Faith

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Faith

Postby movingalways » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:13 am

Beingof1: In the end, the desire to be able to conceive of the totality is the desire to feel in control. I can assure you, you will never conceive your consciousness , nature, or the all.


This is the wandering in samsara of which the Buddha spoke.

The Buddha is mentioned often on this forum, but rarely is his Dhamma of nibbana mentioned. I can understand why, because nibbana is the total release of "trying to understand", which obviously includes the agent by which we "try to understand", that of the agent of consciousness. From The Nibbana Sutta, Total Unbinding, source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html:

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress.


By the Buddha's definition of nibbana, the true genius is one who is on the path of extinguishing Inquiry. How many men and women who worship consciousness, especially those who worship the mental fabrication of IQ, want to hear about the genius of being able to be without support of a mental "finite" object?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Faith

Postby David Quinn » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:19 am

Beingof1 wrote:
Beingof1: The experience of consciousness is infinite in every test you can put it to - is truth.

David: Describe the object that is currently sitting on my table to the left of the computer.

I will describe it - it is beside your computer and therefore exists in Davids consciousness.

But I will tell you what I see - illumination and a cup.

Sorry, it's not a cup. Fail.

Beingof1 wrote:David, David - still thinking I am promoting a parlor trick.

I think you need to let go of consciousness, just as a child eventually needs to let go of its blanket. You don't need it and it is holding you back.


Are you aware of this object? Since you must be, therefore consciousness is aware of this object. There is no object outside David, especially since you are containing it in your field of awareness.

If "David" means Nature itself (the ALL), then yes, an object never be outside of David. If instead you mean my awareness, which at root is the only awareness that I know about, then even the immediate environment just beyond my window is outside of David.


Beingof1 wrote:You think consciousness, as I am describing it, is to 'be conscious'. I am talking about the source of thought not thought itself.

So we have gone from talking about the experience of consciousness to a theory about the all-pervasiveness of consciousness and now to something other than consciousness.


Beingof1 wrote:
If consciousness is conceived to be identical to Nature (the ALL) in every respect, then it is infinite. If not, it is finite.

This is the entire problem - right here. Full stop, put on the brakes and hit the pause button.

You cannot - under any circumstances - conceive of The All.

I don't have any problems doing it. I can conceive of the ALL just as easily as I can conceive of a cup. I can even have conversations about it with other people who are also conceiving of the ALL (even if they are in denial about it!).


Beingof1 wrote:It cannot be, nor will it ever be, a concept.

So stop conceiving of it.


Beingof1 wrote:A concept is a model, at its very best. The totality cannot be conceptualized, neither can consciousness. Not now - not ever.

It can only be experienced. It, the all, defies all definitions; and by the way, so does your consciousness.

I don't need to conceive of a cup in a thoroughly accurate or detailed manner in order to drink out of it. I just need enough conception of it to enable me to find where it is.


Beingof1 wrote:
In the end, the desire to conceive everything being composed of consciousness is the egotistical desire to feel in control of things.

In the end, the desire to be able to conceive of the totality is the desire to feel in control. I can assure you, you will never conceive your consciousness , nature, or the all.

The moment you think you have conceptualized it - it just expanded beyond the horizon.

Impossible. We don't believe in horizons, do we?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:47 pm

Dennis:
BO1:You are holding two completely contradictory positions

They're not. you didn't read it.


Then please explain what you mean by these two statements:
1)physical events modify and transform mental events without transforming into them.
mental events modify and transform physical events without transforming into them.

2)what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.

what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
a display.


Thoughts, feelings, senses enable ego.
They are the ego experience.
without them ego is impossible.

to be egocentric is to have thoughts, feelings, senses.

they are of a finite nature.
my point was thoughts/feelings are invisible not physical.
invisible affects visible but doesn't become visible.
they are still phenomena.

the correct view is that everything that exists (phenomena) lacks an intrinsic nature or identity.
how do they exist?
all entities are viewed as dependently related events and none bears independent existence.

you are saying consciousness is some kind of machinery based on photons, energy, etc..
that means it depends for its existence.


Still not answering questions huh?




Movingalways:

BO1: In the end, the desire to be able to conceive of the totality is the desire to feel in control. I can assure you, you will never conceive your consciousness , nature, or the all.

Moving:
This is the wandering in samsara of which the Buddha spoke.

