THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR EXISTENCE

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy » Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:42 am

Jufa

yes i'm off on my own tangent again. ( not that uncommon for me ) in my mind i'm thinking that the zero, or the hollow of the cup exist only because of the definition by the circle, or the cup, before that the space had only potential to be defined as. i'm thinking that "i am" because of being defined as, (by what ever created me, in your analogy that would be the circle, to me) but that which was defined to be me, came from that which was potential to be defined. Hence my question, what was the potential before the definition? i understand the defined being nothing by themselves i'm just not sure i understand nothingness? seems there has to be a field of potential, like a canvas upon which to create.
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:17 am

boringguy wrote: Hence my question, what was the potential before the definition? i understand the defined being nothing by themselves i'm just not sure i understand nothingness? seems there has to be a field of potential, like a canvas upon which to create.
Appropos of nothing, I am reminded of the Taoist reference to "the uncarved block," or the famous koan uttered by Huineng, the 6th Patriarch of Ch'an (Zen), "Without thinking of good or evil, show me your original face before your mother and father were born."
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:22 pm

Boringguy states;
"i am" because of being defined as, (by what ever created me, in you analogy that would be the circle, to me) but that which was defined to be me, came from that which was potential to be defined. hencemy question, what was the potential before the definition?
Boring, I do not know if you have flowed with the waves of this conversation through-out, but your questiion has been answered in the following manner;
THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. Now this means all that exist in the universe should not be, and so, to deal with the effect, will always lead one to deduct on that which has no meaning.
Also, to paraphase Campbell with alteration of words: The circle is a myth. And the myth is a "metaphor of an absolute mystery" which no human thought can reach, and no being or non-being can establish.

Your question is asking me to tell you who, or what is God? But your answer does not lie with me, it lies with you. And you can only find that answer by asking yourself what was not the potential before the definition, being that the potential and definition are omniety?

jufa
boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy » Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:21 am

Yes I understand the depth of the question. (at least to best of my little pea brains ability at this time) That I'm wanting something put to thought and words that can not be by their own limitations. That to understand how god created or from what is asking for a lot. But that is what we are all doing. Trying to push those limits. We try to build a perception born of thought and experience. So we hunger to experience, both physical and non physical, and we create the metaphors. I know real answers lie within, I'm just fishing for another perception here, as mine is weak. Hoping to find other perceptions, and understand the thought or experience from where they came.(the strength of community) Again I apologize for my poor communication skills, I know it's hard to be a good fisherman when one is a poor fly tyer.


I have followed the thread to the best of my ability and have enjoyed the metaphor of the circle. It has been thought provoking. Thanks. It just hasn't left me without questions. Bodhi's examples seem to be the same, so the question has obviously been asked before. (we would be lucky if we have an original thought in our whole life time) Yes the potential and the definition are now one, however an interesting question, what was not the potential? Maybe a different angle. I'll have to sit with that for a while.

____________________

To know is not to know, not to know is to know
Joemac
Associate
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:49 am

Post by Joemac » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:09 pm

Great discussion!

Nandu

In your reference in being one with God!

This is where we part. Can you heal the sick and walk on water? Are you the power of the Universe if you are one with God?

The two sided coin and the ying and yang of life suggest a balance when there is no balance. It’s completely one sided. Even the cyclical nature of the Universe is elliptical and snaps back toward the center. In other words objects stray from the center and eventually come back. How far they stray determines the magnitude of the effect.

Many are called few are chosen.
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:13 pm

Joemac wrote:Nandu

In your reference in being one with God!

This is where we part. Can you heal the sick and walk on water? Are you the power of the Universe if you are one with God?
No. But there are doctors who do. But of course, the doctors, and even the sick are one with God.

I am not the power of the Universe: I am the Universe. I exist in the Universe, and the Universe exists in me.

Aham Brahma Asmi

Tat Tvam Asi

You, and I, and each and every blade of grass, are expressions of the same Godhead. There is no need of you to reach there: you are already there.

The end of any spiritual journey is the realisation that you are at the destination: you have been at the destination even before you started. In fact, there is no journey or destination; they are creations of our mind. The veil of Maya.

Cheers
Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
Joemac
Associate
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:49 am

Post by Joemac » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:31 pm

Remember if you are one with Jesus, I in Him and He in Me, what you do to the least of his brethren you do to Him. You also have to love your enemies.

These are the two toughest paradigms in Christianity.
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:46 pm

Joemac wrote:Remember if you are one with Jesus, I in Him and He in Me, what you do to the least of his brethren you do to Him. You also have to love your enemies.

These are the two toughest paradigms in Christianity.
Enemy, and Friend, are equally false concepts that rise out of Duality. But we are forced into it, because of our sense of "I".

Once this "I" is gone, there is no "You".

