Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 In a message dated 3/2/05 6:16:18 PM, lbb10 writes: > L: It does not matter ultimately and such communicating and sharing and > debating these universes can serve to show that conceptual universes and > beliefs in them are unnecessary for living and to unseat hidden beliefs > or attachments to them, since beliefs ultimately serve no useful purpose > in life. > > Lewis > P: Yes, you are right about that, what I try to do is show people the role of labels, explanations, and beliefs in their search. Show them that they are blinded by the brilliancy of their own ideas and chasing like bulls after a cape. Does it really matter to posit consciousness, or matter as the matrix, the ground of being? Not really. We are only fooling ourselves that we know either. Both, are completely mysterious in their nature. It really doesn't change our perceptions a wit to pick one or the other. But you are wrong when you say, that belief serves no purpose in our life. Belief in an eternal consciousness gives comfort and protection from the fear of death, beliefs are a road map, a sense of direction, even when sages know the map leads nowhere, they offer it as a trick to entice beginners into searching for liberation. But quite a few here are ready to let go of such pacifiers. I think Michael is ready for a good steak, tender, but not overcook. ) Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Lewis Wrote: Is belief necessary for living? Is it necessary to have or maintain a " state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some some person or thing, " some who or what, in order to live daily? Is it necessary to to have a " conviction of the truth of some statement of the reality of some being or phenomenon " to be active in the world? As defined, belief requires a conceptual object, a who or a what; a separate fragment, dependent, abstraction, component, etc. As is well known, conceptual objects are " real " in themselves as created appearances in written words or speech or some other medium of expression and appearing as a fragment ( " a torn piece of paper " ), a dependent ( " seat " [of a chair]), abstraction (a " mammalian werewolf fish spider " ), component ( " awareness " ), etc. These created objects(s) can be used and experienced in imagination so one can speak, write, communicate, use, believe etc., in a " mammalian werewolf fish spider " as a conceptual object without having the experience of such an imagined " being " or " what " or finding some visible appearance or instance to such an imagined creature. Such creatures as the American " Bigfoot, " (vs Yeti) continue in the imagination of people even though the hoax was exposed. When such conceptual objects are made as representations or stand ins they point to " something inexpressible " and is unlike the conceptual composite a " mammalian werewolf fish spider, " which points to itself. Even so, whatever is pointed to is not equivalent in any way to the conceptual object. It is an error to confuse a " picture of ice cream " or the word " ice cream " with what that may point to which is indescribable. Is ice cream indescribable? Yes it it is. If one is willing to attempt to describe it fully and completely in all that it is as it is using all available knowledge and language, eternity would not be enough time to do so. So we simple say ice cream and that is enough to communicate the " indescribable what. " So when we discuss brain and consciousness, we are discussing conceptual objects. They are conceptual components of other concepts, whatever they may be. Also, consciousness, however defined, cannot exist without brain and brain cannot exist without consciousness. They arise together and if one is not present the other cannot be. Pete is making this point by positing the brain as the source of consciousness. In a conceptual universe of matter alone and containing both brain and consciousness, waking life, sleep, and death, it is clearly demonstrated in neuroscience and experienced in many different ways by Pete and others that consciousness of various kinds is altered and/or absent when there is a dysfunction or absence of brain function as found in all sorts of brain trauma, neuroanatomic centered diseases, neurochemical brain imbalances and dysfunctions, drug and medication effects, unconsciousness due to trauma, anesthesia, brain death while the body is in a vegetative state kept alive through machinery, etc. Under such conditions, consciousness is altered and cannot be controlled, the person is becomes unaware and dislocated and disoriented and consciousness fades in to out to seemingly non- existent as brain function is altered in various ways or means with a complete disappearance on death. In this case brain determines and trumps consciousness, which is a very sophisticated by product of brain function that accomplishes amazing feats. Therefore all notions of conscious, awareness, self, Self, God and so on are eliminated as independent entities or existences separated from brain and brain function. These are beliefs, nothing more. Michael makes his point, based on the Upanishads and Sankara's