Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[YmirGF]

It would seem to help, and of course he has not been addressing me with those comments. But he has explained an awful lot, far more than I would bother. And I think, as he seems to do, that you are not quite open enough in your thinking. It is, as they say, Like flogging a dead horse...haha

You see, Robert. It's thinking like this that lends itself to comments about arrogance. Like, you think the point has been made very well, and yet the target audience is still sitting here saying, "What the heck?" To blame the audience and not the message (or the messenger) is not very reasonable. Again, you would think that human animals who had extended their experiences into these subtle realms would be far more capable of handling routine questions and would have infinite patience until their message had begun to trickle through. So far, I see godnotgod et al as batting zero, whilst thinking the game is won. OK, I'll be generous, he's made a couple of line drives, but zilch in the way of home runs with the bases loaded.

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah, a lot of it is.

I must say that I think you have positively been on fire this morning. Bravo for the entire group of posts.

What is interesting is that we have such different backgrounds and practices, but both have extensive experience. To think that that combined wealth of experiences is collectively saying, "say what?" is incredibly amusing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh no, more jargon!

haha...okay. I like reading this thread and asking questions. I am not so fond of giving them here.

But seriously, what do you mean by "Self" here? Like a soul or something? Again it sounds rather like Hinduism, the union of atman and Brahman. But then I'm not a Hindu, so you would find out more by browsing the Hinduism DIR.

Everything, in simple terms, is in the mind of God before here.

In more complicated terms, it is within the higher-consciousness (or super-consciosness) which in turn reflects many times over, creating error as it does, until it becomes us and everything we see around us. It is like having the habits of your parents or following him into his trade. That is what we do. The difference is what we follow is us, the higher part of us. We are the lowest part, base, that is why we kill etc. and ultimately die.

Does that explain it? My fingers are getting tired! haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

You see, Robert. It's thinking like this that lends itself to comments about arrogance. Like, you think the point has been made very well, and yet the target audience is still sitting here saying, "What the heck?" To blame the audience and not the message (or the messenger) is not very reasonable. Again, you would think that human animals who had extended their experiences into these subtle realms would be far more capable of handling routine questions and would have infinite patience until their message had begun to trickle through. So far, I see godnotgod et al as batting zero, whilst thinking the game is won. OK, I'll be generous, he's made a couple of line drives, but zilch in the way of home runs with the bases loaded.

I think he has, and is, doing a good job (do I sound like his PA?).
But these things are spiritually discerned. You must know that! What makes one like one football team to another? Do you think if they explain it enough that they would change sides...haha. I think not. So there excuse is you were not very good at convincing me. I think not again.we follow what we are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To think that that combined wealth of experiences is collectively saying, "say what?" is incredibly amusing.

It might be partly because I used to be a social worker, where you develop a certain experience in recognising things that don't ring true.

 

[YmirGF]

I think he has, and is, doing a good job (do I sound like his PA?).
But these things are spiritually discerned. You must know that! What makes one like one football team to another? Do you think if they explain it enough that they would change sides...haha. I think not. So there excuse is you were not very good at convincing me. I think not again.we follow what we are.

I do hear you and you certainly seem to be more reasonable than godnotgod. The thing is, if his assertion that we are all the same, reflections of/manifestations of the same so-called "universal" intelligence, is it not reasonable to think that by following "what we are" should that not logically lead to very similar understanding?

 

[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.

 

[godnotgod]

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.


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.

Returning to consciousness being self evident, its self evident nature is that it is still and unaffected by thought, which includes conjecture and belief. You had asked how do we know if self evidence is not an illusion, but an illusion can only be detected via a condition of non illusion. Perceptual reality is in time and space. Consciousness is not. Doesn't an illusion also have to be in time and space?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Didn't I already respond to this? Are you repeating yourself?

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.

As we only have evidence for this form of conciousness I disreguard your claims to others. And sentience can arise from non-sentience. Our very cells are this way. Your cell isn't a sentient being yet it makes up you.

...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.

Mine which is based in evidence and yours which is not based on evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Returning to consciousness being self evident, its self evident nature is that it is still and unaffected by thought, which includes conjecture and belief. You had asked how do we know if self evidence is not an illusion, but an illusion can only be detected via a condition of non illusion. Perceptual reality is in time and space. Consciousness is not. Doesn't an illusion also have to be in time and space?

No. And I can explain how.

You are a sentient being. You have perceptions of the world around you. However these perceptions are only as good as what your senses and thoughts can tell you. So you never get to objectively experience the universe except through subjective interpretation based on your reception to information.

But if that information itself is not actually how the objective universe IS then we have a consciousness that is based in illusion. Never actually experiencing anything other than the illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

What you are calling Zen cliches: are they without meaning, and what is it about my view of them that makes you think they are shallow misinterpretations? Where do they conflict with Buddhism? I explained the meaning of Cosmic Consciousness, and how it is not New Age, but you ignore that and continue to insist that it is, even providing reference to the non New Age origin of the term. I demonstrated how the Zen koan of peeling the potatoes is not nonsense; that it has real spiritual meaning. I proved that Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism by giving it to you from an ordained Zen minister. I provided two references to the Buddhist idea that the Self is the universe.

No matter what I put on the table, you have a knee jerk response that it is all New Age hogwash, in spite of the additional fact that I showed you that the emergence of New Age and other thought is a response to unconvincing and unsatisfying patriarchal religion and scientific materialism.

