Question on Intelligent Design

[godnotgod]

If we could pull all our energy straight from the sun, like photosynthesis, it would have been a better design if any designer was involved at all.

"program it, which requires intelligence."

Explain to me if you would the physical process of "intelligence" behind the evolution of photosynthesis?

There is no 'process' of intelligence behind the world, in the manner of a creator-god and his creation. What you see occurring as evolution is intelligence itself.

 

[godnotgod]

"We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it."

Were are made of atoms and elements and those elements were formed in stars. That has not changed at all. Those atoms can be broken down further into subatomic particles. If we enter the QM world it gets stranger than anything we can imagine.

Yes, and that is, in part, because there are no such 'particles' upon which 'atoms' are built. All such 'particles' in the Universe are the result of standing waves having been created via fluctuations in the field within which they 'exist'.

QM, in fact does not say the world is composed of atoms, but is instead a 'superposition of possibilities'.

"The Universe is not composed of things."

Yes, it is although it's all connected!

No. That is only how it appears to the perceptual mind. In reality, every-'thing' is One Reality. The Universe is not a machine composed of parts. Check it out:

You also stated in one of your thread the universe is all there is, that may or may not be the case, but for know, it is the case.

It cannot be any other way, because if there were more than one, it would not be a Uni-verse. Having said that, I want to point out that I am using the following definition:

"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.

The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic."

Universe - Wikipedia

...and I will add all multi-verses to this list.

Just another quick observation. Consciousness comes from our brains and because we are all different are perceptions of life can be different.

Yawn....yes, I know, 'Emergent Theory' which is not a bona fide scientific theory, but merely a poor hypothesis. Do the images you see on a TV set come from the TV set?

 

[godnotgod]

I can't conversate in this manner. We all believe in different things, grow different spiritually, and have different perspectives of each other's beliefs. Your concepts of truth in Buddhist language is very particular. I know many of Buddhist and they pretty much have common sense ways of describing life. It's usually the New Agers that makes what is not complex, complex.

"Before I became enlightened, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees; once I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees"

Sounds quite simple, but in reality is very​

Simple IS profound. That is my point. You're making this more than what it is. When you're enlightened, things become clear. They don't become complicated but simplistic. The Buddha was enlightened to this and that is how he knew what suffering is (the nature of life in his view), the cause, that there is an end, and how. His language can be confusing but the concepts behind his repetitions and analogies are not.

But I leave it there. It's best to understand the simplicity of life by meditation and sharpening your awareness to the nature of life. When you shed the labels (Zen Buddhism) and language, you see things clearly. You understand things in a sharp manner. Your view is more crisp and direct.

The Buddha's discourses were long and they became shorter and more to the point as he taught. Then he spoke the Lotus Sutra that wrapped up all his teachings, and even though the language was complex, you really get a gist of how his disciples interpret his teachings; since it was his disciples that wrote The Buddha's words, not The Buddha himself.

Anyway, carry on.

Yes, but I am not teaching Buddhism here, though I employ some Budhistic principles and quotes. A good Zen teacher will tell you that you need both simple pointing to Reality and an intellectual understanding. Since we are on a discussion forum, I am employing an intellectual approach because that is what most people have been exposed to. Yes, 'your view is more crisp and direct', but that experience cannot be explained in any words. I am only pointing out, in words, how that view sees the world, in contrast to how the thinking mind sees it, and in so doing, must extrapolate upon the simple, for the benefit of those who are still immersed in the trappings of science and the rational mind. Get it?

I am not pointing to beliefs, but to the way things actually are, which is beyond all beliefs, opinions, concepts, and ideas about Reality, to demonstrate that what the rational mind thinks it sees as real, is not actually the case. Simple as that. And now we have scientific proof of that in Quantum Physics.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am only pointing out, in words, how that view sees the world, in contrast to how the thinking mind sees it, and in so doing, must extrapolate upon the simple, for the benefit of those who are still immersed in the trappings of science and the rational mind. Get it?

I was following you up to this point.

I don't see the world in trappings of science and rational mind. I don't see limitations of humans whatsoever. Simplicity is complexity.

When you think too much, you don't "get it." When you think less, you get more. Yes, you can use intelligence but that is different than wisdom and ways of expression.

But I honestly forgot the point that you're making. I just asked how action can be intelligent. Once you go into the metaphysics Buddhistic new age thought, I'm lost.

 

[godnotgod]

I was following you up to this point.

I don't see the world in trappings of science and rational mind. I don't see limitations of humans whatsoever. Simplicity is complexity.

When you think too much, you don't "get it." When you think less, you get more. Yes, you can use intelligence but that is different than wisdom and ways of expression.

But I honestly forgot the point that you're making. I just asked how action can be intelligent. Once you go into the metaphysics Buddhistic new age thought, I'm lost.