The Buddha is mentioned often on this forum, but rarely is his Dhamma of nibbana mentioned. I can understand why, because nibbana is the total release of "trying to understand", which obviously includes the agent by which we "try to understand", that of the agent of consciousness. From The Nibbana Sutta, Total Unbinding, source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html:


It cannot be understood, it can only be revealed.
" Of my own self I can do nothing."
-- Jesus

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress.


By the Buddha's definition of nibbana, the true genius is one who is on the path of extinguishing Inquiry. How many men and women who worship consciousness, especially those who worship the mental fabrication of IQ, want to hear about the genius of being able to be without support of a mental "finite" object?


I would not say on the path to extinguish inquiry, even though one understands that all is revealed. But on the path because one has understood that all one can now know is the details and this is the point of expansion.


David:


David: Describe the object that is currently sitting on my table to the left of the computer.


BO1: I will describe it - it is beside your computer and therefore exists in Davids consciousness.

But I will tell you what I see - illumination and a cup.


David: Sorry, it's not a cup. Fail.


Now this is something. Thomas thought I guessed by going through all the archives and he found a statement by you, a year ago, saying there was a cup.

Now you respond a couple of days later and I can tell by what you have written in this post you are shaken. But you decide to plunge ahead anyway after talking it over huh.

You are crossing a river you will never be able to return from David and it breaks my heart but so be it.

The answer I gave was also a koan and you did not see it either. In fact, because you believe in blindness as a universal, it will take you by surprise.

I think you need to let go of consciousness, just as a child eventually needs to let go of its blanket. You don't need it and it is holding you back.


I think you need a dose of humility.

BO1: Are you aware of this object? Since you must be, therefore consciousness is aware of this object. There is no object outside David, especially since you are containing it in your field of awareness.

David;If "David" means Nature itself (the ALL), then yes, an object never be outside of David. If instead you mean my awareness, which at root is the only awareness that I know about, then even the immediate environment just beyond my window is outside of David.


You are aware of an environment outside of your awareness?

BO1: You think consciousness, as I am describing it, is to 'be conscious'. I am talking about the source of thought not thought itself.

David;So we have gone from talking about the experience of consciousness to a theory about the all-pervasiveness of consciousness and now to something other than consciousness.


No - and you know better. Now you are playing word chess and acting like you do not understand.When someone pretends they do not understand something they clearly do, they are hiding something. What could David be hiding? I wonder, hmmm?

BO1: You cannot - under any circumstances - conceive of The All.


David: I don't have any problems doing it. I can conceive of the ALL just as easily as I can conceive of a cup. I can even have conversations about it with other people who are also conceiving of the ALL (even if they are in denial about it!).


Now this is a mystery. Your finite consciousness can conceive of the infinite? How does that work? Do the string of numbers ever stop? Does the edge appear? Can you imagine every particles position and velocity in the universe?

Not even God can conceive of the infinite. If you were to ask God "when did you begin"? He would reply " I cannot remember."

Whenever someone pretends to be able to do something they clearly cannot do, they are hiding something. I wonder what it could be - hmmmm.

BO1: It cannot be, nor will it ever be, a concept.


David:So stop conceiving of it.


This is what I mean - you are clearly shaken David.

See above and below.

Bo1: A concept is a model, at its very best. The totality cannot be conceptualized, neither can consciousness. Not now - not ever.

It can only be experienced. It, the all, defies all definitions; and by the way, so does your consciousness.


David: I don't need to conceive of a cup in a thoroughly accurate or detailed manner in order to drink out of it. I just need enough conception of it to enable me to find where it is.


You have used the example of a cup twice in this post to compare it to the Totality. Why, I wonder, would you choose a cup to compare the Totality to?

If a cup is the Totality, then it can be conceived, is that what you are saying?

If you can find out where the Totality is, could you point it out for us all?

Bo1: The moment you think you have conceptualized it - it just expanded beyond the horizon.


David:Impossible. We don't believe in horizons, do we?


Yes, and so does the Totality. It is the point of expansion. And a point, has no limit - meaning infinite.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:16 pm

finite means thingness.
properties, characteristics, functions.
consciousness is finite.
it identifies, differentiates, reacts.
it mistakenly imputes selfhood on phenomena.
also it can catch itself in the act of imputing selfhood on phenomena fortunately, which is the realisation of emptiness or satori or Beginner's Mind or access to Buddha Nature or infinite which means not a thing or free of properties, characteristics, functions.

geddit?

