Amazon Vehicles GoldBox Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Britney Spears Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer TheKicks TheKicks TheKicks  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Florida Georgia Line Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

"We do not know what God is. God...transcends being."


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 736 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:03:50 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
This one-life "self" is, as you say, nothing more than a role. A collection of memories. But you've been here before. What of those memories? Do you think the universe discards memories? Or keeps them?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:05:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 12:25:12 PM PDT
Paul Whitmore,

This establishing the role of emotions in just about everything we do has been known since at least 1739, in which there was neuroscience, which was around the time that David Hume said that reason is a slave of the passions, i.e. emotions. Reason gives you, as he once pointed out, many different paths that one may take. But, as he pointed out, it is emotions that decide which thing you attach on to and follow. This appears to be the problem when people who say that they follow reason. For if they did follow reason, then they have no way to choose between all these choices that reason presents. They become what is called Buridan's Azz.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:06:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 12:07:27 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
It's called "darkness" for a reason. It's remains very well HIDDEN...even from the "enlightened". ...or so I am so bold to assert. ;>)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:22:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 12:23:45 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
I am aware of the way of thinking of the Universe in this way, but personally tend not to :). To me it is kind of like a black (or white, but for the following example black works better) sheet of paper - is there nothing on it or is it a superposition of every possible picture that can be drawn on it? Both are correct, just a matter of POV. Law of Conservation of Energy asserts that nothing is ever created or destroyed - only a change of form is taking place. Since, IMHO, Energy and Information are two labels for the same... hmm... whatever it is :)... in some sense we can say that memories are preserved forever... or we can say that nothing is preserved and everything is in a state constant change, just a matter of POV again.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:25:41 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
You are probably right :))

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:07:12 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
LOL...don't assume so though. It's just something for you to consider if you feel like it. I'm not denying that "all is one". I'm just not stopping there, that's all.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:08:46 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I wonder what would keep the "change of form" going forever though...if indeed it does. Is the universe a perpetual motion machine?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:25:01 PM PDT
Nancy: The etheric body is, however, there from the very beginning

Dots: I didn't say the etheric body isn't present; it isn't free of working on the physical body until after the change of teeth. After that time it becomes available for simple learning tasks; Steiner especially recommended those tasks which include rhythm and repetition. To engage in intellectual tasks before that time is thought by anthroposophists to lead to health problems in later life because the etheric body was damaged by being diverted from its natural developmental job.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:29:23 PM PDT
DSC: I consider the soul and ego/mind to be two different things. One is pure awareness, the other is manipulation and memories.

Dots: I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "manipulation." That word could be interpreted to imply the use of force or coercion. To me the word "manipulation" has mostly negative connotations, but maybe you had something different in mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:32:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 1:34:10 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Big question, isn't it :)
What is "forever"? Is cyclical "forever"? Some propose a view of the Universe as one big quantum computer, would that qualify as a "perpetual motion machine"? Probably would... :)
In short - I have no idea, fascinating subject though. What I do know is that we (and I am not talking "selves", but the ones doing "selves", if you know what I mean) are constantly evolving along with the Universe to the point where "I" and the Universe (Reality) are one and the same. I like the way Norquist put it: "Consciousness = Universe" or "Awareness = Existence".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:37:46 PM PDT
DSC: If you see the ego/mind as a kind of resistance, then the inevitable question is resistant to what? To resist anything is to be in conflict with it. The implication is that the ego/mind is a system of weights that acts as a kind of foil for our misguided self-awareness--that which is stuck in a rut, so to speak. Is that your view, approximately?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:53:56 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Manipulation is not negative if it has a purpose. But it sort of becomes negative if that purpose has run it's course and is no longer needed.

Like everything, it depends.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:55:13 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
You can't surf on water that has not been "manipulated" by wind and the resulting waves.

On the other hand, those waves will disturb a clear refection or a delicate boat.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:57:04 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Nicely put.

"What I do know is that we (and I am not talking "selves", but the ones doing "selves", if you know what I mean) are constantly evolving along with the Universe to the point where "I" and the Universe (Reality) are one and the same."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:02:43 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
"To resist anything is to be in conflict with it."

DSC: No...to resist is to resist. Period. You are making "conflict" into something "bad". If you want to strengthen a muscle you have to have some sort of resistance. It's not "bad".

In this case, the "weight" is actually alive and has the same goal as the "muscle". Both want to create "growth". The weight (ego/mind) does it through one means and the muscle (soul, I AM, awareness) does it through another means. But both are actually on the same team...ultimately...because they are both part of the ONE like everything else.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:09:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 2:11:04 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Dots: The implication is that the ego/mind is a system of weights that acts as a kind of foil for our misguided self-awareness--that which is stuck in a rut, so to speak. Is that your view, approximately?

DSC: First of all, where did you get the idea that our awareness is "misguided"? The ego/mind itself IS what misguides...spiritually speaking ONLY.

The self-awareness (actually, just awareness) would know that it was "God" without the ego/mind. But it would also have no "self" and no memory and no identity other than just "God". That is, in fact, the enlightenment experience. To come out of your mind and into your "God Self".

The ego/mind provides the means for playing the game...the aperture and the veil and the "mask" of the self. But it also retains the memories from the current and previous lives.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:20:31 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
As to manipulation...look at that previous long quote I provided.

Notice how the false part of us is ACTIVE and the true part of us is PASSIVE.

And by "false" I only mean the way a mask over your face would be "false". It's still "real".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:00:25 PM PDT
Pablo Wooist says:
Cat,

I had to google Hume because it has been a long time. You are right, but unfortunately Hume did not prevail in either behavioral science or in the first generation of cognitive science with regard to emotions. Wish he had. But, finally, second generation of cognitive science based on the embodied and embedded mind from neuroscience is doing it right.

I gather you have at least one cat, maybe more. Looking at my four friends scattered around me on the floor, I suppose I might call myself UppingDogPoop. I am a highly experienced professional.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:11:55 PM PDT
DSC: The ego/mind itself IS what misguides

Dots: That is what I suggested was your view of the ego/mind--something that misguides (though for a reason). When I use the word "self-awareness" I mean an awareness that is aware of being aware. That is all. Within that self-awareness there could be tens, hundreds, thousands of micro-levels. Your explanation of the enlightenment experience jibes with what I know of it. At that point the relative ego/mind becomes like a negative for developing the "picture" (I mean this entirely in a metaphorical sense) of divine beingness (soul-spirit recollection) becoming the Creative Spirit, "the All-World-Being of Man." It is waking up on a higher level of self-ideation.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:15:44 PM PDT
Paul Whitmore,

I do have at least one cat. I have two cats.

Here is one quote from Hume where he, basically, talks about reason and emotions, which he sometimes calls sentiment. This is from An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (HPC Philosophical Classics Series). He brings up, and I quote, "Reason, being cool and disengaged, is no motive to action, and directs only the impulse received from appetite or inclination, by showing us the means of attaining happiness or avoiding misery." He brings up another point, a little more general, in the same work. The basic point is that reason does not make decisions, it presents countless options. It is up to the emotions to decide which way to go. I do not find much to object about this, and it appears self-evident to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:25:41 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
Baba, I don't think the etheric body is ever "free of working on the physical body". Without the etheric body the dense physical will fall apart.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:39:55 PM PDT
quert says:
Nancy, you had expanded somewhat on your triplicity of Life/Quality/Appearance earlier, and it became much clearer for me as to what the three components refer to. Thank you - sometimes a little clarification is necessary to synchronize individually conceived referents.
Your reply to quert's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:50:25 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
Quert, you're so welcome. There are dozens and dozens of such correspondences, and most people are aware of some of them.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 4:09:55 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Baba Dots, D.S. Clark... great discussion, great posts.

Seems clear that we all are talking about the same basic principle, corresponding structure[s] and the process by which this principle manifests itself in and via that structure..., except that each is using a slightly different set of metaphors and pointers to describe the whole thing. That is understandable an is to be expected.

Still I find it remarkable!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 5:47:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 10:12:54 PM PDT
Nancy Davison: I don't think the etheric body is ever "free of working on the physical body".

Dots: Indeed not. But it becomes looser in its connection to the physical. I'm going to quote from a book I read last summer that gave an excellent overview of human development from an esotericist pov (anthroposophical terms, but there is definite overlap with other systems, as Paul noted). The book is titled "The First Seven Years: Physiology of Childhood" by Edmund Schoorel. The excerpt is from a section titled "Human teeth: a picture of the working of ether forces".

"The fact that the [outer] birth of the ether body coincides with the beginning of the change of teeth already suggests a relationship between the ether body and the teeth in human beings. There are more indications for this. Looking at plants, we have seen that the ether body of the plant portrays itself in the flower. The life forces [which are active in the etheric body] have receded from the flower to a large extent. This is what makes the flower so transient and allows it to be a picture. The flower phenomenon shows that the ether body is capable of creating pictures when it draws life forces away from the material substance of the physical body. However, this needs preparation. First the green, growing plant is created; blooming can only appear afterward. In plants, the impulse to bloom comes from cosmic ether forces that inhibit growth. The being of the plant is portrayed in the flower; the ether body fascilitates this process as a mediator.

The formation of the teeth goes through a similar process. Children are born without teeth. In their first year children grow tremendously. Towards the end of the first year, the growth rate diminishes and the first teeth will erupt. When the ether forces of the head are born--after a little more than three years--the set of baby teeth is complete.

The teeth are part of the skeleton, which is the least vital part of the body [excluding the bone marrow, which is not actually part of the skeleton]. The teeth have a special position. Nowhere else is bone tissue visibly exposed, and no other tissue heals with such difficulty as does tooth bone (dentin). The set of teeth as a totality represents a picture. It is more than a number of adjoining teeth and molars, just as the flower is more than a number of petals. The set of teeth is like a flower. The teeth are generated by the formative force of the ether body *when it is largely receding, after it has first built up the physical body* [italics mine]. Because of this receding of the ether body, the teeth have a picture quality, and they are also vulnerable."

Anthroposophy always has this quality of sounding like biology or physiology done by poets. It is strange sounding, but there is a definite method and the findings are based on observations of living plants, animals, human beings, and higher dimensional beings. It always relates back to this world as the focus for our spiritual activities in the present, and not toward the spiritual concerns of discarnate entities (which are not always friendly toward human beings).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  736
Initial post:  Apr 17, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 21, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions