Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 What are the points and questions this thread has highlighted? Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality to posit consciousness as the ground of being? I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to justify such claim: a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge with existence. Let's try the following thought experiment: A blind person is not aware of light, does that means light doesn't exist? Suppose besides sight this person lacks hearing, the sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? Could he even have a sense of self? Could he be considered conscious? Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? Could someone lacking all sensory input from birth, be able to think? Apart from sensory awareness what could consciousness be? If you consider these questions impartially, it will become clear that to posit the existence of a disembodied universal consciousness is simple wishful thinking. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > What are the points and questions this thread > has highlighted? > > Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality > to posit consciousness as the ground of being? > > I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to > justify such claim: > > a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. > b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. > c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. > > That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge > with existence. These statements equate _awareness_ with existence, not knowledge, unless we equate knowlegde with consciousness. For me, knowledge is an object in consciousness, and in that way knowledge is a part of consciousness one could say, but can we equate knowledge with consciousness? > > Let's try the following thought experiment: > A blind person is not aware of light, does > that means light doesn't exist? Suppose > besides sight this person lacks hearing, the > sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all > bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? > Could he even have a sense of self? > Could he be considered conscious? > Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? > Could someone lacking all sensory input > from birth, be able to think? > Apart from sensory awareness what could > consciousness be? > If you consider these questions impartially, it > will become clear that to posit the > existence of a disembodied universal consciousness > is simple wishful thinking. > > Pete > What we are looking at could very well be Maya, an illusion of form. The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist and that we experience a world of form. We do not know if the world will still exist after we have died. We don't even know if we can die or not (until we know that). Nisargadatta talked about limitless being. A form that dies is limited. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > What are the points and questions this thread > > has highlighted? > > > > Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality > > to posit consciousness as the ground of being? > > > > I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to > > justify such claim: > > > > a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. > > b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. > > c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. > > > > That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge > > with existence. > > These statements equate _awareness_ with existence, not knowledge, > unless we equate knowlegde with consciousness. For me, knowledge is an > object in consciousness, and in that way knowledge is a part of > consciousness one could say, but can we equate knowledge with > consciousness? > > > > > Let's try the following thought experiment: > > A blind person is not aware of light, does > > that means light doesn't exist? Suppose > > besides sight this person lacks hearing, the > > sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all > > bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? > > Could he even have a sense of self? > > Could he be considered conscious? > > Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? > > Could someone lacking all sensory input > > from birth, be able to think? > > Apart from sensory awareness what could > > consciousness be? > > If you consider these questions impartially, it > > will become clear that to posit the > > existence of a disembodied universal consciousness > > is simple wishful thinking. > > > > Pete > > > > What we are looking at could very well be Maya, an illusion of form. > The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist and that we > experience a world of form. We do not know if the world will still > exist after we have died. We don't even know if we can die or not > (until we know that). Nisargadatta talked about limitless being. A > form that dies is limited. > > /AL Who is this " we " that you keep referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > What are the points and questions this thread > > > has highlighted? > > > > > > Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality > > > to posit consciousness as the ground of being? > > > > > > I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to > > > justify such claim: > > > > > > a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. > > > b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. > > > c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. > > > > > > That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge > > > with existence. > > > > These statements equate _awareness_ with existence, not knowledge, > > unless we equate knowlegde with consciousness. For me, knowledge is an > > object in consciousness, and in that way knowledge is a part of > > consciousness one could say, but can we equate knowledge with > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > Let's try the following thought experiment: > > > A blind person is not aware of light, does > > > that means light doesn't exist? Suppose > > > besides sight this person lacks hearing, the > > > sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all > > > bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? > > > Could he even have a sense of self? > > > Could he be considered conscious? > > > Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? > > > Could someone lacking all sensory input > > > from birth, be able to think? > > > Apart from sensory awareness what could > > > consciousness be? > > > If you consider these questions impartially, it > > > will become clear that to posit the > > > existence of a disembodied universal consciousness > > > is simple wishful thinking. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > What we are looking at could very well be Maya, an illusion of form. > > The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist and that we > > experience a world of form. We do not know if the world will still > > exist after we have died. We don't even know if we can die or not > > (until we know that). Nisargadatta talked about limitless being. A > > form that dies is limited. > > > > /AL > > > Who is this " we " that you keep referring to? We is form in action. Awareness may be only one, but form is many. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > [.....] > > " They will continue to exist even when your body has died and > dissimilated into the earth... " Here you say that the body will > dissimilate after it has died, but this requires a world existing > after you have died. That is the claim I am talking about. That should be Clear, the Moment, you `understand' or " pay attention to " the difference between `you' and ...'a physical body' . > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > [.....] > > > > " They will continue to exist even when your body has died and > > dissimilated into the earth... " Here you say that the body will > > dissimilate after it has died, but this requires a world existing > > after you have died. That is the claim I am talking about. > > That should be Clear, the Moment, you `understand' or " pay attention > to " the difference between `you' and ...'a physical body' . .......only one of which is real.......... .. 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.