So you have not actually presented a discussion, but merely a condemnation of everything I've said as New Age nonsense, which is nonsense itself.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Well, you're wrong. Peeling the potatoes is not a belief; its an experience. The Buddha said that Ordinary Mind (peeling the potatoes) and Buddha Mind (the miraculous) are one and the same. The Zen references to ordinary, everyday activities, such as peeling the potatoes, sweeping the floor, and washing the dishes, are fingers pointing to the moon (Reality). There is no belief involved here.

 

[godnotgod]

No. And I can explain how.

You are a sentient being. You have perceptions of the world around you. However these perceptions are only as good as what your senses and thoughts can tell you. So you never get to objectively experience the universe except through subjective interpretation based on your reception to information.

But if that information itself is not actually how the objective universe IS then we have a consciousness that is based in illusion. Never actually experiencing anything other than the illusion.

But consciousness itself is not based on illusion. It is how one discerns the illusory from the non-illusory. We SEE, via consciousness, that the perceived 'snake' is actually a rope. I accept your explanation of perceptual reality and sentience, but pure consciousness is not based on sentience; it is based on Ultimate Reality rather than perceptual reality. IOW, it is an absolute. It is not in time or space, and so does not arise and subside. It is changeless.

You are using the world consciousness to mean mind, which is the problem you point out about never experiencing anything other than the illusion.

There is no objective experience of the universe. The experience of the universe is a merging of subject (the observer) with the observed (the universe), subject/object being only concepts to begin with. IOW there is no such experiencer of the experience. There is only the experience itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Didn't I already respond to this? Are you repeating yourself?


As we only have evidence for this form of conciousness I disreguard your claims to others. And sentience can arise from non-sentience. Our very cells are this way. Your cell isn't a sentient being yet it makes up you.


Mine which is based in evidence and yours which is not based on evidence.

Perceptual reality can arise from non-sentience, because it is based on sensory apparatus, but how does non material consciousness arise from the material brain?

 

[godnotgod]

Good.

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)

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.

No. We are always in the first. The rest is illusion. Don't get caught up in the drama.

'From brilliancy I came;
To brilliancy I return;
What, then, is all this?'

a Zen monk

Please understand: if someone is sick or hurt, it does not mean you should just laugh and ignore their suffering. We must see and respond to what is in front of us and act accordingly, while understanding the true nature of the drama that is going on in front of us. If their suffering is due to delusion, we must try to help them see through their delusion.

From the standpoint of our ordinary mind, what we see in the world is real; but from the standpoint of Higher Consciousness, it is not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But consciousness itself is not based on illusion. It is how one discerns the illusory from the non-illusory. We SEE, via consciousness, that the perceived 'snake' is actually a rope. I accept your explanation of perceptual reality and sentience, but pure consciousness is not based on sentience; it is based on Ultimate Reality rather than perceptual reality. IOW, it is an absolute. It is not in time or space, and so does not arise and subside. It is changeless.

You are using the world consciousness to mean mind, which is the problem you point out about never experiencing anything other than the illusion.

There is no objective experience of the universe. The experience of the universe is a merging of subject (the observer) with the observed (the universe), subject/object being only concepts to begin with. IOW there is no such experiencer of the experience. There is only the experience itself.

Perceptual reality can arise from non-sentience, because it is based on sensory apparatus, but how does non material consciousness arise from the material brain?

The answer to both posts is pretty clear.
I don't accept that there is ultimate consciousness outside of this illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

It's fine to argue that beliefs are a hindrance to insight, I agree, but see how reluctant people are in this thread to talk about their personal experience of insight. It mostly seems to be a succession of generalisations, beliefs and assumptions.

I'm just here, peeling the potatoes in silence. No beliefs, generalizations, or assumptions in sight.

Hmmmm....now to sweep that floor....

 

[godnotgod]

The answer to both posts is pretty clear.
I don't accept that there is ultimate consciousness outside of this illusion.

But how do you know it to be an illusion, were it not for the condition of non-illusion?

 

[godnotgod]

Oh sure! But it seems to me that anyone who is serious about finding answers to the kind of questions we've been discussing here would have a regular meditation practice, or an equivalent method of developing non-conceptual insight.
I wonder how many here actually do?

Can peeling the potatoes be a meditative practice which involves a non conceptual insight?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But how do you know it to be an illusion, if not for the condition of non-illusion?

Because the term "illusion" here is actually inaccurate. We think of "illusion" and we think of something that appears one way while in reality is another. Something purposeful. It would be like looking at a rope and thinking it to be a snake as an illusion.

However this is difficult to take over to our subjective view of reality because in the idea of the rope and the snake we already have foreknowledge of the snake and the rope. We can clearly imagine the rope and we can clearly see how it may be an illusion which clouds and otherwise unclouded judgement.

Now our current sentient consciousness is derived from sensory knowledge from our surroundings. The sensory knowledge is founded in material affects of the surrounding areas on certain sensitive cells and pattern recognition within the brain. But this is the extent in which we can conjure the world.

Its like being in a box and only able to see the outside with cameras and microphones but never being able to step outside and experience it first-hand. Now we assume that what we have obtained from our senses is at least to some degree accurate. If not then we probably wouldn't have survived. So this "illusion" isn't actually a false image but simply an imperfect one. For example there are several things that our senses can't pick up on. Gravitational waves, feeling the expansion of the universe, feel radiation except from heat transfer. We can't even see one millionth of the known electromagnetic spectrum. Our ears can only hear a tiny sliver of the auditory range. Ect.

So from there we are able to make deductions. We are able to problem solve. We can infer from this knowledge that we have gained from this camera view picture of the universe and understand that what we "see" with our senses is only a tiny bit of the universe that can be perceived.