But I agree, love is one way of approaching the Godhead. The parable of Radha and Krishna is proof of that.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy » Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:19 pm

Nandu,

Ok I'm getting a bit off track of this thread, but seems we're already there, so I'll ask.

I can fit a lot of things into my version of chirstianity, however the hope or desire that tomorrow can be better than today (in some way that I believe in) and that I play some role in that, always seems to be there. That there is a direction from where I am to something "better". In a version of no journey, no destination, seems there would be only existance.

Let me see if I can paint a picture here as maybe we're not so far apart as i first think.

In your version would you say that I am an instrument that was incarnated. Like say a violin. Now for the violin to be boostful and have it's own agenda is comical, as it can't make so much as a single note on it's own. Thats the work of the musician, which I am not, in this example. Now maybe the violin gets to choose if the musician plays or not, but after that, should be content to simply be the violin as part of the whole symphany, and let the musician play. Trusting that the musician knows better what the song should be.
Am i on the right track with where you're coming from? It still seems I have a journey here created by choice, which I believe there is (duality creates this) so maybe not, but once accepting the musician, choice is gone. (there may be no pure form of this in time/space but that's the idea)

I fear I'm still not there because i get back to humans having choice, the blade of grass doesn't seem to.

So, is there no duality, no choice in your version?
Or that it simply makes no difference which choice I make?

An edit: Ok Nandu, I was writing this as you posted the above and think part of my answer is there. That there is a place beyond duality( accepting the musician) but doesn't it still take choice to get there?
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:00 am

When we talk about hope what is the hope we talk about? Most people mistake hope for optimism because most people look for a brighter today as well as a brighter tomorrow. But to look for a brighter today and tomorrow without leaving that behind which is dead, and pressing forward to the reality of living now, is optimism, which is an illusion, which does not bring forth a change in one's life, but keeps a person tied to that which has keep them in bondage to abusive events.

We can have optimism that time brings about a change. Some call this hope. Bit change does not come upon one who has not prepared themselves to build upon the building blocks or enter in the door which open today. Time presents the opportunity for one to change their lives, but it does not change attitudes, or positions, this is the responsibility ofthe individual who want the change. So times presents the way, but the individual makes the change, and the change begins in mind.

Illusionary hope finds one believing that tomorrow things will change; tomorow everything will be alright. These are the ones who believe the illusion that by the very flow of time itself, there is a miraculous underpenning that will automatically make things better. This illusionary belief, however, is insensitive to the possibility of tragedy, and never takes into consideration that man's outer experiences are the externalization of his state of consciousness. Tomorrow things may not be alright. Tomorrow change is not always for the best, so optimism is a deception of the reality of the way things really are.

So what is hope, realistic hope? Realistic hope is the willingness to go forward regardless of the appearance. It is based in the Spirit and quality each man, woman, and child is given when entering the human realm. It is the determination of will to face the risk of failure, to move forward with the attitude of 'in spite of'. In spite of the fear; in spite of the pain; in spite of what happened yesterday; in spite of what will happen today.

That which is the vision of hope in the individual is already a reality IF the individual moves to secure it in their l ife. Realistic hope is, therefore, a reality in the person as a power that drives them to bring into manifestation; to fulfill that which is hoped for in them.

I'd also like to say
men are taught their fate in life comes about because of being born with a sin nature and attributes of their dual personality's influence. It is never revealed to them their lack of knowledge and their ignorance that their free will to choose for themselves, is based on the proposition this world is a reality of creation, and not of their forming minds.
jufa
Robert G.
Associate
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:48 pm

Post by Robert G. » Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:25 am

Enemy, and Friend, are equally false concepts that rise out of Duality.
Nandu, in what sense are these concepts "false"? It seems as if one can only make the true/false distinction if one accepts the duality that you are attempting to refute.

I was listening to a speech by John Searle (a philosopher and cognitive scientist from UCLA) the other day in which he mentioned giving a speech as part of a panel with the Dalai Lama. Searle said that when the Dalai Lama spoke he was surprised how completely he seemed to endorse a dualistic view which seemed to Searle pretty much the same as that found in the West and exemplified by Descartes. He admits to not being expert in the area but says he was very surprised at the acceptance of the division between mind and body in the Buddhist view. When I read that I had to laugh myself, obviously no one had told Searle that not only do they accept a distinction between body and mind but postulate a distinction between mind and consciousness (perhaps triism instead of dualism?). Searle has himself written what I consider a very effective refutation of Descartes and the dualist position.
User avatar
Martin_Weyers
Working Associate
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Odenwald
Contact:

Post by Martin_Weyers » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:16 am

Hello Nandu, Boringguy, Joemac, Robert G. and everyone!
Joemac wrote:Nandu

In your reference in being one with God!

