GENIUS FORUMS

This thread is a way for me to compile the things that Kevin says that I don't understand.

whenever he says something I don't get, I will be posting the quote on this thread.

That way, when I'm prepared to talk about it, I'll be able to easily access these gems that I'd otherwise not be able to call.

It could be months until I feel ready.

K. Solway wrote: When I explain my correct understanding of reincarnation to experienced Tibetan Buddhist, including some of the most highly trained teachers, they look at me as though they have never even heard this idea before. It is completely alien to them. They turn their noses up and they have no appreciation for it whatsoever.

By contrast, if they understood it they could not help but to be filled with love. And it would make its way into every teaching.

It's the tail end of the quote that throws me for a loop!

I assume that Kevin means an awareness of the Totality by "filled with love".

Awareness for the Totality sees all things as ultimately the same. So the mind is "full of love".

It's not an emotional or romantic love.

Wow, Kevin. I really couldn't have imagined you were so hard to understand that you merit an entire thread to puzzling out the hidden meanings behind your sayings. I say you be careful to nip this one in the bud... before someone writes a book about you and your sayings (the birth of Solwayism).

"By contrast, if they understood it they could not help but to be filled with love. And it would make its way into every teaching."

I meant a kind of extreme personal identification and affinity, a breaking-down of the barriers, and a dissolution of confusion and release from burden.

Right, Aaron. No need to wait months. We'll wrestle these down for you post haste.

Next!

.

Hahahahah...

This is gonna be good :-) Hahahahah...

And!- For those who don't speak fluent Australian (aka tibetian buddhist) ... a big old translation of LOL goes like this (Hahahahah)

What is the native language of Tibet...and is their language any different than the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Tibet citizen? I'd assume that these little 3-year-olds are "indoctrinated" (to become) masters of all the various nuances of buddhist chants (voice inflections), customs, incense aromas, costume get-ups etc.

As the original 'Buddhist Ways' get watered-down with myth and lore over the centuries, something's gotta give...

Gosh, it's so much like the original peoples who settled Easter Island, a once-forested island stripped bare by the need to build and compete with the other clans on which could quarry, then shape, and move those stone edifices to overlook the coasts - all in anticipation of their gods' return.

BTW- I-is not a takin' Charlie Manson's, er, Kevin Solway's (shifting) viewpoints on over (will the real) Buddha please stand up?

Which translates something like... unless Kevin was speaking in (Tibetian) their native tongue, some will get lost in the details. So, not understanding the Australian-English language nuances those from down-under talk.

Reminds me of growing up on the High Plains of North America (60 miles from Canada) those Canadian people talked a different version of Canadian-English than the American-English... eh?

Much more-so if Kevin cracked a beer with these Master Buddhists. Do Tibetians drink beer as part of their training to become masters? Are girlfriends allowed on their path to mastery?

I've a 1st cousin who's been a Buddhist (student) since The Beatles did that scene all those years ago.

It's that old, reincarnation thing (everlasting life), that i have a problem with grasping. The road to hell (the grave) is paved with good intentions.

Tibet sounds like a mini concentration camp to me. Nice to visit, but, I wouldn't wanna live there. Locked way up high in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. A small clan of humans ekeing out an existence on orders of the chieftain's dictates on what to do and where to go next. It's no wonder China annexed these Dalai Lama-lunatics to their orbit of command-capitalist, commie-way of thinking. They are pretty much one-in-the-same thing. Been there, done that.

Mere humans squabbling over who runs the parade in the next life :-(


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

Kevin Solway wrote: Awareness is a function of consciousness. Now consciousness requires memory. Therefore we can say with certainty that a memory itself cannot be aware, since it is only one of the causes of consciousness, and hence of awareness.

Therefore there are some things we can say with certainty do not have awareness.

For other things, such as rocks, we can only guess that they don't have awareness, based on what we observe.

I find this confusing as well.

Aaron Mathis wrote:I find this confusing as well.

I presume you're ok with the last part, about rocks.

The first part is only making a logical point about parts and wholes. Namely, a part cannot be a whole. A memory is a part of consciousness, so it is not itself conscious, since it has no consciousness. And since this is a purely logical truth, it is something we can be certain of.