No, science and rational thought are not accurate reflections of how the world actually is; they only reflect how we see it via perceptual reality; how the world behaves and how to predict its behavior. But because that is the case for most of us, sometimes others try to explain this problem of seeing to them. Understand that things can be explained in intellectual terms if one still is grounded in how things really are. One does not need to get lost in intellectuality in order to point out intellectually how things are. But the actual seeing of things as they are cannot ever be explained.

The original point is that when the subject/object split is dissolved (often during meditation), the consciousness/intelligence with which you are seeing things with is the same consciousness/intelligence that you see. IOW, to quote Hinduism, Tat tvam asi, or 'Thou Art That'. You are none other than The Universe itself, and it is all Intelligence. Compelling, wonderful, alive, and beyond all description, compared to the dead descriptions of science and the thinking mind.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are none other than The Universe itself, and it is all Intelligence. Compelling, wonderful, alive, and beyond all description, compared to the dead descriptions of science and the thinking mind.

Yes. We are the universe.
Yes, you said universe is an action.

I don't see it "beyond description." That's another The Absolute and Cosmos word again. I call it god-words.

I don't see science and the thinking mind having dead descriptions of this. I believe that science and the thinking mind can describe whatever you are saying quite clearly and to the point without the metaphysics talk. I know nothing of Hinduism and Buddhism is pretty clear cut if you take out the terminology involved.

 

[Milton Platt]

I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.

If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.

If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.

If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.

1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together.

Creationists imply that there has to be a first cause in order to insert their deity. How do we know that matter and energy has not always existed in one form or another? At the end of the day, it is an argument from ignorance, because they have not demonstrated that everything has to have a cause, and the have not demonstrated that the cause is the particular being they themselves fancy.

2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?

There again, proof is lacking. It is an unfalsifiable assertion.

For example, if the bricks were spread on the floor, it's no longer what we call a house. So, people disregard it as a lump of bricks. But when it's built into a house, then they find value into it.

3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?

A lump of bricks is just as valuable (if we, again, had no definition of reference of what that means to us humans) than the house it is made from. That, and it's an illusion to think there is such thing as a house built by nature.

4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?

All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.

5. If there was a god or creator (Entity that creates without referred to any specific religion), that adds some more confusion to my head. If there is an entity, what is the nature of this entity?

If you ask a thousand theists this question, you will get a thousand variations, many of which conflict with others or are internally inconsistent.

7. If you were to describe First Cause other than it being, well, the First cause, how would you describe what it is?

I have no idea from an atheistic point of view......a first cause has never been demonstrated, only asserted.

Then go a bit further.

8. How in the world did you come up with the First Cause being a Who?

All gods are anthropomorphic in nature because they are dreamed up by humans. If horses had gods, they would look like horses..

Take your time. I do want answers to these questions from both creationist, non-creationist, and those in between.

I don't know anything about evolution and never was into it. What I do know but would like to go to our local museum since it was there that we came from water. So, I'd like to explore that more. But again, that doesn't mean there is a first cause just a place of origin.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. We are the universe.
Yes, you said universe is an action.

I don't see it "beyond description." That's another The Absolute and Cosmos word again. I call it god-words.

Can any words actually describe the true nature of Reality? I don't know of any. Do you?

I don't see science and the thinking mind having dead descriptions of this. I believe that science and the thinking mind can describe whatever you are saying quite clearly and to the point without the metaphysics talk.

Science, based on Reason, Logic, and Analysis, comes to its findings (ie factual knowledge) via data and facts. But all data and facts are held in memory, and therefore, are artifacts of the past. Reality, OTOH, is only valid when experienced in this living, Present Moment. It has no memory, no history, and is gone before you attempt to grasp it and hold it, which, of course, is impossible. This is what the Zen experience is all about: to experience the moment fully without attachments. Science is doing just the opposite: it attempts to freeze reality into something repeatable and predictable, but in order to do so, must rely on dead facts and data. Its predictive power lies in the dead past of memory. It is never about the immediate present. The big difference is that science is about the traces of Reality, while the direct experience of Reality is about itself.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 14

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 14

I know nothing of Hinduism and Buddhism is pretty clear cut if you take out the terminology involved.

Every student of Buddhism should know where it came from, and that is Hinduism. The Buddha was a Hindu, you know. Once you have studied both of them sufficiently, the connections between the two teachings will become clear, in spite of those who claim that they are diametrically opposed. They are only looking on the surface. Hinduism provides very important gifts to spirituality, and those are lila and maya, which provide the understanding as to the true nature of this 'material' world.

 

[Darkstorn]

My goodness! I was not attempting to 'teach' any doctrine or concept about Reality.

Yes you were. You said so yourself. You're trying to make people see. Buddhism specifically forbids proselytizing. You should have asked if people wanted to learn before trying to teach them doctrine.

I say you were trying to teach doctrine. And concepts about reality. You made OPEN CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY.

