Matter or consciousness?

[Marblehead]

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

 

That is my problem. I cannot define something that does not exist. (Speaking only from my own understanding.)

 

I can define a rabbit but I cannot define the Easter Bunny.

 

I cannot define Tao but I can talk about some of its aspects (the Manifest realm).

 

I can talk about a person's consciousness but I cannot talk about a stone's consciousness.

 

So little do I really know!!!

[Apech]

That is my problem. I cannot define something that does not exist. (Speaking only from my own understanding.)

 

I can define a rabbit but I cannot define the Easter Bunny.

 

I cannot define Tao but I can talk about some of its aspects (the Manifest realm).

 

I can talk about a person's consciousness but I cannot talk about a stone's consciousness.

 

So little do I really know!!!

 

When you say God does not exist - you must have an idea about what you mean - otherwise the words are meaningless. It's just that people seem to mean a whole lot of different things when they say God.

 

My Dad is an atheist (although being strict rationalist he would say you cannot disprove what you don't know so he calls himself agnostic ... but he doesn't really mean it ... he's just being super cautious in a strict rationalist sense). So I was brought up with only 'cultural' religion in my life - and that was pretty sparse. So I am naturally an atheist but am drawn through personal experience to spirituality ... so I tend to think in terms of 'energy'/'consciousness' or whatever term you might like to use.

 

I don't naturally talk about God because the term means very little to me. But I find most people are reacting to the 'sunday school' term ... an old man somewhere who knows everything about you and issues moral guidelines written in stone ... and I would wholeheartedly agree that this God does not exist.

 

However if someone prefers to use God as meaning the origin and source of everything ... I don't have a problem with that. Logic suggests to me that since I know I am conscious ... then that consciousness must have an origin or source ... and that could be terms God by some. I can't accept that consciousness arises in 'dead' matter ... it doesn't make any sense to me logically and my experiences suggest otherwise.

 

Materialism is a kind of dualism ... since matter is only one state of energy (which I think we established earlier) ... so i can't believe in the fundamental reality of something which is only an effect caused by something else.

 

All very interesting anyway .... and I appreciate the chance to discuss ... I am sure we will return to this again and again .

[Marblehead]

When you say God does not exist - you must have an idea about what you mean - otherwise the words are meaningless. It's just that people seem to mean a whole lot of different things when they say God.

 

Yes, that is a problem. If a person used the word "Unity" then I could easily accept this because in my understanding "all is Tao" or "all is One".

 

My problem arises when supernatural influences are added to the conversation.

 

All very interesting anyway .... and I appreciate the chance to discuss ... I am sure we will return to this again and again .

 

Yep. If we discuss any concept we hold dear and not allow our emotions (ego) to get involved we have great opportunity to advance our understanding.

 

Indeed, we have had this discussion before and there is no doubt in my mind we will have it again.

[3bob]

one take:

 

"In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe god. He states "The Divine is not this and it is not that" (neti, neti).

[3bob]

...and my variation or spin-off of same: what is enough, (?) not this - not that.

Edited November 20, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

My take on the "One": The One is "born" of (and connected to) the Tao, this One can be talked about (named and known) while the Tao at best can only be alluded to.

 

The One is knowable in the union of two in one, whereas only the Tao can know the Tao.

 

Om

[Marblehead]

My take on the "One": The One is "born" of (and connected to) the Tao, this One can be talked about (named and known) while the Tao at best can only be alluded to.

 

The One is knowable in the union of two in one, whereas only the Tao can know the Tao.

 

Om

 

Okay. I will accept this because it does read in the TTC "Tao gave birth to One."

 

Well, I'm not sure I would agree that the One is knowable. (But that's just me.)

[3bob]

Okay. I will accept this because it does read in the TTC "Tao gave birth to One."

 

Well, I'm not sure I would agree that the One is knowable. (But that's just me.)

 

Ok also

[3bob]

Esoteric much?

Hmm, I bother throwing stones because I am patently unfavourable towards religion of any kind yet I have a set of experiences in meditation that I've found a bunch of people to talk through with. Yes, the monotheisms point at such things but we a) know that ain't it know that some of them have led to heinous acts in the real world over millenia c) approach tentatively that despite the trappings there may still be "some truth" that can be found via them if you start thinking (or practicing)

I also listen to rocks:-)

 

Kate, Thanks for your feedback.

My take: Religious thought forms are not unlike other thought forms in operation... and when such forms lose their living essence then decay and or warping of such forms "naturally" sets in... thus the essence as you imply to me is of interest to you (and also to me) yet I do not begrudge forms (or vehicles) that do their best or that are maintained "naturally" to stay true to the essence that gives life and meaning to their form. Aka, "judge the tree by its fruit"

Edited November 20, 2011 by 3bob

[Birch]

Kate, Thanks for your feedback.

My take: Religious thought forms are not unlike other thought forms in operation... and when such forms lose their living essence then decay and or warping of such forms "naturally" sets in... thus the essence as you imply to me is of interest to you (and also to me) yet I do not begrudge forms (or vehicles) that do their best or that are maintained "naturally" to stay true to the essence that gives life and meaning to their form. Aka, "judge the tree by its fruit"

Good post Bob! I think there is something to get into relative to your point about "natural decay" of thoughtforms.

My take is that they are close to essence sometimes and other times very far away, all depending upon the quality (as in the conditions) of the time one is in. As such, their quality as vehicles is debateable to the nth. And possibly, very possibly, imposing vehicles on people when the former are known to be, well, used/up useless is IMO more of a cultural power game than anything else. Which sort of begs a question about who/what is playing/imposing what on whom and why? As far as I can tell, "essence" doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't "care" one way or another but it "cares" (apologies for personification) very much about you ( and me for that matter). And even the latter is a personification. So make of it what you will. I was going to be a jerk and say "kill the bhudda" but i haven't met him or her yet:-)

[3bob]

Good post Bob! I think there is something to get into relative to your point about "natural decay" of thoughtforms.

My take is that they are close to essence sometimes and other times very far away, all depending upon the quality (as in the conditions) of the time one is in. As such, their quality as vehicles is debateable to the nth. And possibly, very possibly, imposing vehicles on people when the former are known to be, well, used/up useless is IMO more of a cultural power game than anything else. Which sort of begs a question about who/what is playing/imposing what on whom and why? As far as I can tell, "essence" doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't "care" one way or another but it "cares" (apologies for personification) very much about you ( and me for that matter). And even the latter is a personification. So make of it what you will. I was going to be a jerk and say "kill the bhudda" but i haven't met him or her yet:-)

 

I've also touched a time or two on that saying about the Buddha.

 

I think I know what you mean about personification... like a way of trying to communicate about something with our limited language(s).

 

Btw, I came across some Kashmir Shaivism material that may be of interest (?) to you regarding some of these subjects - along with revisiting one of your earlier posts from Nov.15 where you asked the following question:

 

"Dwai, I know it's an old question but if consiousness is experiencing unity of consciousness, isn't that problematic? The experience is real, yes, but the conclusion is "after the fact".

 

One variation of information (with particualr terms to deal with) says the following:

 

"...Nimilana samadhi is internal subjective samadhi. In your moving through these six states of turya, this samadhi becomes ever more firm. With the occurrence of krama mudra, nimilana samadhi is transformed into unmilana samadhi, which then becomes predominant. This is that state of extraverted samadhi, where you experience the state of samadhi at the same time you are experiencing the objective world. And when unmilana samadhi becomes fixed and permanent, this is the state of jagadananda"

from Kashmir Shaivism

 

I hope that helps speak to your question from Nov 15.?

 

Good day

Edited December 1, 2011 by 3bob

[Birch]

Thanks Mr Bob.

I'm not sure it helps exactly. It also made things seem scarier than they are in practice. I also don't consider that being able to trip yourself out on near-death experience at will is proof of transcendent consciousness as it's still a subjective experience (and I can't do it willingly) There have to be observable "things" out there that would constitute proof.

[3bob]

Thanks Mr Bob.

I'm not sure it helps exactly. It also made things seem scarier than they are in practice. I also don't consider that being able to trip yourself out on near-death experience at will is proof of transcendent consciousness as it's still a subjective experience (and I can't do it willingly) There have to be observable "things" out there that would constitute proof.

 

I think I understand what you mean... and I deleted that particular link because some people might think that the manipulations of breathe mentioned is some kind of "magic carpet ride" to tinker with when such teachings imo really have a great deal more to them in careful preparation and practice with help of a qualified teacher!

 

To me the observable "things" are all relative and spinning with change, still there is proof beyond doubt, but such proof will never be found in the thinking of things or thinking of nothing mind.

 

Om

[Birch]

I think I understand what you mean... and I deleted that particular link because some people might think that the manipulations of breathe mentioned is some kind of "magic carpet ride" to tinker with when such teachings imo really have a great deal more to them in careful preparation and practice with help of a qualified teacher!

 

To me the observable "things" are all relative and spinning with change, still there is proof beyond doubt, but such proof will never be found in the thinking of things or thinking of nothing mind.

 

Om

 

Good idea (deleting the link) it's sort of both dangerous and can be unpleasant. I'm not actually sure that people really think that things are not relative and spinning with change. Do they? It's possible their relationship to it ain't clear but IME practice hasn't made it any clearer for me either. (I've changed perspective. Some things have gotten ridiculous.) Still, I often mistake the question for the answer (and vice versa). And on top of all that, there's the question of scheming evil ba4tards to deal with. Of course, they're 'relatively real' in this dimension but they need their butts kicked out of it IMO.