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:22 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:finite means thingness.
properties, characteristics, functions.
consciousness is finite.
it identifies, differentiates, reacts.
it mistakenly imputes selfhood on phenomena.
also it can catch itself in the act of imputing selfhood on phenomena fortunately, which is the realisation of emptiness or satori or Beginner's Mind or access to Buddha Nature or infinite which means not a thing or free of properties, characteristics, functions.

geddit?

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.


Yes, I geddit Dennis. You talk in circles.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:34 pm

You've got a fondness for tit for tat conversations which often denotes an over exposure to designing women.
please pacify that.
you also are into induction or modelling or meaningmaking or storifying.

what's required is deductive reasoning.
follow the money.
the cold, hard facts of the situation.

consciousness is equipment or a tool.
use it wisely and pleasure abounds.

your task right now is to understand what 'imputing selfhood on phenomena' means.

go to it.

quit fucking about.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby movingalways » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:57 pm

Beingof1:

It cannot be understood, it can only be revealed.
" Of my own self I can do nothing."
-- Jesus


Spirit does try to understand Itself conceptually, make itself objective, until it awakens and understands that it is the moment by moment by moment wordless revealing of itself. How can that which originates without use of words understand this origination by using words? Impossible. But the spirit of the mind, the idea of self, tries and tries, bless its determined and impassioned ignorance. :-)

I would not say on the path to extinguish inquiry, even though one understands that all is revealed. But on the path because one has understood that all one can now know is the details and this is the point of expansion.


When one is moved of wordless will or pure spirit, there is no awareness of inquiry or details or a point. Consciousness, of the appearance of volitional will [the appearance of the Lord God in the Godhead or the Father] desires that a point exist. Why? So it can fabricate a beginning and an ending, a fixed or known cause, but Spirit is without such a point of beginning or ending, Spirit's cause is not fixed nor can Spirit's cause be known.

The point is a necessary metaphor for the ceasing of the volitional will. However, if one desires to be one with the will of the Spirit and not of their volitional will, it is important to understand that the point is not real, it is "only" a necessary and useful fabrication of the fabrications of renunciation, purification and reconciliation. One must go through the mind to go beyond the mind.

This point is given a spiritual name, for it is by metaphors we are made ignorant and it is by metaphors our ignorance is released. Some examples of living ideals of renunciation, purification and reconciliation, "standing on the point": The Christ Mind, The Son of Man, The Son of God, The Shepherd, Boddisatta, Bodhicitta, Boddhisatva. Experiential or living ideals such as kindness, compassion, wisdom, integrity also stand on this "gathering up" point of darkness unto the light.

Eventually, as the Buddha pointed out in the nibbana sutta, every grasped mental object must be released, no exceptions. The volitional will hates [fears] that last part. :-)
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:22 am

what you've got there is the findings of the inquiry.
reporting the findings.
the inquiry and the findings and the reporting of the findings constitute 'the project'.

for the ultimate sake of which?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:42 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:You've got a fondness for tit for tat conversations which often denotes an over exposure to designing women.
please pacify that.
you also are into induction or modelling or meaningmaking or storifying.

what's required is deductive reasoning.
follow the money.
the cold, hard facts of the situation.

consciousness is equipment or a tool.
use it wisely and pleasure abounds.

your task right now is to understand what 'imputing selfhood on phenomena' means.

go to it.

quit fucking about.


Dennis is proof we don't always have to make the logical, reasonable leap. I have never understood the capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question.

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered. Love them anyway. If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives. Do good anyway. If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway. The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway. People who really want help may attack you if you help them. Help them anyway. Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt. Give the world your best anyway.

== Mother Teresa



movingalways wrote:Beingof1:

It cannot be understood, it can only be revealed.
" Of my own self I can do nothing."
-- Jesus


Spirit does try to understand Itself conceptually, make itself objective, until it awakens and understands that it is the moment by moment by moment wordless revealing of itself. How can that which originates without use of words understand this origination by using words? Impossible. But the spirit of the mind, the idea of self, tries and tries, bless its determined and impassioned ignorance. :-)

I would not say on the path to extinguish inquiry, even though one understands that all is revealed. But on the path because one has understood that all one can now know is the details and this is the point of expansion.


When one is moved of wordless will or pure spirit, there is no awareness of inquiry or details or a point. Consciousness, of the appearance of volitional will [the appearance of the Lord God in the Godhead or the Father] desires that a point exist. Why? So it can fabricate a beginning and an ending, a fixed or known cause, but Spirit is without such a point of beginning or ending, Spirit's cause is not fixed nor can Spirit's cause be known.

The point is a necessary metaphor for the ceasing of the volitional will. However, if one desires to be one with the will of the Spirit and not of their volitional will, it is important to understand that the point is not real, it is "only" a necessary and useful fabrication of the fabrications of renunciation, purification and reconciliation. One must go through the mind to go beyond the mind.

This point is given a spiritual name, for it is by metaphors we are made ignorant and it is by metaphors our ignorance is released. Some examples of living ideals of renunciation, purification and reconciliation, "standing on the point": The Christ Mind, The Son of Man, The Son of God, The Shepherd, Boddisatta, Bodhicitta, Boddhisatva. Experiential or living ideals such as kindness, compassion, wisdom, integrity also stand on this "gathering up" point of darkness unto the light.

Eventually, as the Buddha pointed out in the nibbana sutta, every grasped mental object must be released, no exceptions. The volitional will hates [fears] that last part. :-)


Certainly the center of being is wordless and void of all concepts. It is the source of concepts.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:11 pm

Dennis is proof we don't always have to make the logical, reasonable leap. I have never understood the capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question.


there you go, more tit for tat.
Mother Theresa's statement is merely Mother Theresa's contribution in a tit for tat drama.
can you see it?

your argument is that awareness, a subset of consciousness apparently is infinite.

that's refuted because awareness necessarily involves subject/object split.
self and other.

that is not what is being pointed to when infinite is being pointed to.

awareness is of the egocentric, sensorial arising.

gateless gate or dissolution of mind is what is accessed.
mind is conditional.

David uses pointers like unconscious or blind in reference to infinite.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby movingalways » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:55 pm

Dennis:

David uses pointers like unconscious or blind in reference to infinite.


And yet, David says he is a follower of the infinite, is immersed in the infinite and because of this, lives a conscious and wise life. I am not picking on David, simply pointing out the challenges human consciousness faces when it sets out to reconcile the two worlds of which it becomes aware.

It is amazing, is it not, how repetitively complex are the stories emanating from human consciousness re the simple truth of emptiness and impermanence. Bless its crazy, wandering little heart! Thank God, whatever That is, for the impermanence of laughter!
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Cathy Preston » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:22 am

The infinite is the interplay, the all, the totality, everything, including ourselves. There is nothing outside of this.

As Nagarjuna implies nothing ever becomes any particular thing therefore there is no thing to cease.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:48 am

recognising true nature solves 'the world'.
context then becomes decisive which gets a wise life, conscious of the foibles of human being, sagacity.

sagacity is context.

it is funny but there's too much suffering.
so a coaching project arises to deal with that.

As Nagarjuna implies nothing ever becomes any particular thing therefore there is no thing to cease.


causally dependent relationships.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:23 pm

It is amazing, is it not, how repetitively complex are the stories emanating from human consciousness re the simple truth of emptiness and impermanence. Bless its crazy, wandering little heart! Thank God, whatever That is, for the impermanence of laughter!


Sounds like you've reached Nagarjuna's conclusion that no philosophic assertion can be made. Astonishing.
and what Heidegger meant by the end of philosophy.

so, thinking about thinking and what does language do becomes the investigation.
Buddha's advice about right speech as a context is grounded in causality because speech entails effects that can involve unnecessarily messy consequences.
one can't 'zip the lip' in life,
and yet 'loose lips sink ships'.

The situation is patently absurd but there it is.
people grab at winning formulas for some kind of meaningfulness but it turns out to be crazy logic.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby movingalways » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:59 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:
It is amazing, is it not, how repetitively complex are the stories emanating from human consciousness re the simple truth of emptiness and impermanence. Bless its crazy, wandering little heart! Thank God, whatever That is, for the impermanence of laughter!


Sounds like you've reached Nagarjuna's conclusion that no philosophic assertion can be made. Astonishing.
and what Heidegger meant by the end of philosophy.

so, thinking about thinking and what does language do becomes the investigation.
Buddha's advice about right speech as a context is grounded in causality because speech entails effects that can involve unnecessarily messy consequences.
one can't 'zip the lip' in life,
and yet 'loose lips sink ships'.

The situation is patently absurd but there it is.
people grab at winning formulas for some kind of meaningfulness but it turns out to be crazy logic.


It is the truth that no philosophic assertion of "I think" can be made, crazy logic indeed. It is also the truth that the spiritual assertion of "I am" can be made, transformation into living logic, sane logic, living spirit, sane spirit. Not only can be made, but for the sake of the [eternal] life of the individual, must be made. I don't know if this is what you are implying in your statement about the Buddha's advice about right speech; feel free to correct me if I am misreading your meaning.