I was merely pointing to the moon, but instead of looking at the moon, you decide to attack the pointing finger.

Its is not your job to point to the moon, when you haven't shown there to be a moon in the first place: You make claims about reality without evidence. You made the claim the universe is conscious. This is up for you to show to be true. Using evidence; And not your subjective reasoning and changing of word definitions to match your dogma.

The main point of Buddhism is to make sense: You don't get to remove concepts in the middle of a discussion when you feel like it.

Pointing to the moon is non-conceptual, but because YOU still cling to the conceptual mind, you have overlaid the notion that I am pushing concept.

You are pushing concepts. You are trying to tell people about the reality on a public discussion forum. CONCEPTS is all you have: Because all you have is text. You cannot "let go of concepts" when you're discussing with another... Because every single term, is by definition, a concept.

If that is what I am doing, kindly define the concept or doctrine you imagine me to be pushing as a teaching. To shift the mind from thinking how things are to seeing things as they are is what I am pointing to. I wonder if you even understand this difference.

You say that the universe is conscious. You say that reality is beyond metaphysics and philosophy. But it's both a metaphysical and a philosophical concept in the first place, and by definition, therefore a concept. It's not objective. You made factually incorrect claims: And that's using wrong effort.

You are incorrect about permanence/impermanence. While the Buddha noticed this world to be filled with effervescence, he did not stop there. What he realized was the permanence of the background to existence, against which all impermanence occurs. But the focus of his teaching to man was not about the background, but about the foreground of suffering, and how to resolve it.

That sounds like New Age stuff. And it's again you trying to make claims about reality, ABSOLUTE claims no less. You cannot make claims like that without showing it to be true first: The Buddha understood this.

You are using serious short cuts for not EXPLAINING THE REASONING FOR MANY OF YOUR CLAIMS. You make open claims about existence, and reality. But you never elaborate on them. You never explain how they might actually be true:

You merely say that they are. THAT is an absolute statement borne out of belief and faith.

Yes, we live in a world of concepts. The ordinary man thinks this to be reality, while the enlightened see the true Reality behind the conceptualized world.

The problem here: You are an ordinary man. And you can never abandon concepts in a discourse. You can't make people "see" stuff. You have to explain it using concepts rather than this "let go of concepts" thing.

I think you're using short cuts; You are asking people to believe your claims rather than come to them using rational thought. That is just plain lazy.

However, the enlightened must still live in this world, but he does so with the understanding of its true nature. Yes it is relative reality, because it is based upon perception, but it is not Ultimate Reality.

There is no ultimate reality to things unless you can show it with something other than just an unsupported claim. The Buddha understood this most likely extremely well. When asked questions like "do we exist" he was hesitant to answer.

Some things are simply not worth thinking about. Talking about ultimate reality is just a distraction. People have to come to a conclusion in a way other than belief of your words and claims about reality.

You are incorrect about the raft sutra. The Buddha said:

"In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma [dharma] compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

READ: The Raft and the Other Shore: Exploring the Buddha's Raft Parable

The sutra is about the Dharma and clinging to the Dharma, not about concepts or even right effort, and no, one does not save it for later.

The Dhamma is a concept. It's made very clear in the parable itself. I was not discounting what you said about it; Rather, i think you're focusing too much on merely one aspect: Dhamma is a concept still.

And you cannot teach anyone without using concepts. And even Nirvana is impermanent. It must be understood. You don't just "get there" and stop working for it. It's a constant process until your mental faculties end. Everything is still impermanent no matter how hard you are trying to imagine a permanence:

For you to imagine a permanence is bound to cause suffering: Your "permanent" idea will change and then you will understand. Then you will realize that you were content about a thing you shouldn't ever feel content about.

Whether I have used enough effort or not is not the point; the point is whether what I am saying is true or not.

That is just plain wrong. It matters VERY MUCH how much effort you use. The end NEVER justifies the means. Right now your method is analogous to telling people to believe rather than rationalize.

"This thing is true. Now, believe."

If what I have stated is untrue, then point it out and provide a meaningful argument. All you are doing is to provide your opinion, having leapt to conclusions.

I don't like accusing people of making untrue statements, but this much is apparent: You do make empty statements that don't explain or resolve themselves. You are essentially making claims the same way a creationist would be: By belief. You merely state it. That's not enough.

You can't both at the same time make such simplistic claims, without evidence to support it, and ALSO make claims that there's a necessary need to abandon concepts... First people have to understand you. Only then you get to tell them to abandon their concepts. You are using language after all. Which is all about concepts.

Where you are mistaken, my friend, is to see this impermanent world as true reality.

Your mistake is assuming that i do. I see ALL potential realities as impermanent. Not just this one.

Your comments tell me you still have not pierced through it's facade.

I don't think they do. There's a difference: I understand that you must also come back in order for you to tell people about it... A concept-less existence is almost unfathomable to those who don't experience it.

For what it's worth: I find this "unconceptualized reality" merely the first stage of meditation. Anyone can do it with that. I don't think it's enough: It doesn't REMOVE YOU FROM THE WORLD. It doesn't remove any of your responsibilities. It's an impermanent escape at best: A tool.

I don't hold the view that 'I am done'; Reality is done.

See, that's another claim you haven't really supported. For reality to be done, and for you to have reached such a conclusion, by definition, you must also be done. IF you're as much "there" as you claim to be.

But i don't think anything is "done." I simply don't believe that anything can be permanent. And yes: I make certain this is my belief, but i do base it on what i know. I'm not trying to convince you of it though.

I am merely pointing it out, without a concept about what it is.

If you are using language, you can't point out to anything without using a concept: Considering ALL things and phenomena are concepts to begin with. You haven't explained adequately why you feel your version of understanding is the right one. And that there's a reality like you understand there to be.

It could STILL be an illusion.

Your attention is still caught by the impermanence of this world.

You're welcome to believe that.

And it's missing the point: You are using "this world" to attempt to make your point. I just don't think your level of effort is satisfactory.

But if you stop to reflect a moment, you will see clearly that, for you to even know of impermanence, you are actually speaking from a state of consciousness that is that of permanence, and no, I do not mean your individual consciousness called 'I'; I mean Universal Consciousness, which is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned. To know what impermanence is, one must simultaneously see it from a state of permanence.

Again, this thing contains so many unsubstantiated claims, i can't really take it with anything but faith. But i don't have enough faith unfortunately. I simply do not think you have shown with any certainty that the universe is conscious. Because you haven't yet shown that you or any other human is conscious either. You haven't shown how consciousness is a property of the universe rather than merely a conceptualization for several different things and phenomena. You haven't shown how the universe isn't a concept itself either.

There are too many unresolved issues in your claims. In plain speech, i don't think you've shown consciousness to be anything to begin with other than an idea comparable to a composite phenomenon.

And all composite things and phenomena are impermanent.

Furthermore, you are making your claims in a thread about "intelligent design" which is a strictly Christian Creationist concept. I am having difficulty separating whether you're actually arguing from the side of Buddhism, Christianity or New Age thought.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, within all of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"
Shunryu Suzuki

I think that metaphor is much more metaphoric than you are giving it credit for. I think it's literally saying that EVERYTHING is "the perfect reality." With all the bad things too.

/E: I don't disagree with most of what you say in fact. I just don't think you're using right effort. You should try to be objective and rational, not make unsubstantiated claims, and not talk about things people don't understand without spending a long time reading about it first. I think your method is distracting more than helpful.

 

[ArtieE]

The Universe is the matrix for your being who and what you are, 100%, and continues to nurture and support you in every possible way, without interfering with your existence. You, an intelligent being, came out of The Universe. How is it that an intelligent being can come out of a dead Universe? At which point is there a shift from unconscious Universe to conscious Carlita?

So you are saying that our sun and moon and all the other suns and planets in the universe are conscious and intelligent?

 

[ArtieE]

We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it. We now know that what we call 'particles' are actually standing waves appearing as particles, as in 'virtual', being created via fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

Particles are standing waves. Virtual particles are NOT standing waves.
Virtual Particles: What are they?

 

[ArtieE]

but your thinking mind is always busy attempting to set up conceptual barriers between you and the world in a way that says: 'I am an intelligent observer over here, observing a dead Universe 'out there'. False. You are The Universe looking at itself through your eyes. Therefore, The Universe, which is you, is intelligent. See?

If the universe is conscious and intelligent is the Sun and the moon conscious and intelligent since they're part of the universe? Do they speak to you? What do they say?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can any words actually describe the true nature of Reality? I don't know of any. Do you?

The true nature of reality involves birth, age, sickness, and death. It is a cycle that we all go through-all living-and pretty clear cut when we don't find ways to describe what we do not know. True reality, by definition, to us, a mystery. Yet, life goes on with and without us. True reality has no labels. There are no god-words. It just is.

You can choose to philosophize it. Thousands of people personify it. Thousands of others study it. The best way to know it is not to try to explain it in god-words, scripture, and quoting Tao, Zen, and The Suttas but to live it in your speech and in your actions.

What does that mean?

Simplify your life. You can still study but don't mistake that for describing what is beyond description to you with the actual true nature of reality. That's a contradiction. If it is beyond description, why would your post be so long to try to describe it?

Zen experience is all about: to experience the moment fully without attachments.​

Your whole post is a list of attachments. Go through it and take out all the words and descriptions that of reality and just say what it actually is. What are these words saying to you clear cut? Is it just poetry or do they have a meaning that goes beyond god-words?

Use science words, if you like. Birth, age, sickness, and death are not beyond description. These are forms of suffering. What other things that are true of reality and the nature of it that does not imply god-words to describe it?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes you were. You said so yourself. You're trying to make people see. Buddhism specifically forbids proselytizing. You should have asked if people wanted to learn before trying to teach them doctrine.

You are sadly mistaken, my friend. Pointing to the moon is not teaching a doctrine. If you still think I am teaching doctrine, then I challenge you to name that doctrine. You can't, because there is none. Understand that teaching a doctrine is to convince people of a particular belief. Pointing to the moon (ie Reality) is not a belief; it is merely pointing to the moon. It is up to the recipient to go and see for himself the reality of the moon. This is about seeing what is, not about believing a doctrine about what is.

In addition, pointing to the moon is not proselytizing, since that is about conversion into a belief system. I have no such belief system into which I am trying to convert anyone into. Again, if you still think I am proselytizing for some religion or belief system, name it.

The Buddha himself traveled far and wide to teach men the truth. He was not trying to convert anyone into some religion, but simply was pointing to the moon that others might see for themselves, what is.

This is a discussion forum, where people do proselytize and offer up their beliefs as truth. That is not what I am doing. If you think I have made an incorrect statement, provide an example so I may address it.

Otherwise.....

I say you were trying to teach doctrine. And concepts about reality. You made OPEN CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY.

Yes, and? Open claims about Reality is not the same as proselytizing a belief system about Reality, nor is it any doctrine. Show me the doctrine you claim I am using to make claims about.

Its is not your job to point to the moon, when you haven't shown there to be a moon in the first place: You make claims about reality without evidence. You made the claim the universe is conscious. This is up for you to show to be true. Using evidence; And not your subjective reasoning and changing of word definitions to match your dogma.

That the universe is conscious is not dogma, but direct experience, beyond factual evidence.

Your direct experience at this very moment is that you are conscious, or do you deny that?

It is not my job to point to the moon; it is my pleasure to do so. If you don't see a moon at all, then perhaps you are blind, or simply refuse to see. It is not up to me to prove the universe to be conscious. It is up to you to go see for yourself this reality, and experience it directly. But first you need to drop your baggage as it is in the way.

The escaped prisoner in Plato's Cave allegory could not prove to the others the existence of the glorious Sun. They would have to go out of their cave topside to see for themselves a Reality they have never experienced before. All the escaped prisoner was doing was pointing to the moon...er.....The Sun.

The main point of Buddhism is to make sense: You don't get to remove concepts in the middle of a discussion when you feel like it.

Really? is that some new forum rule?

Where do concepts come from? If they can be put into place, then they are not part of the original reality of your consciousness, are they?

You are pushing concepts. You are trying to tell people about the reality on a public discussion forum. CONCEPTS is all you have: Because all you have is text. You cannot "let go of concepts" when you're discussing with another... Because every single term, is by definition, a concept.

Man, are you ever thick!

You see, most people do not realize they are using concepts to understand reality. They mistake concept for reality itself. A good example is the concept of time. It is merely a grid pattern of measurement superimposed over reality. Having said that, once it is understood that a concept is merely an idea about reality, a meaningful discussion can be experienced, because both parties now understand the nature of concept as compared to reality itself; that it is merely a model and not the actual reality.

Once again, pointing to the moon is not a concept. If you still think so, name that concept so I can address it. Pointing to the moon is about SEEING, without concept or idea, what is. Understand? Seeing what is is not the same as holding a concept about what is. All I am doing here is to make people aware of that crucial difference, a difference you don't seem to grasp.

You say that the universe is conscious. You say that reality is beyond metaphysics and philosophy. But it's both a metaphysical and a philosophical concept in the first place, and by definition, therefore a concept. It's not objective. You made factually incorrect claims: And that's using wrong effort.

Bring those 'factually incorrect claims' to the table so we may examine them, OK? So far, you are batting zero. Try again.

Is the immediate fact that YOU are conscious a metaphysical and philosophical concept? Is it even objective? Of course not. It is just the way things are, without having an idea about the way things are. Because there is no dividing line between you and The Universe, then The Universe must also be conscious. If you don't think so, show me where your consciousness leaves off and the unconscious Universe begins. If you can demonstrate that, I will withdraw my claim. Fair enough?

That sounds like New Age stuff. And it's again you trying to make claims about reality, ABSOLUTE claims no less. You cannot make claims like that without showing it to be true first: The Buddha understood this.

But his method of showing his claims to be true did not follow the standard method of the ordinary man. That is why he is the Buddha, and others are not. He was showing them a way to SEE what is true, past their conceptual minds. The Buddha made absolute claims about Reality. Why? Because there is only one Reality, and he found it. With the insight into that one Reality, he was able to understand the true nature of all phenomena. That understanding is detailed in The Heart Sutra, VIA HIS DIRECT INNER EXPERIENCE, and is called 'Sunyata', and further, 'The Law of Dependent Origination'.

Escuse me, but you simply don't know what you are talking about: If you did, you would know that the focus of the Buddha's teaching to man was all about suffering and liberation from suffering. This teaching is known as The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path. This is not new age anything. You are making crap up.

As for the background and foreground of existence, here is a quote from 'Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind', by Shunryu Suzuki:

"To live in the realm of Buddha nature means to die as a small being, moment after moment. When we lose our balance we die, but at the same time we also develop ourselves, we grow. Whatever we see is changing, losing its balance. The reason everything looks beautiful is because it is out of balance, but its background is always in perfect harmony. This is how everything exists in the realm of Buddha nature, losing its balance against a background of perfect balance. So if you see things without realizing the background of Buddha nature, everything appears to be in the form of suffering. But if you understand the background of existence, you realize that suffering itself is how we live, and how we extend our life. So in Zen sometimes we emphasize the imbalance or disorder of life."

...more to follow

 

[godnotgod]

If the universe is conscious and intelligent is the Sun and the moon conscious and intelligent since they're part of the universe? Do they speak to you? What do they say?

Are the Sun and the moon outside of your consciousness and intelligence?

 

[godnotgod]

The true nature of reality involves birth, age, sickness, and death. It is a cycle that we all go through-all living-and pretty clear cut when we don't find ways to describe what we do not know. True reality, by definition, to us, a mystery. Yet, life goes on with and without us. True reality has no labels. There are no god-words. It just is.

If the true nature of reality is about birth, age, sickness, and death, no one would seek higher ground. But they do, and the Buddha's Supreme Enlightenment is what he found to be the real nature of Reality. So true Reality is an EXPERIENCE beyond the suffering of this world. The Buddha found a way of liberation from this suffering, and taught men how to achieve it as well. This teaching is called The Four Noble Truths and The Eightflold Path. The proof of its efficacy is that thousands of others have also found it and attest to that experience. We live in a world of duality; of relative joy and relative suffering, going round and round seemingly endlessly. Liberation from this fatuity is the experience of Absolute Joy, which has no opposite. THIS is the experience of the true nature of Reality. But most men think that birth, age, sickness and death are true reality. It's like a dream. When dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming. In a dream, whatever you experience is reality to you. Only when you awaken do you realize the illusory nature of the dream. Well, that is exactly what the Buddha experienced: he woke up. In fact, when asked who he was, he replied that he was the one who was awakened. His awakening allowed him to see the fictional nature of ordinary reality, and to experience directly the true Reality of Absolute Joy, or Supreme Enlightenment, and liberation from all suffering.

So it has become clear to me that your current level of consciousness is telling you that birth, age, sickness, and death are reality for you, and you therefore have not yet awakened from the dream of life and death to experience a higher Reality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If the true nature of reality is about birth, age, sickness, and death, no one would seek higher ground.

People seek higher ground (another god-concept) because they cannot handle that life is just a cycle birth, life, sickness, and death.

But they do, and the Buddha's Supreme Enlightenment is what he found to be the real nature of Reality.

The Buddha's enlightenment was to find the nature of life (suffering: birth/age/sickness/death), the cause of it (which is in all his discourses), saying there is a way from it, and he explained how.

So true Reality is an EXPERIENCE beyond the suffering of this world.

There is no "beyond the suffering of this world."

True reality can only be experienced if we understand what it is, what the cause is (if interested), the conviction to end it, and practicing to not live with the labels of suffering but be comfortable with the suffering cycle.

The Buddha actually died because he understood the nature of suffering and it took him many life times to do so.

He didn't end suffering as he thought he was supposed to do in the beginning. Later on he realized he needed to understand it hence his first discourse about the noble truths (which I mentioned many times just without using those terms) since life is clear-cut.

The Buddha found a way of liberation from this suffering, and taught men how to achieve it as well. This teaching is called The Four Noble Truths and The Eightflold Path.

He wasn't liberated from suffering. He died. That is also suffering.

He was liberated from the mystery of it. He wanted to find why people suffered and was enlightened. Throughout his ministry, he continued to mature in his dialogue about suffering (birth/life/sickness/death) and gave ways to the monks how to end it by understanding through analogies. Later in the Mahayana sutras, he decided that everyone has the means to be enlightened as he was (understand suffering just as he did) they just don't realize it. They are in delusions.

Just as you are using all of these terms for a simple concept and reality, so as the Buddha taught about being in illusions and mistaking them for facts. He compared this with his dislike for Hindu teachings and gods since he found that Hinduism wasn't the path to enlightenment (again, understanding of suffering: birth/life/sickness/death)

The suffering you're thinking of is not the suffering The Buddha taught.

Liberation from this fatuity is the experience of Absolute Joy, which has no opposite. THIS is the experience of the true nature of Reality.

You can't be liberated from birth, life, sickness, and death.

You can understand the nature of it. The Buddha says it is possible. He did it. Can you?

Also

Birth/Age/Sickness/Death is suffering and the four noble truths (no caps-it's just life) describe what I just mentioned above. I just didn't use fancy terms. It is clear cut.

Only when you awaken do you realize the illusory nature of the dream. Well, that is exactly what the Buddha experienced: he woke up. In fact, when asked who he was, he replied that he was the one who was awakened. His awakening allowed him to see the fictional nature of ordinary reality, and to experience directly the true Reality of Absolute Joy, or Supreme Enlightenment, and liberation from all suffering.

This sounds like mysticism.

He saw suffering
He went to understand why
He found techniques taught by Hinduis didn't work
He was enlightened to what suffering is
He made his first discourse
He named the nature of suffering and how to end it (and more discourse on how and more sects on his interpretations on how)
In the Lotus, he actually recaps the Dhamma and tells his disciples/bodhisattvas that they are to share his teachings to those who will understand

The Buddha actually died. He no longer went through rebirth.

That ended suffering.

So it has become clear to me that your current level of consciousness is telling you that birth, age, sickness, and death are reality for you, and you therefore have not yet awakened from the dream of life and death to experience a higher Reality.

That is why you do not follow Buddhist teachings. I believe in all the Buddha's teachings whether I follow or not. It just makes sense that to even debate over it is really a waste of words (now I know how christians feel ;P).

But if you're saying that reality is not suffering (birth/age/sickness/death), that is your belief. I was born. I lived a pretty good childhood. I became sick with a chronic non-curable illness. I will die.

Am I wrong in this, or am I missing something?

If you can't see what you are philosophizing in life (just as I can't see god of abraham when I look out my window looking at a tree), it's just philosophy. We can talk about Buddhism all day and night but you are talking about "beyond reality" and mysticism words.

That's all god-language.

I do not understand that.

 

[ArtieE]

Are the Sun and the moon outside of your consciousness and intelligence?

Is the Sun and the moon conscious and intelligent? Is it possible to render the universe unconscious? If the universe is conscious and intelligent can you have a stupid or unconscious Sun or moon?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes you were. You said so yourself. You're trying to make people see. Buddhism specifically forbids proselytizing. You should have asked if people wanted to learn before trying to teach them doctrine.

To @godnotgod

"Furthermore, O Manjusri, after the Tathagata's parinirvana, anyone who wants to teach this sutta in the Age of the Decadent Dharma should abide in ease of practice. When he expounds or recites this sutra he should not take pleasure in talking about the faults of people or of the sutra. Nor should he slander other expounders of the Dhamma or talk of the good and bad, strong and weak points of others." ~Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra​

Teaching does not mean point out the faults in other people's thinking. It means educating people in the manner they understand.

"Teach the Dharma. He should continuously expound the teaching of the highest path. Both day and night, using various explanations and incalculable illustrations. Revealing this to sentient beings, he will cause them all to rejoice." You are not causing them to rejoice but the Dhamma is. However, if you're not well fitted to teach the Dhamma

"The bodhisattva should always willingly teach the Dharma at east, establishing his seat in a pure place. He should anoint his body with oil, to cleanse himself of dirth....he should teach according to the questions... use subtle ideas he should teach them with a composure of countenance...using various explanations" and means to which people understand the Dhamma itself.​

The Dhamma is simple, it's just not a simple practice. Unless Pali or Sanskrit is your native language, it is probably difficult to understand linguistically. However, the Dhamma is still inherent in life. No god-words (nor caps) needed.

 

[godnotgod]

People seek higher ground (another god-concept) because they cannot handle that life is just a cycle birth, life, sickness, and death.



The Buddha's enlightenment was to find the nature of life (suffering: birth/age/sickness/death), the cause of it (which is in all his discourses), saying there is a way from it, and he explained how.



There is no "beyond the suffering of this world."

True reality can only be experienced if we understand what it is, what the cause is (if interested), the conviction to end it, and practicing to not live with the labels of suffering but be comfortable with the suffering cycle.

The Buddha actually died because he understood the nature of suffering and it took him many life times to do so.

He didn't end suffering as he thought he was supposed to do in the beginning. Later on he realized he needed to understand it hence his first discourse about the noble truths (which I mentioned many times just without using those terms) since life is clear-cut.



He wasn't liberated from suffering. He died. That is also suffering.

He was liberated from the mystery of it. He wanted to find why people suffered and was enlightened. Throughout his ministry, he continued to mature in his dialogue about suffering (birth/life/sickness/death) and gave ways to the monks how to end it by understanding through analogies. Later in the Mahayana sutras, he decided that everyone has the means to be enlightened as he was (understand suffering just as he did) they just don't realize it. They are in delusions.

