The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[serp777]

It only appears that way because you circumvent the question.

Not only do you not understand logic, you don't understand statistics either.

No one else has agreed with you.

Lol that's not even true, but its irreleavnt.

Not only do you completely fail to justify your claims that i dont understand logic, but then you perpetrate and argument from popularity. Statements arent incorrect because some number of people agree or disagree. Thus you demonstrate your own abysmal logic and an abundance of irony. Your arguments have all been worthless.

 

[serp777]

Ok...so you intend to run with string theory as a possibility for a materialist explanation for what is the primary constituent of an electron... But I warned you in the post you quoted that some secondary (meaning hypothetical or mathematical abstraction) aspect of the primary (meaning ultimate or base) underlying constituent of the electron is not an acceptable answer to what constitutes an electron....only the primary itself will suffice.. So therefore my next question to get to the primary is......please explain what the string in string theory is constituted of? If you answer with another nebulous concept that is meant to represent some abstract principle or mathematical factor...then it will not pass muster... If materialism does not know precisely what an electron is made of in real terms and not in terms to represent some hypothetical or mathematical abstract aspect of the theoretical electron....then you should accept the fact that materialism does not know in real terms what an electron is made from....

I already posted much earlier that I predicted you would try to start an infinite regression of trying to ask for explanations, and I already said it would be a fallacy for several because you assume that there cannot be a fundamental constituent. Something doesn't necessarily have to be composed on something else. There's no law of physics which inherently prevents a point particle for instance, which couldn't be composed of something smaller. Strings may be a point particle. You fell into this prediction, which i knew you would, and it reflects your inability to read my posts sufficiently else you would have tried addressing that point before making this infinite regression of explanations argument.

If materialism does not know precisely what an electron is made of in real terms and not in terms to represent some hypothetical or mathematical abstract aspect of the theoretical electron....then you should accept the fact that materialism does not know in real terms what an electron is made from....

This is the kind of reason you're able to believe ridiculous things like the UC. You construct vast strawmen and create an abundant number of logical fallacies to either argue against people who dismiss your assertions, or

But Saying that materialism does not know is quite ignorant and naive and ANOTHER STRAWMAN. Your ability to construct strawmen is breathtaking. Materialism is not a person that has beliefs--materialism proposes, against your continued perpetration of this annoyingly wrong strawman, that there are possible material explanations for all observed phenomena. Again it doesn't make any claims about certainty; It simply says that there is a possible material explanation for all phenomena, and therefore no supernatural explanation is necessary. Go back to my quote and read it again because you STILL don't understand. I still have to say this again and again and you just don't get it. This is the last time I will say it.

But I warned you in the post you quoted that some secondary (meaning hypothetical or mathematical abstraction) aspect of the primary (meaning ultimate or base) underlying constituent of the electron is not an acceptable answer to what constitutes an electron....only the primary itself will suffice..

Well I don't really care what's sufficient for you. Reality doesn't have to conform to what is sufficient for you. Saying that reality has to conform to your conceptions is completely fallacious. Strings could be point particles. Electrons could also be point particles. There are many possible explanations, many of which don't have to align with what you think is and is not possible. I am not interested whatsoever in your credulity. We do a thing called learning which allows us to expand what we think is possible and what isn't. I am open to more possibilites maybe because my imagination is larger. I'm even open to the universal consciousness if there was evidence or reason but you're completely closed to many possibilities.

Obviously you will say im obfuscating the matter now because arguments and statements have to conform to your particular credulity and understandings and warnings. If you say this, which I know you will, you're quite limited and naive. Its impossible to argue with someone who will only accept certain things which he agrees with and can fathom in his framework of understanding. In fact its not obfuscation, its just your lack of ability to understand the argument.

 

[serp777]

It's neither sufficient nor insufficient: it's not part of the equation, period.



Sure, your example works OK because it is still within the sphere of rational thought. But with Higher Consciousness, what is being pointed to is not. It requires a rare moment of openness that is not dependent upon learning, knowledge, preconception, or indoctrination. It is a momentary opening of one's true nature before all that baggage came into the mind. This kind of consciousness is unconditioned consciousness. What you have described in your example is conditioned awareness. You see what I am doing here? All I am doing is pointing to something, but that something cannot be explained or defined logically, rationally, or conceptually, It is telling you what it is not, while at the same time prompting you to 'just see', intuitively, without any thought process going on at all. Some see it, some don't at all, depending on the extent to which one's conditioned awareness is at work. But even when we try to 'just see', we are still unwittingly doing it via the conditioned mind. That is why the tool of meditation is so useful; via meditation, we can subdue the overactive 'monkey mind' of Reason, so that real seeing can come into play.

