Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

Yet there must be, in a form, a split, a duality. If not, then how is there a Good God? There has to be evil, an, Evil God, to balance out the Good. How else do we see these things we see? They come from us and not Him? How?

There only 'has to be' an 'Evil' God as a direct result of having created a 'Good' God. It's like this:

Whenever you create a concept of The Good, you have, in that moment, automatically created a concept of Evil. Having created a concept of Evil, you must now fight Evil, as dictated by The Good. In fighting Evil, you only make Evil stronger. Therefore, the sage never does moral Good. And Jesus said: 'Resist not, Evil'.

There is, in reality, no such duality; it only seems as if one exists to the ordinary mind, which also sees such 'duality' as conflicting. The awakened mind sees the pairs of opposites as cooperative aspects of a single reality.

A 'Good' Jesus vs. an 'Evil' Satan are psychological projections of the ego onto an idol on the one hand, and an enemy on the other, each vying for acquisition of one's 'soul' as the prize of the conflict. These are projections of 'Super Good' vs. 'Super Malevolent' values onto the Persona and the Shadow, if you know what I mean.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But the results of the equations are nonsense, as Kaku points out. The math fails.

Yes. The math fails in certain circumstances. We know the math to be true in certain places but there are blips in the theory that cause infinities or other certain things and we don't know why. A really really really interesting mystery is that even if you take away all of the matter and all of the particles from a piece of empty space that space still weighs something. And we don't know why. This is the exhillerating portion of physics and the constant questioning. What part are we missing? What needs to be added to the equation? What exceptions are there? What variables are we missing?

The leap we made from Newtonian to General Relativity was a huge one and even from GR to QM and accepting that the same laws don't really apply on different scales was tough. But it doesn't imply what you were implying.

What I'm trying to get at is that there are not two things, one called 'intelligence' and the other 'universe'. They are, in fact, one and the same, as expressed by Vivekenanda:

'The Universe IS the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

This is true. But is the whole universe universally aware in one massive super-intellect? Or is our "consciousness" a pocket event?

Is it a belief of yours that you are conscious, or is it self-evident?

At first glance it is self evident. But then you have to ask what consciousness is. What are its properties? How does it function? Is it permanent? Or is it temporary? Or is it even an illusion?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Consciousness is seeing without discrimination; Mind discriminates, creating the dualistic split.

Okay. I would not have made such a distinction between mind and consciousness. But having said that, to be conscious does not necessarily imply mind. So okay!
But now I will look at it from a higher perspective, the higher-consciousness (of God). Now I think about it, I would have worded it 'Awareness and Consciousness', not ''Consciousness and Mind''.
But we may take it another level, and add Mind.

To the point: We see duality everywhere: good and evil, fat and thin, the two poles, etc. So it exists within this aeon, (this realm, this universe). So whereas the Duality will not exist within the Ultimate One (Origin) it will after that. It has to! Without it, there is no ''after''. The mere fact that there is an ''after'' is because there is a beginning, and that shows a duality. It is how we get the Image from the Source. Without that, we don't exist.

So duality exists, even if we talk of a higher-understanding and say that, at a deeper level, it is just waves of thought on an ocean of Consciousness, and that all things are one, fundamentally.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There only 'has to be' an 'Evil' God as a direct result of having created a 'Good' God. It's like this:

Whenever you create a concept of The Good, you have, in that moment, automatically created a concept of Evil. Having created a concept of Evil, you must now fight Evil, as dictated by The Good. In fighting Evil, you only make Evil stronger. Therefore, the sage never does moral Good. And Jesus said: 'Resist not, Evil'.

Good.

There is, in reality, no such duality; it only seems as if one exists to the ordinary mind, which also sees such 'duality' as conflicting. The awakened mind sees the pairs of opposites as cooperative aspects of a single reality.

I think in the reality that we live in, as projected thought of the divine, it exists. I think you are going back many levels of thought within the divine-print to say that. (the Print is what everything follows)

A 'Good' Jesus vs. an 'Evil' Satan are psychological projections of the ego onto an idol on the one hand, and an enemy on the other, each vying for acquisition of one's 'soul' as the prize of the conflict. These are projections of 'Super Good' vs. 'Super Malevolent' values onto the Persona and the Shadow, if you know what I mean.

Yes, okay. But I say that these are real projections within us because they are real within the divine-print. We are created in the Image of God, and we are part of him. Thus we are the consciousness of God, the projection of thought. As such then these things exist, not, not exist. What you say is right, in the fact that they only exist because we make them.. ie: we turn right, so now there must be a left (ok?) but this is real. This is why we are here... this is why we die.