This being reborn from the ignorant realm of belief that scientific or philosophic or religious assertions build or make a self into the wisdom realm of the reality of the wholeness of spiritual assertion of Self is what I believe Jesus was "pointing to" in these two passages from John 10:

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand...
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Faith

Postby n2xn » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:32 am

These ideas I am about to right are vastly over simplified and I am working hard on learning more and more.

I think the monotheistic relgions(its followers) worship a warped and over glorified version of the Superego.(Julian Jaynes, "Bicameral mind") I think, the "God", that created this universe did it out of necessity, and "it" is closely entwined with darkness(but not necessarily evil). I think a real "God" would demand equals and nothing else. I think with proper focus we can charm essentially the "right brain" into unlocking it secrets for our own awareness.(Sort of double dipping into universal awareness and becoming gods) I think reincarnation is real, but its exact form I haven't figured out.

I think the masses are being swindled by those who have fallen trap to power. (All of them) I think those entrapped by power are as much victim of environment as the "masses". (hence, any member of the regular populace, would gladly become the enslaver) Morality is the bullshit control mechanism(Friedrich Nietzsche) Karma is also. Eternal recurrence is what I try to set as my lives "ruler" (so to speak, also thanks to Nietzsche)

I doubt Jesus even existed. Aliens probably exist, but I doubt they would have a motivating reason for screwing with humans. Afterall, we are talking about a species who has mastered energy manipulation to travel LIGHT YEARS in single life times, that or they live forever. Either way, not exactly getting why a little out of the way speck of dust in some nowhere galaxy with a small nothing sun would be their target. I have learned that enjoying life is just a piece of the puzzle.

Symbols are doorways and various modes of reasoning unlocks it. I'd consider myself sort of a nihilist, but I am not fully aware of everyhing.

Come what may. Live everyday likes its your last, with the voracity like its your first, and with equal measures of compassion and giant swinging balls of a bull.
n2xn
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: Faith

Postby n2xn » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:52 am

Hate to post twice by i found this post

Oh of course. Whenever meta-evolution is challenged, the same old stick - go read a biology textbook.

I here this a lot. The questions however, are never addressed. Like I said - you just avoid the issues and claim the person asking does not get it. Let me give you three questions, when addressed, blows this so called theory out of the ballpark.

1) How did a single cell or simple life form diverge into trillions of species and then once evolved is subject to lateral gene transfer? In other words; when life was simple, it had the magical property to become complex organisms, like a human. Once life is highly advanced, it loses this mysterious ability because it is now contained by lateral gene transfer.

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.

2) How did the line diverge into plant and animal? One takes in oxygen and expends carbon dioxide. The other is reversed. Explain, in a logical way, how the line between plant and animal diverged.

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.

3) Mutations almost never result in an advantage for survival. In 99.9% of the cases of mutation, it results in a deformity that inhibits the ability to adapt to the environment. Mutations are almost never passed on genetically. In 99.5% of the cases, the mutation is corrected by the host and the offspring returns to the original programming. Explain how, according to mathematical Bayesian statistical analysis how this can occur?

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.


I actually understood all of that, even though I never used lateral gene transfer as such haha.

I would just like to further supplement, or maybe complement your questions. Either way, give breadth.

1. They found arsenic based life forms. The naturally occurring killer of life. (I would post links, but new member, not my rights yet.) Furthermore, there are life forms surviving on methane ice, (towards the bottom of the ocean) Both can be googled "Arsenic life form" "Methane ice life" Apparently, carbon based life isn't all that special, but it shouldn't be so surprising given our complete universal overhaul where the sun isn't the center of the universe anymore.

2. Nature of energy, great question.

3. Interesting part particularly about number three, Genes reorganize themselves in development. As neurons do and structures. What also incredibly interesting is they traced the "blue-eyed" gene for everyone to a single person, northern side of the dead sea, 8000-10000 years ago. Its counter to my understanding of evolution, but humanity has many anomalies so, until i become a geneticist, I won't be arguing with their findings.
n2xn
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:38 pm

Pam,
true nature is realised as infinite ground of being.
infinite ground of possibilities for being.
forms,
coming and going (causes/conditions)
true nature is not discriminating.
can you imagine the Sun thinking it might shine on Nth Dakota today and not on Washington, drop some rays on tulips and leave out chrysanthemums.

ordinary/everyday human awareness, grounded as it is in egocentricity, always relates to phenomena as other.
something is big or small, good or bad, right or wrong in relation to Self.
human awareness discriminates egocentrically.
all these concepts like eternal, individual, past, present, future lack intrinsic meaning.

nothingness.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby movingalways » Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:37 pm

Dennis,

Once one has absorbed awareness of the infinite ground of being, right view, they can go in and out as Jesus says, being in the world of form distinguishing but not of the world of form distinguishing.