[3bob]

Good idea (deleting the link) it's sort of both dangerous and can be unpleasant. I'm not actually sure that people really think that things are not relative and spinning with change. Do they? It's possible their relationship to it ain't clear but IME practice hasn't made it any clearer for me either. (I've changed perspective. Some things have gotten ridiculous.) Still, I often mistake the question for the answer (and vice versa). And on top of all that, there's the question of scheming evil ba4tards to deal with. Of course, they're 'relatively real' in this dimension but they need their butts kicked out of it IMO.

 

Well there can be or is "danger" in not having a solid foundation of spiritual-whole-someness along with common sense wisdom acting as ones default and naturally protective state. Also in fully recognizing, facing and over-coming the unpleasant (or potential unpleasant) that is in within ourselves will in the end overcome any relative unpleasant force on the outside.

 

..."And on top of all that, there's the question of scheming evil ba4tards to deal with. Of course, they're 'relatively real' in this dimension but they need their butts kicked out of it IMO". by Kate

 

Sharks can not bite that which is out of their reach. (including that which is in the

astral dimensions; btw wise fisherman spend more time fishing than in killing sharks)

 

Om

[dwai]

Thanks Mr Bob.

I'm not sure it helps exactly. It also made things seem scarier than they are in practice. I also don't consider that being able to trip yourself out on near-death experience at will is proof of transcendent consciousness as it's still a subjective experience (and I can't do it willingly) There have to be observable "things" out there that would constitute proof.

 

I'd missed this comment so a delayed response.

 

 

The whole point of meditation is to experientially validate the "subjective" experience. It is not possible to do double-blind studies and "measure" data using external equipment when it comes to consciousness. What could you possibly "observe" and where would you expect to observe these things? What would qualify as "proof"?

 

Would the fact that observing a particle in a subatomic collider changes it's state or position consitute as proof?

 

Or would we have to go out to the farthest edges of the Universe and search for an "entity" sitting somewhere, deciding and judging everything in creation? No, it is not possible to phenomenologically know this transcendent consciousness, at least not in the way you (or modern science either) would consider valid evidence. This transcendent consciousness can only be experienced a-rationally.

 

 

 

[Birch]

Ah well, no point in discussing it at all then:-) It's a pointless exercise Dwai. Ok, I shouldn't say that. Given I did. Why I did it is another question. Guess I'm just curious.

 

Bob, my choice relative to the study and killing of sharks of all stripes is certainly relative but it seems I'm interested in it, so I guess I'll be interested in it for a while:-) I've never been very wise.

[Marblehead]

... can only be experienced a-rationally.

 

Hehehe. That's where I always have my problems regarding concepts such as this. I can't seem to go where I can't go.

[3bob]

Hehehe. That's where I always have my problems regarding concepts such as this. I can't seem to go where I can't go.

 

MH, I'd comment that your apparent dismissal (or perhaps a putting on the shelf) of concepts "such as this" (or the transcendent) also logically applies to the "concept" of atheism if one were to follow such a format of seeing things and in being congruent with same, thus one can't go there (or to atheism) any more than they can go anywhere else with other concepts that only remain in the realm of concepts.

Edited December 2, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

Ah well, no point in discussing it at all then:-) It's a pointless exercise Dwai. Ok, I shouldn't say that. Given I did. Why I did it is another question. Guess I'm just curious.

 

Bob, my choice relative to the study and killing of sharks of all stripes is certainly relative but it seems I'm interested in it, so I guess I'll be interested in it for a while:-) I've never been very wise.

 

An age old problem remains: one can not kill the forms of dualism that arise out of oneness with dualistic methods, yet the limits or hard felt dichotomies of dualism can effectively die.

 

Om

Edited December 3, 2011 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

MH, I'd comment that your apparent dismissal (or perhaps a putting on the shelf) of concepts "such as this" (or the transcendent) also logically applies to the "concept" of atheism if one were to follow such a format of seeing things and in being congruent with same, thus one can't go there (or to atheism) any more than they can go anywhere else with other concepts that only remain in the realm of concepts.

 

It may be because I worked hard today and am tired but I don't understand the point you made here.

[dwai]

Hehehe. That's where I always have my problems regarding concepts such as this. I can't seem to go where I can't go.

Quite the paradox, isnt it?

[Marblehead]

Quite the paradox, isnt it?

 

Yes! That's what I'm talking about.

[3bob]

It may be because I worked hard today and am tired but I don't understand the point you made here.

 

If you have "problems" with that then how is it you don't have problems with your professing of the TTC which from your often described way of seeing things also has similar problems?

 

Thus to me many of your debates or points are very incongruent based on such a record, yet I otherwise apprecaite your general demeaner and often kind contributions to discussions.

 

Om

[Birch]

Is that a question about how people can be incongruent? My take is that a person can be highly congruent when it comes to some things and not at all when it comes to others. I don't think it's all to do with the person either. Could be the way thinking works, could be a language thing. It's why if we want to discuss stuff, IMO it helps to use thoughtforms that are neutral for people. In fact, if you could do away with the forms entirely, you might find communication on such a topic easier. But it's a written forum so it's got that problem built in.