commentary and in a conceptual universe that is neither matter nor spirit (taking Spinoza's view). He states that consciousness exists at all times, waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He also posits that consciousness is not an isolatable entity, that one cannot take a modality of consciousness as concept and use such a modality as the means to demonstrate in brain dysfunction that consciousness in total is removed or severely reduced. Also, consciousness is subject and not a conceptual object for treatment in such discussions. Furthermore, how can brain exist without consciousness? How could brain as concept or as insentient matter give rise to consciousness, which notices, creates, and manipulates brain and its functions in concept? Not receiving definitive answers to these questions, consciousness trumps brain. Brain and brain function and dysfunction as the source and determinant of consciousness are illusory beliefs and nothing more. The finer details of these positions have not been reached due to........ It can be said that there is nothing more to these positions than conceptual objects formed and created and posited. Pete may be using the brain>consciousness for dismantling beliefs in consciousness, Self, Absolute consciousness, Absolute intelligence and the whole shebang tied to Advaita Vedanta's Absolute Monism as found in its scriptures and adherents. He may believe what he says. I do not know. He can speak on it. Michael has posited his position perhaps based on the explanatory gap in Pete's brain>consciousness position. There are no answers to his questions. Mike may believe in Sankara, the teachings found in the Upanishads and other Advaita Vedantic teachings and wishes to demonstrate to Pete the illogic and unsubstantiated views he holds. I do not know. He can speak on it. One can posit a conceptual universe that unites these positions in a view words. ac. is attempting to do this. It does not matter ultimately and such communicating and sharing and debating these universes can serve to show that conceptual universes and beliefs in them are unnecessary for living and to unseat hidden beliefs or attachments to them, since beliefs ultimately serve no useful purpose in life. Lewis ******************************* Hi Lewis and Pete and all, Hi Lewis, What are concept breakers or belief busters? I make out they are those observations which unmistakably evade those nets. Paradigms dissolve as a result of new observations and new observations come about as a result of new means of observation. What new telescope is clapped to the single eye of the seeker in the matter of Body/Brain/Mind & Consciousness? Meditation allows one to notice what is going on, nama focusses and irradiates with presence and actual darshan if it can be had is precious. You will possibly have read that section of the Brh.Up.IV.iii seq. which tries to support a claim to psychological evidence for the nature of consciousness. In another part of the Vedanta wood it was shown that Brain/Mind/Body is inert until pervaded with consciousness. Can this be supported by any observation? The Deep Sleep/Sushupti argument claims to be such. In the states of waking and dream it is entirely possible that consciousness is a result of brain activity although there are philosophical arguments to be drawn down against that. However it is at least an intelligible claim that finds a niche in the materialist worldview which is today the dominant one. As the Upanisad puts it 'the light is within the body' in those cases. What of Deep Sleep? The Upanisad claims that we know on waking that we were in a state of Deep Sleep. How could we know unless there were consciousness in that state? That consciousness is 'in the body' because it is a report of a state of the body, but it is not of the body because the bodily functions that sustain the capacity to report are in abeyance or shut down. Here Pete's point must be granted. He would be correct about unconscious consciousness if in fact it was concomitant i.e. if we knew that we were in the state of deep sleep during the time that we were in the state of deep sleep. But that knowledge is only available to us on waking. This then is an argument which purports to show the nature of consciousness and that it is other than its supposed source in the brain/mind/body, which is the materialist view. 'It's consciousness Captain Lewis but not as we know it' Michael. PS:We are on a 6 hr.time difference so if you need untardy clarification from me post early. Is that a Sarlomoron - Michael's Clarification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Insight <insight@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > >>What method or practice of inquiry do you > use to come to your conclusions? You speak > with certainty. Is it dogma or realization? > Do share the method so that others can > verify. > > > G: That's a good question. What method or practice of inquiry does > everyone use to come to their conclusions? How does it 'happen' for > everyone on the board. How does everyone arrive at their ideas and > conclusions. I'm just curious too. I came up with the idea of infinite