Just as you are using all of these terms for a simple concept and reality, so as the Buddha taught about being in illusions and mistaking them for facts. He compared this with his dislike for Hindu teachings and gods since he found that Hinduism wasn't the path to enlightenment (again, understanding of suffering: birth/life/sickness/death)

The suffering you're thinking of is not the suffering The Buddha taught.



You can't be liberated from birth, life, sickness, and death.

You can understand the nature of it. The Buddha says it is possible. He did it. Can you?

Also

Birth/Age/Sickness/Death is suffering and the four noble truths (no caps-it's just life) describe what I just mentioned above. I just didn't use fancy terms. It is clear cut.



This sounds like mysticism.

He saw suffering
He went to understand why
He found techniques taught by Hinduis didn't work
He was enlightened to what suffering is
He made his first discourse
He named the nature of suffering and how to end it (and more discourse on how and more sects on his interpretations on how)
In the Lotus, he actually recaps the Dhamma and tells his disciples/bodhisattvas that they are to share his teachings to those who will understand

The Buddha actually died. He no longer went through rebirth.

That ended suffering.



That is why you do not follow Buddhist teachings. I believe in all the Buddha's teachings whether I follow or not. It just makes sense that to even debate over it is really a waste of words (now I know how christians feel ;P).

But if you're saying that reality is not suffering (birth/age/sickness/death), that is your belief. I was born. I lived a pretty good childhood. I became sick with a chronic non-curable illness. I will die.

Am I wrong in this, or am I missing something?

If you can't see what you are philosophizing in life (just as I can't see god of abraham when I look out my window looking at a tree), it's just philosophy. We can talk about Buddhism all day and night but you are talking about "beyond reality" and mysticism words.

That's all god-language.

I do not understand that.

I am not talking about any god! You're mixing things up and jumping to conclusions.

You said:

"The Buddha actually died. He no longer went through rebirth. That ended suffering."

So if he no longer was subject to rebirth, and suffering came to an end, then there is something 'beyond this world of suffering', which you deny. But the Buddha's teaching did not say one had to die first in order to be liberated; he achieved liberation while still alive in this world.

The mind with which the Buddha understood the nature of suffering and of this world was an enlightened mind. It is that mind which is in the state of Absolute Joy. If the average man realized the enlightened mind he already has, he would be free of suffering. But he has not yet realized his own enlightenment, thinking birth, age, sickness, and death to be the reality he is locked into and from which there is no escape. And so he creates a future world after physical death and a God to alleviate himself from metaphysical anxiety, but that is only temporary alleviation. The reason the average man thinks he is imprisoned is because he is asleep, dreaming, and thinks the dream to be reality. The problem with the average man is that he thinks he has a self called 'I'. It is this self that is the key to liberation because if there is no self, then there is no one who is born, ages, gets sick, and dies. There is, in fact, only birth, aging, sickness, and death. Remember that Buddhism teaches that the real you is not your body. The Heart Sutra makes it clear that no phenomena, including man, has no inherent self-nature. IOW, we are empty of a self-nature. And so the Zen question becomes:

"Who is it that lives?"

"Who is it that dies?"

So contrary to what you think, the Buddha did NOT die, because he transcended the illusion of self. And you will not die because there is no self that is born or dies. Your true nature is Unconditioned Consciousness, thinking it is born, ages, gets sick, and dies. It is a fiction you will one day realize. Until then, it is reality for you. That is just the way it is. If you are going to do real spiritual work, you would put all your energies into spiritual Awakening, but you won't do a thing until it dawns on you that you are not awake, though you think yourself to be so awakened.

You cling to the Buddha's teachings and so have baggage, which is now an obstacle to your Awakening. They have become a belief system for you. The Buddha's own Raft Sutra (look it up) makes clear that we should let the raft (ie The Dharma) go. Why? Because when you realize your own Enlightenment, you become the embodiment of the Dharma itself, because your authentic Self is the true source of the Dharma, not any scripture.

It is crucial that you understand what I mean when I say that the true nature of Reality lies beyond this world. I mean that it is beyond our ordinary view of what this world actually is. In reality, the experience is as close to you as your breath, an inner experience that is a transformation of consciousness from our ordinary conditioned view of life to a wholly unconditioned view; from a self-view to that of a universal one in which the self is dissolved (ie Nirvana) and an unfolding and awakening occurs, an experience beyond all words and beyond all ideas about what Reality actually is.

The Buddhistic transformation of consciousness that is beyond our ordinary view of life is not a philosophy; it is the direct inner authentic experience of the true nature of Reality. Everything else pales in comparison.

You still cling to this life and to this world. Do not allow this to be a deadweight that will carry you to the bottom. Did you know that 'dust' is a Buddhist metaphor for the suffering of this world?, which is why Buddhists say they have 'no attachment to dust'., an allusion to Hui Neng, the 6th Zen Patriarch, who said:

Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?


This applies even to the concept of self we maintain as reality. Let go the notion of self, and there will be liberation.