Define "being"

@Fairbanks,

Fairbanks wrote:

Sounds like Husserl.
Tends to be over in the psychology camp as much as the philosophy camp. Where would the consciousness be located?

Consciousness (being) is located at the centre of all apparent motion. Matter is a refection of consciousness in motion, everything that is, is a reflection of everything else that is, nothing real is ever created. Consciousness (Being) is pure energy and is stationary. The material world I see out there is a clear reflection of God in motion.

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus wrote:

The Brain? The Mind? Or is the mind a full body impediment to understanding?

This is my favorite stuff. I imagine that single cells have the power of mind and that they clump together to increase that power. It's not philosophy and not much good in psychology, but encourages a lot of discussion with my neighbors many of whom are kind of New Age.

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant;32951 wrote:

Consciousness (being) is located at the centre of all apparent motion. Matter is a refection of consciousness in motion, everything that is, is a reflection of everything else that is, nothing real is ever created. Consciousness (Being) is pure energy and is stationary. The material world I see out there is a clear reflection of God in motion.

Your definition most closely defines my point of view, and is precisely the response I would give to Fairbanks' query as to "where consciousness is located". However, I disagree with your statement that nothing 'real' is ever created. 'Real' is the manifestation that emerges from consciousness.

Paracelsus questions this apparent paradox with the statement: "The Brain? The Mind? Or is the mind a full body impediment to understanding?"
To which I respond that 'Mind' is both an impediment and the vehicle to understanding.

@Doorsopen,

What is created is a reflection of my consciousness created with my imagination. It appears to exist to the senses only. All matter is mind in motion, the more intense the motion the more solid the matter is, which is effect only. It is impossible to understand creation by the study matter (effect ) a normal person can come understand the cause of creation, but never the effect.

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus wrote:

Sorry don't agree with this line of reasoning. If the human condition is to be studied, examined discussed and written upon then there arises a common consensus about what being is and what its principals, aspects components ect are. But there are divergent opinions as to what being is I think the confusion arrises at times due to the fact that for some when we define being we also appear to be defining existence by default which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

For arguments sake 'Being is the that is of the human condition while existence is the What is of that Being.'

And if we define something that does not imply that it has no room for extension does it?

I think Fairbanks has a point... We can only know the finite, and being is an infinite, and even if we can say we know something of it, that knowledge is hardly certain, so in define able...We define what is finite...

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant;33702 wrote:

What is created is a reflection of my consciousness created with my imagination. It appears to exist to the senses only. All matter is mind in motion, the more intense the motion the more solid the matter is, which is effect only. It is impossible to understand creation by the study matter (effect ) a normal person can come understand the cause of creation, but never the effect.

We differ on several points.

Firstly, All matter may be mind in motion, but I posit that the more intense the motion the less dense the matter is. Boiling water becomes steam because the molecules are exhibiting more intense motion when heated, just as freezing water creates a more solid form because the molecules are moving less intensely.

By understanding the causes we come to understand its effect. The effect is evident in its souce, which is the cause. But first:

We each create our experience of reality according to the reflections of our imagination, to use your words, which in turn influences our behaviour in accordance with the limited state of perception. Our true, unlimited state of Consciousness, seeks to transcends these illusions and experience reality more fully.

@Doorsopen,

Yes doorsperson we are of the same mind, but not so on the motion bit, I like Russells explanation of motion it depends where it is in the wave what it is, which depends on where it reaches freezing point, be it iron - water - copper, or any of the elements

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

Yes doorsperson we are of the same mind, but not so on the motion bit, I like Russells explanation of motion it depends where it is in the wave what it is, which depends on where it reaches freezing point, be it iron - water - copper, or any of the elements

Scientifically speaking:
"Being" really cold is the freezing point for me..

=
MJA

@Richardgrant,

The body cannot tell what is cold or hot without using the senses which deceive you. the freezing point for steel is many hundreds of degrees, which is its melting point

@Richardgrant,

Richard,

Because I think this is relevant to the thread and because I'm dying to know, what is your definition of consciousness less simply?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Richard,

Because I think this is relevant to the thread and because I'm dying to know, what is your definition of consciousness less simply?

Consciousness is spiritual awareness of Being, of all knowing, all-power,and all presence. Consciousness is static. Thinking is the motionless principal in light which creates the illusion of motion where there is no motion. The unverse of seeming motion does not exist. I Richard am not of this world, I only appear in it. Creation did not begin at some time for time does not exist. We live in a thought wave mirror imaged universe of apparent motion.. Consciousness is the one and only reality. Consciousness is the cause as well as the substance of the entire universe. There are no two things in the entire universe, all is One and is indivisible.

