Origin and return

[manitou]

Just in general, I see a huge difference between Beliefs, Truth, or Understanding.

 

Beliefs are of the brain, a result of cogitation and 'deciding' which way one tries to understand. Like...one looks around for a philosophy that they like and then decide to become proficient in their knowledge. Beliefs are not Truth, because people around the world have different Beliefs. Each one thinks that their's is the correct one.

 

Truth, as I see it, is that thing that requires elimination of framework of both our selves and our reactive and conditioned personalities, our beliefs, and the framework of any one particular religious structure.

 

Understanding is borne of experience in one's own life - whether outer experience or inner experience. It is experiential knowledge, the knowledge that Knows, and often can't be put into words.

Edited December 4, 2014 by manitou

[Marblehead]

Okay, let's see if we can keep this within the realm of Taoism (funny, all is Tao).

Just in general, I see a huge difference between Beliefs, Truth, or Understanding.

Indeed there are.

 

Beliefs are of the brain, a result of cogitation and 'deciding' which way one tries to understand. Like...one looks around for a philosophy that they like and then decide to become proficient in their knowledge. Beliefs are not Truth, because people around the world have different Beliefs. Each one thinks that their's is the correct one.

No problem except I would rather have seen you say: "Beliefs are not necessarily Truth." I have seen Truths within Christianity, Buddhism, Religious Taoism and many other Belief Systems.

 

Truth, as I see it, is that thing that requires elimination of framework of both our selves and our reactive and conditioned personalities, our beliefs, and the framework of any one particular religious structure.

I know I have said this many times before but Truth is objective only. Objective Truths stand on there own with or without the human animal.

 

Understanding is borne of experience in one's own life - whether outer experience or inner experience. It is experiential knowledge, the knowledge that Knows, and often can't be put into words.

Yes. But even this knowledge gained from experience is susceptible to our 'understanding' of the experience and how we relate it to our mental processes. This leaves a lot of room for error - misunderstandings.

 

But the cycle continues to turn. Creation and destruction - origin and return. However, I think it is not possible to define where the origin resides nor where the return takes all things. That's part of the Mystery, I suppose.

[Brian]

I strive to be cognizant of my thumping, to be transparent about my thumping, to consider necessity & kindness while thumping, and to only thump with intent. I find I thump less, and thump more kindly, when I am more aware of doing it.

[manitou]

 

I know I have said this many times before but Truth is objective only. Objective Truths stand on there own with or without the human animal.

 

I'm not sure Truth is objective only. Compare Masters of all traditions, which I think is a terrific way to triangulate truth. All Masters I've ever read end up in the I Am consciousness, regardless of what word is used for it. It's because the Masters have shed their post-natal personalities (keeping within Daoism, as you requested, Sir!) The Truth is the glowing ember which abides at the bottom of our acquired personality and it is the same Truth, regardless of where in the world or which philosophical perspective was utilized to help get there.

 

You are turning into a philosophical one in your old age, Mr. M. Head. I like it (despite the fact that I'm pretty sure you and I were entrapped in a horrible marriage in a prior incarnation, but our divorce was so awful that we both ended up doing 6 months behind bars for spousal abuse).

 

LOL. Just kidding, friend.

 

Love to you.

[Michael Sternbach]

Regarding me, I think you are concentrating too much on the label "Atheist".

 

Isn't this rather about semantics, anyway? You call yourself an Atheist, but you are anything but an Ataoist? Personally I have no problem with identifying Tao as what other metaphysical systems call God. (There are a couple of other words for it, too.)

 

Why did Singularity go Bang!?

 

Hmm, never really thought about it. Perhaps, just for fun?

 

I know what I know until I have to change my mind. I don't care too much for saying "I don't know" and then just dropping the thought. If the thought was interesting enough I will find out if at all possible.

 

Brilliant attitude. Scientific, basically.

 

I think everyone should feel this way. There is no shame in saying "I know what works for me."

 

I am definitely with yo here, Jim.

[3bob]

.

My take: objective laws or truths apply in creation and to creation, but not to the "source" which is a subjective law unto itself.

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure Truth is objective only. Compare Masters of all traditions, which I think is a terrific way to triangulate truth. All Masters I've ever read end up in the I Am consciousness, regardless of what word is used for it. It's because the Masters have shed their post-natal personalities (keeping within Daoism, as you requested, Sir!) The Truth is the glowing ember which abides at the bottom of our acquired personality and it is the same Truth, regardless of where in the world or which philosophical perspective was utilized to help get there.

