 

IMO, and for me, absolutely yes.

 

I have no problem with saying "I disagree." And I most often explain why I disagree. But I am speaking for only myself, not for anyone else. And I'm not saying that they are wrong - all I am saying is that I do not accept 'whatever'.

 

As far as I know there is no requirement that I think any religion is a valid belief system. There is a requirement that I respect the followers of various belief systems. I believe I had done this. But, any time someone tries to convince me that there is such a thing as 'universal consciousness', ie, "God" I will object.

 

But I accept that anyone has the right to believe in such things. All I ask is that others do not try to convince me of such things.

 

I am an Atheist, not an Agnostic. An Agnostic would say, "I don't know." An Atheist would say, "There is no God."

 

I really do try to remind people often that I am an Atheist so they don't try to draw me into discussions where I have to say "There is no God." But it seems that some folks like to challenge me and then when I say, "There is no God." they get upset.

 

I am sorry that life is that way but I had no part in its creation.

[Apech]

Define God please. By which I mean the way in which the word can be applied.