Faith in permanent death

[Acim]

Well, no, but the change is usually so insignificant as to not matter.

According to subjective understandings, starting with yours. If literally not the same evidence, then I'd like for you to have discussion with idav. Cause I agree it is 'not the same' and yet you and I might disagree on how significant that matters, or how significant the change is. Yet, we seem to agree, everyone is not working by the same evidence.

Oops, that's my ambiguous grammar. My self is not made other people, but many other phenomenon. "I" appears because many other processes, performing many other tasks, interact with each other.

"I" took it to mean other phenomenon that amount to, for sake of discussion, selves. Otherwise, we'll maybe be in semantical discussion about 'what makes for self' and since those who may disagree with this tangent of the argument, but do understand 'people are phenomenon' then I'm hoping you can go with 'selves' since you are talking about some form(s) of "I." So, hopefully you can now answer questions I asked previously.

You can't be serious with the bold, surely? :areyoucra Because there are very few undeniable statements, and that isn't one of them.

I was serious about this, but seems like it is sidetracking you to avoid the rest of the statement. Hence the reason I gave 2 ways I know. Let's put it this way, you respond to questions I asked relating to same topic, and then you feel free to ask away on what I said.

 

[idav]

"working by" and "same evidence" is where we still have disagreement, and I've addressed both, more the first one, in at least 2 other posts on this thread.

Just cause people see what they want from the evidence from one moment to the next doesn't make the evidence different it makes the interpretation different.

 

[Acim]

What you are calling "evidence" though is very very debatable, as discussion has shown. Like "words" for you is evidence. It might not be "words" and might not be seen in same way. In fact, until we can actually substantiate that it is seen in same (exact) way, it becomes enormously challenging (logically speaking) to say it is "same evidence."

That we see, I can likely go along with you. That we see "something" and that has form we all agree on, I do not (fully) agree with, and am debating.

 

[idav]

What you are calling "evidence" though is very very debatable, as discussion has shown. Like "words" for you is evidence. It might not be "words" and might not be seen in same way. In fact, until we can actually substantiate that it is seen in same (exact) way, it becomes enormously challenging (logically speaking) to say it is "same evidence."

That we see, I can likely go along with you. That we see "something" and that has form we all agree on, I do not (fully) agree with, and am debating.

As if you don't see the same symbols I see on this post.

 

[atanu]

Oops, that's my ambiguous grammar. My self is not made other people, but many other phenomenon. "I" appears because many other processes, performing many other tasks, interact with each other.

But "I" appears uniformly to all separate beings. That is fundamental feature of the sofware-hardware -- to create an "I" first.

Could you be explicit about it, please?

Do some work yourself.

But what do you mean, connected in one memory? Memory changes too.

The sense of I never changes. You wear different undercloth everyday (probably). Does that mean you change everyday?

All your questions repeatedly stem from your confusion of identity. You seem to have understoof only a half of Buddhism that all things are transitory. You seem not to grasp the other side that transitoriness depend on an unborn reality in order to be known and overcome.

All the transitoriness that you take as the only reality cannot be seen, recorded, known, and taught, if there was not an unchanging unborn. And all our discussions are vain if there is nothing but transitoriness.

We better go and **** and nibble like rats.

No I haven't? I don't understand how I could answer a question I explicitly deny in the first paragraph.

There is answer in the first paragraph. You are not trained to see it.And you have taken upon yourself not to see. Your sayings are always like a man saying at night time that there was no sun. An author is known by his novels/poems. Consciousness is known through its manifestations.

 

[PolyHedral]

According to subjective understandings, starting with yours. If literally not the same evidence, then I'd like for you to have discussion with idav. Cause I agree it is 'not the same' and yet you and I might disagree on how significant that matters, or how significant the change is. Yet, we seem to agree, everyone is not working by the same evidence.

Well, that's because evidence is revealed (from technology and exploration) and evolves along with the rest of the world.

"I" took it to mean other phenomenon that amount to, for sake of discussion, selves. Otherwise, we'll maybe be in semantical discussion about 'what makes for self' and since those who may disagree with this tangent of the argument, but do understand 'people are phenomenon' then I'm hoping you can go with 'selves' since you are talking about some form(s) of "I." So, hopefully you can now answer questions I asked previously.

I did not mean to imply that there are multiple selves.

But "I" appears uniformly to all separate beings.

How do you know? Honest question, since I don't believe anyone's come up with a justifiable answer to "Is this the Matrix?"

That is fundamental feature of the sofware-hardware -- to create an "I" first.

:areyoucra
Please elaborate on this idea, since I have absolutely no idea where you got it from. Hardly any software creates an "I".

Do some work yourself.

But whenever I do that, I misunderstand you.

The sense of I never changes. You wear different undercloth everyday (probably). Does that mean you change everyday?

Depending on the scope of what you consider me, yes.

All your questions repeatedly stem from your confusion of identity. You seem to have understoof only a half of Buddhism that all things are transitory. You seem not to grasp the other side that transitoriness depend on an unborn reality in order to be known and overcome.

All the transitoriness that you take as the only reality cannot be seen, recorded, known, and taught, if there was not an unchanging unborn.

Can you please justify this? It doesn't seem to follow, except for very specific ideas of "changing." An unchanging thing cannot possibly maintain a sense of time, after all.

This sounds to me like you're conflating several different levels of abstraction. A video tape might be an example of an "unchanging" medium, since no matter how many times you overwrite it, the tape remains constant. But the tape is constructed, i.e. changed from something more concrete. You could even argue that energy itself is your unchanging medium, and everything else is based on it.

And all our discussions are vain if there is nothing but transitoriness.

Ohno, nihilism!