The world famous haiku poem:

'frogpondleapsplash' (my own rendition)

requires no such 'rational use of a theory of mind' to understand. It requires a complete but spontaneous openness of conscious awareness in which one has no foreknowledge or expectation of the event. In fact, it requires a state Zen refers to as 'no-mind', as the mind is nothing more than a self-created principle, and in reality, is a complete illusion. In FACT, it does not involve an experiencer of the experience called 'I'. There is only the experience itself.

Unlike proselytizing, consciousness has no doctrine to foist on others. It's not a religion or a belief; it's just the way things are.

Sure, your example works OK because it is still within the sphere of rational thought.

Its just so funny that you keep try to use rationality to say that rationality is insufficient.

It requires a rare moment of openness that is not dependent upon learning, knowledge, preconception, or indoctrination.

Which could be said by terrorists who say allah has told them to blow up buildings, or that woman in the united states who thought the angel gabriel told her to drown her children to prove her devotion to God. So I could similarly say that you're indoctinrated if you don't accept them by similar logic; you just haven't opened up your mind.

This is what rationality is useful for. To dismiss nonsense like this and weed out things which are unlikely. Universal consciousness is just as likely as the terrorists who claim their minds are open enough to hear allah.

All I am doing is pointing to something, but that something cannot be explained or defined logically, rationally, or conceptually, It is telling you what it is not, while at the same time prompting you to 'just see', intuitively, without any thought process going on at all. Some see it, some don't at all, depending on the extent to which one's conditioned awareness is at work.

It could be said by any muslim or alien abductee or anyone who say it cannot be explained or defined logically, rationally, or conceptually. Some see the demands from Allah and some don't, depending on the extent to which one's conditioned awareness if at work. So you haven't shown, which is what I keep bringing up, is how your supernatural claims based on illogical assertions are somehow superior to anyone else's illogical assertions. You hvaen't answered this in all your posts in this thread.

That is why the tool of meditation is so useful; via meditation, we can subdue the overactive 'monkey mind' of Reason, so that real seeing can come into play.

Your monkey mind is too overactive to accept allah and his demands to blow up the Isrealites or whatever. That is why prayer is so useful; to see allah's words so the real seeing can come into play. You don't see allah logically, but rather he is the light by which you see everything else. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is now? I can apply the same spiritiual new age mumbo jumbo and aguments to allah, or Zeus, or Christianity, or Hinduism, or ANYTHING that doesn't depend on rationality. Rationality is the one tool we have to get away from the crackpots, which is what UC currently is without any rational arguments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I already posted much earlier that I predicted you would try to start an infinite regression of trying to ask for explanations, and I already said it would be a fallacy for several because you assume that there cannot be a fundamental constituent. Something doesn't necessarily have to be composed on something else. There's no law of physics which inherently prevents a point particle for instance, which couldn't be composed of something smaller. Strings may be a point particle. You fell into this prediction, which i knew you would, and it reflects your inability to read my posts sufficiently else you would have tried addressing that point before making this infinite regression of explanations argument.



This is the kind of reason you're able to believe ridiculous things like the UC. You construct vast strawmen and create an abundant number of logical fallacies to either argue against people who dismiss your assertions, or

But Saying that materialism does not know is quite ignorant and naive and ANOTHER STRAWMAN. Your ability to construct strawmen is breathtaking. Materialism is not a person that has beliefs--materialism proposes, against your continued perpetration of this annoyingly wrong strawman, that there are possible material explanations for all observed phenomena. Again it doesn't make any claims about certainty; It simply says that there is a possible material explanation for all phenomena, and therefore no supernatural explanation is necessary. Go back to my quote and read it again because you STILL don't understand. I still have to say this again and again and you just don't get it. This is the last time I will say it.


Well I don't really care what's sufficient for you. Reality doesn't have to conform to what is sufficient for you. Saying that reality has to conform to your conceptions is completely fallacious. Strings could be point particles. Electrons could also be point particles. There are many possible explanations, many of which don't have to align with what you think is and is not possible. I am not interested whatsoever in your credulity. We do a thing called learning which allows us to expand what we think is possible and what isn't. I am open to more possibilites maybe because my imagination is larger. I'm even open to the universal consciousness if there was evidence or reason but you're completely closed to many possibilities.