I am not saying your theology is wrong, on the contrary, I am all for it. But I am saying that these things are real, and you are taking these thought-processes to such a deep level, it is like seeing the last move in a chess game, and then going back to the first. You are speaking of the first. But we don't live in the first (as nice as it is to understand) we live in the last. That is the moment.

 

[godnotgod]

This is true. But is the whole universe universally aware in one massive super-intellect? Or is our "consciousness" a pocket event?

A pocket event would have an origin, a beginning. The context for it coming into being and being sustained as such would have to be a universal condition

At first glance it is self evident. But then you have to ask what consciousness is. What are its properties? How does it function? Is it permanent? Or is it temporary? Or is it even an illusion?

An illusion is created from thought. Consciousness is a condition prior to thought. So how can it be illusory?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A pocket event would have an origin, a beginning. The context for it coming into being and being sustained as such would have to be a universal condition

No. If there is "potential" for what we call "consciousness" does not mean that it is fulfilled universally and could only be fulfilled in specific sections of the universe. For example life. If we consider sentient life to be "consciousness" then we know that "consciousness" is not a universal fact of the universe in that everything is sentient.

An illusion is created from thought. Consciousness is a condition prior to thought. So how can it be illusory?

An Illusion is created from "perception". There are beings that are non-sentient that have "perception". You can have sensory input but no brain activity.

 

[godnotgod]

Okay. I would not have made such a distinction between mind and consciousness. But having said that, to be conscious does not necessarily imply mind. So okay!
But now I will look at it from a higher perspective, the higher-consciousness (of God). Now I think about it, I would have worded it 'Awareness and Consciousness', not ''Consciousness and Mind''.
But we may take it another level, and add Mind.

To the point: We see duality everywhere: good and evil, fat and thin, the two poles, etc. So it exists within this aeon, (this realm, this universe). So whereas the Duality will not exist within the Ultimate One (Origin) it will after that. It has to! Without it, there is no ''after''. The mere fact that there is an ''after'' is because there is a beginning, and that shows a duality. It is how we get the Image from the Source. Without that, we don't exist.

So duality exists, even if we talk of a higher-understanding and say that, at a deeper level, it is just waves of thought on an ocean of Consciousness, and that all things are one, fundamentally.

But duality does not exist in actuality; it exists only in the mind as delusion. No aspect of duality can exist without its corresponding opposite also existing. They exist as two aspects of a singular reality. Once this duality is realized as illusory, you 'return' to the One, which you never left in the first place. Duality does not exist 'out there', but only in the mind. Having said that, when those who are taken in by the delusion begin to act on the delusion, they then create conflict in the world and all hell breaks loose. This in turn is seen as confirmation of the existence of duality. But even conflict requires the participation of the two conflicting aspects. 'Tweedledeedee and Tweedledeedum AGREED to have a battle'.

 

[savagewind]

Yes. The math fails in certain circumstances. We know the math to be true in certain places but there are blips in the theory that cause infinities or other certain things and we don't know why. A really really really interesting mystery is that even if you take away all of the matter and all of the particles from a piece of empty space that space still weighs something. And we don't know why. This is the exhillerating portion of physics and the constant questioning. What part are we missing? What needs to be added to the equation? What exceptions are there? What variables are we missing?

The leap we made from Newtonian to General Relativity was a huge one and even from GR to QM and accepting that the same laws don't really apply on different scales was tough. But it doesn't imply what you were implying.


This is true. But is the whole universe universally aware in one massive super-intellect? Or is our "consciousness" a pocket event?


At first glance it is self evident. But then you have to ask what consciousness is. What are its properties? How does it function? Is it permanent? Or is it temporary? Or is it even an illusion?

The measured weight might be the pressure exerted on the space by the container.

 

[godnotgod]

No. If there is "potential" for what we call "consciousness" does not mean that it is fulfilled universally and could only be fulfilled in specific sections of the universe. For example life. If we consider sentient life to be "consciousness" then we know that "consciousness" is not a universal fact of the universe in that everything is sentient.

But consciousness is not something that comes into being in the sense of being 'fulfilled'. There is nothing that undergoes the process of 'becoming'. Consciousness is just that which is present all the time, whether the universes are being manifested or not. Sentient life is just one expression, one form, of consciousness.

An Illusion is created from "perception".

...via perceptual reality. But consciousness may be outside of perceptual reality. I think we are talking about consciousness as having different origins, your concept as brain dependent, mine as being the default condition from which everything emerges.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The measured weight might be the pressure exerted on the space by the container.

Actually it originally comes from Einstein's field equations.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But consciousness is not something that comes into being in the sense of being 'fulfilled'. There is nothing that undergoes the process of 'becoming'. Consciousness is just that which is present all the time, whether the universes are being manifested or not. Sentient life is just one expression, one form, of consciousness.

