Dependent Origination

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, I cannot determine ....[snip]

That's all there is to it. You can't make up your mind with what you mean by senses, consciousness, totality or being. It's for you important to keep it that way as it maintains a largely emotional clinging to a form of self to worship, demonstrated over the years by your belief in God, bible as word of that god, conspiracies, creationism and many other egotistical notions. It's unlikely that will change at this stage but I wish you the best with the rest.

[Beingof1]

Diebert, I cannot determine ....[snip]

That's all there is to it. You can't make up your mind with what you mean by senses, consciousness, totality or being. It's for you important to keep it that way as it maintains a largely emotional clinging to a form of self to worship, demonstrated over the years by your belief in God, bible as word of that god, conspiracies, creationism and many other egotistical notions. It's unlikely that will change at this stage but I wish you the best with the rest.

You are being such a dip right now it is to difficult to talk to you. I did not want to go down this road but when logic, reason and common sense are all discarded to hold onto dogma, I know you need to hear this and I would not be much of a friend if I did not point out you are being a knucklehead right now.

You claim it is I that does not have a position but you fail, as always, to point the contradiction out. You just claim it, with no example, like that makes it so. Since you responded like this - I was not going to - but since you claim it is I being contradictory, I am going to show you it is you being the contradictory, muddle headed, make no sense zen babble master.

Let me give you my clear position as I always have. You just keep it all stirred up in your noggin.
1) Consciousness and the totality are identical.
2) The universe and mind are identical
3) Perception is a function of mind.
4) Thought is a function of mind.
5) Being is the function of awareness of mind.

Consciousness is the full set, mind is a subset of consciousness and perception is a subset of mind. Being is therefore, the awareness of a subset called mind.

Clear enough? I have only spelled it out in like 10 pages or so of this thread and for years. If you do not have my position by now, it is because you do not want to understand and are being repulsive.

Here is one example of your contradictions:
1) You said It was not possible to have consciousness without the five senses. In fact, you issued a challenge it was not so.
2) I gave you an example of sensory deprivation. Then you said it would make people insane to be deprived of the five senses.
3) Now you claim consciousness is not possible without the senses.

On and on and on goes the babble. You are not making any sense and that is because of the cognitive dissonance that material things are making you alive and giving you consciousness. Its childish and this entire board needs an enema of this dogma that makes not a lick of sense when held under scrutiny. Its why most run like a little girl from a debate when they actually get the irrefutable logic and what is self evident.

You need to man up and say " you know what, I did contradict myself."

You need to man up and either show where I contradicted myself or retract that statement.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

1) Consciousness and the totality are identical.
2) The universe and mind are identical

Failure to make proper distinctions is a failure to think.

1) You said It was not possible to have consciousness without the five senses. In fact, you issued a challenge it was not so.

You haven't been paying attention. It was your claim that ones consciousness would continue no matter the (five) senses. I challenged you to test it but you can't.

Furthermore I talked after that challenge about a broader situation, one without any senses, without actual signals to process. This to help you see a bigger picture of brain processing.

2) I gave you an example of sensory deprivation. Then you said it would make people insane to be deprived of the five senses.

Sorry, I just quoted the Wikipedia page you provided. People got problems after being totally deprived for a while. So again, not my issue.

3) Now you claim consciousness is not possible without the senses.

You should be more worried about your claim that it runs happily isolated in a vacuum somewhere. Without any causality whatsoever?

[David Quinn]

Diebert:
How can it be "within" a consciousness? It's not a container of some kind, is it?

Just as much as the totality contains all things so yes, it may be referred to as a container because you cannot have anything - no exceptions - without consciousness.

I'm interested to hear your views on what unfolded before life emerged on earth. Presumably, in accordance with your stated views, consciousness was occurring even though there were no sentient beings back then (as far as we know). If so, how did that play out? How was the role of the "subjective observer" - i.e. the focal point of this consciousness - sustained? And in which part of the universe was this subjective observer positioned?

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, you are a pip. :-)

is that OK?

I don't know. Really.

[Dennis Mahar]

because of the unborn-ness of Buddha-mind, it readily reflects all things that come along and transforms itself into them, thus turning the Buddha-mind into thought.

Tell me a story before I go to bed.

[Kunga]

Presumably, in accordance with your stated views, consciousness was occurring even though there were no sentient beings back then (as far as we know). If so, how did that play out? How was the role of the "subjective observer" - i.e. the focal point of this consciousness - sustained? And in which part of the universe was this subjective observer positioned?

There are zillions of galaxies throughout the Universe...other sentient beings besides us. Was life only bestowed on Earth ?
Highly unlikely.

[David Quinn]

It may well be the case that the universe is teeming with life. Who can say? Nevertheless, there are still bound to be times when life is completely non-existent, such as during the early stages of the current universe, immediately after the Big Bang, when the stars and planets were not yet formed.

[Pam Seeback]

The intellect, being finite in nature, is bound to speculation about all (other) finite things, least of all speculations about life on earth prior to its emergence.

[Kunga]

It may well be the case that the universe is teeming with life. Who can say? Nevertheless, there are still bound to be times when life is completely non-existent, such as during the early stages of the current universe, immediately after the Big Bang, when the stars and planets were not yet formed.

But Ultimately, the Infinite has to be Infinite...right ?
Then the "Big Bang" is only a illogical theory. There would have to BE something that caused the Big Bang, some essence of something....

In order for there to be "the deathless" , there has to be no beginning and no end.

the Buddha states in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"What is the Real (tattva)? Knowledge of the true attributes of Nirvana; the Tathagata, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the attributes of space ... is the Real. What is knowledge of the attributes of Nirvana? The attributes of Nirvana are eightfold. What are these eight? Cessation [of ignorance and suffering]; loveliness/ wholesomeness; Truth; Reality; Eternity, Bliss, the Self [atman], and complete Purity: that is Nirvana."

He further comments: " ... that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and Purity is stated to be the meaning of 'Real Truth' ... Moreover, the Real is the Tathagata [i.e., the Buddha]; the Tathagata is the Real ... The Tathagata is not conditioned and not tainted, but utterly blissful: this is the Real ...".

Thus, in such doctrines, a very positive goal is envisioned, which is said to lie beyond the grasp of the five senses and the ordinary, restless mind, and only attainable through direct meditative perception and when all inner pollutants (twisted modes of view, and all moral contaminants) are purged, and the inherently deathless, spotless, radiantly shining mind of Buddha stands revealed. This is the realm of the Buddha-dhatu (popularly known as buddha nature) - inconceivable, beginning-less, endless, omniscient truth, the Dharmakaya (quintessential body-and-mind) of the Buddha. This reality is empty of all falsehood, impermanence, ignorance, afflictions, and pain, but filled with enduring happiness, purity, knowingness (jnana), and omni-radiant loving-kindness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

Buddhahood is thus taught to be the timeless, virtue-filled Real (although as yet unrecognised as such by the deluded being), present inside the mind of every sentient being from the beginningless beginning. Its disclosure to direct perception, however, depends on inner spiritual purification and purgation of the superficial obscurations which conceal it from view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha_Sutra


To call this "God" is to name[conceptualize] the[ un-nameable] essence of what we are.

Form IS Emptiness and Emptiness IS Form.
Non-dual.

[Dennis Mahar]

The intellect, being finite in nature, is bound to speculation about all (other) finite things, least of all speculations about life on earth prior to its emergence.

That implies for the truth of Being we must learn to live in the nameless.

[Pam Seeback]

The intellect, being finite in nature, is bound to speculation about all (other) finite things, least of all speculations about life on earth prior to its emergence.

That implies for the truth of Being we must learn to live in the nameless.

How is it possible to live in the nameless when the intellect, upon which every man and woman is dependent, is name-dependent?

Animals do not use names, animals do not have intellects, are animals therefore the only sentient beings living the truth of Being?

[Dennis Mahar]

I'm not talking about beings as beings and all the meaningless commentary that entails.

The truth of Being.

because of the unborn-ness of Buddha-mind, it readily reflects all things that come along and transforms itself into them, thus turning the Buddha-mind into thought.

all the thinking in all the conversations shows up as 'survival options',
assessments, options, winning formulas for being-in-the-world.
All the caring, all the nurturing, all the harming, the indifference.
all the in order to's for the sake of,
all for the ultimate sake of whiches,

not that, not that.