Obviously you will say im obfuscating the matter now because arguments and statements have to conform to your particular credulity and understandings and warnings. If you say this, which I know you will, you're quite limited and naive. Its impossible to argue with someone who will only accept certain things which he agrees with and can fathom in his framework of understanding. In fact its not obfuscation, its just your lack of ability to understand the argument.

Yes...it is obfuscating rhetoric..but I'm now becoming aware that you are not aware you are doing it....you actually believe all this stuff you've read....have you ever wondered about the actual reality represented by the concepts you use ...Let's take the concept of an electron as conceptual point particles for example...you defined them earlier iirc as conceptual point particles having no conceptual dimensions but having certain conceptual properties.. Now this idea may work ok at the level of materialism...but I do not consider it the ultimate reality for which the idea represents... I am interested in apprehending the real itself....not a conceptual interpretation or model of the real....do you understand?

 

[godnotgod]

Lol that's not even true, but its irreleavnt.

Not only do you completely fail to justify your claims that i dont understand logic, but then you perpetrate and argument from popularity. Statements arent incorrect because some number of people agree or disagree. Thus you demonstrate your own abysmal logic and an abundance of irony. Your arguments have all been worthless.

I repeat:

"To say that it is irrational still means it is conforming to the parameters of Reason. Once again, UC is not rationally based; IOW, it is neither rational, nor irrational. It is non-rational. Rational and irrational are a pair of opposites in a dual system of classification; UC is outside of duality. It is non-dual in nature.

The implication of 'irrational' is that it is nonsensical. UC does not 'make sense' to the rational mind, simply because it is non-conceptual. It is outside of the sphere of Reason. It does not conform to any concepts originating from rational thought. In fact, nature itself does not conform to conceptual thought, which is why paradox comes into play. "

 

[godnotgod]

Its just so funny that you keep try to use rationality to say that rationality is insufficient.

I never said reason is invalid; i said the experience of higher consciousness is beyond reason.

Which could be said by terrorists who say allah has told them to blow up buildings, or that woman in the united states who thought the angel gabriel told her to drown her children to prove her devotion to God. So I could similarly say that you're indoctinrated if you don't accept them by similar logic; you just haven't opened up your mind.

Openness itself has not doctrine to adhere to, as in the case of the terrorist who has a definite mission in mind, so no: there can be nothing by which one is indoctrinated to in the spiritual experience. There is no doctrine in Ultimate Reality. There is no delusion or hallucination in Ultimate Reality, which is why it is Ultimate Reality.

This is what rationality is useful for. To dismiss nonsense like this and weed out things which are unlikely. Universal consciousness is just as likely as the terrorists who claim their minds are open enough to hear allah.

Terrorists acting on what they perceive as Allah's directives are operating out of their beliefs; UC is not based upon belief, but upon the direct experience of Reality itself.

It could be said by any muslim or alien abductee or anyone who say it cannot be explained or defined logically, rationally, or conceptually. Some see the demands from Allah and some don't, depending on the extent to which one's conditioned awareness if at work. So you haven't shown, which is what I keep bringing up, is how your supernatural claims based on illogical assertions are somehow superior to anyone else's illogical assertions. You hvaen't answered this in all your posts in this thread.

Excuse me. Please show me where I have ever made any such 'supernatural' claims.

The experience of Higher Consciousness does not include irrational behavior based upon any idea found within the experience. It is called Higher Consciousness because it is transcendent of irrational behavior, behavior that is many times justified as being driven by Reason and Logic. Hitler's rationale made perfect sense to him and to many others.

Your monkey mind is too overactive to accept allah and his demands to blow up the Isrealites or whatever. That is why prayer is so useful; to see allah's words so the real seeing can come into play. You don't see allah logically, but rather he is the light by which you see everything else. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is now? I can apply the same spiritiual new age mumbo jumbo and aguments to allah, or Zeus, or Christianity, or Hinduism, or ANYTHING that doesn't depend on rationality. Rationality is the one tool we have to get away from the crackpots, which is what UC currently is without any rational arguments.

