One consciousness

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Rose phil
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 10:22 am
@Stormalv,
Binyamin Tsadik,

Your post brought this Zen story to mind.

There was a Zen Master who used to invite his disciples to his house in order to meditate. The meditation was very soulful but unfortunately the Master owned a cat who used to come in and disturb the meditation. Therefore, before each meditation, the Master would tie up the cat to his bed; this would enable the master and his disciples to meditate in peace downstairs. After the Master's passing, his students still used to come to the house to meditate and tie up the cat to the bed.

Now one seeker had to travel to another country and he didn't return for another 5 years time. When he returned he was shocked to see that there were many more people coming to the Master's house. However, they didn't come to meditate, they only came to tie up cats to the bed. Even in such a short time the real purpose of the Master's house had been forgotten. The seekers were concentrating only on the trivial ritual of tying up a cat to the bed; they had forgotten the essential part of coming to his house which was meditation.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 07:52 am
@Rose phil,
Rose wrote:

How do we know they are lies? Just because they are not what we believe doesn't mean they are lies.


That is what we are here to find out :a-ok:
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:00 am
@William,
William wrote:
Bin, where did this post come from? Ha. Have you been running around in my mind or something. I don't mind at all. You are coming around my friend. The "Bin" who posted the above words is not the same "Bin" that made the below statements in another threed:


"What about those that like their nation and refuse to be a part of your world nation?
Like me" (Post 34 in "One world nation or many nations")


"If there is no distinct land then the Nations will disperse and so will their cultures, and languages, and dress, and there will end up being one boring nation"(Post 31 same thread)


"Peace is between two nations, if there is only one nation then it can never really find peace with another". (Post 31 same thread)

The only exceptions I would make are minor IMO, the world was not created "incomplete" in that it will never be complete. It is unfolding and evolving and we are a part of that Divine process. The fact that we consider that process "limited and separate" from ourselves comes from "arrogance" due to the "perfection of our own creation" forcing us to assume our autonomy and being separate from it.

The three above quotes are, as it seems to me, offering "mixed messages" and I can only hope it is you coming to a better understanding. We are one, my friend and any effort to maintain those "separations" that identify us as "nations" will never lead to that "perfection" you mentioned. We are "one" people. There is much we can learn from each other once we effort to bring down those boundaries that separate us and that means establishing common ground founded in trush and respect. Once we recognise all are 'divine", then and only then will we begin to understand the "oneness" of which you speak.

Nice post.

William


I wrote that post a while back, it was the same me :bigsmile:

I don't understand what is the conflict between these two messages.

I agree that perfection is an endless process. But another member (I think it was Holiday) that said "Perfection is striving for perfection" which is something that I have written 4 years ago and deeply agree with.

If you payed attention to the Human body analogy:
The human body is one, but is filled with many necissary internal separations. The liver and the heart, and the lungs and the pancreas....
All of these organs work together in a single oneness for a common purpose.

This is the same oneness that will be experienced by the world. We will still exist in different nations but we will have peace and work together for a common goal.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:03 am
@Rose phil,
Rose wrote:
Binyamin Tsadik,

Your post brought this Zen story to mind.

There was a Zen Master who used to invite his disciples to his house in order to meditate. The meditation was very soulful but unfortunately the Master owned a cat who used to come in and disturb the meditation. Therefore, before each meditation, the Master would tie up the cat to his bed; this would enable the master and his disciples to meditate in peace downstairs. After the Master's passing, his students still used to come to the house to meditate and tie up the cat to the bed.

Now one seeker had to travel to another country and he didn't return for another 5 years time. When he returned he was shocked to see that there were many more people coming to the Master's house. However, they didn't come to meditate, they only came to tie up cats to the bed. Even in such a short time the real purpose of the Master's house had been forgotten. The seekers were concentrating only on the trivial ritual of tying up a cat to the bed; they had forgotten the essential part of coming to his house which was meditation.


Nice story, but i hardly see the connection to my post, perhaps it was not connected and was just a story that you were reminded of. Thanks for sharing it. :a-ok:
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 10:11 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;29641 wrote:
Nice story, but i hardly see the connection to my post, perhaps it was not connected and was just a story that you were reminded of. Thanks for sharing it. :a-ok:


Don't read Rose's Zen story literally.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:04 am
@Stormalv,
Bin's comment,

"The human body is one, but is filled with many necissary internal separations. The liver and the heart, and the lungs and the pancreas....

All of these organs work together in a single oneness for a common purpose".

I am sure you are sincere in your attempt to use the body as an analogy to "oneness" but I will have do disagree with that analogy. For then we must determine who is the "heart" and who is the "anus". Sorry to be so blunt, but who is to determine who is what? We have no notion of what unity is all about in that it has never existed. All are of the same heart and must be considered so without labels. We are a long way from that, but that is the way it must be if we are to understand our relationship to that "oneness" we are a part of. As long as we consider our "separateness" their will never be honest and sincere communication as each has their own definitions as the ego strives to maintain control.

I really thought you were beginning to understand until you brought the various parts of the body that, in an of itself as you define it, is precisely why the world is in the shape it is in. Too many lords and masters efforting to rule the world. A world that was never intended to be ruled by anyone, but enjoyed by all. We cannot even conceive of such a thing, yet it is the truth. We have a way to go yet. I can only hope others will be able to reach the same conclusions I have before we are force to. It seems we are at our best when times are at their worst. As I said time and again, we are not fighting with slingshots anymore. it's gotten rather serious as we are sweeping any notion of what "morality" means, under the mat so it does not interfer with our "self interests", and that is what will destroy us. You were so on the mark when you referred to "rewards". Rewards are the those gifts offered by those whom you help along the way, without any strings attached. That alone will eliminate inequity, hate, envy and animosity. We must set the stage for the "cheerful giver" who represents both ends of the spectrum. It's is a give/give situation. "Take" has nothing to do with it.

William
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:51 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:
Don't read Rose's Zen story literally.


Obviously. I've never tied cats to posts before but I can immagine it would be quite fun.:devilish:
There are too many wild cats in Israel.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:01 am
@William,
William wrote:
I am sure you are sincere in your attempt to use the body as an analogy to "oneness" but I will have do disagree with that analogy. For then we must determine who is the "heart" and who is the "anus".


Anus is not an organ,
But the Digestive system is very important to the body.

But you missed the analogy completely because you took it too literally.

Every nation is supposed to be itself! (And not America)
And use this uniqueness to contribute to the unity of the world.

If the Anus stopped being an Anus, we would be in serious trouble.
(Remember this is an analogy.. no nation is an Anus, although America comes pretty close with that "I'm an *******" song)

But this is off topic so let us continue this conversation in its proper place
 
bk-thinkaboom
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:57 am
@Rose phil,
Rose wrote:
When I say embrace I mean let them be. People who express their beliefs by putting down other people's beliefs fail to see the bigger picture, of which I believe there is one.


I apologize for the misunderstanding, I was under the impression that you meant we should all endorse other beliefs, which would be stupid anyway seeing as many of these contradict each other, and the process of doublethink would be a necessary skill. (I've just finished reading 1984, I realy should get over it)

I certainly do not believe that anyone should go out of their way to purposefully attack a religion or its beliefs simply because that person disagrees, because this simply causes more harm than good; we all know how detrimental war can be to scientific or even philosophic progress. However, I do believe in proposing (not enforcing) my own beliefs to others, as I recently did in a class speech I had to make for GCSE English, entitled God, religion, and other stuff. On a side-note, aside from leaving half of my class with serious phsycological damage through boredom, performing the speech opened my eyes to the unintended ignorance of some people in my school. After taking around 20 minutes explaining a few reasons why I was an Athiest, one of my peers proceeded to ask, 'Do you believe in nature?' and then, after I had briefly explained my belief in the theory of natural selection, 'So why do you believe in God?'.

It is this ignorance which often worries me, and makes me question the beliefs of others who may not have questioned their own.

Back to my main point, the only time that I would endorse an attack on a relgious group, sect or individual because of their beliefs would be the time that a belief system begins to seriously endorse immoral violence. This is, in fact, the same way I would feel about anyone endorsing immoral acts.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:17 am
@bk-thinkaboom,
bk-thinkaboom wrote:
we all know how detrimental war can be to scientific or even philosophic progress.


Most of the time war advances the realm of science far quicker.

Technology: The Internet was first a military system.
Physics: Heisenburg with the Germans and Einsten with the Allies,
Optics began as a military tool
Metalwork
Horsemanship

I'm sure there are books written about this subject.

The most detrimental obstacle to science is pride in the current understanding.

Capernicus against the Church
Galileo against Aristotle and the Church
It took Einstein 5 years for anyone to take him seriously because Newtonian Physics was too well established.
And if you ever tried to present a new theory today, there are very few that will listen to you because they are all occupied with string theory and don't want to hear that it is wrong.

Also Darwin is still not worldly accepted.
 
Rose phil
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 05:18 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;29494 wrote:
As I have stated previously in the physics section,
All perception is based on interaction.

The 5 senses, and all scientific Data must be attained through some type of interaction.

If one person said that he spoke to God in a cave (Mohammad) could we believe him?
The answer is no. How could the limitless perfection expect us to 'beleive' in Him or His Prophets without any type of proof?

If God were to provide proof of His 'existance' (for lack of a better word), it would have to be through some type of interaction.

Two completely independant systems have no evidence of each other unless there is some type of interaction or exchange.

Now, if God interacted in a past generation, how does this generation know that this interaction actually happened?
50 Years after the Holocaust people began denying that it ever occurred and there are still surrvivors that are alive today. What will happen when there are no more survivors to say "I was there! It happened!" How can we accept any history to be true for that matter?

If God interacted 3000 years ago, how can we know that this is true today?

First of all, it would have to be a Mass event that more than a small group or people witnessed.
This entire group would have to have recorded it in a physical form and there must be some proof that the generation that recorded it agrees with it.
The event would have had to have drastically changed the entire group and that change would have had to be a difficult change that goes against nature and the only reason that that change remains is because they agree with the occurrence.

Example

An alien comes to earth and makes a funny noise and then leaves.

one person witnessed it - Not enough proof -- could be lying
10 people witnessed it - Not enough proof -- could be a conspiracy
600 000 people witnessed it - Enough proof for someone to beleive it if he wanted to.

The Alien comes to earth and tells everyone to draw a circle once a year

one person does it, and then his decendants continue doing it.
Not enough proof -- could be lying to his children
10 people and their decendants -- not enough proof -- conspiracy
600 000 people and their decendants
-- enough proof but drawing a circle is not so challenging

The Alien comes to earth and gives over the recipe for a society but in that recipe there are 613 difficult laws for the society to keep that go against their natural inclination.

1 person and his decendants - could be lying
10 people and their decendants -- could be a conspiracy
600 000 people and their decendants -- enough proof to beleive but how do we know that nothing changed and evolved over time? The original occurance could have happened but how do we know that the nation preserved it?

When 600 000 people receive a book that says in it "They all heard the voice of God", and "They complained about the difficulty of the commandments" and "They are a stubborn people" (who would not beleive something that didnt happen).
And there is a cerimony that occurs for eight days, once a year where the father tells the son "Beleive that it happened. My father said it did, and his father said it did, and his father before him, all the way back to the people that were there that received this tradition to pass it on (pass over)"

And there is proof that the Text has not changed by a single letter in the last 2000 years and when the Arc is found it will be 3000 years.

Then all of that is enough proof to beleive that it occurred because it is far more probable that it occured than any other possible explanation.
Such as "Mass Hypnotism".

But beleiving in God without any proof is very rediculous. In fact there is no commandment in the Torah that says "Beleive"
The first of the 10 sayings (commonly mistranslated as commandments) is "I am the God that took you out of the land of Egypt" (Nothing mentioned about beleif.. Everyone heard the voice that said 'I AM')

Not "I am the God that created the world" because we did not witness the creation of the world. There is no proof of that. We did, however witness the Exodus of Egypt.
Which is a very great feat. Egypt was the Ruling Empire of Mesopotamia.

So, BK-Thinkaboom, there is nothing wrong with accepting this proof that there is a God today. It is a proof of Nature.

And there are tablets that were found in the last century in Egypt that describe the 10 plagues in the exact order that they occurred.



This post inspired the little story. Sorry if you don't get the connection. I'm too tired to explain it.
 
Rose phil
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 05:26 pm
@Stormalv,
In short the gist of the story was to explain how certain traditions got started through misunderstanding and were past down through generations.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 03:30 am
@Rose phil,
Rose wrote:
In short the gist of the story was to explain how certain traditions got started through misunderstanding and were past down through generations.


The post, that reminded you of the story, was simply to show that my beleifs are not founded on 'beleif' alone but on what is known as Historical Proof.

How Do We Know that We Heard G-d at Sinai? - The Torah

It was a response to this quote
Quote:

I firmly believe that the only way we can go about attempting to understand the universe any further than we already do, is to begin by looking at what we perceive as nature, and by assuming that these perceptions are real and true.


In order to explain that I agree with him.

But there are many Jewish Traditions that are false.

The small people will always look at the Great people's actions and try to mimic them. That is the cause of these false traditions.

