If you honestly think you've got the whole universe figured out already, with reality divided into subsets and such, then please find another thread because this is meant specifically for people that don't think they know everything.
I am asking have you become self aware because you're an individual. Consciousness had to develop for you just like anyone else. You can claim consciousness is the product of evolution, fine, make that claim. Even so, the realization that your are a conscious being happens personally. It's what turns us originally from the oneness of life, that first realization that we are one, individual thing. This witnessing of the self is what I'm talking about, wtf does this have to do with evolution?
I loved your reaction when I brought Buddha in. I don't respect Buddha because there's a religion attached to him. Therefore, there's no circular argument attached. It would be circular if I said "He's Buddha, therefore his words are true." I didn't, I was merely noting how he claimed all matter, energy and consciousness are one. So far in science, we've only found more unity, and more unity. We're just a system of systems of systems of systems of systems. Buddha is just a renown scholar and can be criticized like any other. If I brought up a quote by Einstein saying he thought the same thing, seeing as how his ideas were never turned into a religion>.< I'm sure you'll find that more worthy of thinking about. These are ideas pretty far beyond science's ability to prove or society's willingness to accept, but somehow so many of our greatest thinkers who have given the most to the world come up with them.
Originally Posted by Einstein
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
Originally Posted by Buddha
All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements...are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind.
Originally Posted by Einstein
Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations—in short, by metaphysics.
Originally Posted by Buddha
By becoming attached to names and forms, not realising that they have no more basis than the activities of the mind itself, error rises…and the way to emancipation is blocked.
Originally Posted by Einstein
The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.
Originally Posted by Buddha
While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment
Since none of those quotes directly address the relationship between consciousness, energy and matter, you can read here for more information on that.
It's hysterical to me how you don't even see yourself arguing for my points when you talk about how I failed to properly define reality, and then arguing against my points about everything else. I mean, I don't even know how to reply against your attacks about reality because that's what this whole thread is about. Why would I define a word in a topic partially about that? If I closed the definition of reality, there'd be no point in having this discussion. Your very process of bringing up the definition of reality is part of the intention of this thread, and if you weren't being such a stupid bitch about it then we'd be having a much larger, group discussion over the concept of reality rather than just bickering like two idiots.
|
|
Bookmarks