This is where we part. Can you heal the sick and walk on water? Are you the power of the Universe if you are one with God?
Robert G. wrote:
Enemy, and Friend, are equally false concepts that rise out of Duality.
Nandu, in what sense are these concepts "false"? It seems as if one can only make the true/false distinction if one accepts the duality that you are attempting to refute.
I think this issue of duality versus oneness, being related to god versus identical with god, being a conglomerate of molecules versus incarnate god is a matter of perspective. In the phenomenal world we actually are distinct from each other, we are a meat-machine, we are friend and foe.

Without duality there would be no personality, no fun and no suffering -- but we are suffering and sometimes having fun, so we should not dismiss duality; while on a deeper level of consciousness, beyond categories of thought and perception, we are what Campbell calls "undifferentiated consciousness": oneness.

Campbell points out, that someone who believes that he as a person is God, is not a sage but megalomaniac. So I don't see any conflict in claiming I am god or I am the universe on one hand, and I am a Catholic middle-aged Democrat-hating salesman (or something like that) on the other hand. It's the focus of "I" that changes.

I am god or we are one is a symbolic statement that can't be put in a simple logic function; while friend and enemy are no false concepts in general, rather concepts with a limited scope. Not the concept itself is false, but its application to our innermost being. Your neighbour might become an enemy because he's a representant of a specific political idea, but that does not touch his innermost being. What you hate is the idea he represents, and it's not you but your idea that hates. It's the thought that thinks. :? :arrow: :mrgreen:
Works of art are indeed always products of having been in danger, of having gone to the very end in an experience, to where man can go no further. -- Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:24 am

Robert G. wrote:
Enemy, and Friend, are equally false concepts that rise out of Duality.
Nandu, in what sense are these concepts "false"? It seems as if one can only make the true/false distinction if one accepts the duality that you are attempting to refute.
Caught me there, Robert!

I should have said "meaningless concepts". Language betrays us because of its very nature.

The Dalai Lama, as any other human being, sees duality because of the existence of the "I". But when you think deep, this "I" has no meaning, but you can't escape it... that's the existential conundrum.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
Joemac
Associate
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:49 am

Post by Joemac » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:43 pm

You are all a lot more intelligent than I am. I try to keep it simple just to simply survive.

I am coming from the explanation Jesus gave us in how to relate to God. It’s pretty simple and solves a lot of complicated issues.

His description is the Good Shepherd and the Sheep which levels the field literally in that all are equal in the relationship with God and one another, and then to divest ourselves of those THINGS that would interfere with the nature of equality in the Spirit. Everyone is granted the same potential in the Spirit, but not in the physical sense, but can be overcome within the flock. We come together as being one with God, but by no means being equal to God. Even if the Earth had 8 billion well educated people we still would not come close to the concept of Complete Knowledge of All. Who can know God?

The Church changed the archetype when they introduce the Holy Family (very tough to argue against) which began to separate the sheep from being on big family. The Church ran with “what ever two of you bound on Earth it will be bound in Heaven” instead of just keeping it simple. We still DRAG-ON with DOCTRINE.
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:08 pm

I've found religion is operated by men who have not established within themselves, for themselves, and therefore could not establish laws, and by-laws, and doctrince of authenticity.

When listening to the teachers and ministers, you will hear them say "the Bible says." The Bible says the same things to all people literally. It is interpreting the words of the Bible which confound men. And for congregations of followers of church leaders and teachers are given a set of principles and pattern to follow, but are not taught their application of appliance.

Confusion reign in all denomination, and within denomination because interpretation is based on hearsay fundamentalism, and new age ascension.. To myself it is my asking the question to myself: Where is your God?" and finding myself answering:

My God is where I am. I am my thoughts. This means my God is everywhere my thoughts are whether I am conscious or unconscious of them. This means my God is the functioning Life of every molecule, fiber, tissue, bone, ounce of fluid, and electrical impluse of my consciousness which not only initiate the activity of these things, but is the Life force which cause them to carry out the purpose of their function in order to make my thought being what it is.

So I am my thoughts. Yet my thoughts are only a vehicle for my conscious and unconscious awareness, which are activated by "The law of the Spirit of Life" of the Consciousness of Being. This means that Spirit of Consciousness which is the Cause of my being is the Cause of my thoughts, and my thoughts give life to all that I am. I am therefore all that is of my thoughts and awareness. My God is also all that is of my thoughts and awareness because where Consciousnss is, there is where my Life is.

Let's make this clear, I am talking about my God. I am not talking about anything else but my God. No God of any religious affection one may attempt to throw up.

Campbell stated hinduism was his salvation. And it say a salvation from him being caught up in denominational and mother church rhetoric. campbelled lived with his God continuously, and in living with, he became the wisdom revived of that which was lost. "The Power of Myth."

jufa
Locked