It is the difference between Eternal Truth, and Temporary Truth.

The Zen Master tied the cat as a Temporary Truth, but his students thought that it was an Eternal Truth.

Example: I ask you where is the Colleseum and you point towards Rome. If I think the Direction is an Eternal truth, then even once I pass the Colleseum I will continue in your direction. If I realize it as a temporary truth from the specific place where I am standing, then I will constantly check the Eternal truth in order to apply it to my temporary position.
Thus, once I pass the Colleseum I will ask again and recalibrate my Truth.

Many Great Sages preformed acts in order to perfect themselves based on their specific position. And the little people that see this think of it to be a Great Truth and all mimic this behaviour without realizing that it could be detramental to them.

The RaMBaM speaks of this as a doctor prescribing a pill to someone with an illness. And then, everyone begins taking this pill in order to be healthy. The Pill was only true for someone who is sick. Healthy people might even get sick if they take the pill.
 
bk-thinkaboom
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 01:59 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
If there's one thing I most love about philosophy, its the fact that people don't [usually] jump into trying to prove someone wrong without evidence, as so many people at my school regularly do. Thanks Binyamin Tsadik for actually giving me that evidence, you have well and truly proved me wrong, heheh.

Also your post about believing in God nowadays was quite an eye-opener for me. I am still not entirely convinced, but I'll propose the idea to some of my mates and continue to think about it.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 02:22 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;29961 wrote:


It is the difference between Eternal Truth, and Temporary Truth.

The Zen Master tied the cat as a Temporary Truth, but his students thought that it was an Eternal Truth.



I thought he tied the cat to the bed because it was interfering with his meditation.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:54 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:
I thought he tied the cat to the bed because it was interfering with his meditation.


Because of the lack of smiley Icons I will assume what you said was not a joke.

It was a temporary truth to tie the cat to the bed because it interfered with his meditation. It was a truth from that specific place and time and circumstance. His students mistakenly thought that it was an eternal truth and continued to tie the cat to the bed from different circumstance, place and time.

Understand yet?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:12 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;30255 wrote:
Because of the lack of smiley Icons I will assume what you said was not a joke.

It was a temporary truth to tie the cat to the bed because it interfered with his meditation. It was a truth from that specific place and time and circumstance. His students mistakenly thought that it was an eternal truth and continued to tie the cat to the bed from different circumstance, place and time.

Understand yet?


Nope. Still not getting it.

I don't use smilies. They're like little idols that draw attention away from the glory of words.

Thus I ride off into the sunset on my donkey to look for my ass.
 
sarek
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:50 pm
@Stormalv,
It is highly likely that the entire universe is a single system. Whether that can be said to be a consciousness is debatable. After all, in order to be a consciousness, it should logically be capable of being conscious of itself.
Nothing outside a system can ever interact with that system without being part of the system. The observer is part of the observed.
Therefore God can not be a separate entity completely apart from the universe. There is always a higher level which would incorporate God as a part of it.
We see many paradoxes only because our level of magnification is too high. We zoom in too much.
Zooming in too much can also explain many of the apparent differences between the different religious, philosophical and scientific views of reality. In this I agree with Rose in believing that not all those contradictions are what they seem to be.

It is very much like the wave/particle dualism or the apparent conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. Up close they seem to be incompatible but still nature functions perfectly with them. Thus it appears a meta-theory is required to bring understanding to a higher level.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:55 pm
@sarek,
there is no conflict between quantum mechanics and special or general relativity
 
bk-thinkaboom
 
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:21 am
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
It is highly likely that the entire universe is a single system. Whether that can be said to be a consciousness is debatable. After all, in order to be a consciousness, it should logically be capable of being conscious of itself.
Nothing outside a system can ever interact with that system without being part of the system.
We see many paradoxes only because our level of magnification is too high. We zoom in too much.
Zooming in too much can also explain many of the apparent differences between the different religious, philosophical and scientific views of reality. In this I agree with Rose in believing that not all those contradictions are what they seem to be.


I like the way in which you explained this, I have never really thought about this idea of 'magnification' before, but just yesterday I was discussing with my friend the idea that, because of the complexity of our minds and the simple fact that they are a part of us, we may never be able to understand how it actually works, because we can only concentrate on the areas and aspects of the mind that we can actually bring ourselves to concentrate on, and that concentration in itself is an act of the mind. :shocked: Confusing, eh? I guess that's sort of what you mean with the 'magnification' thing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 07:28:18