[NDS] [ConsciousnessIsAll]The Reason Is

[Guest guest]

Articles regarding a (supposed?) relation between consciousness and matter sure are funny - as

if one or the other could be known "objectively". I had to learn that

electrons encircling nuclei, don't radiate despite the observation

that otherwise, accelerated charges will radiate. But the axiom

nicely illustrated the observation of emitted spectra - hence "no

more questions asked". The physics professor refused to answer, how

an electron could know wether in orbit or not, when i proposed an

orbit the size of the universe...

Because, statistically it would be almost absent, yet the "jump" to

its "original" orbit would result in a predictable photon being

emitted. I also wanted to ask, how long the "jump" would take as

electrons, whether wave or particle, do have to travel through space.

Unless of course, there are "extra" dimensions, only available in case

of entanglement - something not known at that time. Which would make

"nirvana without substratum remaining" a local all-entanglement feat

- "normal" laws of nature no longer having their "former" sway.

Something of that kind was remarked by the Buddha - at least a

"rational" explanation for non-Patanjali (III) siddhis, the Buddha

obviously was familiar with.

JanOn 11/21/01 at 12:43 PM Gloria Lee wrote:

This article may be of interest here. Summarizing doesn't quite cover

all the bases, but after it's read, there are some good questions it

raises. His thesis, which he thinks proven by physics, shows that

consciousness being primary, it has a causative relation to matter.

What surprises me is how this leads him to the conclusion that there

is free will, thru this downward causation of consciousness

interacting with the more often assumed primacy of the upward

causation exerted by matter.(He still asserts that matter, once

created, is real and has properties or "attributes".)

This excerpt is about that aspect of primacy:

It was my good fortune to recognize it within quantum physics, to

recognize that all the paradoxes of quantum physics can be solved if

we accept consciousness as the ground of being. So that was my unique

contribution and, of course, this has paradigm-shifting potential

because now we can truly integrate science and spirituality. In other

words, with Capra and Zukav—although their books are very good—because

they held on to a fundamentally materialist paradigm, the paradigm is

not shifting, nor is there any real reconciliation between

spirituality and science. Because if everything is ultimately

material, all causal efficacy must come from matter. So consciousness

is recognized, spirituality is recognized, but only as causal

epiphenomena, or secondary phenomena. And an epiphenomenal

consciousness is not very good. I mean, it's not doing anything. So,

although these books acknowledge our spirituality, the spirituality

is ultimately coming from some sort of material interaction. But

that's not the spirituality that Jesus talked about. That's not the

spirituality that Eastern mystics were so ecstatic about. That's not

the spirituality where a mystic recognizes and says, "I now know what

reality is like, and this takes away all the unhappiness that one ever

had. This is infinite, this is joy, this is consciousness." This kind

of exuberant statement that mystics make could not be made on the

basis of epiphenomenal consciousness. It can be made only when one

recognizes the ground of being itself, when one cognizes directly

that One is All. Now, an epiphenomenal human being would not have any

such cognition. It would not make any sense to cognize that you are

All.

http://www.wie.org/j11/goswam1.asp

......I'm fully aware of how contrary or just plain stupid I may seem

in resurrecting this old free will issue. However, I do so because

Goswami seems to me to be missing a point,by personalizing the

impersonal consciousness to human beings. Thus he appears to make the

very mistake he accuses other scientists of: making consciousness only

secondary, an epiphenomenon of material existence, even while he

claims to do otherwise.

What I do like about his approach is that he restores an emphasis on

consciousness being not only causative and primary, but creative, and

how creativity not only implies, but requires freedom. To me, it seems

the issue of some agency of will entering into this creativity is

moot, creativity only requires the possibility of multiple

possibilities. Otherwise, consciousness is limited and becomes itself

subjected to some more primary agency of determinism.

Well, it raises as many questions as it purports to answer, still it's

nice that physics is even raising them.

Gloria

To from this mailing list, send email

to:<NondualitySalon>Leave body of message

blank. Terms of

Service.

Attachment: (image/gif) PIXEL.GIF [not stored]