@Richardgrant,

Well... I guess I am not conscious then.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday, the I AM is who we are, the I AM is pure consciousness the ONE MIND of the creator

@saiboimushi,

That would depend on if you mean a being as in a human...or another living element or in terms of the essence of being. Actually... that could lead to the answer because as a whole we normally tie in 'being' to 'existing' or 'living' as in using the concepts of conciseness to determine if or not someone is the essence of 'being'. Though just the same as any human exists in a state of being so does a rock and any other inanimate object. As well we normally wouldn't consider a tree a living being either because it has no intelligence or thought process apart from what its anatomical structure dictates, though it exists in the same plane of living just as us.
Going off topic now, if everything is the same in this element of being, than what was actuated out of early Buddhism from the Indian philosophers may be true. It was the Indians who actually formed the premise for quantum physics long before its just recent "rediscovery" or reestablished importance in modern science. It was established that all life was connected in the sphere of the whole, now whether or not this was alone talking in reference to the conscience world was not dictated. All elements balance one another which the I Ching helps depict by illustrating how every element relies on the other to balance it. Under this theory then if each element relies on its opposite all elements in life are necessary, from the elements that make up all living and nonliving objects to our brains that perceive and project images of the world around us. That which allows us to perceive the meaning of 'being' which is defined now in life and through our own eyes that all parts are necessary to contribute to the whole the and the whole to its parts. Therefore all life is necessary and all make up the 'being' in its totality.

@saiboimushi,

I see all of creation as being cause and effect. The effect being the unreal world or illusion, and the unseen world as being the real world, where all is indivisably as ONE. The material world relies solely on balance to express the Oneness, which is the rhymic balance interchange between opposites, my senses deceive me into believing motion as real, all matter is a refection of mind in motion.

@Richardgrant,

Are you saying that the unseen world is the real world? That would not make much sense because the seen world is directly the real world when we interact with it everyday. I understand your viewpoint though really I'm just pointing out a small clash within what you had said. If the later is the real world than you said next that the "material world relies solely on balance to express the Oneness". I'd assume that you are most probably Buddhist, at any rate if that is true than you can not simply stop at the primary texts (unless your Theravada of course) but regardless it is necessary to understand that standing as a recluse disregarding what it visible and viable is not practical either because this is the current reality within which we live. Not taking that into account would make everything non-agreeable because we cannot forget to examine the current world around us. The balance is between all, living and nonliving, as well as the unseen and the seen world.

@saiboimushi,

AWohlfarth, I am not a christian - buddhist or any body or thing, to have no thought I would be every body and every thing. I live and practice a life style where every thing that I see in the material world as being a reflection of my consciousness in motion, to change what I see out there I only have to change the concept of myself and the outer will automaticly change.

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

Holiday, the I AM is who we are, the I AM is pure consciousness the ONE MIND of the creator

Don't you mean creators, as in your mom and dad???

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

AWohlfarth, I am not a christian - buddhist or any body or thing, to have no thought I would be every body and every thing. I live and practice a life style where every thing that I see in the material world as being a reflection of my consciousness in motion, to change what I see out there I only have to change the concept of myself and the outer will automaticly change.

Not... There is nothing automatic about it... We have a relationship called life with the material world... We eat living things that live on the material world has well as having a great demand for minerals and chemicals directly... Certainly, we can have great effect upon the material world with a change of insight or perception, but we will never escape our need to get physical with the physical world to enjoy the spiritual one..

One place where your thought holds true, if I understand it, is in relation to forms... We see the world through our conepts, our forms.. But our forms can blind us as well as help us to see.. And all forms are forms of relationship, so if you are blind to how they work, and your self perception, your consciousness, depends upon the form, then the key to freeing your self from the form is a change of consciousness... Forms are the key, to our mastery such as it is of the material world... The form of government is not just a form in thought, but a form in realty; and the form of a house is not just a form in mind, but in space; and if forms are how we relate to others and manage our environment the change of self consciousness in relation to the form is the key to any effective change....

What the Muslims say: If you would change the world, first change yourself makes a lot of sense, because to change self give you an idea of the difficulty of social change requiring a lot of changes of self, and no meaningful change can be accomplished without a meaningful change of consciousness... We have to see the world differently to make a difference. And yet, human nature does not change while human consciousness does, and so we progress with changes of forms, so our relationships with each other change and it is through our relationships that our needs are met and the world is changed...for better or worse.

@Richardgrant,

Ah, alright yes sorry for assuming then. Actually...Fido was quite right though. I shouldn't have gone about saying it the way that I did but I was rather trying to make some of his points. But yes perceiving it and knowing that you can interpret the world around in any way you want is really an awesome thing to understand, (and actually I wrote a term paper about it but under the pretenses of Buddhism).

Also...I do consider myself a Buddhist but as well I don't know about the forever passing of the worldly form...rather maybe in the subtexts of Judaism where you die and become a part of the whole (Judaism has neither any Hell nor Heaven as Christianity). Oh that's interesting actually...because in the original parables said by any particular divinity after being passed down through centuries of oral tradition and different viewpoints are never the same as they began as. Take the book of Luke and his story of the lamps for example. The ones with the oil in their lamps would not share with those who didn't so that they could all get to the wedding on time. When the ones who didn't have oil in their lamps got to the wedding they were locked out. That was created under Luke's own interpretation, and also a forbearing of course to the "selection" created under Judaism, only certain predefined people would go to Heaven. Jesus never told this story and it was neither reflected in Mathew's nor Marks own histories of Jesus. As well his original parables were very similar in fact to Siddhartha's original ones. At any rate, for all we know the direct Heaven and Hell separation that he defined could indeed actually be not precisely that, it may rather be just good and evil, or something similar to the pretext.

At any rate, Buddhism holds many of the same ideals which you just defined was my point and I surely never called you Christian, though still assuming you were any one thing was not correct to do. Buddhism is not only a religion, Theravada is a philosophy and simply and almost entirely just that.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know