Why do you believe this? What quality about sentience is it that makes you think that it cannot "come into being"? This seems a fundamental problem with your assumptions.

...via perceptual reality. But consciousness may be outside of perceptual reality. I think we are talking about consciousness as having different origins, your concept as brain dependent, mine as being the default condition from which everything emerges.

If consciousness is outside of perceptual reality then we would not be able to reprieve it anyway. Though the difference between my definition and yours is that mine is a functional usage and yours is based upon conjecture and belief.

 

[savagewind]

Actually it originally comes from Einstein's field equations.

Measured weight actually comes from an equation? I suspect Einstein was gone before the experiment of nothingness was possible but I don't know. It's funny though.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But duality does not exist in actuality; it exists only in the mind as delusion.

I would say in the Ultimate One it does not. It exists here as we see it, though I agree, it is we who instigate it. But I still think that even that comes from the higher-consciousness that we follow.

No aspect of duality can exist without its corresponding opposite also existing.

agreed

They exist as two aspects of a singular reality.

agreed

Once this duality is realized as illusory, you 'return' to the One, which you never left in the first place.

return in what sense? As an understanding, yes. As a reality I don't think it makes much difference.

Duality does not exist 'out there', but only in the mind.

what then of light energy and dark energy?

Having said that, when those who are taken in by the delusion begin to act on the delusion, they then create conflict in the world and all hell breaks loose.

agreed

This in turn is seen as confirmation of the existence of duality. But even conflict requires the participation of the two conflicting aspects. 'Tweedledeedee and Tweedledeedum AGREED to have a battle'.

So it APPEARS to confirm something is there when in reality it is not. correct?
I think though that we, as man, have little effect on this universe in the sense of the consciousness of God. Goswami thinks that nothing existed until life appeared on this planet, and then some thirteen odd billion years just suddenly appeared. I am not sure exactly whether he means us as the ''observer'' or whether it is any life- do you know?

But I am not sure about that. I think it is unlikely, that mere man, has anything so grand up his sleeve. We are said to ''die like man'' though we have been Yisrael ''gods''. So as lower aspects of the divine-self, I don't think we are in a position to press any cosmic buttons, rather just the physical ones.

Again, I am not disagreeing with you, it is just placing these thoughts into the right realm of existence,and, for me, there are many!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Measured weight actually comes from an equation? I suspect Einstein was gone before the experiment of nothingness was possible but I don't know. It's funny though.

The original concept was from the theory of General relativity and his equations. It was later confirmed experimentally. The concept of weight in a vacuum wasn't from the experimental level first.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But consciousness is not something that comes into being in the sense of being 'fulfilled'. There is nothing that undergoes the process of 'becoming'. Consciousness is just that which is present all the time, whether the universes are being manifested or not. Sentient life is just one expression, one form, of consciousness.

@Monk Of Reason commented on this also.
I would say that it is Awareness that does not come into being as such. But that is part of the Ulitimate One (Origen) and that Consciousness comes after that. Perhaps we use different words. You seem to second that with 'mind'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It serves no purpose other than an egotistic one to prance about and waving it around to show everyone how clever you are to mask the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, evinced by the fact that I have now clearly proven you wrong about several things

Again you are merely projecting your own arrogance. I made it clear that my experience in Buddhism doesn't make me an expert, just that it means I can see through your shallow misrepresentations of Buddhism. You may be fooling some here but you are not fooling me. Not with your ideas of cosmic consciousness, nor with your Zen cliches, it's all just a muddle of new-age cliches.
You have "proved" nothing, only that you are very attached to your views and your sense of self-importance.

 

[savagewind]

I do not know Buddhism but I think it might be complicated enough so someone might not see what someone else knows for sure. Surety comes across as self-importance sometimes and that is a pity really.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would say in the Ultimate One it does not.

Could you say what you mean by "ultimate one"? There seems to be a proliferation of these jargony terms, and it would be useful to have some clear definitions. You've previously talked about the "divine" and "one consciousness" and "God", do these all mean the same thing to you? And if so, what is that meaning? And how have you experienced it?

As I previously observed, using capitals at the beginning of words like this doesn't make them any more credible, and using jargon isn't helpful if you are unwilling to define it. It's like when people talk about the "Truth" - yeah, whatever.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Surety comes across as self-importance sometimes and that is a pity really.

Surety is exactly what I'm objecting to here, simplistic cliched statements which misrepresent something that is very profound and subtle. For sure, it's possible to make simple statements when you deeply understand something, but that is not what I'm seeing here. What I'm seeing is a succession of beliefs masquerading as insights.

 

[savagewind]

Surety is exactly what I'm objecting to here, simplistic cliched statements which misrepresent something that is very profound and subtle.

Yes I don't disagree with you but the alternative is silence. I don't like it.