Allah, Zeus, and Jesus are egotistical states, outward projections of the ego onto an imaginary 'other', the products of monkey mind. Higher Consciousness is the cessation of monkey mind, and the absence of egoic projections. It is an inner experience beyond reason or belief, and not an outward egoic projection based on either.

 

[serp777]

I repeat:

"To say that it is irrational still means it is conforming to the parameters of Reason. Once again, UC is not rationally based; IOW, it is neither rational, nor irrational. It is non-rational. Rational and irrational are a pair of opposites in a dual system of classification; UC is outside of duality. It is non-dual in nature.

The implication of 'irrational' is that it is nonsensical. UC does not 'make sense' to the rational mind, simply because it is non-conceptual. It is outside of the sphere of Reason. It does not conform to any concepts originating from rational thought. In fact, nature itself does not conform to conceptual thought, which is why paradox comes into play. "

Huh? Irrational means it doesn't conform to the parameters of being rational. Once again either something is rational or irrational. it either depends on rationality or it doesn't. You can't be outside irrational or irational by definition since all propositions conform to either the set of irrational things or rational things. The union of rational and irrational propositions is all propositions.

"It is outside of the sphere of Reason. "

I already said this. It's irrational which is outside the set of reason.
By definition its irrational since its not in the sphere or rationality.

I ask you how something can be outside of the set of rational and irrational propositions. Rational propositions are logical and reasonable. Irrational propositions are not logical and not reasonable. UC is neither logical or reasonable.

In fact, nature itself does not conform to conceptual thought, which is why paradox comes into play.

Huh? We have the laws of physics which are concepts and they describe nature quite well for the most part. This paradox is irrelevant. You're using rationality once again to suggest that something is not rationally based. That's paradoxical. Surely you recognize that its completely futile to use rationality to suggest something is not rationally based since it completely undermines the premise of reason.

 

[serp777]

Yes...it is obfuscating rhetoric..but I'm now becoming aware that you are not aware you are doing it....you actually believe all this stuff you've read....have you ever wondered about the actual reality represented by the concepts you use ...Let's take the concept of an electron as conceptual point particles for example...you defined them earlier iirc as conceptual point particles having no conceptual dimensions but having certain conceptual properties.. Now this idea may work ok at the level of materialism...but I do not consider it the ultimate reality for which the idea represents... I am interested in apprehending the real itself....not a conceptual interpretation or model of the real....do you understand?

I'm not aware im doing it because im not doing it.

have you ever wondered about the actual reality represented by the concepts you use

yes and a universal consciousness is irrelevant and unnecessary. So far it makes no predictions, it provides no explanatory power, its vague and nebulous, it adds vast complexity, it isn't fully explained itself, it presumes that consciousness behaves the way it asserts, and it is completely unfalsifiable and untestable.

but I do not consider it the ultimate reality for which the idea represents

And why is that? I think that just reflects the limitations of your considerations. Who are you to say that it can't be the ultimate reality?

I am interested in apprehending the real itself

How on earth have you determined that universal consciousness is the real itself? It seems like you couldn't possibly know if UC is true. Accepting it as a possibility like Leprechauns and Zeus is one thing, but you seem like you think its true 100%. Do you at least admit that there is a fair chance its wrong? Id settle for that at this point.

 

[serp777]

I never said reason is invalid; i said the experience of higher consciousness is beyond reason.



Openness itself has not doctrine to adhere to, as in the case of the terrorist who has a definite mission in mind, so no: there can be nothing by which one is indoctrinated to in the spiritual experience. There is no doctrine in Ultimate Reality. There is no delusion or hallucination in Ultimate Reality, which is why it is Ultimate Reality.



Terrorists acting on what they perceive as Allah's directives are operating out of their beliefs; UC is not based upon belief, but upon the direct experience of Reality itself.




Excuse me. Please show me where I have ever made any such 'supernatural' claims.

The experience of Higher Consciousness does not include irrational behavior based upon any idea found within the experience. It is called Higher Consciousness because it is transcendent of irrational behavior, behavior that is many times justified as being driven by Reason and Logic. Hitler's rationale made perfect sense to him and to many others.




Allah, Zeus, and Jesus are egotistical states, outward projections of the ego onto an imaginary 'other', the products of monkey mind. Higher Consciousness is the cessation of monkey mind, and the absence of egoic projections. It is an inner experience beyond reason or belief, and not an outward egoic projection based on either.