 

You are turning into a philosophical one in your old age, Mr. M. Head. I like it (despite the fact that I'm pretty sure you and I were entrapped in a horrible marriage in a prior incarnation, but our divorce was so awful that we both ended up doing 6 months behind bars for spousal abuse).

 

LOL. Just kidding, friend.

 

Love to you.

Good point you make although I have already submitted to the fact that I have heard Truths come out of the Christian, Buddhist, Religious Taoist, ect, belief systems. Yes, a Master speaks a Truth. Doesn't matter which Master did the speaking, the Truth already existed before it was spoken. Realization of a Truth is a different concept.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, had we ever been married our divorce would have been a grand one indeed. The police against the military.

 

Love back at Cha.

[Marblehead]

Isn't this rather about semantics, anyway? You call yourself an Atheist, but you are anything but an Ataoist? Personally I have no problem with identifying Tao as what other metaphysical systems call God. (There are a couple of other words for it, too.)

Yep, there is much more to me than just "Atheist". It is the rare person in my "real" life who even know that I am an Atheist.

 

Back in the early days of my presence on this board I spoke to the "God - Tao" association and suggested that for many this is a good association.

 

Hmm, never really thought about it. Perhaps, just for fun?

As good a guess as any. Science may one day find an answer by looking at Massive Black Holes.

 

Brilliant attitude. Scientific, basically.

Hehehe. Don't accuse me of being scientific. I just recently denounced science.

 

I am definitely with yo here, Jim.

Oh!, if feels so nice when someone agrees with me. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

.

My take: objective laws or truths apply in creation and to creation, but not to the "source" which is a subjective law unto itself.

You lost me with that one. Likely our understandings of objective and subjective differ.

[doc benway]

 

 

I know I have said this many times before but Truth is objective only. Objective Truths stand on there own with or without the human animal.

 

What is an example of an Objective Truth?

[Marblehead]

What is an example of an Objective Truth?

Every life origin will return to non-life.

[manitou]

Good point you make although I have already submitted to the fact that I have heard Truths come out of the Christian, Buddhist, Religious Taoist, ect, belief systems. Yes, a Master speaks a Truth. Doesn't matter which Master did the speaking, the Truth already existed before it was spoken. Realization of a Truth is a different concept.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, had we ever been married our divorce would have been a grand one indeed. The police against the military.

 

Love back at Cha.

 

I FEEL THAT MY WORK HERE ON EARTH IS FINISHED!!!! I got Marbles to say the L-word!!!!

[Brian]

Every life origin will return to non-life.

Ignoring for a moment the profoundly unprovable nature of that assumption (which we can dig into if you wish), it cries out for indisputable & universal definitions for "life," "life origin" and "non-life."

[Marblehead]

Ignoring for a moment the profoundly unprovable nature of that assumption (which we can dig into if you wish), it cries out for indisputable & universal definitions for "life," "life origin" and "non-life."

Just stick to the facts, Sir.

 

Please don't start telling me that my chair is alive. Others tried so hard to convince me that it doesn't even exist.

[Michael Sternbach]

As good a guess as any. Science may one day find an answer by looking at Massive Black Holes.

 

There's a thought! Black Holes are singularities, too... And, according to modern Cosmology, one day they *pop* - setting free their stored information of all they ever swallowed. Seeds for new creation?

 

Hehehe. Don't accuse me of being scientific. I just recently denounced science.

 

But you ARE quite a scientist by nature! [Note to self: Edit this before posting.]

 

Oh!, if feels so nice when someone agrees with me. Hehehe.

 

Twice on Sundays.

[Brian]

My thoughts were provoked less by your vaunted chair than by non-carbon-based lifeforms, anaerobic lifeforms, mold spores, viruses, aspen trees and Portuguese man-o-wars.

[Marblehead]

There's a thought! Black Holes are singularities, too... And, according to modern Cosmology, one day they *pop* - setting free their stored information of all they ever swallowed. Seeds for new creation?

Yeah, what brought that on is that Cosmologists and Astronomers are finally trying to talk of the Singularity, what is believed to have existed before the Big Bang. From what I have heard so far what has been said could easily be said about Black Holes as well.

 

And yes, that would support the concepts of reversion and cycles.

 

I recently listened to a couple lectures by Neil Tyson and even he talks about quantum mechanics. I guess I will have to try to learn a little, at least the basics, about that field of science.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah, what brought that on is that Cosmologists and Astronomers are finally trying to talk of the Singularity, what is believed to have existed before the Big Bang. From what I have heard so far what has been said could easily be said about Black Holes as well.

