Are You a Materialist?

[atanu]

I believe that with the cessation of the final moment of consciousness in one body, the stream of consciousness flows into a new body conditioned by both mind and matter.

Consciousness might be an example of something with no matter. Many posit that consciousness is primary and matter is a creation of consciousness. But what that consciousness actually is, is beyond our conception. One famous scientist said 'we can not get behind consciousness'.

The latter is true without a doubt. How can knowing and theorising take place without consciousness pre existing?

In the former, what or who is theorising? The stream of consciousness in a vessel called Von Bek or the vessel itself?

 

[Shad]

If anyone believes in materialism then they must also believe we have no free will as the two go hand in hAnd

Materialism is not synonymous with hard determinism.

 

[muichimotsu]

Anyone thinking that is too quick to conflate ontology with metaphysical positions, as if one is completely dependent on the other.

 

[von bek]

The latter is true without a doubt. How can knowing and theorising take place without consciousness pre existing?

In the former, what or who is theorising? The stream of consciousness in a vessel called Von Bek or the vessel itself?

The consciousness is only aware of the mental factors doing the theorizing. There is no theorizer separate from the experience of theorizing, it is a mental process.

 

[atanu]

The consciousness is only aware of the mental factors doing the theorizing. There is no theorizer separate from the experience of theorizing, it is a mental process.

Okay. So, do you mean that you are the whole?

 

[von bek]

Okay. So, do you mean that you are the whole?

No. I mean the concept of 'I' is a fabrication superimposed on the process of dependent origination. I guess, from a certain point of view, you could say I am the parts of the whole; as long as you understand I am saying, no transcendent 'I' actually exists independent of the parts of the whole.

 

[atanu]

The consciousness is only aware of the mental factors doing the theorizing. There is no theorizer separate from the experience of theorizing, it is a mental process.

Okay. So, do you mean that you are the whole?

No. I mean the concept of 'I' is a fabrication superimposed on the process of dependent origination. ....... no transcendent 'I' actually exists independent of the parts of the whole.

Who says that? How do you know that? You first said, 'consciousness is only aware .... There was no theorizer.....' Now, it seems that you are theorizing.

 

[George-ananda]

What about an 'ineffable ungraspable', nature of which is existence-consciousness-bliss? What will I call that? Material or non mateial?

I would call that being too smarty-pants for the simpler intent of the question

But anyway, you are not a materialist per the simple intent of the question.

 

[atanu]

I would call that being too smarty-pants for the simpler intent of the question

But anyway, you are not a materialist per the simple intent of the question.

Ha ha.

 

[von bek]

Who says that? How do you know that? You first said, 'consciousness is only aware .... There was no theorizer.....' Now, it seems that you are theorizing.

This response demonstrates a lack of understanding that seems intentional.

Have a great day.

 

[atanu]

This response demonstrates a lack of understanding that seems intentional.

Have a great day.

I wish the same for you. There was nothing intented. I might be genuinely lacking in understanding of what you mean.

 

[Yerda]

I think I'm closest to materialism, but I think the debate about substances and ontological hierarchy to be boring or way over my head. I expect that when we know more we will see that consciousness is a state of matter. I don't expect there to be a universal consciousness but I'd like there to be. I like reading about the possibility of quantum physics following from the quality of our conscious experience but it seems like speculation at best.

Does that make sense?

I will argue that there are only three possible answers: 'Yes', 'No' and 'Undecided' and that everyone must have one and only one answer. If some tries to waffle a fourth answer I will argue until my Koala Bear avatar turns blue in the face that this is not possible.

Undecided then.

 

[von bek]

I wish the same for you. There was nothing intented. I might be genuinely lacking in understanding of what you mean.

I know you mean no harm. I'm not mad. We are going in a circle, though. The crucial point is the insertion of an experiencer within experience. What I am saying, and what I view as the Buddha's teaching, is that the experience of seeing, for example, does not prove the existence of a seer. This applies to every mental process you can name. I realize you reject that notion; but, when I say it, I am not playing a game, I am being sincere.

Incidentally, in regards to Nibbana and what ceases. The false concept of an experiencer is completely eradicated by Nibbana. Now, I am not necessarily saying that experience ceases, as is obvious by the fact that the Buddha did not vanish upon attaining enlightenment. He still had a material body and taught for decades.

 

[JoStories]

This response demonstrates a lack of understanding that seems intentional.

Have a great day.

I concur as I totally understood your response and found it to be very understandable. I appreciate your posts very much. They provide those of a like mind with much to ponder.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Here is the working definition of Materialism for this thread (per Wikipedia):

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

If you are a materialist, you can not believe in anything metaphysical like God, afterlives, spirits, souls, etc.

I want to keep this question as basic as possible because questions often get misunderstood here if they say too much.

I will argue that there are only three possible answers: 'Yes', 'No' and 'Undecided' and that everyone must have one and only one answer. If some tries to waffle a fourth answer I will argue until my Koala Bear avatar turns blue in the face that this is not possible.

I'll go first; I am a 'No' on the question as I believe consciousness is primary and that souls and non-physical spiritual planes exist that are not composed of physical plane material.

I would say No. However, I believe Spirit is primary and that a perfect physical plane exists in which is the loft of the soul. I do believe in incorporeal planes however, though they are ascended past the loft of the soul. To me an incorporeal plane resides as God-Spirit without time and space, where God becomes present within all corporeal being. I do believe in infinite planes of existence, with varying degrees of material, since there is no beginning of time and no end of time--so that the God-Spirit has never ceased to create out of infinitesimal light plane (where all planes of existence are taken from--a single plane known as the infinitesimal light). I believe every plane of existence is infinite but not as infinite as the incorporeal plane (the Light). I believe that nothing cannot exist, therefore, 'everywhere' and 'anywhere' the Infinitesimal Light is the All. And from the All came out all of creation, infinitely. I do believe however that the All (the Light) came out of the incorporeal God-Spirit; as if the God Spirit is His Omnipresence as the All (the Light).

 

[atanu]

I know you mean no harm. I'm not mad. We are going in a circle, though. The crucial point is the insertion of an experiencer within experience. What I am saying, and what I view as the Buddha's teaching, is that the experience of seeing, for example, does not prove the existence of a seer. This applies to every mental process you can name. I realize you reject that notion; but, when I say it, I am not playing a game, I am being sincere.

Incidentally, in regards to Nibbana and what ceases. The false concept of an experiencer is completely eradicated by Nibbana. Now, I am not necessarily saying that experience ceases, as is obvious by the fact that the Buddha did not vanish upon attaining enlightenment. He still had a material body and taught for decades.

The seer-seen dichotomy is not true in absolute realm of the unconditioned.

Yet, you and I both know that, the Citta, the mind, which is conditioned is also a paramarthika category. Of the pure unconditioned there is no reflection, except through the three conditioned paramarthika categories.

Our interactions are all in the conditioned and hence, I believe, that effect of dualty is true, although it is as true as feeling uncomfortable in a dream.

 

[von bek]

The seer-seen dichotomy is not true in absolute realm of the unconditioned.

Yet, you and I both know that, the Citta, the mind, which is conditioned is also a paramarthika category. Of the pure unconditioned there is no reflection, except through the three conditioned paramarthika categories.

Our interactions are all in the unconditioned and hence, I believe, that effect of dualty is true, although it is as true as feeling uncomfortable in a dream.

Did you mean our interactions are all in the conditioned, instead of the unconditioned?

We both agree that there is no self within phenomenal experience. Correct? Where I see the difference taking place is that the Buddha goes a step further, phenomena are not only not-self, they do not belong to a self. Does this distinction make sense, or am I being unclear? Getting ready for work, so forgive me if it is many hours before I return... (Though I may have time for a quick response or two.)

 

[atanu]

Did you mean our interactions are all in the conditioned, instead of the unconditioned?

We both agree that there is no self within phenomenal experience. Correct? Where I see the difference taking place is that the Buddha goes a step further, phenomena are not only not-self, they do not belong to a self. Does this distinction make sense, or am I being unclear? Getting ready for work, so forgive me if it is many hours before I return... (Though I may have time for a quick response or two.)

Oh. I have corrected the mistake.

Since the thread title is 'Are you a materialist'?, I will not go into any more a deeper discussion, but I will just mention that Self for me is that very truth when the seer-seen-seeing is non dual.

Thanks.

 

[serp777]

I would say No. However, I believe Spirit is primary and that a perfect physical plane exists in which is the loft of the soul. I do believe in incorporeal planes however, though they are ascended past the loft of the soul. To me an incorporeal plane resides as God-Spirit without time and space, where God becomes present within all corporeal being. I do believe in infinite planes of existence, with varying degrees of material, since there is no beginning of time and no end of time--so that the God-Spirit has never ceased to create out of infinitesimal light plane (where all planes of existence are taken from--a single plane known as the infinitesimal light). I believe every plane of existence is infinite but not as infinite as the incorporeal plane (the Light). I believe that nothing cannot exist, therefore, 'everywhere' and 'anywhere' the Infinitesimal Light is the All. And from the All came out all of creation, infinitely. I do believe however that the All (the Light) came out of the incorporeal God-Spirit; as if the God Spirit is His Omnipresence as the All (the Light).

This is a lot of mumbo jumbo and half thought assertions. Planes of infinity that are less infinite than the incorporeal dimension? How do you know all this and what possible evidence do you have?

You also say illogical things like incorporeal plane without space and time where souls reside. Seriously this.meaningless. how could souls do anything without time? They couldnt do anything if there was no time to do stuff.

And a plane without space is a contradiction. A plane is a two dimensional coordinate surface with two axes x and Y. So clearly there are two dimensions of space or else it's not a plane. Anyways your entire post makes no sense and it's like youre just combining random math and spiritual words to sound profound when you're just not at all unfortunately.

 

[Bunyip]

This is a lot of mumbo jumbo and half thought assertions. Planes of infinity that are less infinite than the incorporeal dimension? How do you know all this and what possible evidence do you have?

You also say illogical things like incorporeal plane without space and time where souls reside. Seriously this.meaningless. how could souls do anything without time? They couldnt do anything if there was no time to do stuff.

And a plane without space is a contradiction. A plane is a two dimensional coordinate surface with two axes x and Y. So clearly there are two dimensions of space or else it's not a plane. Anyways your entire post makes no sense and it's like youre just combining random math and spiritual words to sound profound when you're just not at all unfortunately.

Sadly I think that the entirety of spiritualism reduces to the misuse of words.