I never said reason is invalid; i said the experience of higher consciousness is beyond reason.

I never said you said that. I implied that you implied insufficient, which is different from invalid. Thats why i used to term not sufficient instead of invalid.

Openness itself has not doctrine to adhere to, as in the case of the terrorist who has a definite mission in mind, so no: there can be nothing by which one is indoctrinated to in the spiritual experience. There is no doctrine in Ultimate Reality.

According to you; Not according to those Muslims who know allah exists. if allah exists the way the Quran describes then there is indeed a doctrine apart of the fundamental reality as constructed by God. Who are you to say that they're experiences and knowledge of facts are any less true than yours? Just because you don't accept doctrine doesn't mean its false; there's no law of physics preventing doctrine.

Terrorists acting on what they perceive as Allah's directives are operating out of their beliefs; UC is not based upon belief, but upon the direct experience of Reality itself.

Nope, its based on the direct experience of the reality of allah itself. Your UC is based on a belief. You believe that your experiences are valid and true. You believe that experience determines reality and that your experiences are infallible. Those are very strong faith based beliefs. Its not different from muslim terrorists except they have doctrine and history and hundreds of thousands who agree with them.

Excuse me. Please show me where I have ever made any such 'supernatural' claims.

Are you kidding me? First of all i never said you said that, but you have certainly been implying it. Universal consciousness is supernatural unless you're saying it can be explained by natural laws. Thats whats super natural means--it exceeds natural laws and rationality and logic. Either something is natural, or supernatural. If its natural then it coincides with materialism and science can discover it. Since science has not determined anything remotely possible like that we can exclude it as unlikely unless you say it is in fact supernatural. So choose one--either supernatural, or natural. You cant be beyond the natural or supernatural just like you cant be beyond reason and not reason.

The experience of Higher Consciousness does not include irrational behavior based upon any idea found within the experience. It is called Higher Consciousness because it is transcendent of irrational behavior, behavior that is many times justified as being driven by Reason and Logic. Hitler's rationale made perfect sense to him and to many others.

Actually its lower consciousness. Your experience occurs in the sub conscious and the limbic system as well as the temporal lobes. It doesn't occur in the prefrontal cortex because that's where your rational thought occurs, as well as your higher consciousness. Calling it higher consciousness also has positive connotations which are false. Its not a superior belief and you're not more enlightened, else Muslim terrorists are just as enlightened as you for using their "higher consciousness." Ill just say my higher consciousness has produced a completely rational and logical theory of the universe based on materialism and the vast progress of science to explain many things so far.

Allah, Zeus, and Jesus are egotistical states, outward projections of the ego onto an imaginary 'other', the products of monkey mind. Higher Consciousness is the cessation of monkey mind, and the absence of egoic projections. It is an inner experience beyond reason or belief, and not an outward egoic projection based on either.

This is just an opinion obviously. Muslims would not agree higher consciousness doesn't include allah and visions from him. They believe God has a personal relationship with their ego and that it also requires an inner experience beyond reason to understand. They don't need beliefs either--they know its certainly true. They have 100% faith. To them its just knowledge. But how does God, what you call outward projections, mean that their beliefs are inferior? You assert that your beliefs are better because they dont include God, but you haven't justified that whatsoever. Muslims would just say that Higher consciousness is a connection with God and the development of an understanding with him that is beyond reason. Also are you saying you don't believe in UC since its beyond? I mean the truth universal consciousness is a proposition which either requires it to be a belief or for you to accept it as 100% certain knowledge

Hitler's rationale made perfect sense to him and to many others.

Okay? Good for Hitler, it don't agree it was rational. That's just a red herring anyways and is completely irrelevant. Im not going to invest time seriously addressing this completely unimportant and inconsequential point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not aware im doing it because im not doing it.


yes and a universal consciousness is irrelevant and unnecessary. So far it makes no predictions, it provides no explanatory power, its vague and nebulous, it adds vast complexity, it isn't fully explained itself, it presumes that consciousness behaves the way it asserts, and it is completely unfalsifiable and untestable.


And why is that? I think that just reflects the limitations of your considerations. Who are you to say that it can't be the ultimate reality?


How on earth have you determined that universal consciousness is the real itself? It seems like you couldn't possibly know if UC is true. Accepting it as a possibility like Leprechauns and Zeus is one thing, but you seem like you think its true 100%. Do you at least admit that there is a fair chance its wrong? Id settle for that at this point.

Well if you are not aware you are doing it...how can you be sure you are not doing it without being aware of it silly?

So who are you to get to determine what others have realized as true......as irrelevant and unnecessary? Go live in your head as long as you like the imprisonment...but don't expect others to follow suit...

Leprechauns and Zeus.....have you been on a bender again?

 

[serp777]

Well if you are not aware you are doing it...how can you be sure you are not doing it without being aware of it silly?

So who are you to get to determine what others have realized as true......as irrelevant and unnecessary? Go live in your head as long as you like the imprisonment...but don't expect others to follow suit...

Leprechauns and Zeus.....have you been on a bender again?

How do you know you're not either? MAybe were both doing it.

So who are you to get to determine what others have realized as true......as irrelevant and unnecessary? Go live in your head as long as you like the imprisonment...but don't expect others to follow suit...

Science and reality determines it not me. When we cant possibly know or see its effects or prove its existence beyond leprechauns and zeus, then science says its a worthless theory. Also all logic says that too.

Please stop regurgitating your assertions and self assured-ness of your correctness on me. For instance, ill just reverse it on you: You go live in your head which is so open that your brain fell out long ago. Its a stupid point, sorry.

Leprechauns and Zeus.....have you been on a bender again?

No, but it requires some seriously good drugs to believe UC and not understand the point about leprechauns and Zeus.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know you're not either? MAybe were both doing it.


Science and reality determines it not me. When we cant possibly know or see its effects or prove its existence beyond leprechauns and zeus, then science says its a worthless theory. Also all logic says that too.

Please stop regurgitating your assertions and self assured-ness of your correctness on me. For instance, ill just reverse it on you: You go live in your head which is so open that your brain fell out long ago. Its a stupid point, sorry.

No, but it requires some seriously good drugs to believe UC and not understand the point about leprechauns and Zeus.

......I like it when you show humility..even though ever so briefly...sigh..

So how come you become the spokesman for science and reality...you have to be very drunk?...

How could I live in my head if my brain fell out of my open head long ago?... haha...yes,,you are drinking....

 

[godnotgod]

Huh? Irrational means it doesn't conform to the parameters of being rational. Once again either something is rational or irrational. it either depends on rationality or it doesn't. You can't be outside irrational or irational by definition since all propositions conform to either the set of irrational things or rational things. The union of rational and irrational propositions is all propositions.

"It is outside of the sphere of Reason. "

I already said this. It's irrational which is outside the set of reason.
By definition its irrational since its not in the sphere or rationality.

I ask you how something can be outside of the set of rational and irrational propositions. Rational propositions are logical and reasonable. Irrational propositions are not logical and not reasonable. UC is neither logical or reasonable.


Huh? We have the laws of physics which are concepts and they describe nature quite well for the most part. This paradox is irrelevant. You're using rationality once again to suggest that something is not rationally based. That's paradoxical. Surely you recognize that its completely futile to use rationality to suggest something is not rationally based since it completely undermines the premise of reason.

Hmmmm....maybe I can show it to you quite simply in another way:

Reason is based on THOUGHT, whether it be considered rational thought or irrational thought. The criteria is based on Reason.

Higher Consciousness is not based on THOUGHT; it is based on the direct seeing into the nature of Reality. It is transcendent of all thought, thought having been suspended.

Don't think about it. Just see.

 

[godnotgod]

Huh? We have the laws of physics which are concepts and they describe nature quite well for the most part.

But they fail when we get down to the nitty gritty, because they're concepts superimposed over nature. When they fail, we have paradox, as in the video with Kaku, and with Quantum Mechanics.

But if the 'laws of physics', or 'of the universe' are intrinsic, then how can they be concepts, and vice-versa? And if brains are necessary to create concepts and laws, then how is it that the universe was obeying the laws of physics from the get-go, when brains were not yet in existence?

What you're failing to realize is that science and Reason inherited the laws from Christianity, only they excised the Lawmaker from the equation, retaining the notion of 'Laws'.

 

[godnotgod]

I never said you said that. I implied that you implied insufficient, which is different from invalid. Thats why i used to term not sufficient instead of invalid.

It is neither sufficient nor insufficient: it just doesn't apply, PERIOD! because Higher Consciousness is completely outside the scope of Reason.

