Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:15am PT
|
"I was actually thinking more literally. An imaginary superfriend. . ."
"I have never had an experience or encounter that would suggest to me that there is anything beyond the material world."
Isn't this what you are really saying? Why overreach yourself and call it a plain and self-evident fact? I suspect it's that pesky drive to be "right."
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 02:37am PT
|
Overreaching myself? That's an amusing way to look at it.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:13pm PT
|
It's always fascinated me per the process by which people draw their conclusions or convictions. What do you think can be the outcome of the self telling the self what it is? Will it (the ego) not simply say, "I am everything. There is no more, now or ever." When this is backed up by the super-ego (Inner Critic) insisting there is nothing beyond the ego, is it any wonder that most people remain convinced, at the deepest level of their being, of what the self/Critic says is reality?
Of course, the self is entirely correct - but only on the level of the self. Such is the trance of self-absorbtion. I know it very well. The great irony here is that when the trance is broken - if only for a flash - we are prone to consider the experience as "imaginary."
And what do you make of those neuroscientists and students of consciousness who would tell us that the brain is not some kind of mechanism that is capible of thinking, rather, the brain IS thinking, and that thinking and consciousness are not the same things, or things at all.
Go figure . . .
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:35pm PT
|
John, you never sent me those tapes!
anyway, I'm not sure that I would agree with you, thinking and consciousness are things, but the results of thinking and consciousness are not the same things...
...that is, we are certainly capable of thought that has not physical counterpart in the universe. Most of our descriptions of the universe are approximate, and are really only a provisional, schematic model explaining a set of observed phenomena. If the observation is only sensual, then we have an even harder time getting at the physical essence of that phenomena, often fooling ourselves with erroneous assumptions about how our consciousness works.
The practice of science is all about obtaining information on the universe which is not biased by our ways of thinking or the peculiarities of how consciousness works.
However, there is a whole interesting line of investigation regarding thinking and consciousness. I think of it as playing around with the things themselves, thinking, consciousness, but not confusing the results with what I would term "reality." Here the duality is slightly different then the classical western mind-body duality.
Your a very busy... just send me the reference (I forget the name of the person who made the tapes)... I'm still interested.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:50pm PT
|
things?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 10:48pm PT
|
Hi Ed,
The CD's are available at Openfocus.com
Per the brain and thinking not being a "thing," I'm not entirely clear what these folks are driving at. My sense of it is that the brain can objectify physical reality into composite functions and parts that may be considered as "things" but said things are inseparable from the matrix, so at some level, the "thingness" is an abstraction. And what of the nothingness from which these things arise and eventually return.
But the most interesting idea (to me) is that thinking is not something that the brain does, but what the brain IS. Quite unsure exactly what this means.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:29am PT
|
JL, you might have that quote a little mixed up. Neurobiologist Stephen Pinker wrote in 1977 that "the mind is not the brain, the mind is what the brain does," in his book How the Mind Works.
Another top reseracher in this sort of thing is V.R. Ramachandran:
Phantoms in the Brain
Part 1: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292
Part 2: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937299
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:47am PT
|
The views of the brain in 2008 are quite a bit different than those in 1977, at least to some. As evildenced by your quote from 77, they used to consider "mind" as a function of the brain, or brain generated, meaning that mind was an evolutionary product of matter. There are some other opinions about this presently, though I don't claim to know much about how they were arrived at though the subject is fascinating.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:56am PT
|
Whoops, that was a typo, Pinker's book was 1997. It has been criticized, but everything about this topic is fairly contentious. Ramachandran generally gets props all around, though.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 12:53pm PT
|
Does Ramachandran admit that the soul which is seated in the heart of every living entity is what drives the brain? The brain is material and the soul is spiritual, the driver which controls the brain.
The brain is the instrument of the soul. Just as the driver of the vehicle (automobile) controls and manipulates from the steering and peddles the speed, engine, brakes, of the car.
Still the driver of the automobile is not the car.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
|
Here's what he says about that:
The notion of a private self that inhabits your brain and is aloof from the rest of the world, that engages in a lofty inspection of events, as at the cinema — saying, Here’s me, I’m important, I’m watching the world — Hinduism has always maintained that this is an illusion. It’s called Maya. In fact, you are part of the universe, part of the ebb and flow of events, and once you give up the illusion of a separate soul residing in you and realize you are really one with the cosmos, that you are part of God, part of the rest of nature — that’s like a religious experience. You ‘lift the veil of Maya.’ So, to that extent, our findings are consistent with religious belief, in that we are saying there is no real so-called self, it’s really a construct — an illusion if you like. And when that happens — the lifting of the veil — you lose the fear of personal death, because it’s saying there is no ‘person’ to start with. How can you fear personal death if you are really part of God?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:19pm PT
|
Ramachandran is giving the mayavadi interpretation originally expounded from Ādi Śaṅkarācārya (Shiva) which is one of the most dangerous philosophies ever expounded.
Even Śaṅkarācārya in the end preached against his own philosophy because he knew it was utter total nonsense. He was originally instructed to preach that bogus philosophy by the lord himself to mislead those that desired to be one with god.
It is better to be an atheist than fall under the mayavadi philosophy.
The Mayavadi theory is that the ultimate spirit is impersonal.
__
We are all individuals. Never there will be time when we shall not exist." That means in the past we existed as individuals, in the present there is no doubt we are existing as individual, and in the future also, we shall continue to remain as individuals.
Then when the impersonal conception comes at all?
In the past, present, future, there are three times. Huh? In all the times we are individuals.
Then when God becomes impersonal or I become impersonal or you become impersonal?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
|
Guess I'm safe then.
But why, oh why, does this lord of yours spend all of its time playing these endless games of hide-and-seek, with himself? I mean, what a prankster. Reminds me of those annoying uncles who delight in stealing the noses of toddlers.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:39pm PT
|
You are fool,
Alongside the soul (the individual, atma), in the heart of every living entity there is the supersoul the Lord himself (Paramatma), who instructs the soul.
Where is he is hiding then. You are the one playing the games.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:50pm PT
|
Werner Ji, God is One, and so vast and beyond human concepts that the Mayavadi, vishistadvaita and Dwaita are all describing the same truth from their own limited perspectives. Walking around India, as I am at the moment, you can't feel the difference in the Hearts of sincere persons of any faith. It doesn't matter what we THINK, it matters who we are in our hearts.
Regarding consciousness. It's funny that folks want to put it into the "Random thing" box along with blood and rocks. The fact is, you have absolutely no real proof the world out there even exists as everything, and I mean, everything, every moment, that you have ever experienced, has come to you through your consciousness. You could be living in a huge, consistent dream of the Great consciousness, and never prove otherwise.
Both science and religion would be better off admitting they know less, and adopting better priorities on how they spend their time.
Peace
Karl
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:53pm PT
|
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 03:40pm PT
|
God is One and still he is an individual.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
|
Wes, explain what you mean by "many".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
|
'>1' .... And ?
Wes -- Individuals don't evolve
Where do you that idea?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
|
That's material evolution.
I was speaking of spiritual evolution and that does not require material nature which is inferior to the spiritual energy.
God has two major energies Spiritual which is superior and material which is inferior although both emanate from him.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!