 

And yes, that would support the concepts of reversion and cycles.

 

I recently listened to a couple lectures by Neil Tyson and even he talks about quantum mechanics. I guess I will have to try to learn a little, at least the basics, about that field of science.

 

Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

My thoughts were provoked less by your vaunted chair than by non-carbon-based lifeforms, anaerobic lifeforms, mold spores, viruses, aspen trees and Portuguese man-o-wars.

Okay, you didn't disappoint me. All those things you spoke to are life forms. Including those things that are neither plant nor animal.

 

So "life" is a cycle: Birth, Reproduction, Death.

 

Some don't reproduce. Extinction.

 

Some, through the process of reproduction, mutate and this leads to new species.

 

But as far as evidence I am aware of indicates, every birth is "destined" to death (origin and return). I have seen no exceptions.

[dust]

My thoughts were provoked less by your vaunted chair than by non-carbon-based lifeforms, anaerobic lifeforms, mold spores, viruses, aspen trees and Portuguese man-o-wars.

 

I'm no biologist, but is a single 'specimen' (however we define that) of a spore or a virus not akin to a single specimen of a human?

 

i.e. the whole species/family/group might last for a long time, as might each individual that it comprises of, but both will go through similar stages of growth and decay...?

 

The things you mention are great examples of life being really hard to define, but do any of them last forever?

[manitou]

Just stick to the facts, Sir.

 

Please don't start telling me that my chair is alive. Others tried so hard to convince me that it doesn't even exist.

 

 

And yet it's all a bit cosmic soup, made out of the very same atoms. You and the chair, although the atomic building blocks are configured differently into different molecular structures. But the soup remains the same. I equate this to non-distinction of the 10,000 things; and looking at the non-separation of earthly items (including us, although we are sentient); just like that baby who is born and can't distinguish anything yet.

 

I've read some masters (don't ask me who, I've read several but can't remember specifically) who will further go on to say that the chair has consciousness as well. That all items have a type of consciousness. If we merge the concept of everything actually being Here and Now and linear time being our illusion, then the chair is merely maintaining its own consciousness by holding its form. It's actually the Idea of the chair that remains. The inventor or producer of the chair may not be with us at this point in time - perhaps you have an old chair. But the idea he had to build the chair remains on, with its chair-consciousness. We have consciousness for a limited time within the constraints of our current life span, as does the chair. But the consciousness of the chair and the consciousness of Us has always been, is, and will always be. It is, as you stated earlier in the thread (I think it was this one) that all is stardust. Yes! All is stardust. And a star (our sun) is Light. We and the chair are Light, but in different densities and purpose. And to stardust, or Light, we shall return.

Edited December 5, 2014 by manitou

[Marblehead]

And yet it's all a bit cosmic soup, made out of the very same atoms. You and the chair, although the atomic building blocks are configured differently into different molecular structures. But the soup remains the same. I equate this to non-distinction of the 10,000 things; and looking at the non-separation of earthly items (including us, although we are sentient); just like that baby who is born and can't distinguish anything yet.

 

Okay. Finally you have come down to my level. You included no spooky stuff this time. I am proud to be able to finally agree with you concerning this concept. (I haven't read the second paragraph yet so there might be some surprises there for me.)

 

 

Hehehe. Okay, I read the second paragraph. You got spooky again. Oh well.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Marblehead

[3bob]

crystals are also alive and growing, so "life" could be defined as vibration and or along the lines of energy - and there is that saying that energy is not created or destroyed it only changes form - there are also energy forms and beings that are invisible to our limited flesh and blood eyes that have a great deal of life -

 

...and then there is the vibration that is off the scale and un-measureable by any tool, no matter how a fine a tool we may come up with.

Edited December 5, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

besides we give boats and cars human names and shower them with love so they must be alive

[Marblehead]

crystals are also alive and growing, so "life" could be defined as vibration and or along the lines of energy - and there is that saying that energy is not created or destroyed it only changes form - there also are energy forms and beings that are invisible to our limited flesh and blood eyes that have a great deal of life -

 

...and then there is the vibration that is off the scale and un-measureable by any tool, no matter how a fine a tool we may come up with.

Well, except for the part I bolded, I agree with you.

 

Crystals are a horse of a different color. Yes, they grow as long as minerals continue to flow their way. Stop the flow of additional minerals and the crystal stops growing. I, personally, can't justify suggesting that they are alive.