Guest guest Posted February 2, 2000 Report Share Posted February 2, 2000 > "But what are we really? Systems within systems. Systems have a cycle. > They are born, and they die. If I am nothing more then all else, (that is to > say, energy/matter,) and if there is no other substance, then it is likely > that what we call our individual consciousness is only temporary. > Again, what I mean is our individuality or "self".... Please tell Ron that there is a least one maverick in this list who fully agrees with him that matter and energy is all there is, that there is no soul, no free will, no karma, no reincarnation and that the consciousness of individual minds is a nothing but a transient epiphenomenon. But now that he seems to have successfully completed the 'not this, not this' exercises prescribed by the Upanishads, it sounds as if he might be ripe for the Gita. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 praNAms to all advaitins on the list. Here is a quote from Rabindranath Tagore which will make us think hard, particularly those of us like Ron, who worry about scientific proofs of the existence of consciousness. 'It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which sequence of things happen not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind its conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean Geometry can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper, literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for man's mind literature has a greater value of truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner, if there be some truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to human mind, it will ever remain as nothing as long as we remain human beings'. Let me add one book to Greg's bottom line reading list for Ron: SCIENCE AND MYSTICISM by H.P.Kesavan., New Age International, Delhi. Also are relevant four pages starting from http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/34page7.html praNAms, profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy The URL of my website has been simplified as http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access both my books from there. Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 At 03:19 PM 2/3/00 -0800, you wrote: >"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > >praNAms to all advaitins on the list. >Here is a quote from Rabindranath Tagore which Welcome back Sir! It is really refreshing to see your posting again. Regards, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Vivekananda Centre wrote: > "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > > I have taken the liberty of sending the following posting from another list. > The following long text is from Ron who comes from a science background and > is not too happy with the idea of consciousness as being anything special or > the SELF to be a meaningful term. His arguments are very interesting as they > certainly make us think, sit up and take notice. Please do not feel offended > by his forceful arguments. He is trying to put across his points of views - > and as you will see he has strong views on this matter. It will be > interesting to see how the members of this list react to his strong views on > the matter of the SELF. > > This are not my views nor do I agree with many points Ron is making here but > his approach is very forceful and interesting hence I am sending this text > to the list......................jay > > Quoting 'Ron' > > "But what are we really? Systems within systems. Systems have a cycle. > They are born, and they die. If I am nothing more then all else, (that is to > say, energy/matter,) and if there is no other substance, then it is likely > that what we call our individual consciousness is only temporary. > Again, what I mean is our individuality or "self". Ron i have thinking a very little abt "matter" and "energy" n to me it sounds that we even don't know wat matter is, how all can it behave. Something we describe as "mass" do we knoe it in all. There r lot of things in science itself which seem too mind boggling to answer fo e.g. "Superconductivity" Wat is gravitation ? Something has been postulated as energy. But wat is energy ? Why energy has to be there ? Why does it exist ? we say that it undergoes transformation. Fine. But then wat is energy ? Wat causes it to be there ? > > We eat and what we eat is what we are made of. New cells are born and the > old die. They are replaced by the food we eat. So in essence, our make up is > constantly reincarnating. So if all the atoms of our body dispurse and join > others to create other systems, then what is left of this "I" if there is no > other "divine" and seperate substance which makes up individual > consciousness? > > In other words there is either a soul, or there is not. A soul is a seperate > entity and seperate from energy/matter. There is no evidence that anything > is seperate from energy/matter and quite to the contrary. So I don't believe > in a soul as it would be the same as taking rumour as fact. > Ron i think even atoms and energy is soul. And atoms and energy have their own level of expression. I think it's just the thinking that has to be changed. Till we view it as limited we see it something within us but as soon as we start getting a glimpse of it's being infinite all forms and walls boil down. I thin the structure of this body containing a soul breaks down then. > Therefore I can only assume that what we know to exist, (which is > energy/matter) is capable of producing all we see around us, all we > experience etc. In other words. life is inherent in energy matter. Love is > inherent in it too as is the quest for understanding and knowledge. ok how do the things begun then. Wat causes the first transformation of energy and why ? > > So when my parts disapate completely from eachother, what is left of self? > Not a thing. But I still exist because all that I was still exists, because > what I am (Energy/matter) can not be destroyed nor created, only transformed > through interaction with other energy/matter. Yep! energy can't be created nor be destroyed. But i don't know who made this law n how he got to it. I just now discussed with one of my friends and he says and i think it was Einstein who did that ( E = m * c * c ). Unless this eq. i guess one can't make this statement. Who causes much of this transformation to occur ? But isn't that much of the transformation occurs through humans or living beings. Like mostly these r the ones who initiate transformation. > > Consciousness as I know it is gone too. It is held together within the > system through memory. Without a brain there is no memory. A person > dreamlessly asleep is not conscious, neither is one in coma or under > anastetic. So consciousness is not eternal but a byproduct of a certain > level or configuration of complexity. It is the direct result of the organ > we call brain. That central command processor that has done it's job so well > in keeping