Consciousness and Matter

[Bodhi]

Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science.

The video was something I was watching in my own time but it said some interesting things that related to this topic so that's the real reason I posted them. I apologize; I didn't mean to get you off track.

 

[alissowack]

Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.

Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this.

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

The fact that there is a definition for consciousness suggest that it is objective. I couldn't just make up a definition for it (well, I could but it would be wrong). There is a universal understanding of what it is so that neither of us can dispute it. But we can dispute what we experience in our consciousness. We can observe the things around us and perceive it differently.

There is a certain degree in which I agree there is a oneness with the world...but not at the expense of not seeing the diversity. We are different. We are unique. If this "oneness" is not treated respectfully we can end up with us giving "rights" to things that are not able to comprehend it (or deserve it). And likewise...if "diversity" is not treated respectfully, we can end up developing biases or prejudices to things that we should relate to (or be as one with).

 

[Bodhi]

Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.

Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this.

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

The fact that there is a definition for consciousness suggest that it is objective. I couldn't just make up a definition for it (well, I could but it would be wrong). There is a universal understanding of what it is so that neither of us can dispute it. But we can dispute what we experience in our consciousness. We can observe the things around us and perceive it differently.

There is a certain degree in which I agree there is a oneness with the world...but not at the expense of not seeing the diversity. We are different. We are unique. If this "oneness" is not treated respectfully we can end up with us giving "rights" to things that are not able to comprehend it (or deserve it). And likewise...if "diversity" is not treated respectfully, we can end up developing biases or prejudices to things that we should relate to (or be as one with).

The definition of consciousness and the concept of universality are all within your own consciousness. There is a diversity in the world and we relate to the world on a different level, as the hermetic philosophy puts it, we move and act as if this reality is "real", and we should.

"And if Man, owing to half-wisdom, acts and lives and thinks of the Universe as merely a dream (akin to his own finite dreams) then indeed does it so become for him, and like a sleep-walker he stumbles ever around and around in a circle, making no progress, and being forced into an awakening at last by his falling bruised and bleeding over the Natural Laws which he ignored. Keep your mind ever on the Star, but let your eyes watch over your footsteps, lest you fall into the mire by reason of your upward gaze. Remember the Divine Paradox, that while the Universe IS NOT, still IT IS.

To take familiar illustrations, we all recognize the fact that Matter "exists" to our senses — we will fare badly if we do not. And yet, even our finite minds understand the scientific dictum that there is no such thing as Matter from a scientific point of view — that which we call Matter is held to be merely an aggregation of atoms, which atoms themselves are merely a grouping of units of force, called electrons or "ions," vibrating and in constant circular motion. We kick a stone and we feel the impact — it seems to be real, notwithstanding that we know it to be merely what we have stated above. But remember that our foot, which feels the impact by means of our brains, is likewise Matter, so constituted of electrons, and for that matter so are our brains. And, at the best, if it were not by reason of our Mind, we would not know the foot or stone at all." The Kybalion Chapter VI "The Divine Paradox"

Quantum physics says that electrons and other subatomic particles can either manifest as particles or waves, depending on whether or not they are observed.

"Physicist Nick Herbert, says this has sometimes caused him to imagine thay behind his back the world is always 'a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup.' But whenever he turns around and tries to see the soup, his glance instantly freezes it and turns it back into ordinary reality. He believes this makes us a little like Midas, the legendary king who never knew the feel of silk or the caress of a human hand because everything he touched turned to gold. 'Likewise humans can never experience the true texture of quantum reality,' says Herbert, 'because everything we touch turns to matter.'" The Holographic Universe pg. 34

 

[Bodhi]

It is also conceptualized in Buddhism as "The Two Truths"; Relative (samvriti satya) and Absolute truth (paramartha satya), and the world of no-birth and no-death which is non reality, what is, or rather what isn't, after conscious observation is removed. Without consciousness, subjectivity, the world as we know it does not exist.

"All conditioned things are impermanent.

They are phenomena, subject to birth and death.

When birth and death no longer are,

The complete silencing is joy.

This verse (gatha) was spoken by the Buddha shortly before his death. The first two lines express relative truth, while the third and fourth lines express absolute truth. 'All conditioned things' includes physical, physiological, and psychological phenomena. 'Complete Silencing' means nirvana, the extinction of all concepts.