In Buddhist terminology, such an individual is called an arahant, in Christian mystical terminology, a Christ, in Daoism, a sage. By whatever name, the same sweet smelling rose, but the rose of Arahant or Christ or sage is not the rose of the ego. Why? Because the ego is the name given to the "I" that does not have right view.

The meaning we give to names is not only important, it is the way or agency of consciousness transformation.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:04 pm

OK then, that's fine.

what is being distinguished or pointed out is 2 truths.

A woman with a beautiful face,
in the human conversation, by consensual agreement, is agreed as her face.

ultimately,
the woman and her face is causes/conditions,

the face is both hers and not hers.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:51 am

Dennis:
BO1:You are holding two completely contradictory positions

Dennis:They're not. you didn't read it.


Then please explain what you mean by these two statements:
1)physical events modify and transform mental events without transforming into them.
mental events modify and transform physical events without transforming into them.

2)what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.

what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
a display.



there you go, more tit for tat.
Mother Theresa's statement is merely Mother Theresa's contribution in a tit for tat drama.
can you see it?


And you apparently cannot - or better said - refuse to admit, you are doing the very same thing. You just deny it with metaphysical guru double talk. You are in such a deep state of denial it is almost impossible to communicate with you.

your argument is that awareness, a subset of consciousness apparently is infinite.that's refuted because awareness necessarily involves subject/object split. self and other.


You do not understand what I said at all but you are convinced you have nailed it, when in fact, you are not getting it at all - geddit?

I am going to attempt - one more time - for you to understand, geddit?

Now pay attention and stop recycling what I say through your zen rhetorical loop machine in your head.It is not refuted - you have simply demonstrated you do not understand the argument.

Awareness has no self. Stop right here - did you get that part? Before you go on with a pontificating diatribe - do at the very minimum try to get this one very important point.

Let me repeat because you apparently do not listen or process what others say to you so do please try to wrap your noodle around this very important tidbit.

Are you ready? AWARENESS HAS NO SELF. Did you get that? Are you sure? Do I need to repeat again? I will, just to be on the safe side.

AWARENESS HAS NO SELF.

There is no position/velocity to awareness. The reason is because the universe is the state of awareness.


that is not what is being pointed to when infinite is being pointed to.


Nonsense - nonsense - and more nonsense. It is exactly what is being alluded to as the infinite. You are just not connecting all the dots. If cause and effect evaporates into nothingness - how in the world was that derived?

Another question Dennis will file away as not relevant because of the denial state that will kick in - geddit?

This is why David will refuse to discuss this issue at length with me. He realizes - at a certain point - he must use awareness to derive the concept of emptiness. You can deny you are aware all you want but you must use awareness to do it - GEDDIT?

awareness is of the egocentric, sensorial arising.

gateless gate or dissolution of mind is what is accessed.
mind is conditional.

David uses pointers like unconscious or blind in reference to infinite.


I know - and the stunningly obvious is - you must have eyes to see it - geddit?

Wake up you dense ones - I mean for world renown sages - you guys seem a little slow to me.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Dennis Mahar » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:26 am

you're talking from human awareness.
causes/conditions.

what it means to be human.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Cathy Preston » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:57 am

So you're saying Awareness is independent of the senses?
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:35 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:you're talking from human awareness.
causes/conditions.

what it means to be human.


OK Dennis - you did exactly what I asked you not to do. You recycled what I said - completely ignored what I actually did say - and created my argument for me all in your mind. What you just said has zero relevance to what I just posted.

You are to dense to talk to. When you can actually carry on a discussion, let me know.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Faith

Postby Beingof1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:38 pm

Cathy Preston wrote:So you're saying Awareness is independent of the senses?


The senses are a subset of perception.

The senses are contained in the field of awareness. You do not need the senses to be aware.

If you lose the sense of sight are you still aware?
If you lose the sense of smell are you still aware?
If you lose the sense of touch are you still aware?
If you lose the sense of hearing are you still aware?
If you lose the sense of taste are you still aware?

If you lose all five senses - you are still aware. This is the point the zen gurus cannot seem to grasp.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron