|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: connectedcosmos]
#28443578 - 08/23/23 08:20 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
This is the second time I've seen recently someone saying no bearded man in the sky and I wanted to respond that there is that too.
If it is consciousness, the whole thing is teaming with life, is life.
Not meaning the typical connotation of bearded man in the sky, like a limited monarch, though I suppose there is that too.
Edited by syncro (08/23/23 08:38 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,666
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: Svetaketu]
#28443642 - 08/23/23 09:31 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
durian_2008 said: Everyone is a theist, the difference being in what occupies that part of the mind.
Quote:
Svetaketu said: If I'm being honest, most of the logic in this thread appears to me as confused nonsense.
There either is or isn't a god, it cannot be both.
I mean to say that you will regard some philosopher, social better, or polity on the level of god, which is a universal, human, emotional experience.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: durian_2008]
#28443680 - 08/23/23 10:14 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
"Everyone is a theist"
I think it goes to the question of is everything alive. Even if goes formless and nameless or has no consideration, we have no internal indication of separating from life.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,666
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro]
#28443711 - 08/23/23 10:55 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Is there nothing beautiful and unexplainable which fills your mind with wonder?
Some people put some really childish subject matter in that spot, which we reserve for God.
We call that idolatry.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: durian_2008]
#28443728 - 08/23/23 11:19 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
"Is there nothing beautiful and unexplainable which fills your mind with wonder?"
If in reply to me, not sure I'm understanding; that's exactly what I mean by life. If life is inescapable, theism as well in a broader sense as in perhaps the panpsychic, or buddha mind in the witness, seems inevitable.
"buddha mind in the witness" I just got axed by the non-self buddhists. Still
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: durian_2008]
#28443731 - 08/23/23 11:23 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spinvis said: So your God obviously has a limit according to your current belief. God either exists or not. Why would you believe God is so constrained to such a narrow viewpoint?
How exactly, could anything both exist and not exist? If it exists anywhere, then it doesn't not-exist. Your belief that God is limitless doesn't somehow make this logical.
Quote:
syncro said: It's like considering the ocean. Whether there are waves in it are beside the point and doesn't change the ocean.
It isn't like that at all, I think we can agree waves exist, and whether there is a god or not does change the universe quite a lot.
this is more like if I were to ask does the ocean contain fish? And your answer is well, it both does and doesn't, it depends on your perspective.
No it doesn't. Your perspective, understanding, knowledge on the subject, none of it has any bearing on whether there are or aren't fish in the ocean.
Quote:
connectedcosmos said:
If I see just water in the ocean and you see waves, who's right?
Depends on the question? If the question is; do waves exist? The answer is yes, yes they do.
Quote:
If you want "ocular"/"scientific" proof of God you won't ever get it , for the same reason physicist will never find "substance" or what an object is made of
It's not some giant puffcloud or some old man with a beard in the sky , try to find your self
What happens when you ask well where did this come from or what is this made of? Eventually you'll trail off into the unknown - same with trying to find your self , there will always be a mystery
This is something else entirely, we may never know the definitive answers to these questions, and that's fine. I don't think we will ever know for certain if there is a God, but that doesn't change the simple logical fact that there either is a god, or there isn't one, both is not an option here.
Quote:
durian_2008 said: I mean to say that you will regard some philosopher, social better, or polity on the level of god, which is a universal, human, emotional experience.
I don't hold anyone or anything to the level of a God, so this is overly broad nonsense at best.
Quote:
Is there nothing beautiful and unexplainable which fills your mind with wonder?
If you're going to abuse the definition of god to that length, then you're statement is true but rather meaningless.
TL;DR
Unless we can agree on some basic definitions for God, atheist, theist, and existence, this effort is doomed to be wasted by mostly talking past each other and exchanging very little.
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro]
#28443735 - 08/23/23 11:25 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: Yet somehow in this, I don't think they are saying not to sit. Wonderful paradox. It's like nature is nature, the teacher puts on a robe, and speaks. Yet nature is nature, having no such need. 
Not sure why you brought up sitting in particular, but that reminds me of a different teaching:
Anthony De Mello - One Minute Wisdom - VIGILANCE;
Quote:
“Is there anything I can do to make myself Enlightened?”
“As little as you can do to make the sun rise in the morning.”
“Then of what use are the spiritual exercises you prescribe?”
“To make sure you are not asleep when the sun begins to rise.”

Are those things you mentioned all that separate from one another? Is the teacher and robe somehow separate from nature? Both 'The Flower Sermon' and the 'Eleusinian Mysteries' signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words, who knows, maybe even without robes. Explore the paradox further! 
Anyway, there are "practices" employed. Short excerpt from the book which you might find interesting:
Quote:
From the viewpoint of the Nying-thig teachings, the original state of the individual, one's inherent enlightened nature, is seen as being primordially pure and spontaneously self-perfected (lhun-grub). These two aspects of the state are realized in the two divisions of Nying-thig teaching and practice, namely, Thekchod and Thodgal. The term Thekchod (khregs-chod) literally means "cutting loose (chod) the bundle (khregs)," much as a woodman might cut loose the ties binding a bundle of sticks he has brought with him from the forest. In the case of the individual, this bundle is all one's emotional and intellectual tensions and rigidities that keep one imprisoned in a selfcreated cage and prevent one from realizing one's intrinsic freedom. The principal point in Thekchod is to relax all these tensions of body, speech, and mind that obscure our inherent Buddha-nature, which has been primordially present as the Base (ye gzhi). In Thekchod practice, one settles into a state of contemplation without being distracted for a moment from the view of the primordial purity of our inherent nature. As the master Garab Dorje said, "Whatever is produced in the mind is unobstructed like the clouds in the sky. Having understood the meaning of the complete identity of all phenomena (in terms of their essence which is emptiness [openness]), then when one enters into this (state of contemplation) without following them, this is the true meditation." Through the practice of Thekchod, one comes to understand and be totally familiar with the state of contemplation.
Then, through the practice of Thodgal, one develops this state of contemplation through the medium of vision. The term Thodgal (thodrgal, Skt. vyutkrantaka) literally means "direct" (thod-rgal du) in the sense of an immediate and instantaneous transition from one location to another, where there is no intervening interval of time. Thus some would translate it as "leap over," but it is much more immediate than leaping about. And also here, when we say "vision" (snangba), we are not speaking about visualization (dmigs-pa), which, for example, is much used in Tantra. Visualization is a process which involves the working of the mind. However, with Thekchod we have moved into a dimension beyond the mind, and, with Thodgal, one continues in this direction. Rather than visualizations created by the mind, we are talking about an integration with vision, with whatever arises spontaneously to vision while the practitioner is in the state of contemplation. Therefore, the mastery of contemplation through the practice of Thekchod is an immediate prerequisite to the practice of Thodgal. Otherwise, there exists the danger of becoming caught up in one's visions, becoming distracted by them and believ ing them to be an objective reality. Indeed, it was precisely this attachment to one's impure karmic visions that got the individual caught up in Samsara in the first place.
Whereas the principle of Thekchod is the primordial purity of everything, the principle of Thodgal is their spontaneous self-perfection. By contrast, the method in Tantra is to transform one's impure karmic vision (such as we experience at this very moment as human existence) into pure vision, which is how an enlightened being sees the external world. Thus one visualizes oneself as a deity in the pure dimension of the mandala, and through repeated sadhana practice in retreat one makes this experience into something real and concrete.
There's much more in the book, I can also recommend 'The Gospel of Garab Dorje' for even more in depth details, or if you really want to a deep dive and feel like a teacher is next to you, taking you step by step through later Dzogchen practices and philosophies, explaining everything in the clearest detail, read Longchenpa's 'The Seven Treasuries' books.
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: spinvis]
#28443787 - 08/23/23 12:13 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: How exactly, could anything both exist and not exist? If it exists anywhere, then it doesn't not-exist. Your belief that God is limitless doesn't somehow make this logical.
For God existence or non existence are made up human concepts, next to the concepts 'God, atheist, theist, effort, doom, waste'.
I never wrote that's my believe btw, you first mentioned God so I related to you on that level. According to your writing God for you is limited, since it would be impossible for God to simultaneously exist and non exist (but somehow you mention fish can do it, depending on your perspective), to be a wave or water, even though it's God, and that says something about your belief and perspective. And that's not wrong or right, good nor bad, it's just what it is, and that's completely okay!
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: spinvis]
#28443802 - 08/23/23 12:26 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spinvis said:
Quote:
Svetaketu said: How exactly, could anything both exist and not exist? If it exists anywhere, then it doesn't not-exist. Your belief that God is limitless doesn't somehow make this logical.
For God existence or non existence are made up human concepts, next to the concepts 'God, atheist, theist, effort, doom, waste'.
I never wrote that's my believe btw, you first mentioned God so I related to you on that level. According to your writing God for you is limited, since it would be impossible for God to simultaneously exist and non exist (but somehow you mention fish can do it, depending on your perspective), to be a wave or water, even though it's God, and that says something about your belief and perspective. And that's not wrong or right, good nor bad, it's just what it is, and that's completely okay!
This is what I meant by talking past each other.
You have misunderstood my perspective entirely.
The concepts and definitions are made up yes, but if we can't agree which concepts we are talking about then this isn't really a conversation.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: spinvis]
#28443878 - 08/23/23 01:33 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I referred to sitting as just that being in asana for no other purpose except it's pure. Could be other just beings for no reason. 
"However, with Thekchod we have moved into a dimension beyond the mind"
This was my point before, tantric practice does this very same thing.
Quote:
Whereas the principle of Thekchod is the primordial purity of everything, the principle of Thodgal is their spontaneous self-perfection. By contrast, the method in Tantra is to transform one's impure karmic vision (such as we experience at this very moment as human existence) into pure vision, which is how an enlightened being sees the external world. Thus one visualizes oneself as a deity in the pure dimension of the mandala, and through repeated sadhana practice in retreat one makes this experience into something real and concrete.
I like the approach, but it doesn't change anything in effects, imo. People can say what does it uniquely and beautifully. They can't say what doesn't. There are too many possibilities.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro]
#28443888 - 08/23/23 01:43 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
It seems he may not have been negating tantra in that, the whole quote, but describing the differences in approach. So forgive my defense.
Edited by syncro (08/23/23 01:43 PM)
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro] 1
#28443936 - 08/23/23 02:15 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: It seems he may not have been negating tantra in that, the whole quote, but describing the differences in approach. So forgive my defense.
No worries, in my view they're all correct, and wrong at the same time. But helpful and insightful nonetheless, and they supplement each other, instead of rejecting each other. There's always some piece of info, or view, that is overlooked or missing, and explained in detail in a different practice.
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: Svetaketu]
#28443954 - 08/23/23 02:28 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
That's the point exactly, concepts can't capture "God" since they're made up. So what left is Being.
Edited by spinvis (08/23/23 02:28 PM)
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: spinvis]
#28444064 - 08/23/23 03:56 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
You haven't defined the label "God" so I have no idea what you are trying to capture.
We may as well be hunting for a unicorn with a fishing rod at this point, these labels are meaningless unless we can agree to tie them to something.
When you say the word "God" what are you trying to convey?
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: Svetaketu] 2
#28444075 - 08/23/23 04:06 PM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
In Vedic sources it can be defined as Sat-Chit-Ananda, existence-consciousness-bliss, inseparable including in the natural world. So questions might be in confirming or denying the unity of two or more of those.
|
connectedcosmos
Neti Neti



Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: Svetaketu] 1
#28444657 - 08/24/23 03:57 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said:
We may as well be hunting for a unicorn with a fishing rod at this point, these labels are meaningless unless we can agree to tie them to something.
See thats what I mean by you won't get "proof" of God with "science"
You have to look inward , the closest I can come to God is trying to understand what I am
It's an intuitive type of knowledge
I do understand your perspective though svetaketu, as I have stated before I have once been "agnostic" and an "atheist"
This all circles back around to you can't have a theist without an atheist , what in the hell would we talk about? How would we know the difference? 
God's like a mirror that shattered and each piece is a different perspective on what the whole really is , I think that's a good one or maybe think of the blind men and the elephant
It's not like we are going to change your mind anyway and that's not even the point , what is even the point? It's all about the fun anyway
--------------------
 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: connectedcosmos]
#28444697 - 08/24/23 06:14 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I ran across this yesterday which fits with the discussion, Why Materialism is Wrong, video with Bernado Kastrup. It's two hours but even the first lines may capture interest.
He talks about hard problem of consciousness, arguing that the universe in the principle of being mental rather that material solves it, and considers materialism a lousy view in it, with interesting talk about perception and in the idea of what we see being only representations, like indicators on a control panel. He is calling his view Idealism and said before the last couple of centuries, it was mainstream, then materialism rose.
Edited by syncro (08/24/23 07:15 AM)
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro] 1
#28444700 - 08/24/23 06:21 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: Buster_Brown]
#28444740 - 08/24/23 07:34 AM (5 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
This is from the article talking about a different interview I assume. "Kastrup then explains the difference between Materialism and Idealism (around the 45-minute mark). Materialism means that you think you study the thing in itself. Idealism implies that you study the appearance of the thing."
A "field of subjectivity", he endorses, though I found interesting in the video he attacks panpsychism, but this seems to be a more materialistic aspect of it, around particles in the panpsychic view, being something more than information.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? [Re: syncro] 1
#28444784 - 08/24/23 08:29 AM (5 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Edited by syncro (08/24/23 08:31 AM)
|
|