When we look at the ocean, we see that each wave has a beginning and an end. A wave can be compared with other waves, and we can call it more or less beautiful, higher or lower, longer lasting or less long lasting. But if we look more deeply, we see that a wave is made of water. While living the life of a wave, it also lives the life of water. It would think, Some day, I will have to die. This period of time is my life span, and when I arrive at the shore, I will return to nonbeing. These notions will cause the wave fear and anguish. We have to help it remove the notions of self, person, living being, and life span if we want the wave to be free and happy. A wave can be recognized by signs -- high or low, beginning or ending, beautiful or ugly. But in the world of relative truth, the wave feels happy as she swells, and she feels sad when she falls. She may think, 'I am high,' or 'I am low,' and develop a superiority or inferiority complex. But when the wave touches her true nature -- which is water -- all her complexes will cease, and she will transcend birth and death." The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation pg. 122-123

 

[alissowack]

Do you consider the sayings of Buddhism to be absolute truth...or is it subjected to be being manipulated by that same consciousness? For it seems like, in your perspective, Buddhism can also not be...Buddhism. So, however you feel about Buddhism is subjected to not being real. The joy, peace, and liberation you claim can come from Buddhism seems defeated by it's own sayings.

 

[Bodhi]

Do you consider the sayings of Buddhism to be absolute truth...or is it subjected to be being manipulated by that same consciousness? For it seems like, in your perspective, Buddhism can also not be...Buddhism. So, however you feel about Buddhism is subjected to not being real. The joy, peace, and liberation you claim can come from Buddhism seems defeated by it's own sayings.

"I" am not a Buddhist nor do I follow Buddhism 100% but I do agree with a lot of it and use it for arguments in the race and religion forum. If I see fit, I will use any form of spirituality to base an argument, if I believe there is truth in it. I also used the Hermetic Philosophy although I do not 100% agree with it. Buddhism is a form of teaching, just like any other teaching. It is simply a concept for this level of being but it helps us to realize truth. Buddhism is, but it is not, as you say. In nirvana, which is the extinction of concepts, Buddhism does not exist. But in relative truth, Buddhism does exist as a guide to nirvana or absolute truth. Buddhism itself is not the absolute truth. I could tell you that I follow Buddhism but there is no I in the equation since there is no soul, or atman, or "I" that exists independently to begin with.

“Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: ‘This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.’ Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: ‘This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like? No. He should wisely set the raft down and be unburdened."

 

[alissowack]

The thing is this. People don't become Buddhists because they think it is "relative". And I find something very bland about a religion that can't take full responsibility or credit for something that is suppose to lead us to The (Absolute) Truth. How does a person who so-called reaches "nirvana" explain Buddhism's credibility if they can't even acknowledge that it exist or that it is real?

Because the man can't take the raft with him doesn't mean that he should discredit what that raft has helped him to do. The raft helped him to do what he couldn't do on his own and if the raft is The (Absolute) Way to get from shore to shore, then everyone must take heed to it...otherwise they will not survive the "perilous and fearful" half of the shore.

 

[Bodhi]

The thing is this. People don't become Buddhists because they think it is "relative". And I find something very bland about a religion that can't take full responsibility or credit for something that is suppose to lead us to The (Absolute) Truth. How does a person who so-called reaches "nirvana" explain Buddhism's credibility if they can't even acknowledge that it exist or that it is real?

Because the man can't take the raft with him doesn't mean that he should discredit what that raft has helped him to do.

Buddhism is real in the same way that driving to work is real. This is the relative world that we live in and we have done so all of our lives. The credibility of Buddhism lies within the teaching itself. Buddhism, like I stated before, is a teaching that helps to realize what Buddhists call nirvana, or the absolute truth. Any other teaching that would help to do this under any other name would be just as truthful. The universe, including Buddhism and Buddhists are relative. Buddhism teaches that attachment is the cause of suffering, therefore, even attachment to the teaching would cause suffering, because it lies in the world of relativity. The teaching is like a finger pointing to the moon. Focus on the moon (the truth) that the finger points to, not the finger. This does not mean that you should "discredit" any teaching that teaches realization. It means that you recognize your relationship to it.

if the raft is The (Absolute) Way to get from shore to shore, then everyone must take heed to it...otherwise they will not survive the "perilous and fearful" half of the shore.

"And if Man, owing to half-wisdom, acts and lives and thinks of the Universe as merely a dream (akin to his own finite dreams) then indeed does it so become for him, and like a sleep-walker he stumbles ever around and around in a circle, making no progress, and being forced into an awakening at last by his falling bruised and bleeding over the Natural Laws which he ignored. Keep your mind ever on the Star, but let your eyes watch over your footsteps, lest you fall into the mire by reason of your upward gaze. Remember the Divine Paradox, that while the Universe IS NOT, still IT IS.

This ^^^ comes from the Hermetic Philosophy. It, too, acts as the raft. Buddhism is not the only raft available; the raft is made by man's intelligence. Without wisdom and knowledge, the universe is "perilous and fearful". With wisdom and knowledge, it is "safe and free from danger"

 

[alissowack]

So, it is sounding as if it doesn't matter if anybody adopts Buddhism as long as it gets somebody to The Truth. So, if I wanted to go the route of Charles Hamilton and use a video game icon to arrive at the Truth, then it is OK. It is possible for "fingers" to point to lies...or in this case have many fingers (or perspectives) pointing at the moon (or the Truth) that could be a lie.

