Rational and irrational are a polar pair of opposites on a continuum, each defining what conforms to the structure of Reason. UC is not based upon Reason, because it is not a product of thought as Reason is, so it can neither be rational nor irrational. It is non-rational. Reason cannot, for example, explain WHY fluctuations in the Quanum and Higgs fields create virtual mass, or why the brain can respond to another brain in a non-local manner, which has been demonstrated scientifically, BTW, here:
No.
I'm not correct; IT'S correct, but correct in this case does not mean right as opposed to wrong. It simply means to see things as they are. IT'S correct because it is not a personal view.
No, you think I am conceding, but as there is nothing to concede, there can be no concession. Maybe debate requires rationality in YOUR world, but I told you at the outset: you debate your way and I'll debate mine. If you are arguing rationally, and I stop you and silently point to something I want you to understand without words, and you SEE and UNDERSTAND what i am referring to, then something useful has been communicated without rationality, without irrationality. But seeing clearly requires that the constant chatter of the rational mind comes to a standstill.
YOU'RE the one who barged into this thread like a bull in a China shop with guns a blazing, thinking to make the discussion conform to Reason, Logic, and Analysis, but you failed to see the sign at the door. The debate is about whether the Buddha actually was talking about Universal Mind. The Buddha's experience and insight was that of a mystic, not a scientist. It was not about what he concluded about Reality via rational thought, but via seeing directly into the true nature of things. So we have to discuss the topic in those terms. But you want to discuss the topic in YOUR terms, which do not apply. It's sort of like trying to define God; it cannot be done in positive terms; we can only talk about what God is not. Factual knowledge consists of acquiring, day by day, more and more information, the idea that one will be in possession of great knowledge at some point. But Eastern wisdom doesn't work that way; it consists of subtracting, day by day, and then subtracting yet again, until there is nothing, to reveal what was obscured, sort of like how a sculptor removes material to reveal the form within. It is only against the background of Nothingness that Everything can exist. And so, in order to get a glimpse of Universal Mind, something must give, and that is the baggage of the conditioned mind, which includes science and religion. All we can do here is to provide queues, fingers pointing to the moon, to reveal that which still stands in the way of the Enlightened Mind. But rock does not give way easily, although over time, water will eventually wear it down.
Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed.
This is called the mysterious leveling.
Tao te Ching, Ch. 56
This is how we learn to see again, that which is, not that which the rational mind thinks it is.
Universal Mind cannot be proven nor disproven via Reason, Logic, or Analysis. It can only be experienced directly. Having said that, the mind of perceptual reality must first be subdued. As the great yogi Patanjali stated:
'yoga [ie; union with the Ultimate Reality] is the cessation of all mental activity'
Rational and irrational are a polar pair of opposites on a continuum, each defining what conforms to the structure of Reason. UC is not based upon Reason, because it is not a product of thought as Reason is, so it can neither be rational nor irrational. It is non-rational.
Well I already know its not based on the rational or the logical. I've established that. We agree its not rational and not logical. Irrational simply means "not logical or reasonable."
So logical and not logical is synonymous with rational and irrational by definition. Since UC is not logical, it therefore has to be irrational. So since its irrational and illogical, how is it superior to leprechauns, or Zeus, or Thor, or Deepak Chopra talking about the superposition of possibilities that is consciousness? It isn't because all don't depend on logic. So far all of reality that has been reliably observed has followed logical rules. The computer you're typing about irrationality on works because of logic. It doesn't need a universal consciousness to function, so why should anything else? In other words even if UC exists its completely flaccid--its worthless and predicts nothing or produces nothing concrete. Instead of wasting your time with irrational garbage like UC, you could be doing something useful like pursuing a medical degree to research novel medications, or develop new computer systems that help companies save money, hire more employees, and cut back on greenhouse emissions while improving science in general. So why pursue something to unbelievably useless even if its true? But i digress--the uselessness of the theory doesn't imply anything about the truth of UC. Ill show how UC is likely to be false below.
