Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [existlist] Re: good and bad

Expand Messages
  • eduard
    Message 1 of 281 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      <<< I dont think I said it was impossible.
      Oneness for me is without thought; that is, pure
      consciousenss. Ur definition and the Buddhists
      definition is false I think. Oneness cant be
      approached by thought, or meditation. Meditation
      is to focus on an object in ur mind, so its a
      process of self-reflection. It wont be grasped in
      this way. Im not an expert either. I read it a
      few years ago, so I dont remember it all.
      However, Im not saying that this oneness is a
      desired existence. Its merely an existence, thats
      all. Pure cconsciousenss, or oneness, must cease
      all thought, since thought is egoism, but egosim
      isnt harmful. Its a part of our existence. >>>

      I think if you study up on Zen, you will see that
      meditation is exactly the opposite to focusing on
      something. The objective is non-thought ... to
      release your mind from its fixations. I agree
      that "oneness" is to cease all thought. And I
      agree that egoism isn't harmful. We need egoism
      in order to function. All I am saying is that
      sometimes egoism gets in our way ... especially
      with trying to find meaning in the world.

      <<< I am not sure, still, how a meaning can be
      placed without human thought. To say it is there
      before consciouseness, then ur using consciousness
      to describe it. U cant get out of this circle.
      How can meaning exist in oneness, which the world
      is without consciousness. Things just are. Thats
      it. No more, no less. >>>

      You are still caught up in the idea that "meaning"
      is something that is dependent upon human thought
      and occurs when it is "placed" or "given" by
      someone who thinks up the meaning. I grant that
      it is only humans who can annunciate a meaning.
      But that does not imply that the meaning which is
      described did not exist previously. Lets go back
      to the pencil. And lets say that it is on a table
      lying next to a now invented piece of paper. You
      walk into the room, spot the object and proclaim
      ... "Aha, a pencil". Did the object become a
      pencil only at the instant when you labelled it??
      My position is that the object had its meaning
      before you entered the room. Thus meaning
      precedes consciousness.

      <<< I still think that God cant be everything and
      and still create cause thats a contradiction. So
      my point here is that God cant be known
      by the way our consciousness works. He could be a
      higher consciousness, but he has nothing to do
      with me then since he is higher than me. I cant
      live up to him. So hes out of the question for
      ME. Other than that, I think ur right bout him.

      God is a fantasy. He is something that we dream
      up and we are able to do this because we are a
      thinking species. Because He is a fantasy, we can
      say he creates anything, or for that matter, that
      he cant create anything.

    • Mary Jo
      the other paper . . .
      Message 281 of 281 , Dec 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.