Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 What are the points and questions this thread has highlighted? Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality to posit consciousness as the ground of being? I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to justify such claim: a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge with existence. Let's try the following thought experiment: A blind person is not aware of light, does that means light doesn't exist? Suppose besides sight this person lacks hearing, the sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? Could he even have a sense of self? Could he be considered conscious? Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? Could someone lacking all sensory input from birth, be able to think? Apart from sensory awareness what could consciousness be? If you consider these questions impartially, it will become clear that to posit the existence of a disembodied universal consciousness is simple wishful thinking. Pete ******************************** Hi Pete, Does anyone take up an idea like consciousness as the ground of being because it implies immortality? As a religious view it comes as part of a package which is taken up for various reasons. In the copious literature on conversion experiences I have never come across this as a motive for religion. How do you know this? That attempt to sketch a rational justification does seem very abstract. Perhaps only a very few idealist philosophers would take that route and in general the sense of immortality of the soul comes in the form of faith which may deepen in a mystical realisation or not. If consciousness is considered as the ground of being then all manifest being is taken to be inert or unconscious. This is the basis of panpsychism or Advaitic monism. The brain is just as inert as anything else but irradiated by consciousness it expresses the level of its complexity, barely there in the case of a starfish and steadily rising in expression the higher up the tree of life you go. In this view consciousness does not emerge but is always there. You will admit, I trust, that there is a problem with the notion of the emergence of consciousness? Pete you should get acquainted with what religious thinkers, in the broadest sense of that expression, hold and why they hold it. There are any number of anthologies, have you read any? Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 In a message dated 3/4/05 3:11:54 PM, ombhurbhuva writes: > Hi Pete, > Does anyone take up an idea like > consciousness as the ground of being > because it implies immortality? > P: Ask yourself Michael, is there a religion that doesn't highlight an afterlife, a heaven as a reward to its followers? Even some Buddhism sects offer the illusion of rebirth in some heavenly realm. Immortality is the # 1 selling point of all religions. What are your reasons to hold to the belief in consciousness as the ground of being? > > M: That attempt to sketch a rational > justification does seem very abstract. > Perhaps only a very few idealist > philosophers would take that route and in > general the sense of immortality of the > soul comes in the form of faith which > may deepen in a mystical realisation or > not. > P: Yes, you said it, faith which is fervent hope born out of the desire to survive and the fear of death. > > If consciousness is considered as the > ground of being then all manifest being > is taken to be inert or unconscious. > This is the basis of panpsychism or > Advaitic monism. The brain is just as > inert as anything else but irradiated by > consciousness it expresses the level of > its complexity, barely there in the case > of a starfish and steadily rising in > expression the higher up the tree of life > you go. In this view consciousness does > not emerge but is always there. You will > admit, I trust, that there is a problem > with the notion of the emergence of > consciousness? > P: No, I don't admit that. Is there a problem with the emergence of life from complex protein chains? > > M: Pete you should get acquainted with what > religious thinkers, in the broadest sense > of that expression, hold and why they > hold it. There are any number of > anthologies, have you read any? > P: Michael, I have read religious literature for over forty years. I'm done with that. I'm not looking to acquire any more beliefs, but to get read of any I might have lurking in the back of my head. I leave the gathering of useless knowledge to those who get a kick out of collecting it, and out of flashing obscure Hindu texts quotations. I'm quite happy with unexplained, unlabelled existence. I see no point in dragging this subject any longer, excuse me if you found my style a little acerbic, I enjoyed our exchange, and hopefully it got some readers thinking about these points. Pete > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > What are the points and questions this thread > has highlighted? > > Is there a reason other than a desire for immortality > to posit consciousness as the ground of being? > > I think not, most believers try the following syllogism to > justify such claim: > > a) We know the universe exist only through consciousness. > b) Without consciousness no such knowledge could exist. > c) Therefore, no thing exist without consciousness. > > That is a weak argument because it equates knowledge > with existence. > > Let's try the following thought experiment: > A blind person is not aware of light, does > that means light doesn't exist? Suppose > besides sight this person lacks hearing, the > sense of smell, touch, and the sense of all > bodily feelings, does the universe exist then? > Could he even have a sense of self? > Could he be considered conscious? > Is then, consciousness the same as sensory input? > Could someone lacking all sensory input > from birth, be able to think? > Apart from sensory awareness what could > consciousness be? > If you consider these questions impartially, it > will become clear that to posit the > existence of a disembodied universal consciousness > is simple wishful thinking. > > Pete It is Very Easy to understand, Pete !!! Let us see, ...if I can explain it clearly enough and you can consider and respond to it openly, honestly and sincerely enough. Assumption ========== I assume that you do understand and know the difference between Pure Consciousness and ...what all it can do. i.e. you do know and understand the `Consciousness' that exists prior to thoughts and sense. That exist even you are not thinking, ...and no experiencing any `external' object. For the sake of convenience, ...let us call it `Awareness'. Note ==== Below is based on the above assumption, if the assumption is false, then, reading what is written below might not convey anything useful or substantial. Now hold that Sense of Pure Consciousness or ...Awareness, Pete !!! Has it ever really been any different ... ? (remember, I am talking about what exists even before thoughts and senses) =========== Has it really been any different when you are young, old ...? ....eating, or Not, ...drinking or Nor smelling or Not, seeing an external object or Not, dreaming or Not ...hearing music or Not ...? Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't hear anything ? Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't see anything ? Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't walk ? Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't think or talk ? Now, ...do you think it MUST be REALLY Different for someone who didn't hear, see, ...or someone who lost his legs or hands ? Do you think, it would become really different if you lost one of these organs or ...abilities ? Would losing one organ, ...make it really different ? Would losing two organs, ... make it REALLY different ? can you really, truly, honestly say that a person who doesn't have legs doesn't have the same ...basic, Core Consciousness , ...Awareness ?? What about someone who doesn't have legs or hands ...? Would losing three or n organs make it any different ? .. .... ...... Also, do you really get More of this Pure Consciousness when become fat and `gain' weight, flesh, fat or muscles ...? ....what if lost some weight ? If Not, ,..then, .... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/4/05 4:14:03 PM, adithya_comming writes: > > > > Arvind: I assume that you do understand and know the difference between > > Pure > > Consciousness and ...what all it can do. > > > P: No, Arvind, what you are assuming is that YOU understand something you > have never experience (Pure Consciousness.) Never while conscious, have you > experienced consciousness without some sounds or bodily sensations mixed with > it. ********************************** Just quickly, Pete ... " You " that you think " has " `consciousness' ....IS .... Consciousness !!! and Secondly, ....No Pete, I am not trying to give you ( or someone else ) some belief or asking you to believe in something. ....As far as I can remember, I NEVER have. greetings, ac. [nnb] ***************************** > > > > Arvind: i.e. you do know and understand the `Consciousness' that exists > > prior > > to thoughts and sense. That exist even you are not thinking, ...and > > no experiencing any `external' object. > > > P: You are kidding yourself that your consciousness is the same as some > grandiose > concept called Consciousness. And your consciousness is never free of bodily > sensations like the weight of your body, your muscle tone, your breathing, > heartbeat > , etc. > > > > A: Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't hear anything ? > > > > Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't see anything ? > > > > Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't walk ? > > > > Is it REALLY any different, ...when you don't think or talk ? > > > > > > Now, ...do you think it MUST be REALLY Different for someone who > > didn't hear, see, ...or someone who lost his legs or hands ? > > > > P: The thought experiment I mentioned referred to a person born without any > of bodily > senses or even bodily feelings such as pleasure or pain, or even a sense > of having bodily weight. Our consciosness has already been conditioned > by all our senses, so you don't have a pure consciousness, Arvind. > And that Consciousness exist is just your hope and belief. If you are not > ready to drop such belief, I do understand. Then, let's at least, drop the > subject, > I have no intention to force it down your throat, and no intention > to pick up again a belief I, like you, once had but outgrew. > > Best to you... and your Consciousness, of course, > > Pete > > > > > > 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.