Kevin Solway wrote:The first part is only making a logical point about parts and wholes. Namely, a part cannot be a whole.

If one was to be pedantic about the language, one could say this is technically wrong. It would be more accurate to say a part cannot be the whole of which it is part. All things are actually simultaneously parts and wholes.

Yes, I should have said "the whole", to indicate that it cannot be the whole of which it is a part.

Kevin Solway wrote: Awareness is a function of consciousness. Now consciousness requires memory. Therefore we can say with certainty that a memory itself cannot be aware, since it is only one of the causes of consciousness, and hence of awareness.

Kevin, are you saying that consciousness is wholly consciousness, when there is memory and not-memory at the same instant?

Wouldn't you describe a memory as being remembered to be a memory? How is this not-consciousness?



[edited code]

Kelly Jones wrote:Kevin, are you saying that consciousness is wholly consciousness, when there is memory and not-memory at the same instant?

Here I'm thinking of memory in the sense of the RAM chips in your computer. Such memory on its own is not consciousness, but is one of the things necessary for consciousness.

Yes, you said that. I'm interested to know what you think makes anything - including memory - conscious. Things are necessary, plus something that i'd call awareness of consciousness (truth), plus other things (memories) that distinguish the things to be distinguished.

Would you say that there are different levels of consciousness, in this order from lowest to highest:

- things (basic generalisation: anything that may appear)
- things (specific branches and categories: memories)
- will to truth, strong grounding in reality (awareness, or strong memory to refer all things to)

Ie. "how" do causes develop into the highest level of consciousness?

Kelly Jones wrote:Yes, you said that. I'm interested to know what you think makes anything - including memory - conscious.

As I've defined it above, it can never become conscious, by definition.

To become part of consciousness it would need to become part of a larger machine that has all the necessary parts connected together properly - like installing the memory chips in a computer.

Would you say that there are different levels of consciousness, in this order from lowest to highest:

- things (basic generalisation: anything that may appear)
- things (specific branches and categories: memories)
- will to truth, strong grounding in reality (awareness, or strong memory to refer all things to)

Generally speaking, the better the memory - the better organized, the better interconnected, the better accessed, then the better the consciousness.

Ie. "how" do causes develop into the highest level of consciousness?

Can you be more specific?

Kevin Solway wrote:Kelly: Yes, you said that. I'm interested to know what you think makes anything - including memory - conscious.

Kevin: As I've defined it above, it can never become conscious, by definition.

To become part of consciousness it would need to become part of a larger machine that has all the necessary parts connected together properly - like installing the memory chips in a computer.

......Generally speaking, the better the memory - the better organized, the better interconnected, the better accessed, then the better the consciousness.

Are you saying that:

- Consciousness is equivalent to memory and other parts, connected

- "Connectedness" is particular connections between parts, rather than connectedness per se

- Consciousness arises only when all the parts are connected in a particular way

- Consciousness is a thing that is conscious of itself

?

Kelly: Ie. "how" do causes develop into the highest level of consciousness?

Kevin: Can you be more specific?

I'm asking two questions: what exactly is consciousness/awareness - and is quality of memory really, generally, the determining component re better consciousness?

I'm not asking what causes consciousness absolutely, because that is obviously the "Hidden Void". I'm asking scientifically, what is it, as if it is a conceptus. It is evidently different from the thing called unconsciousness (pre-conceptus), and it has stages of growth.

- Is it biological, as something that is alive, or not?

- If it is not itself any of the parts, but all the parts connected (in a particular way), then it cannot be equivalent to appearances, including "observer". The problem is, one cannot say with certainty that any particular part is the key to "how to connect things to create consciousness", because one can never know the part is missing.

- Are you saying that consciousness is a finite thing? Or are you using it as a metaphor for the Infinite?

- If memory generally determines better consciousness, and best consciousness is constantly awake to Reality (which is always changing), then there is a gap between "refreshing memory" (better) and no reliance on memory (best). So there would seem to be some other determining component for "consciousness that is better than better". The answer might be: memory of why relying on a memory is false provides impetus not to - for as long as the memory's life. That is, the memory itself doesn't appear, but its effects do. Those effects would be the other determining component. (?)

Kelly, I've started another thread "What is consciousness?" (in the main forum) to reply to your last post.