the society of cells together, alive and in meeting all thier > needs, that it now believes it is itself the most important bit of the > equasion. Ron as u said earlier that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So i guess memory too can't be destroyed. U can always dig up wat happened if u know how to filter the signals. Ron i don't consider that all memory lies in brain. Well u have an imp point abt conciousnees. Can conciousness be there w/o body. We have spirits n i guess they r aware of themselves. So i guess conciousness is there even w/o body. > > Most brains do not allow themselves to believe this, of course. They hang on > to building a reality to such an extent that they don't even give up at the > point of death. Here, the brain makes a last ditch attempt at making sense > of the world and serviving. It often produces visions of gods or a heaven > for those who have near death experiences and happen to be religious. > > Dr Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada has developed a techneque of > stimulating the brain with electro magnetic pulses. He has found the > "religious" center of the brain and can make you see god if you like and are > so inclined. , let you talk to aliens, old freinds you haven't seen for > years, or any number of experiences your mind is predisposed to. All of that > with a magic pencil. > Well ron i guess to make sense out of it u will have to know wat Kundalini is ? Hope u must be knowing abt Kundalini. Kundalini can't be awakekened by electrical signals. It's the piousness, saintly behaviour, love towards lord that does that. Being religiously inclined is not as simple as that. It's something gr8. Ok do u think mind affects body and that body affects mind. But sure to wat extent body can affect mind there should be some limitation to that. So through body one just can't play with all the mind. > So, no brain, no consciousness as we know it, because there is no memory to > draw on. Consciousness is therefore transient and certain requirements > applie to it's > coming about. Awarness, on the other hand, is perhaps inherent in > energy/matter on a much wider level then consciousness is. Awarness is none > judgmental. It can do > nothing and it can decide nothing on it's own. It reacts structurally. It > can be linked with instinctive reaction. > Well wat do u say about the Psycho Kinetics ? > Conscious things act with a certain deliberatness that awarness can not > achieve. Consciousness is by definition judgmental. But because of that it > can and does react deliberately. U mean to say concious things have free will and non-conscious things dosen't have free will. > > What are we humans? We are our needs. They drive us. Our consciousness is > based on finding solutions to needs. We need to eat. We need shelter. Why? > We need to find a place to go to the washroom. We need to love and be loved. > > So need drives us. Is that any different from the needs other non conscious > things have? Well if we look at the atom, it wants something. It has a need. > It's need in scientific terms, is it's closest form of inertia or balance. > It will do what ever it can to achieve the resolution to that need. If a > stray electron gets caught, it puts the atom out of balance. The atom must > react. What does it do? It shares the electron with another atom and in so > doing creates a whole new substance. > Yep! i guess that is wat evrything strives for stability. That's wat they say that all stability can be achieved only after self realization. > Eventually, all this interaction between atoms creates blue prints for > balanced systems. Eventually the blue prints themselves become the main > focus, just as the brain does later on up the line. > These blue prints are of course "patterns". Genes are such patterns. > > But patterns are everywhere. Theft is a pattern. Love is a pattern. Going to > the store is a pattern. Everything we do follows patterns. It has to, there > is no other way to do things except by the patterns. You have to crack an > egg to make an omlette, it is as simple as that. > > Those patterns are the "laws" of physics. > I don't get u here. Yep! things follow in "cause and effect" but wat has this got to do with conciousness. > So we get to the fact that everything all the way up and down the line from > human to atom acts pretty much the same way. The atom has needs and it > instinctively does what it has to do to fulfill those needs, as do we. > Cells, molicules, etc ,all do the same in thier oown way and in their own > layer. > > The atom, of course, is made of smaller bits, smaller systems all "joining" > in order to fulfill their conglomerate, individual needs. The needs of one > trigger the needs of the other. The whole effects the parts as much as the > parts effect the whole. The over all system then is made of the subsystems. Where does this overall system lie ? if this overall system is within something then that something shoule be affecting this overall syatem. In other words the overall system in unending and then how to account for stability of unending system. > > That then translates into the Pantheist view that all is god. But this over > all system is no more in control of the subsystems then the subsystems are > purposfully in control of the whole. > > So it comes down to how much free will consciousness actually allows. It > turns out to be very little if any at all. We are driven to do out of need > just as all else is. We do not create first causes, we live chains of cause > and effect. That is what we react to and we react according to our > conditioning and our specific make up. > > Is there really a difference between reacting deliberately or reacting > instinctively? In the final analysis there probably isn't any at all. None > that is, except in the form of subjective perception." > > Ron > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2000 Report Share Posted February 5, 2000 Jay, <<I have taken the liberty of sending the following posting from another list. The following long text is from Ron who comes from a science background and is not too happy with the idea of consciousness as being anything special or the SELF to be a meaningful term. His arguments are very interesting as they certainly make us think, sit up and take notice. Please do not feel offended by his forceful arguments. He is trying to put across his points of views - and as you will see he has strong views on this matter. It will be interesting to see how the members of this list react to his strong views on the matter of the SELF.>> It is time for "Ron" to study UG Krishnamurhty, who expressed most emphatically "mind is a myth" and who attacked J Krishnamurhty (JK) as a fraud peddling "awareness"! UGK's language was very strong and compelling, if not frightening to some!! However, UGK talked this way only after all his own soul (mind?) searching led him to detach from his own mind!!! -- Vis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.