Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@DhammaDragon said:> "For, my friend, in this very body, six feet in length, with its sense-impressions and its thoughts and ideas, I do declare to you are the world, and the origin of the world, and the ceasing of the world, and likewise the Way that leadeth to the ceasing thereof."
(A. N. ii 46 - F. L. Woodward translation)
Yes, in the suttas the Buddha usually focussed on "my world" and discouraged speculation about "the world". The Mahayana couldn't resist getting all metaphysical though.
@Shoshin said:
So are you suggesting a god of the gaps theory vinlyn ?
I don't think it has to be 'God', whatever that means, but there could be something that 'updates' species at certain points, but then that supposes that there is a blueprint already in existence to work towards, i.e. the concept of sight already existed before sight evolved. That doesn't require a 'God' it just requires something like a higher realm, which could just be along the lines of the 'living in a computer simulation' theory, and there is a true reality with scientists or whatever giving little timely boosts to species etc. I don't believe that (or not believe it) i'm just giving an example of something that has been reasonably speculated that might account for certain issues. Oh, and then there's the ancient alien theory, and maybe Earth is a petri dish and we are an experiment that receives certain timely 'upgrades'. Or maybe we receive boosts through the ingestion of psilocybin. Or maybe it's something we can't even comprehend.
@mindatrisk It's an interesting theory but........................
I prefer this version of events, ie, just a tool developed by consciousness to explore itself ...And I'm still laughing my self silly (as Alan Watts puts it)
@Shoshin said:
mindatrisk It's an interesting theory but........................
I prefer this version of events, ie, just a tool developed by consciousness to explore itself ...And I'm still laughing my self silly (as Alan Watts puts it)
Yeah I like this a lot. Unfortunately, to understand it fully requires deep realisation... probably enlightenment. I'm not sure how I could put into words the impressions I got from this video. I suppose in one way my question regarding eyes and the universe is redundant because it assumes separation of the two, when, in fact, it is one thing. But I don't know what else my mind can compute out of that.
@Shoshin said:> I prefer this version of events, ie, just a tool developed by consciousness to explore itself ...And I'm still laughing my self silly (as Alan Watts puts it)
Dare I say it, this also sounds very anthropocentric.
This is a quote I found somewhere:
"Basically what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind, there is no meaning and no reality"
So maybe you dont need an eye - just mind?
We western humans are very vision focussed - we have to be drive cars and work computers. Other senses seem to have become a bit dulled.
I spend much of my days contemplating such questions, but unless you consciously exist to contemplate these things, nothing like the concepts discussed will ever be considered or matter...
@mindatrisk said:
Not that this should count for anything, but when people have NDE's many are surprised that they have no body but can still see, hear etc.
But could it be a dream? I can hear and see in my dream but no body.
@bookworm said:
What did the universe look like before eyes evolved you ask? Well, I think it looked exactly as it does now.
But did it and how could it if eyesight did not exist? Who or what did it look like something to? We're talking about a time before eyesight existed - a time when eyesight not only did not exist but never had existed and no such concept of eyesight existed. So how can it look like anything when there is nothing to do the looking and 'looking' didn't even exist in conceptual form? It's like me asking 'what does the universe bibodo like?' And you ask 'well, what's bibodo?' and I reply 'I don't know and it doesn't even exist'... so how can the universe bibodo like anything?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It matters, because if the universe looked different then everything you perceive is your projection.
So when I'm arguing with someone it's really my projection arguing with my projection.
And no, I don't mean other humans don't exist!
I find the sorts of questions great, the open up areas that are beyond what we normally think about.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
No, they don't. What they do, is ..."bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them." (Point 4.....)
I just thought my question was pretty much the same question 'if a tree falls and no-one is around to hear it does it make a sound?' etc. The point isn't to intellectualise it, it's to bring us into another state of mind... something beyond conceptualising.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Which as the Buddha pointed out, is a total waste of time.
But feel free to argue with him and say he's wrong.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@mindatrisk said: The point isn't to intellectualise it, it's to bring us into another state of mind... something beyond conceptualising.
What a load of balls.
That's just saying something for the sake of it.
There is no way to discuss something WITHOUT intellectualising it. As for bringing us into another state of mind..beyond conceptualising - I think you need recreational drugs to do that...
I suppose that depends on your practice. I really like Zen, and I do find that if I rest my mind on such a problem then it does begin to make little shifts to a different quality of mind. I think this is what koans are supposed to achieve, and, as I said, I think my question is just a re-wording of the classic koan 'tree, forrest, sound etc.'
@federica said:As for bringing us into another state of mind..beyond conceptualising - I think you need recreational drugs to do that...
Yeah, or do it the long way and develop jhana.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
You are wrong here because you are confusing discussing the possibilities with forming a conclusion.
Buddha did not warn against questions like these, he warned about attaching to the answers.
Conjecture is positing a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
Big difference between that and asking a question or discussing possibilities.
No offense or anything.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Which as the Buddha pointed out, is a total waste of time.
But feel free to argue with him and say he's wrong.
Which as the Buddha pointed out, is a total waste of time.
But feel free to argue with him and say he's wrong.
You are so sure that Buddha said those words verbatim. Even though it was translated into English and the words were only written by mere mortals hundreds of years after he passed.
I'll tell a story to my family by word of mouth and in 2215 we will translate it into Pali and let's see if it's the same. (This is a joke )
I don't believe it just because a rewritten book tells me so. I'm dubious because look at the "lost Mahayana" scriptures or the "Vajrayana" fast way to enlightenment.