Reason is about the accumulation of factual knowledge and data processed by the thinking mind to formulate some concept ABOUT Reality; Higher Consciousness is not about factual knowledge, but about the nature of Reality. It's like what Alan Watts says about facts:

"Thus, the dead man gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing."

Factual knowledge is still nibbling around the edges of Reality; Higher Consciousness gets to the very heart of the matter.

 

[godnotgod]

According to you; Not according to those Muslims who know allah exists. if allah exists the way the Quran describes then there is indeed a doctrine apart of the fundamental reality as constructed by God. Who are you to say that they're experiences and knowledge of facts are any less true than yours? Just because you don't accept doctrine doesn't mean its false; there's no law of physics preventing doctrine.

I am not saying that Muslim doctrine is any less true than the experience of Higher Consciousness; you are attempting to compare two phenomena that are intrinsically incomparable. Muslim terrorists are driven by some form of doctrine; Higher Consciousness has no such doctrine by which those who experience it are driven. Muslim terrorists have something definite in mind; the mystical experience is beyond mind. Doctrine is an idea about Reality; Higher Consciousness is the direct apprehension of Reality itself, without any idea whatsoever in mind about it. Higher Consciousness is not concerned with what is true vs. what is untrue; it simply focuses on what is, here, now, without discrimination, to see things as they are, rather than how doctrine dictates how they should be.

Nope, its based on the direct experience of the reality of allah itself. Your UC is based on a belief. You believe that your experiences are valid and true. You believe that experience determines reality and that your experiences are infallible. Those are very strong faith based beliefs. Its not different from muslim terrorists except they have doctrine and history and hundreds of thousands who agree with them.

For the sake of argument, I will go along with your view. So, if, as you claim, 'my UC' (whatever that means!) is based on belief, then please point out exactly what that belief is? We have a pretty good idea of the nature of the doctrines that drive Muslim terrorists, but what are the beliefs of those who experience UC?

Are you kidding me? First of all i never said you said that, but you have certainly been implying it. Universal consciousness is supernatural unless you're saying it can be explained by natural laws. Thats whats super natural means--it exceeds natural laws and rationality and logic. Either something is natural, or supernatural. If its natural then it coincides with materialism and science can discover it. Since science has not determined anything remotely possible like that we can exclude it as unlikely unless you say it is in fact supernatural. So choose one--either supernatural, or natural. You cant be beyond the natural or supernatural just like you cant be beyond reason and not reason.

OMG! You are certainly one very misguided individual; one who has his very own personal ideas about what the mystical experience is, never having experienced it yourself. I will be brief and to the point here:

I NEVER said that the experience of Higher Consciousness is of a supernatural nature, nor that it is beyond nature; if you had been paying attention, you would have noted that, all along, I have sated that the Ordinary and the Miraculous are ONE AND THE SAME!

edit: if anything is professing itself 'above nature', 'red in tooth and claw', it is Reason.

You continue to see things via double vision. Reality is not dual; it is singular and seamless. You and I and everything are all interrelated as a single Reality. The experience of the mystic is the merging of the observer, the observed and the process of observation into a single experience. Before that occurs, the ordinary man sees Reality in terms of 'this and that', 'self and other'. That is his delusion. This is also true of the Muslim terrorist. You don't see mystics grouping together in anger and hatred, violently attacking materialists in the name of a doctrine they call 'Higher Consciousness'. Do you?

More rebuttals to your juicy delusional assertions to follow....

 

[peanutbutter63]

I used to be involved with Zen. The practise of zazen still makes sense to me today. If I had not grown up with the concept of a ONE GOD that rules all, I'd still be there...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I used to be involved with Zen. The practise of zazen still makes sense to me today. If I had not grown up with the concept of a ONE GOD that rules all, I'd still be there...

The reality represented by the concept of the One Mind is the same as that represented by the concept of God absolute....all religious teachings and practices are meant to help realize the ultimate reality...so no worries.....

 

[godnotgod]

I used to be involved with Zen. The practise of zazen still makes sense to me today. If I had not grown up with the concept of a ONE GOD that rules all, I'd still be there...

I suppose it boils down to whether you want to live in Reality, or a concept of Reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I used to be involved with Zen. The practise of zazen still makes sense to me today. If I had not grown up with the concept of a ONE GOD that rules all, I'd still be there...

Just deal with the experiences as they are.

Weither playing church or not, it dosent affect things as they are, regardless of view or opinion.