There is answer in the first paragraph. You are not trained to see it.And you have taken upon yourself not to see. Your sayings are always like a man saying at night time that there was no sun. An author is known by his novels/poems. Consciousness is known through its manifestations.

Well, the sun is only evidenced during the daytime. There is nothing you can point to at night to say, "The sun is there."

And you've obviously never done historical analysis of authors. Understanding of a phenomenon should (and arguably must) be done by studying both input and output. I'd say you're studying only output.

 

[Willamena]

Well, the sun is only evidenced during the daytime. There is nothing you can point to at night to say, "The sun is there."

Rage.

Rage against the dying of the light.

 

[PolyHedral]

Rage.

Rage against the dying of the light.

In less poetic language, please?

 

[atanu]

How do you know? Honest question, since I don't believe anyone's come up with a justifiable answer to "Is this the Matrix?"

Before Matrix what was the question?

Every human form does say "I". Every animal also evidently acts from a sense of self.

:areyoucra
Please elaborate on this idea, since I have absolutely no idea where you got it from. Hardly any software creates an "I".

Correct.

But whenever I do that, I misunderstand you.

That is understandable. For some of us, thre universe is like a tree and human consciousness is like the fruit, which itself is the product, yet contains the seed.

For you, the fruit is product of a branch. So, how do you expect to understand ?

Can you please justify this? It doesn't seem to follow, except for very specific ideas of "changing." An unchanging thing cannot possibly maintain a sense of time, after all.

Surely. The timeless being marks the beginning of time.

Well, the sun is only evidenced during the daytime. There is nothing you can point to at night to say, "The sun is there."

Ha. Ha. But the one who is trying to point is the witness.

And you've obviously never done historical analysis of authors. Understanding of a phenomenon should (and arguably must) be done by studying both input and output. I'd say you're studying only output.

You are saying that to me?:no:

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Provided here is a link to a BBC animation about what sits best with me. A very creative and entertaining clip and illustrates just how the cycle of the universe's evolutionary past is subjectively played out over and over again - like a time loop.

Palingenesia

 

[atanu]

Provided here is a link to a BBC animation about what sits best with me. A very creative and entertaining clip and show how the cycle of the universe's evolutionary past is subjectively played out over and over again - like a time loop.

Palingenesia

A nice animation. The theme is: After we screw up everything, evolution will give life another chance.

Evolution is the nature of nature and is that nature outside us? Or, to paraphrase "Whose nature exactly the nature is?"

 

[Copernicus]

Evolution is the nature of nature and is that nature outside us? Or, to paraphrase "Whose nature exactly the nature is?"

Evolution is certainly outside us. It is the mechanism that led to our creation, not gods. Our nature includes a drive to survive, which is very much a part of evolution. That drive is a major theme of many religions, which tend to promote the idea of immortality in some form or other.

 

[atanu]

Evolution is certainly outside us. It is the mechanism that led to our creation, not gods.

Ya. Ya. When it is external, some call it gods. Some call it nature. Some call it chance. Some call it evolution.

When it is internal and one, it is the very heart.

Our nature includes a drive to survive, which is very much a part of evolution. That drive is a major theme of many religions, which tend to promote the idea of immortality in some form or other.

No disagreement. But a bird must have its own view. A snake its own. Men have variety of views of varying levels -- each thinking one's view as the ultimate. So have I my view (which may be wrong or which may be correct). I can see what you are saying, while scratching your chin, "atanu, you are deluded". Well, that is what characterises those who do not know the magic of belief-faith. They think that they are rational -- actually that is their belief. They do not know the magical nature of their own self but they believe that they are being rational.

 

[idav]

Ya. Ya. When it is external, some call it gods. Some call it nature. Some call it chance. Some call it evolution.

When it is internal and one, it is the very heart.

This dualistic view of matter versus spirit is deceptive. They are one and the same. Our ego tries to convince us that we are separate and special somehow. Looking within should allow one to see everything as a whole.

 

[atanu]

This dualistic view of matter versus spirit is deceptive. They are one and the same. Our ego tries to convince us that we are separate and special somehow. Looking within should allow one to see everything as a whole.

Yeeeee.:no:

I am saying that only consciousness is reality. Matter and spirit are two separate things that result from viewing and thinking.

 

[atanu]

Yeeeee.:no:

I am saying that only consciousness is reality. Matter and spirit are two separate things that result from viewing and thinking.

Consciousness is spirit. Consciousness is matter. Else, with consciousness, which has no bounadry surface, one could not move a hand. How does boundariless consciousness move a hand? Where is the contact?

Consciousness is spirit and consciousness is matter.

 

[idav]

Matter and spirit are two separate things

Consciousness is spirit and consciousness is matter.

How are you reconciling these two statements? Are they the same or separate? I said matter and spirit are one and the same which goes in line more with your last comment.

 

[idav]

How does boundariless consciousness move a hand? Where is the contact?

Electrical signals. Nervous system.

 

[atanu]

How are you reconciling these two statements? Are they the same or separate? I said matter and spirit are one and the same which goes in line more with your last comment.

Once you say 'matter' and 'spirit' the pre-supposition begins. But even beneath the pre-supposition there is consciousness.

Consciousness is matter and consciousness is spirit. In deep sleep the mind has gone into homogeneous consciousness. In dream, the mind becomes subtle light and dark spiritual beings and objects. In waking, the mind further separates into the gross and subtle beings and objects.

 

[atanu]

Electrical signals. Nervous system.

It eventually boils down to the same question. How a boundariless consciousness is able to move electrons?

It is now only that science knows of wave nature and probabilities. But sages of yore taught for long that matter was emptiness.