If the Buddha wrote the book I might be more inclined to believe it was 100% true.
So for now I'll follow my heart and what I can see is true based on experience, not because Buddha says so. As if anybody can claim that to be true. Nobody knows if it was even his words.
Comments
Could you give some examples? I thought dead-ends were a feature of evolutionary theory?
Yes, in the suttas the Buddha usually focussed on "my world" and discouraged speculation about "the world". The Mahayana couldn't resist getting all metaphysical though.
So are you suggesting a god of the gaps theory @vinlyn ?
I don't think it has to be 'God', whatever that means, but there could be something that 'updates' species at certain points, but then that supposes that there is a blueprint already in existence to work towards, i.e. the concept of sight already existed before sight evolved. That doesn't require a 'God' it just requires something like a higher realm, which could just be along the lines of the 'living in a computer simulation' theory, and there is a true reality with scientists or whatever giving little timely boosts to species etc. I don't believe that (or not believe it) i'm just giving an example of something that has been reasonably speculated that might account for certain issues. Oh, and then there's the ancient alien theory, and maybe Earth is a petri dish and we are an experiment that receives certain timely 'upgrades'. Or maybe we receive boosts through the ingestion of psilocybin. Or maybe it's something we can't even comprehend.
@mindatrisk It's an interesting theory but........................
I prefer this version of events, ie, just a tool developed by consciousness to explore itself ...And I'm still laughing my self silly (as Alan Watts puts it)
Them gaps are shrinking all the time due to the work of evil scientists.
Yeah I like this a lot. Unfortunately, to understand it fully requires deep realisation... probably enlightenment. I'm not sure how I could put into words the impressions I got from this video. I suppose in one way my question regarding eyes and the universe is redundant because it assumes separation of the two, when, in fact, it is one thing. But I don't know what else my mind can compute out of that.
Dare I say it, this also sounds very anthropocentric.
This is a quote I found somewhere:
"Basically what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind, there is no meaning and no reality"
So maybe you dont need an eye - just mind?
We western humans are very vision focussed - we have to be drive cars and work computers. Other senses seem to have become a bit dulled.
All my post is suggesting is what my post said.
Sure, a mind is useful.
Not that this should count for anything, but when people have NDE's many are surprised that they have no body but can still see, hear etc.
I have to confess, when I first saw the title of the thread, I finished it off with,
..."before God was invented...?"
If you say so @SpinyNorman ....However being a tool for consciousness would apply to all sentient (conscious) beings and not just human beings....
My apologies @vinlyn
I spend much of my days contemplating such questions, but unless you consciously exist to contemplate these things, nothing like the concepts discussed will ever be considered or matter...
think about it!
It looked exactly like your face, before your parents were born.
You don't necessarily need eyes to see.
But could it be a dream? I can hear and see in my dream but no body.
What did the universe look like before eyes evolved you ask? Well, I think it looked exactly as it does now.
But did it and how could it if eyesight did not exist? Who or what did it look like something to? We're talking about a time before eyesight existed - a time when eyesight not only did not exist but never had existed and no such concept of eyesight existed. So how can it look like anything when there is nothing to do the looking and 'looking' didn't even exist in conceptual form? It's like me asking 'what does the universe bibodo like?' And you ask 'well, what's bibodo?' and I reply 'I don't know and it doesn't even exist'... so how can the universe bibodo like anything?
Actually - who really cares?
I mean, really?
Why does it matter, and to whom?
You could say that about most things...
It matters, because if the universe looked different then everything you perceive is your projection.
So when I'm arguing with someone it's really my projection arguing with my projection.
And no, I don't mean other humans don't exist!
I find the sorts of questions great, the open up areas that are beyond what we normally think about.
No, they don't. What they do, is ..."bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them." (Point 4.....)
I just thought my question was pretty much the same question 'if a tree falls and no-one is around to hear it does it make a sound?' etc. The point isn't to intellectualise it, it's to bring us into another state of mind... something beyond conceptualising.
Which as the Buddha pointed out, is a total waste of time.
But feel free to argue with him and say he's wrong.
What a load of balls.
That's just saying something for the sake of it.
There is no way to discuss something WITHOUT intellectualising it. As for bringing us into another state of mind..beyond conceptualising - I think you need recreational drugs to do that...
I suppose that depends on your practice. I really like Zen, and I do find that if I rest my mind on such a problem then it does begin to make little shifts to a different quality of mind. I think this is what koans are supposed to achieve, and, as I said, I think my question is just a re-wording of the classic koan 'tree, forrest, sound etc.'
Yeah, or do it the long way and develop jhana.
You are wrong here because you are confusing discussing the possibilities with forming a conclusion.
Buddha did not warn against questions like these, he warned about attaching to the answers.
Conjecture is positing a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
Big difference between that and asking a question or discussing possibilities.
No offense or anything.
I don't think he said that.
You are so sure that Buddha said those words verbatim. Even though it was translated into English and the words were only written by mere mortals hundreds of years after he passed.
I'll tell a story to my family by word of mouth and in 2215 we will translate it into Pali and let's see if it's the same. (This is a joke
)
I don't believe it just because a rewritten book tells me so. I'm dubious because look at the "lost Mahayana" scriptures or the "Vajrayana" fast way to enlightenment.
If the Buddha wrote the book I might be more inclined to believe it was 100% true.
So for now I'll follow my heart and what I can see is true
based on experience, not because Buddha says so. As if anybody can claim that to be true. Nobody knows if it was even his words.