Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

Think before you post your typical knee jerk responses.

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

there is a Higher Reality outside our normal conditioned experience,

OK, so tell us how you have experienced this. What was it actually like? Several of us have tried to describe our meditative experiences, but you have consistently failed to describe your own experience and you have continually evaded the question.

So come on then, let's hear about your personal experience of of this "higher reality". No more hiding behind cliches, generalisations and counter questions, be specific and personal, let's hear about your actual experience of spiritual insight.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The usual unsupported wild claim.
The usual unsupported wild claim.

he usual unsupported wild claim.

That's three strikes, yer out!

That's 3 times authoritarian huffing and puffing again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

Ho deliberately annoying you are, atheist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's completely besides the point, which is that there is a Higher Reality outside our normal conditioned experience, that conditioned experience being what you refer to as sentience, or perceptual reality. The spiritual consciousness is, however, outside of the sphere of touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell, which is the primary reason it cannot be verified via Logic, Reason, and Analysis.

I think the discussion between you and I is an outcome of our starting points: yours being that consciousness is brain dependent, and mine that the brain is consciousness dependent, the former being a phenomena of upward causation, the latter that of downward causation.

So my question is: how does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

What makes you think that consciousness is non-material?

All I have ever said about mysticism is that it is inner union with the divine nature. How is that in conflict with mystic teachings?

Whatever Aristotle rebutted about Plato is irrelevant to the metaphor of Plato's Cave.

Usually when you make any kind of specific claim such as "higher reality" you start off with the basic idea of mysticism but as you get more and more specific you are more and more off base. This has been pointed out to you by current and former mystics in the past. I'm not going to discect all of your posts to lay judgement of what is actually "mystic" and "not mystic".

Actually Aristotle changed the cave. Aristotle proposes that every being is made of "substance" and "quality". The "substance" is what that thing truly is and cannot be subjectively viewed. The Qualities of that substance are what we can see, hear, taste, measure ect. So the idea of the cave is outdated by this in that we aren't seeing a projection on a foreground of some being but we simply are only able to see the qualities of substance.

Though then this breaks down even further when we apply new physics but that was his rebuttal of plato. The depiction of the cave is only as useful as an opening statement to more meaningful philosophical arguments.

The fact of your atheism is not the problem; it is the rational mind.

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

While I disagree with the notion of an Intelligent Agent required to order the universe, what I see is an ordered Intelligent Universe itself, but NOT ordered in the sense of Reason. Look up into the night sky. The stars are perfectly placed. Nothing seems our of order, and yet, neither randomly placed either. Had they been deliberately placed, it would have been all too obvious.

Yes. I understand fully what you are saying. However I realize that it looks EXACTLY the same as a system that follows rules rather than an order intellect. We KNOW it follows rules and laws. We know that because that is what the study of physics is. However that means that no intellect is actually required weather ifs an outside force or a self governing force.

You can take all of your spiritually discerned gnostic knowledge and live your life with it but I don't consider it valid. You yourself have stated it cannot be evidenced so why debate it in the first place?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You can take all of your spiritually discerned gnostic knowledge and live your life with it but I don't consider it valid. You yourself have stated it cannot be evidenced so why debate it in the first place?

It accomodates subjectivity, spirituality makes for emotional depth, having a conscience, and so forth.

 

[savagewind]

The Buddha says that he did not really gain Enlightenment only forty years ago. In fact, he says, he gained Enlightenment an uncountable, incalculable number of millions of ages ago. In other words, he makes the rather staggering claim that he is eternally Enlightened. By now it is obvious that this is no longer the historical Sakyamuni speaking, but the universal, cosmic principle of Enlightenment itself."

excerpted from:
A Synopsis of The Lotus Sutra by Fotopoulou Sophia

A Synopsis of The Lotus Sutra presented in Religion section

I understand eternal enlightenment. I believe it. I agree mind has two levels. The lower level can prevent enlightenment. The higher can achieve it. IF a person's mind gains enlightenment then it becomes always enlightened. Before it and after it it is enlighened. I think it is related to what Jesus says "endure to the end means saved". People who translated it made it sound like this: He who endures to the end will be saved. But that implies there is something after saved. There isn't imo.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This insight is in perfect agreement with the Buddha's teaching of 'no-self, or 'anatta'. Zen people call it 'no-mind'. If there is no finite self, then there is only the conscious universe, because consciousness is what remains without a self.

But it isn't. It's a personal experience of satori and nothing whatever to do with a "conscious universe" or "cosmic consciousness" or similar new-age meanderings.

Further misrepresentation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

universal, cosmic principle of Enlightenment

Yet more misrepresentation. Enlightenment is spoken of as a universal principle in some traditions in that sense that all beings are seen as having Buddha nature, the potential for enlightenment.

But this has nothing whatever to do with "cosmic consciousness" or similar new-age ideas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

direct me to the doctrine about which the dogma is centered.

New-age dogma, a muddle of ideas from here and there. Relentlessly misrepresenting teachings from established traditions in an attempt to validate your idiosyncratic ideas. The longer you go on the more unconvincing it becomes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I asked if the Buddha's enlightenment was a certainty.

Red herring, diversionary tactic.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I didn't ask if there was an idea of cosmic consciousness in the suttas or not

But you are continually trying to sneak it in, because you think it validates your curious new-age theory. It doesn't and you are wasting your time pursuing this.

There is probably some bearded guru somewhere who teaches about "cosmic consciousness", you might be better following somebody like that who actually agrees with your ideas. Or perhaps you really want to become a bearded guru yourself?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This insight is the experience of universal consciousness.

Rubbish. In Buddhism it would be insight into sunyata ( emptiness ) and nothing to with "universal consciousness" or "cosmic consciousness" or whatever vague new-age jargon you come up with next.

How revealing that yet again you have answered in cliches and generalities, and you still refuse to describe your personal experience of insight. It's like you have read some stuff on Zen and are quoting back some wise-sounding lines for effect.
Easily done and entirely unconvincing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It accomodates subjectivity, spirituality makes for emotional depth, having a conscience, and so forth.

Subjectivity does not equate to higher consciousness. If it did then we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This has been pointed out to you by current and former mystics in the past.

I think sometimes people call themselves "mystics" because they think it sounds cool and mysterious, implying they have some higher knowledge which the rest of us don't. Or they claim to be treading in the footsteps of the ancient mystics, implying they have accessed the same knowledge and insights.

People will of course form their own judgement on such self-aggrandising pronouncements.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

higher consciousness

Yes, and we could easily have another long thread on what that means.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

base of infinite space and infinite consciousness :

These are references to the arupa jhanas, which are meditative states ( I've referred to them previously in this thread ). The sutta is not making metaphysical statements here, rather it is describing a succession of increasingly refined meditative states.
This is basic stuff really, further demonstration that you have no real understanding of the suttas.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You didn't answer the key question:

In this thread, I've seen many questions go unanswered. Some of them many times

 

[YmirGF]

There is probably some bearded guru somewhere who teaches about "cosmic consciousness", you might be better following somebody like that who actually agrees with your ideas. Or perhaps you really want to become a bearded guru yourself?

Personally, I smell the fetid thinking of Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh 2.0, ooops, sorry, "Osho" behind a lot of this drivel.

 

[Looncall]

What sounds like 'balderdash' to you, Loon?

Your guff about "universal consciousness" that you have not shown not be all in your head.