But anyways a debate thread, what did you expect? Did you expect me to come in here and be totally irrational? Did you expect me not to use rationality? Furthermore the initial topic of whether the buddha explains the universal consciousness is not only lame and relatively uninteresting in terms of debating, but the thread has been hijacked long before me by people who reject these silly illusions of UC which are barely "supported" by over the top, grandiose analogies and poems as well as assertions. The much more interesting question to debate is clearly whether or not the universal consciousness exists .
There's no reason why a thread can't shift gears and switch to something more relevant and more worthy of discussion.
Because who cares whether the buddha explains the universal consciousness if the UC is just an imagined non sequitor? To prove that the initial thread topic is worth discussing you need to show that UC is a worthwhile topic to exlore. So far none of your analogies have conveyed and such indication that UC is possibly true. Therefore it is about as worthwhile to discuss whether the buddha explains it as it is to discuss whether the buddha explains leprechauns.
You've presumed here that the UC is correct and that through analogies you are trying to open the door for me, or whatever, to see the truth of something unimaginably. Its like you're unwilling to accept that you could be wrong.
I conceded, for instance, that its possible that UC could exist and that it could in fact be explained through materialism. If there is an observable mechanism that interacts somehow with consciousness through some quantum field or something, then its possible i suppose that UC could in fact just become a new aspect of physics and materialism. You seem to have this need to attach a bunch of superfluous, spiritual new age garbage to it though. You give it all these magical qualities which are very cryptic and vague.
I haven't even seen you attempt to describe what consciousness even is for that matter. Lets go back to my lego analogy--i will create another similiar one--and by the way its funny that you reject my analogies but accept your own like I didn't even say anything. At least I respond to your analogies. because you don't understand consciousness, its like trying to build an airplane when you don't understand how lift works, you don't understand propulsion, and you don't understand the materials or the sufficient configuration of materials required to build the plane. So saying that you know what a plane is and that you have experienced flight on this plane is about as ridiculous a claim you can make. This is identical to the advanced illusions your mind can construct in regards to consciousness--its very powerful at decieving people. Its why we get so many mutually exclusive religions
Again I highlight that you're trying to use rationality to claim that irrationality, or in other words lack of rationality, is valid in your debate worldview. It makes no sense. I mean if your arguments are going to consist of poems and analogies, then i can cite an equal amount of poems and analogies that will counter yours. I've already cited a few like the legos and stuff.
No, you think I am conceding, but as there is nothing to concede, there can be no concession. Maybe debate requires rationality in YOUR world, but I told you at the outset: you debate your way and I'll debate mine. If you are arguing rationally, and I stop you and silently point to something I want you to understand without words, and you SEE and UNDERSTAND what i am referring to, then something useful has been communicated without rationality, without irrationality. But seeing clearly requires that the constant chatter of the rational mind comes to a standstill.
You have conceded that rationality isn't on your side.
You just admitted your debate style doesn't use rationality consistently, except to justify, ironically, that rationality isn't sufficient. So yes my debate requires rationality because we can only make a reliable conclusion with rationality. The example of seeing and understanding you pointed out directly depends on, and reflects rationality.
Suppose you point down to the floor where a spilled liquid is moving towards uninsulated electrical wires and expensive equipment. First you think that you should draw my attention towards the predicament, and so you do so by pointing which is a well known tool to convey to you that you should shift your attention. Knowing that you know this, i recognize its probably something worth looking at and I look. Immediately I understand why you were pointing there and that it was indeed worth looking at. I conclude that Since you pointed me in that direction, so taht situation, you want me to handle it and prevent it from destroying the equipment. Thus after making this sub conscious deduction, i move into save the equipment, and all that was conveyed with pointing, pretty much institutionally. So when you say without rationality, that's actually a fallacy. it depends on a number of key fundamental logical axioms about society, as well as the effect certain actions will have on others. It requires the rationale use of a theory of mind.
So the chatter as you put it stops, but your brain instinctual understands the social logic as well as the logical inference of what will happen if the liquid reaches the expensive equipment and uninsulated wires. Its such basic rationality that you don't need to actively process it, but its rationality nevertheless.
But overall what you're doing isn't really debating. Its spouting assertions over and over again, praying that someone listens. Its like a thread of proseylization. Its not better than any of the religions out there.
