Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[YmirGF]

I really don't think there is anything to grasp here, it's just a charade.

Anyway it would be good if we could return to the topic.

Your insistence that we return to the topic and as a segue I was mulling it over and can't remember anything off-hand of Buddha talking about intelligence - certainly not in the sense that some here are using the term - though I could simply be woefully ignorant.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was mulling it over and can't remember anything off-hand of Buddha talking about intelligence - certainly not in the sense that some here are using the term - though I could simply be woefully ignorant.

I don't know of any Buddhist schools which talk about cosmic consciousness or the universe being intelligent. I also struggle to see how these ideas have any connection with enlightenment in Zen: Satori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I observed earlier cosmic consciousness is more reminiscent of Brahman in some Hindu traditions. Or maybe these ideas are really pantheistic?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In more modern terms it's called projection.

I think it happens more than most of us would like to admit.

But what about the phrase "spiritually discerned"? I would be interested to know what people mean by it. I suppose one option would be non-conceptual insight, though I'd associate that more with meditative practice.

Or maybe "spiritually discerned" means "This is just what I believe and I can't explain why."?

 

[YmirGF]

I think it happens more than most of us would like to admit.

But what about the phrase "spiritually discerned"? I would be interested to know what people mean by it. I suppose one option would be non-conceptual insight, though I'd associate that more with meditative practice.

Or maybe "spiritually discerned" means "This is just what I believe and I can't explain why."?

Hmmm. 'Tis a bit of a tough nut to crack. To me, so-called "spiritual discernment" implies that it is somehow different than the ordinary discernment of the critical mind, as if that discernment is somehow incapable of being misinterpreted. What mildly revolts me about the idea is the certainty involved. One who is certain is no longer looking for better answers or even different ways of looking at things.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What mildly revolts me about the idea is the certainty involved.

Yes, and the implication that because something has been "spiritually discerned" it cannot be questioned and does not have to be explained, despite it's obvious subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hmmm. 'Tis a bit of a tough nut to crack. To me, so-called "spiritual discernment" implies that it is somehow different than the ordinary discernment of the critical mind, as if that discernment is somehow incapable of being misinterpreted. What mildly revolts me about the idea is the certainty involved. One who is certain is no longer looking for better answers or even different ways of looking at things.

It means choosing about what it is that chooses, subjectivity The result of the procedure is an opinion. But the meaning of the procedure is not in the result, but in the emotion with which is chosen.

If you have not looked at another person this way, then you don't really know people. Choosing about who the other person is as being the owner of their decisions.

But you already are doing that to some extent, because the practise is engrained in people.

 

[YmirGF]

It means choosing about what it is that chooses, subjectivity The result of the procedure is an opinion. But the meaning of the procedure is not in the result, but in the emotion with which is chosen.

Is this supposed to be a rational answer? It falls flat, on so many level, it is ridiculous.

If you have not looked at another person this way, then you don't really know people. Choosing about who the other person is as being the owner of their decisions.

An interesting attempt at making gibberish seem almost sensible. I am being very generous however.

But you already are doing that to some extent, because the practice is engrained in people.

Of course it is...

 

[YmirGF]

No! You're still looking at it through the glass of the thinking mind. Belief is a product of thought, of reason. The spiritual vision is outside of reason.

and outside of credulity as well...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is this supposed to be a rational answer? It falls flat, on so many level, it is ridiculous.

An interesting attempt at making gibberish seem almost sensible. I am being very generous however.

Of course it is...

Or you simply have no understanding whatsoever of emotions mr Spock.

 

[YmirGF]

Or you simply have no understanding whatsoever of emotions mr Spock.

Now there is a snappy comeback.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Now there is a snappy comeback.

You don't understand how choosing is related to emotions.

I know I am right, so I know for a fact that you don't understand emotions.

Don't bother with a quasi intellectual discourse about electrobrain chemistry ok? I already have seen and understood that argument and threw it in the garbage where it belongs.

 

[Thief]

It's Materialist Reductionism at its worst...er...best.

and you wouldn't know the difference........hehehehehe

oh! that' right......you can't laugh......you don't exist!

 

[godnotgod]

and you wouldn't know the difference........hehehehehe

oh! that' right......you can't laugh......you don't exist!

There is no one who can laugh or cannot laugh. There is only laughter itself, without a laugher.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Staying close to the topic, the Buddha, in his Dhātuvibhanga Sutta: The Exposition of the Elements*, talks about the Six Elements, and how the internal and the external worlds are one and the same. This includes consciousness. This is virtually no different than the Hindu dictum of 'Tas tvam asi'.

*The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha - Selections | Wisdom Publications

This is wrong and another misrepresentation, because in this sutta consciousness is not included in the identity of internal and external. See paragraph 19 where consciousness is described as dependently arising, not in the same way as the other 5 elements which are described as internal and external.
In any case this sutta is about not regarding the elements as self, it certainly isn't making metaphysical statements in the way that you want to suggest.
In the suttas consciousness is always described as arising dependently on the aggregates and senses bases, there is no idea of a cosmic consciousness or whatever.

But well done for actually posting a sutta reference, that is a sign of progress.
This is a good site if you want to explore the suttas further: MN 140: The Exposition of the Elements (English) - Majjhima Nikāya - SuttaCentral

 

[YmirGF]

You don't understand how choosing is related to emotions.

I know I am right, so I know for a fact that you don't understand emotions.

Don't bother with a quasi intellectual discourse about electrobrain chemistry ok? I already have seen and understood that argument and threw it in the garbage where it belongs.

Okie dokie, pokie. I'm glad you got this off your chest.

 

[YmirGF]

Think before you post your typical knee jerk responses. Credulity is still within the sphere of belief. I said spiritual vision, not spiritual belief, which is an oxymoron, if you have been following the discussion.

But, yes, it IS outside the sphere of credulity, but perhaps you didn't mean that, and meant credibility instead.

credulity

1. a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true.

How quaint, now you presume to know what I intended to say? Um no, I meant it exactly as written. That said, your position certainly lacks credibility too.

 

[Sapiens]

You don't understand how choosing is related to emotions.

The usual unsupported wild claim.

I know I am right, so I know for a fact that you don't understand emotions.

The usual unsupported wild claim.

Don't bother with a quasi intellectual discourse about electrobrain chemistry ok? I already have seen and understood that argument and threw it in the garbage where it belongs.

[/quote]The usual unsupported wild claim.

That's three strikes, yer out!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're still looking at it through the glass of the thinking mind

And yet you seem to have nothing but thoughts. Dogma masquerading as insight.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Returning to the OP it would be interesting to revisit the argument about probability, which I think basically says that our appearing here on this planet was a very unlikely event, so the universe must have been designed for that to happen. Though this seems to make the assumption that our appearance is a really significant event!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you think the Buddha's Enlightenment was a certainty?

As I explained in previous posts there is no idea of cosmic consciousness in the suttas, or in Zen enlightenment: Satori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There might be teachers out there who believe in cosmic consciousness, but trying to hang the idea on a Buddhist peg really isn't going to work.

Instead of continually muddling up teachings from different traditions you might find it more productive to focus on one approach and explore it thoroughly.