Buddhism just really sounds unable to relate to the world because it is doing everything to get away from it. There are things in life we just can't avoid. Suffering is one of them. We are suppose to feel a certain way about it. If suffering makes you feel bad, then it has done it's job. And if no one knows what it's like to suffer, then what is it "really" like to be free? What is joy if we can't allow ourselves to get "attached" to it; to express it as such so that all, as well as ourselves, know what it is?

 

[Bodhi]

So, it is sounding as if it doesn't matter if anybody adopts Buddhism as long as it gets somebody to The Truth. So, if I wanted to go the route of Charles Hamilton and use a video game icon to arrive at the Truth, then it is OK. It is possible for "fingers" to point to lies...or in this case have many fingers (or perspectives) pointing at the moon (or the Truth) that could be a lie.

Buddhism just really sounds unable to relate to the world because it is doing everything to get away from it. There are things in life we just can't avoid. Suffering is one of them. We are suppose to feel a certain way about it. If suffering makes you feel bad, then it has done it's job. And if no one knows what it's like to suffer, then what is it "really" like to be free? What is joy if we can't allow ourselves to get "attached" to it; to express it as such so that all, as well as ourselves, know what it is?

If you arrived at the truth through a video game, so be it. If the finger was lying, it would not be pointing at the correct destination. We could test the theories or the ideas to conclude whether or not they are truth. Many fingers point to the same destination. That is why we have different spiritualities and philosophies from different cultures that basically say the same thing at the bottom line but are decorated with their own.."personalities" for lack of a better word.

If you're content in wallowing in your own suffering instead of working to decrease it, that's ok by me. I have nothing to say about that. Do you.

"Attached" does not equal joy. If I were to give you a rose (n/h) and you became "attached" to that rose, you would suffer when the rose dies because it is no longer as it appeared when I originally presented it to you. Attachment is the attempt of human minds to place permanency on impermanent phenomena. When that happens, we suffer because, well, everything is impermanent. When we realize this, we become non-attached which doesn't mean we give up on love and happiness. It just means that we accept the fact that nothing lasts forever. Overstood? This is what Buddhism teaches and this is the way the world is; impermanent. We must relate to it as such because it is the truth. If you don't believe that, test it yourself. Because of this, I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that Buddhism is unable to relate to the world.

 

[alissowack]

If every religion "points" in the same direction, then why make your points for what Buddhism can do? Why continue to try to persuade me that it works? Why warn me or criticize me? What tell me what makes Buddhism the absolute truth?

The issue with me isn't about whether I like suffering. I don't and I'm assuming that everybody else doesn't either. My issue is how Buddhism seems to not want to accept suffering as a part of life; something that you just can't psych your mind out of it. You can cope with it; endure it and possibly learn from it but you can just shut it off.

I could have sworn I didn't say anything about joy being equal to attachment. What I was saying was that in respect to joy, a person ought to feel a certain way about it...like suffering. If joy makes you feel good, then it has done it's job. What Buddhism seems to be doing is not allowing anyone to feel a certain way about anything. You can't be happy, you can't be sad...you just suppress those feelings no matter what in hopes that you never have to rely on them...which will not happen.

 

[Thinking]

Buddhism is straight delusion B.

 

[Bodhi]

If every religion "points" in the same direction, then why make your points for what Buddhism can do? Why continue to try to persuade me that it works? Why warn me or criticize me?

I only mention Buddhism because it is relevent to the topic. It's the spirituality I choose to use as an example. Every religion does not point in the same direction but a lot of spiritualities say the same thing and are closely related in theories and ideas, therefore they point in somewhat the same direction but have small differences. For instance, Taoism and Hermeticism are closely related. I'm not trying to convert you to Buddhism. I'm just telling you what it is since you keep asking me about it. If you want me to start using another religion as an example, I'll do so. Just ask me.

My issue is how Buddhism seems to not want to accept suffering as a part of life; something that you just can't psych your mind out of it. You can cope with it; endure it and possibly learn from it but you can just shut it off.

Not at all true. Buddhism recognizes suffering as a part of life. The point is to reduce it when possible, not to let it bring you down, or become "effected" by it. Like you said, "cope with it, endure it and possibly learn from it"

What Buddhism seems to be doing is not allowing anyone to feel a certain way about anything. You can't be happy, you can't be sad...you just suppress those feelings no matter what in hopes that you never have to rely on them...which will not happen.

No, it just says that one should not be "attached" to a certain emotion because everything is temporary; not that we should shut them off.

 

[Bodhi]

HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY
http://free-will.de/reality.php

I'm going to read this book and if anyone wants to discuss it w/ me, feel free

 

[alissowack]

What is so bad about attachments? It's one way to come to appreciate life; to know that it is possible, if only for a lifetime, to commit ourselves to ideas, beliefs and values. Could it backfire? Sure. Someone can commit themselves to things that will do more to bring them down than to build them up. Buddhism doesn't seem to allow for that to happen.