intelligence by extrapolating what J. Krishnamurti called the awakening of intelligence. Eckhart Tolle also talks about awakening of intelligence, a form of intelligence that operates both from within a person and also at the same time operates in the world, and that both the inner and the outer intelligence are the same intelligence in action. If that is true, then it must indeed be a great intelligence that can hold all particles in the universe with such precision and simultaneously operate within a person as the same intelligence. That is for me mind-boggling, so incredible that I call this intelligence infinite intelligence. But all I have as a ground for this idea is words from sages, and the fact that the intelligence that holds all particles in synch creating for example a bird is impressive. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Lewis Wrote: > Is belief necessary for living? Is it > necessary to have or maintain a > " state or habit of mind in which trust or > confidence is placed in some > some person or thing, " some who or what, > in order to live daily? Is it > necessary to to have a " conviction of the > truth of some statement of the > reality of some being or phenomenon " to be > active in the world? > > As defined, belief requires a conceptual > object, a who or a what; a > separate fragment, dependent, abstraction, > component, etc. As is well > known, conceptual objects are " real " in > themselves as created > appearances in written words or speech or > some other medium of > expression and appearing as a fragment ( " a > torn piece of paper " ), a > dependent ( " seat " [of a chair]), > abstraction (a " mammalian werewolf fish > spider " ), component ( " awareness " ), etc. > These created objects(s) can be > used and experienced in imagination so one > can speak, write, > communicate, use, believe etc., in a > " mammalian werewolf fish spider " as > a conceptual object without having the > experience of such an imagined > " being " or " what " or finding some visible > appearance or instance to such > an imagined creature. Such creatures as > the American " Bigfoot, " (vs > Yeti) continue in the imagination of > people even though the hoax was > exposed. > > When such conceptual objects are made as > representations or stand ins > they point to " something inexpressible " > and is unlike the conceptual > composite a " mammalian werewolf fish > spider, " which points to itself. > Even so, whatever is pointed to is not > equivalent in any way to the > conceptual object. It is an error to > confuse a " picture of ice cream " or > the word " ice cream " with what that may > point to which is indescribable. > > Is ice cream indescribable? Yes it it is. > If one is willing to attempt > to describe it fully and completely in all > that it is as it is using all > available knowledge and language, eternity > would not be enough time to > do so. So we simple say ice cream and that > is enough to communicate the > " indescribable what. " > > So when we discuss brain and > consciousness, we are discussing > conceptual > objects. They are conceptual components of > other concepts, whatever they > may be. Also, consciousness, however > defined, cannot exist without brain > and brain cannot exist without > consciousness. They arise together and if > one is not present the other cannot be. > > Pete is making this point by positing the > brain as the source of > consciousness. In a conceptual universe of > matter alone and containing > both brain and consciousness, waking life, > sleep, and death, it is > clearly demonstrated in neuroscience and > experienced in many different > ways by Pete and others that consciousness > of various kinds is altered > and/or absent when there is a dysfunction > or absence of brain function > as found in all sorts of brain trauma, > neuroanatomic centered diseases, > neurochemical brain imbalances and > dysfunctions, drug and medication > effects, unconsciousness due to trauma, > anesthesia, brain death while > the body is in a vegetative state kept > alive through machinery, etc. > Under such conditions, consciousness is > altered and cannot be > controlled, the person is becomes unaware > and dislocated and disoriented > and consciousness fades in to out to > seemingly non- existent as brain > function is altered in various ways or > means with a complete > disappearance on death. In this case brain > determines and trumps > consciousness, which is a very > sophisticated by product of brain > function that accomplishes amazing feats. > Therefore all notions of > conscious, awareness, self, Self, God and > so on are eliminated as > independent entities or existences > separated from brain and brain > function. These are beliefs, nothing more. > > Michael makes his point, based on the > Upanishads and Sankara's > commentary and in a conceptual universe > that is neither matter nor > spirit (taking Spinoza's view). He states > that consciousness exists at > all times, waking, sleeping, and dreaming. > He also posits that > consciousness is not an isolatable entity, > that one cannot take a > modality of consciousness as concept and > use such a modality as the > means to demonstrate in brain dysfunction > that consciousness in total is > removed or severely reduced. Also, > consciousness is subject and not a > conceptual object for treatment in such > discussions. Furthermore, how > can brain exist without consciousness? How > could brain as concept or as > insentient matter give rise to > consciousness, which notices, creates, > and manipulates brain and its functions in > concept? Not receiving > definitive answers to these questions, > consciousness trumps brain. Brain > and brain function and dysfunction as the > source and determinant of > consciousness are illusory beliefs and > nothing more. > > The finer details of these positions have > not been reached due to........ > > It can be said that there is nothing more > to these positions than > conceptual objects formed and created and > posited. Pete may be using the > brain>consciousness for dismantling > beliefs in consciousness, Self, > Absolute consciousness, Absolute > intelligence and the whole shebang tied > to Advaita Vedanta's Absolute Monism as > found in its scriptures and > adherents. He may believe what he says. I > do not know. He can speak on it. > > Michael has posited his position perhaps > based on the explanatory gap in > Pete's brain>consciousness position. There > are no answers to his > questions. Mike may believe in Sankara, > the teachings found in the > Upanishads and other Advaita Vedantic > teachings and wishes to > demonstrate to Pete the illogic and > unsubstantiated views he holds. I do > not know. He can speak on it. > > One can posit a conceptual universe that > unites these positions in a > view words. ac. is attempting to do this. > > It does not matter ultimately and such > communicating and sharing and > debating these universes can serve to show > that conceptual universes and > beliefs in them are unnecessary for living > and to unseat hidden beliefs > or attachments to them, since beliefs > ultimately serve no useful purpose > in life. > > Lewis > > ******************************* > > Hi Lewis and Pete and all, > > Hi Lewis, > What are concept breakers or > belief busters? I make out they are > those observations which unmistakably > evade those nets. Paradigms dissolve as a > result of new observations and new > observations come about as a result of > new means of observation. What new > telescope is clapped to the single eye of > the seeker in the matter of > Body/Brain/Mind & Consciousness? > Meditation allows one to notice what is > going on, nama focusses and irradiates > with presence and actual darshan if it > can be had is precious. > > You will possibly have read that section > of the Brh.Up.IV.iii seq. which tries to > support a claim to psychological evidence > for the nature of consciousness. In > another part of the Vedanta wood it was > shown that Brain/Mind/Body is inert until > pervaded with consciousness. Can this be > supported by any observation? The Deep > Sleep/Sushupti argument claims to be such. > In the states of waking and dream it is > entirely possible that consciousness is a > result of brain activity although there > are philosophical arguments to be drawn > down against that. However it is at > least an intelligible claim that finds a > niche in the materialist worldview which > is today the dominant one. As the > Upanisad puts it 'the light is within the > body' in those cases. What of Deep Sleep? > The Upanisad claims that we know on > waking that we were in a state of Deep > Sleep. How could we know unless there > were consciousness in that state? That > consciousness is 'in the body' because it > is a report of a state of the body, but it > is not of the body because the bodily > functions that sustain the capacity to > report are in abeyance or shut down. > > Here Pete's point must be granted. He > would be correct about unconscious > consciousness if in fact it was > concomitant i.e. if we knew that we were > in the state of deep sleep during the > time that we were in the state of deep > sleep. But that knowledge is only > available to us on waking. > > This then is an argument which purports to > show the nature of consciousness and that > it is other than its supposed source in > the brain/mind/body, which is the > materialist view. 'It's consciousness > Captain Lewis but not as we know it' > > Michael. > > PS:We are on a 6 hr.time difference so if > you need untardy clarification from me > post early. Is that a Sarlomoron - > Michael's Clarification? I maintain that we cannot know if we ever have been asleep. All we know is this moment now. The past is experienced in the now. What if the past is just timeless information experienced now? I am not saying that there is no such thing as yesterday, or that the day before yesterday is not further into the past than yesterday. What I am saying is that perhaps all the past is just information, and that it is the structure of this information that creates the appearance of past reaching back into time, and that time itself is a result of this timeless structure. For practical purposes there is of course a past, but from a scientific, philosiphical and spiritual viewpoint, has there ever been anything but this moment now? Have you ever been asleep? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 ombhurbhuva wrote: > Lewis Wrote: > Is belief necessary for living? Is it > necessary to have or maintain a > " state or habit of mind in which trust or > confidence is placed in some > some person or thing, " some who or what, > in order to live daily? Is it > necessary to to have a " conviction of the > truth of some statement of the > reality of some being or phenomenon " to be > active in the world? > > As defined, belief requires a conceptual > object, a who or a what; a > separate fragment, dependent, abstraction, > component, etc. As is well > known, conceptual objects are " real " in > themselves as created > appearances in written words or speech or > some other medium of > expression and appearing as a fragment ( " a > torn piece of paper " ), a > dependent ( " seat " [of a chair]), > abstraction (a " mammalian werewolf fish > spider " ), component ( " awareness " ), etc. > These created objects(s) can be > used and experienced in imagination so one > can speak, write, > communicate, use, believe etc., in a > " mammalian werewolf fish spider " as > a conceptual object without having the > experience of such an imagined > " being " or " what " or finding some visible > appearance or instance to such > an imagined creature. Such creatures as > the American " Bigfoot, " (vs > Yeti) continue in the imagination of > people even though the hoax was > exposed. > > When such conceptual objects are made as > representations or stand ins > they point to " something inexpressible " > and is unlike the conceptual > composite a " mammalian werewolf fish > spider, " which points to itself. > Even so, whatever is pointed to is not > equivalent in any way to the > conceptual object. It is an error to > confuse a " picture of ice cream " or > the word " ice cream " with what that may > point to which is indescribable. > > Is ice cream indescribable? Yes it it is. > If one is willing to attempt > to describe it fully and completely in all > that it is as it is using all > available knowledge and language, eternity > would not be enough time to > do so. So we simple say ice cream and that > is enough to communicate the > " indescribable what. " > > So when we discuss brain and > consciousness, we are discussing > conceptual > objects. They are conceptual components of > other concepts, whatever they > may be. Also, consciousness, however > defined, cannot exist without brain > and brain cannot exist without > consciousness. They arise together and if > one is not present the other cannot be. > > Pete is making this point by positing the > brain as the source of > consciousness. In a conceptual universe of > matter alone and containing > both brain and consciousness, waking life, > sleep, and death, it is > clearly demonstrated in neuroscience and > experienced in many different > ways by Pete and others that consciousness > of various kinds is altered > and/or absent when there is a dysfunction > or absence of brain function > as found in all sorts of brain trauma, > neuroanatomic centered diseases, > neurochemical brain imbalances and > dysfunctions, drug and medication > effects, unconsciousness due to trauma, > anesthesia, brain death while > the body is in a vegetative state kept > alive through machinery, etc. > Under such conditions, consciousness is > altered and cannot be > controlled, the person is becomes unaware > and dislocated and disoriented > and consciousness fades in to out to > seemingly non- existent as brain > function is altered in various ways or > means with a complete > disappearance on death. In this case brain > determines and trumps > consciousness, which is a very > sophisticated by product of brain > function that accomplishes amazing feats. > Therefore all notions of > conscious, awareness, self, Self, God and > so on are eliminated as > independent entities or existences > separated from brain and brain > function. These are beliefs, nothing more. > > Michael makes his point, based on the > Upanishads and Sankara's > commentary and in a conceptual universe > that is neither matter nor > spirit (taking Spinoza's view). He states > that consciousness exists at > all times, waking, sleeping, and dreaming. > He also posits that > consciousness is not an isolatable entity, > that one cannot take a > modality of consciousness as concept and > use such a modality as the > means to demonstrate in brain dysfunction > that consciousness in total is > removed or severely reduced. Also, > consciousness is subject and not a > conceptual object for treatment in such > discussions. Furthermore, how > can brain exist without consciousness? How > could brain as concept or as > insentient matter give rise to > consciousness, which notices, creates, > and manipulates brain and its functions in > concept? Not receiving > definitive answers to these questions, > consciousness trumps brain. Brain > and brain function and dysfunction as the > source and determinant of > consciousness are illusory beliefs and > nothing more. > > The finer details of these positions have > not been reached due to........ > > It can be said that there is nothing more > to these positions than > conceptual objects formed and created and > posited. Pete may be using the > brain>consciousness for dismantling > beliefs in consciousness, Self, > Absolute consciousness, Absolute > intelligence and the whole shebang tied > to Advaita Vedanta's Absolute Monism as > found in its scriptures and > adherents. He may believe what he says. I > do not know. He can speak on it. > > Michael has posited his position perhaps > based on the explanatory gap in > Pete's brain>consciousness position. There > are no answers to his > questions. Mike may believe in Sankara, > the teachings found in the > Upanishads and other Advaita Vedantic > teachings and wishes to > demonstrate to Pete the illogic and > unsubstantiated views he holds. I do > not know. He can speak on it. > > One can posit a conceptual universe that > unites these positions in a > view words. ac. is attempting to do this. > > It does not matter ultimately and such > communicating and sharing and > debating these universes can serve to show > that conceptual universes and > beliefs in them are unnecessary for living > and to unseat hidden beliefs > or attachments to them, since beliefs > ultimately serve no useful purpose > in life. > > Lewis > > ******************************* > > Hi Lewis and Pete and all, > > Hi Lewis, > What are concept breakers or > belief busters? I make out they are > those observations which unmistakably > evade those nets. Some would say that Michael. Observations bashing other observations into smithereens. These observations are better than those and so forth. These observations can and may become beliefs and systems of belief and then these can and may be used to bash others into smithereens. There is also the simple view that concept and language is limited, in all the ways that that can be said and demonstrated, in its ability to describe precisely what is indescribable, whether it is ice cream, brain, or consciousness or any other. What can be described and argued over is anything. It becomes a matter of skill in gathering the conceptual objects arranging them in some persuasive and satisfying order and presenting the whole in a cogent and coherent fashion to win over the differing or opposing view. The Tripura Rahasya is an argument leading to a position where there is a certain type of experience in relation to Abstract Intelligence. It starts at A and moves to Z through a series of stories and explanations. One need not believe these conceptual objects or arguments to present them. One may use them to good effect without belief in them. No belief in them is required to use them. Science is not a matter of belief. Neither is religion or philosophy. When these become beliefs, therein lies the bane. Paradigms dissolve as a > result of new observations and new > observations come about as a result of > new means of observation. Sometimes. The sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, microbes cause disease dies and still dies hard. What new > telescope is clapped to the single eye of > the seeker in the matter of > Body/Brain/Mind & Consciousness? Whatever can be used. > Meditation allows one to notice what is > going on, nama focusses and irradiates > with presence and actual darshan if it > can be had is precious. Whatever works. > > You will possibly have read that section > of the Brh.Up.IV.iii seq. which tries to > support a claim to psychological evidence > for the nature of consciousness. I have. In > another part of the Vedanta wood it was > shown that Brain/Mind/Body is inert until > pervaded with consciousness. Can this be > supported by any observation? That would be hard to experience for most and easy to believe for some. The Deep > Sleep/Sushupti argument claims to be such. > In the states of waking and dream it is > entirely possible that consciousness is a > result of brain activity although there > are philosophical arguments to be drawn > down against that. And there always will be as longs as there are different ontologies, epistemologies and the criteria emerging from these for either position that are used in making the hypotheses, observations, and conclusions. We see how we filter experience, which is unavoidable if language and concept is used as the medium of expression. However it is at > least an intelligible claim that finds a > niche in the materialist worldview which > is today the dominant one. As the > Upanisad puts it 'the light is within the > body' in those cases. What of Deep Sleep? > The Upanisad claims that we know on > waking that we were in a state of Deep > Sleep. How could we know unless there > were consciousness in that state? An obvious answer is that one dozed off tired into sleep when the clock said about 10:25 PM when last looking at it and then awoke refreshed at 7:00 AM when the alarm went off. Another answer is habit. Another answer is that someone told us this was so and from that time we believed it happened, and so on. That > consciousness is 'in the body' because it > is a report of a state of the body, but it > is not of the body because the bodily > functions that sustain the capacity to > report are in abeyance or shut down. Are they in abeyance or shut down? One could argue that personal identity continues through the duration of sleep because if it did not when we awake we would not know who we are and where we are or anything. Recognition of this, " I am awake and another day has started and ..... " could be a brain function of memory and aroused consciousness and nothing more. We sleep and then awake to continue what is left undone as dictated by memory and aroused consciousness both utterly dependent on brain function. One could argue for consciousness continued in the sleep state by saying that objects are no longer presented so there is no sense of awareness though awareness continues. Both plausible. Add to this astral projection. And those who claim to be aware during sleep. > > Here Pete's point must be granted. He > would be correct about unconscious > consciousness if in fact it was > concomitant i.e. if we knew that we were > in the state of deep sleep during the > time that we were in the state of deep > sleep. But that knowledge is only > available to us on waking. Yes. > > This then is an argument which purports to > show the nature of consciousness and that > it is other than its supposed source in > the brain/mind/body, which is the > materialist view. 'It's consciousness > Captain Lewis but not as we know it' > > Michael. > > PS:We are on a 6 hr.time difference so if > you need untardy clarification from me > post early. Is that a Sarlomoron - > Michael's Clarification? Yes. It is consciousness in a different conceptual universe than that used by Pete and is in direct opposition to materialist monism. As you say Michael, these are arguments made from different conceptual universes and the finer points are yet to be made on either side. Do you find it necessary Captain M to believe these arguments as to the truth of these positions? Can these positions be made without belief in them, as a sort of exercise of capacity or some other purpose? Do you believe that one can win either argument? Is there evidence or explanatory power that makes one more convincing than the other? And is it fair to say that both can simultaneously be taken without confusion? And if one refined either argument to its utmost limit wouldn't the end be the same? Witness Captain M, if you have not already, Amit Goswami's presentation of quantum and classical brain as a means to present an Absolute Consciousness. Some believe he has resolved the problem of brain and consciousness. He believes he has and calls for a paradigm shift in science. See http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm. Such a shift would evolve new criteria for observation and new scientific views based on monistic idealism that is identical to that found in the Tripura Rahasya and other Advaita Vedantic teachings. If accepted, there would be a duration of its eminence and then it would fall back towards the middle as it is an extreme view as is materialist monism. It is another interesting story about that which is utterly indescribable. There is no reason not to understand this view so that one can share it and be able to communicate with others who know it and or believe it. There is no harm in it competing with material realism for it has been for thousands of years as monistic idealism. A new suit of clothes has been put on and it sounds more modern and perhaps to some more presentable. I have no difficulty in drink either view after all I am only the helmsman... The captain designation is not accurate, Captain M. Helmsman would be more poignant. Pete and you are the captains of this discussion ship, I am just a crew member. I stepped in as things veered off course and I notified the captains of it.....You two are in charge of directing the ship. I am just steering in the directions both of you chart and try to keep the heading so as not to fall off the end of the flat earth....:-) Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 [.....] Further, ...you can not really, truly claim the possession of any basic, core ingredients that are eternal, immortal, ...indestructible just by their Very Nature. You can't claim possession of ...Space. You can't claim possession of ...Energy. They have existed long before the object that you might call `your body' came into existence. They will continue to exist even when your body has died and dissimilated into the earth, water and Air ... The thing that you call your body is a product of them, is made by them ...and, their portion in this body is being changed everyday by what you inhale and exhale. It is being changed by the Almonds, grapes, apples, spinach and tomatoes that you eat everyday. What you consider energy, your flesh, your muscle belonged to almonds, apples and oranges just few days ago .... .....and, even before that it belonged to the Sun, Air and the Earth which themselves resulted from the Big Bang ... It is the miracle of photosynthesis that the energy of the sun, nutrients of earth and Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen of Atmosphere gets converted into something that you eat. Same way, ...the thing which itself is just temporal wave in the eternal Consciousness can Not claim possession to it. It can not really, truly say ...this is " my " consciousness ! When it does, ..it wouldn't be any more accurate than a fist claiming, ...these are " my " fingers. Fist can be clenched and opened anytime, ...and, fingers have existed prior to any formation of the fist. ....they will continue to exist even after the fist is opened and gone ... Fist depend on fingers in order to come into existence, ....fingers can exists fully and well with or without the fist. In fact, ...fingers themselves `act' to form the fist... .... as well as to Open and end it !~ [.....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [.....] > > Further, ...you can not really, truly claim the possession of any > basic, core ingredients that are eternal, immortal, ...indestructible > just by their Very Nature. > > You can't claim possession of ...Space. > You can't claim possession of ...Energy. > > They have existed long before the object that you might call `your > body' came into existence. > > They will continue to exist even when your body has died and > dissimilated into the earth, water and Air ... Most people seem to believe that after they have died there will still be a world that will continue to exist. This is the view ordinary people usually have. Then there are the sages who say that the world is in you, not you in the world. Even Deepak Chopra has said this. So what I propose here, is that your view of things is maybe not correct. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am only saying that your claim cannot be categorically said to be the truth until we can verify that claim. /AL > > > The thing that you call your body is a product of them, is made by > them ...and, their portion in this body is being changed everyday by > what you inhale and exhale. It is being changed by the Almonds, > grapes, apples, spinach and tomatoes that you eat everyday. What you > consider energy, your flesh, your muscle belonged to almonds, apples > and oranges just few days ago .... > > ....and, even before that it belonged to the Sun, Air and the Earth > which themselves resulted from the Big Bang ... > > It is the miracle of photosynthesis that the energy of the sun, > nutrients of earth and Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen of Atmosphere > gets converted into something that you eat. > > > Same way, ...the thing which itself is just temporal wave in the > eternal Consciousness can Not claim possession to it. > > It can not really, truly say ...this is " my " consciousness ! > > When it does, ..it wouldn't be any more accurate than a fist > claiming, ...these are " my " fingers. > Fist can be clenched and opened anytime, ...and, fingers have existed > prior to any formation of the fist. > ...they will continue to exist even after the fist is opened and > gone ... > > Fist depend on fingers in order to come into existence, > ...fingers can exists fully and well with or without the fist. > > In fact, ...fingers themselves `act' to form the fist... > ... as well as to Open and end it !~ > > > [.....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 [.....] When you identify yourself as the temporal formation that have risen in Consciousness, you can see its limit, ... its arising and falling ... You can even fear and sense its eventual end and death But, Only problem is that, ...it is Not Only that this temporal configuration seem to have been born on a particular date and ...might die at some point in the future. But, in fact, ...it also dies every night in DEEP Dreamless Sleep !~ Further, ...it dies anytime the thoughts have ceased !~ But, `you' the one that identifies `itself' with any limited configuration, ...Arising and falling, ...is STILL left Completely Untouched, unharmed. ....FULLY ALIVE !!! in fact, ...Now, for the First Time !~ Then to even call it ...immortal is useless and meaningless. What IS ...... IS. [.....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > [.....] > > > > Further, ...you can not really, truly claim the possession of any > > basic, core ingredients that are eternal, immortal, ...indestructible > > just by their Very Nature. > > > > You can't claim possession of ...Space. > > You can't claim possession of ...Energy. > > > > They have existed long before the object that you might call `your > > body' came into existence. > > > > They will continue to exist even when your body has died and > > dissimilated into the earth, water and Air ... > > Most people seem to believe that after they have died there will still > be a world that will continue to exist. This is the view ordinary > people usually have. Then there are the sages who say that the world > is in you, not you in the world. Even Deepak Chopra has said this. So > what I propose here, is that your view of things is maybe not correct. > I am not saying that you are wrong. I am only saying that your claim > cannot be categorically said to be the truth until we can verify that > claim. ....and which `claim' you think, ...I am making Here ? regards, ac. [.....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.