• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Define Consiousness

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I still think my answer is the best... :clap:
Click to expand...
It's answers like that that made even Buddhist monks tell one another, "If you meet the Buddha - kill him."
 
hammegk said:
Facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, living organisms behave as if they contain a powerful impulse to survive. That can be overcome. Deep depression, a mind sickness, overcomes it. And self sacrifice for "that which deserves to live" - ones own children or an idealistic vision like "America" or "the human race".

There are some who embrace it to ride the next comet out of here but they seem to have bought an idea that they are cheating it somehow.

So while I may not present facts as evidence, I do offer those observations. It is certainly not something that we choose to hurry toward - by "we" I mean an extreme majority.
 
Well, we must all walk the path.... it's the best any of us can do.

But you seem to "know" quite a bit yourself. The question you asked was, I expect, rhetorical - the type of questions that I love to answer, by the way.
Is there not just a single destination?
Click to expand...

As a reformed, or disillusioned, idealist - I do not see a destination beyond the grave. You seem to, but you don't go into much detail. Since you do not, what makes you think there are not the bi-polar destinations of a Christian type religion.

Even Hades had its Elysian Fields.
 
hammegk said:
Monism and multiple (or at least bi-polar) destinations ... interesting concept.
Click to expand...
It is, isn't it? And it seems to prevail in monistic religions that do not use reincarnation as a perfecting mechanism.

For some reason, probably a business reason, major religions posit a monism made from two opposing gods. That seems to be what most people buy into. I suppose people just don't want to think of their deity afflicted with schizophrenia, so they adopt a idealism of opposites for the after death world that mirrors the world of opposites they are immersed in before death.

How do you see it?
 
Atlas said:

...
As a reformed, or disillusioned, idealist - I do not see a destination beyond the grave.
...
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm ready to chuck the idea of an afterlife. There still is a shred of hope in an area Interesting Ian presented in a different thread. He posited that the brain is effectively a receiver set. Some research supports the view that some communication within the brain is through various waves. Further, these waves can be measured outside of the skull (neurofeedback technology).

If science has a weakness, it is within the subtle nuances of nature. With Chaos theory, we have found that such subtleties can be critical factors. If God exists, in whatever form, he is much more likely to exist as a subtle nuance than a "big, brass band."

Moreover, our relation to "spirit" may be similar to Houston and the Mars rovers. The rovers must have a minimum amount of intelligence to survive. Periodically, the rovers upload data to Earth and download new software. A "spirit/body" may be similiarly aligned. The data transmission might be very weak and only occur during sleep (or meditation). Plus, these transmissions could very well be intelligently monitored and controlled by "spirit." If scientists attempt to measure such transmissions, "spirit" could purposely stop transmitting or receiving, thus, denying their observation and measurement.

And IF a "spirit" exists for each of us, it may effectively habitate the same "physical" space. So all transmissions may appear to occur internal to the brain.

These questions are very difficult (or impossible) to substantiate or refute. And until we can refute them, it is not rational to discard them.

Even without Interesting Ian's approach, other scenarios can be readily presented which are beyond science's ability to test and measure. With the limitations of science, I believe it is much too early to declare that there is no afterlife.

IMO, the only truly scientific and rational approach is to keep an open mind.

Further, after studying the mind and emotions for over thirty years, it appears to me that our physical health may benefit from adopting a philosophy which at least allows for the existence of an afterlife whether it is true or not.

Atlas, I am reaching out from a boat of idealism to one who seems to have fallen overboard. One day this boat may sink and we may all be gone, but for now, some of us staunchly work to keep it afloat. I entreat you to climb aboard again.
 
JAK said:
Atlas, I am reaching out from a boat of idealism to one who seems to have fallen overboard. One day this boat may sink and we may all be gone, but for now, some of us staunchly work to keep it afloat. I entreat you to climb aboard again.
Click to expand...
Hi JAK,

I'm outside the boat of idealism, that's true. But I have not sunk myself into the waters of materialism. I'm kinda walking on the water though.

My real philosophy is one that is very idealistic. I haven't completely closed off the idea of an afterlife, but I've moved to the grave as the most likely outcome.

I cannot see any reason besides speciesism that suggests I deserve an afterlife but spiders and mosquitos do not. That which lives and dies deserves life or it doesn't.

My idea of soul is slightly more abstract than a religionist's. I possess a soul transcendent in that ability it has to appreciate what it apprehends. Rocks cannot do that.

Humans do appreciate what they apprehend to a more refined degree than other species. They express that refinement in art, architecture, and their own musings on the universe - but what about that delivers the attribute of eternality on the soul - the fact that we have developed a concept of it?

When I was a Christian I had a concept of an afterlife that lingered beyond my exit from the faith. Since coming to this forum I've tried to look at the whole question again.

I believe that maintaining an idealism is a good thing. I want to be honest with myself as to what is really true about the soul of "me". I support some of the idealists on these boards, with the exception of Iacchus, lifegazer, Interesting Ian and Hammegk.

The first 2 are not open to outside opinion, II is difficult as an individual but he seems a lot deeper. I just naturally find myself on the other side in most discussions with him. Hamme is different. I like him and enjoy the give and take. But he's often cryptic - in a positive way. Iacchus is too but not to further any discussion, more to obfuscate.

I think there has to be some of the cryptic or inexactness to an Idealist's explanation. The soul responds to poetry when science has no answers. Perhaps if I knew more philosophy I wouldn't find Hamme cryptic. Anyway, to me these are the 4 that I stand in opposition to - all for different reasons. I can learn things from II and Hamme but I don't feel that way about Iacchus and lifegazer.

So don't give up on me JAK. I appreciate the nice things you say about me. And I appreciate that your philosophy gives you a positive outlook on life. That is definitely something to treasure, and for that reason I won't stray too far from the boat myself.
 
Atlas ...

Not knowing where I stand, yet opposing my stance, is an odd juxtaposition.

BTW, my earlier comment on 'monism' has no link I'm aware of to any monastic religion -- or any organized religion as I understand them. I may well be wrong of course.

Afterlife. No ego death? Or what?


You said "I possess a soul transcendent in that ability it has to appreciate what it apprehends. Rocks cannot do that.

Humans do appreciate what they apprehend to a more refined degree than other species."

I find that an interesting contention in that I have no idea of what Rocks do, or do not. As to transcendence and refined apprehension of "life", anthropomorphism would so imply.
 
Re: Atlas ...

hammegk said:
Not knowing where I stand, yet opposing my stance, is an odd juxtaposition.
Click to expand...
You are unique for me on the board. I've tried a couple approaches to draw you out, but you hold your cards close. So I find I am opposing you without knowing, as you say, where you stand. But it's because I get more out of the exchange that way. If you were a bit more loquacious or if I understood the significance of some of your references things might be different. I don't know though, I'd still have to be persuaded on objective idealism.
BTW, my earlier comment on 'monism' has no link I'm aware of to any monastic religion -- or any organized religion as I understand them. I may well be wrong of course.
Click to expand...
You are not wrong. You said, "Monism and multiple (or at least bi-polar) destinations ... interesting concept." I brought up religious Monism as an example in support of the strangeness - while making the point that it's a strange Monism that requires 2 Gods (Good and Evil).
Afterlife. No ego death? Or what?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're asking here. But the ego in Christian afterlife seems punished in both directions. In heaven it is lost in adoration and in hell it is burned and burned.
You said "I possess a soul transcendent in that ability it has to appreciate what it apprehends. Rocks cannot do that.

Humans do appreciate what they apprehend to a more refined degree than other species."

I find that an interesting contention in that I have no idea of what Rocks do, or do not. As to transcendence and refined apprehension of "life", anthropomorphism would so imply.
Click to expand...
You say that you have no idea what rocks do but as an idealist - you surely do. And I am not anthropomorphizing rocks by saying they are not possessed of human appreciation. If you are saying that I was anthropomorphizing soul, yes, I do not differentiate the human and the soul. I use the term soul, actually transcendent soul, to retain a positive sense of idealism and to keep myself from taking offense when family members and others talk to me about God and soul. Though I have drifted from their belief patterns I don't wish to alienate them nor do I wish to lose the words that have offered me my first sense of the miraculous in life. I wanted to preserve the word and it's power to bring about a "spiritual" state, peaceful quiet contemplatude. (It's a state I enjoy.) I needed to define it differently to remain true to my new beliefs. I found the double entendre useful in achieving both goals.

(edit: As I reread your words I think you probably meant that in anthropomorphizing other species I conclude that humans have a refined appreciation. I was speaking more of the expression of that appreciation, our art in all its many forms. I cannot say whether the dog stands in awe of the night sky but that dog communicates no poetry or paintings of it. )
 
hammegk said:
Back to II's question: On close examination, what is a rock, other than processes and behaviors?

Or should we ask, what is processing and behaving?
Click to expand...

Nice call!

Hmm, processes lack the 'intent' that is associated with 'awareness'. ?
 
Atlas said:
It's answers like that that made even Buddhist monks tell one another, "If you meet the Buddha - kill him."
Click to expand...

If you meet the buddha on the road, 'Lean on him."

I don't think that it is fair to blame the buddha for your reaction to koans that are meant to stun the 'thinking'. The reason to kill the buddha if you meet him, is so that you don't make a paragon out of him/her, as the buddha said on his death bed, "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs".

(BTW, thank you for your major contributuin to this thread.)
 
hammegk said:
Is there not just a single destination?
Click to expand...

Hmm, should one mistake the final disposition for the journey. (I don't think that is what you meant.)

The goal of the buddha is a free life, what one does after freedom is well, unspeakable.
 
Atlas said:
It is, isn't it? And it seems to prevail in monistic religions that do not use reincarnation as a perfecting mechanism.

For some reason, probably a business reason, major religions posit a monism made from two opposing gods. That seems to be what most people buy into. I suppose people just don't want to think of their deity afflicted with schizophrenia, so they adopt a idealism of opposites for the after death world that mirrors the world of opposites they are immersed in before death.

How do you see it?
Click to expand...


Interesting, I thought that the 'afterlife' was the political tool of those in power.

The teachings of Jesus seem to be more of the 'recycle' that which is not good. But they were subn\verted by the church. In some asian religion there are six possible destinations the
devi, asuara, humans, animals, ghosts and hell.
 
Dancing David said:
If you meet the buddha on the road, 'Lean on him."

I don't think that it is fair to blame the buddha for your reaction to koans that are meant to stun the 'thinking'. The reason to kill the buddha if you meet him, is so that you don't make a paragon out of him/her, as the buddha said on his death bed, "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs".
Click to expand...
I couldn't resist the opportunity to tweak Bodhi Dharma Zen after his koan post 18 pages into the discussion. Maybe because I didn't think of it first.

But I never understood the reason to kill the Buddha if you meet him on the path. I always took it to mean, "Listen, firstly, it ain't gonna happen. Secondly, if it does you're looking at an imposter. You can tell an imposter from the the real thing simply... The Buddha cannot be killed, he died and escaped the circle of torture we are on."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom