Yen you are right, but I was trying to make a point there and you realized the "difference". I only hope that sid_16 sees that point to.
'Between' the lines of your post I knew what you actually have meant. So when I wrote that I have a different opinion, we know that it just was another attempt to put the same matter into my relative POV. Our discussion here is very inspiring. Anyway we know that we can only write here from a relative POV. The absolute is our all source, but because of different minds we choose different words. When I have the time and when I meet friends we discuss sometimes about that all as well. There are scientists, but also with 'knowledge' of different religious aspects. And I know 'pure' scientists. (Who are plainly lost in their mind games). I also have talked to Yoga teachers, monks when I am on vacancy. And I have some books. It is always very inspiring to talk to all these people. I myself did some yoga and meditation. Both are made to 'settle down' the mind. And I know as long as one has to made an effort and there is a 'own' mind, we need to put our sight inwards.
I hope that more and more people will awake from this awful nightmare that they call "life" so we can finally raise the vibration of the planet, which will occur anyway.
In the past I thought the entire mankind will reach the point where 'life' is fully understood, headed by scientists. But it happens another way, which makes no difference. It will be ever a particular 'individual' that 'realizes' the Self. There will be no evolution of 'the masses'. "Take care of yourself, the world will take care of itself", don't know who has said this, but I know now what it means. There is actually no difference concerning the 'result'. The only difference is that every ONE needs to make their own effort...as long as they 'are' individuals
You're right on that. The raise of SELF is individual, not in groups, but still, the message of the raising of the SELF from the ashes of the mind must be spread. "Be the change you want to see in the world" is the same message said differently.
Sorry for the late reply. Before proceeding further, please define the 'self' first and differentiate the creation of self (poetry and paintings as you mentioned above) is different from that of mind creation (Daz loader). Why do you think a painter and a poet or a writer doesn't need mind for their creation? What makes you think that Shakespeare and Pablo Piccaso didn't use their mind (but Daz used while crating the win7 loader) while creating 'Leaning Harlequin' or 'As You Like It'?
Yen sir, in my dreams, there are people (like you/others) that are exactly the same as the people I see when I am awake. And afterward I find out that those people in my dreams don't have a consciousness, but all their actions and words are simply created by my subconscious. So If the people in my dreams don't have a mind/consciousness, how do I know that "they" have a consciousness? Consciousness is something which cannot be quantified or verified with any accuracy. It is something which can exist in matter but is not matter. So no one can make an absolute judgment as to whether something is conscious or not. We can only judge from certain complex definitions which we have formed for our convenience. If you look inside a head you will not find anything called consciousness there. You will find only matter which is made of same particles which you see every where. Out side the head you may detect EM waves emanating from inside. But is EM wave made of consciousness? Penrose says self reduction of state vector constitutes consciousness but does not say what consciousness is made of. What is its true nature? This may be, because our mind / consciousness is private to each person and we can only observe our own mind, our own perceptions, and own consciousness, so it's hard to arrive at universally agreed truths on acknowledging other forms of consciousness. Reality is the sum total of our perceptions. We see, taste, feel, hear and smell what we think is there. We only know it's there because we sensed it in some way. Perception is often confused with assumption and conclusion. We use assumption and conclusion to fill in the blanks of our perception. This is not the same thing as an "incorrect perception." When assumption and conclusion lead us into some unknown or unexplored reality, perception is quick to adjust any misconceptions. The serious question to answer in the face of silliness is, "What difference does it make?" If our perception somehow skewed our concept of reality, how would this manifest itself? Would 'up' be 'down' and 'red' actually a shade of 'blue'? If there are no minds to discern the absolute, there is no absolute truth! Reality, outside of determination by mind is illusion.
It actually doesn't matter if one thinks that they have a individual consciousness. But commonly humans say there is a unique consciousness called mind. (relative truth) To find an realative answer of your question about consciousness in dreams you need to ask that question in your dream. But as I have said, it doesn't matter. The awake world and the dream world is created by the mind, there is no relative difference. People are creating differences, but they are actually not holeproof, even by relative arguing. The true nature is that it simply IS. It is that 'what's looking out of your eyes'... Individual consciousness does not exist. It is one of the attibutes of the mind, which is illusionary. Because we have an idea of an 'I' we think we have individual consciousness and hence we think other humans have their own.... In fact they don't have consciousness, 'they' ARE consciousness. No, reality is not the sum of our perceptions. In Reality there is no-body who could have perceptions. Reality simply IS...pure being, consciousness. ""What difference does it make?" Yes, no at all. Since the mind makes the differences. "There is only the Reality. Whatever you think it is, it looks like that." So if it's a green horse with a blue horsemen on it, then it is. "There is only the Reality. Whatever you think it is, it looks like that." You can repeat that sentences many times to get the massive effect of its meaning... There is something interesting. When having a look at some words of a particular language and you read them 'literally', then they get an more original sense: Example: English: Nevermind! Somobody says that if it's not important, or already explained, or not worth to care about. never-mind: To explain the truth, never use the mind, it is not able to....it is not worth to care about (relative truths)... The word consciousness. (German: Bewusstsein), consist of two words also. bewusst: aware. Sein: to be or being. So consciousness actually means to be aware or aware being....(the Self) "Also there is no world outside. Everything is within us." The most don't get that. Most of us think that there is a world outside. They say I am living IN the world. So there is a world apart from them. Also they think when they have died the world will continue to exist alone (without them). Also they think when they go to sleep the world continues to exist independent of them... Think about if there might be doubts... The absolute truth makes it possible that you can say there is no absolute truth. The Self (absolute truth) causes the mind, but the Self has no cause. The Self does not 'obey' the principle of cause and effect. Hence one name of it is god. 'outside of determination by mind ' There is no 'outside of determination by mind'. It never can be. Think about it if it can. Objects are thoughts and ever a part of the mind. So everything that can be determined is determined by the mind. And everything that can be determined is not yourSelf. The same would be: determine something outside of the universe, it never can be. 'Outside of the universe will become inside of the universe' The absolute cannot be discerned, who should do it? It simply IS. Have you tried the mind game I have linked to (disassemble yourself..)? 'That' what will be left is the Self. As soon as you give it a name it is the non-self. You always try to objectify the absolute. The absolute 'needs nothing to prove its existence' It simply is pure existence. 'I am' is the absolute. To break out from relative illusions, I suggest (that 'worked' by me), to find them. One by one and to tax your brain. Play the mind game from above. Play it aware, think about what else then must be illusionary. Think about if there can be something outside of the mind, think about what else then must be illusionary. Try to prove that the world exists when you sleep, think about what else then must be illusionary. One needs to make the effort to reveal. It never won't by reading what others say, or what others have already experienced. Try it and your true nature is purely left.
Yen sir, it is this part that is most confusing. I do not remember any previous life or any sin/virtue committed there in. So how do I know that I am punished / rewarded for a sin/virtue committed earlier? Is it not like punishing/rewarding me for something I do not remember having committed? How can that be justified? In short you are saying all these just because it is so written in some ancient books which you find very logical(I'm sorry to say this) even when there is no evidence to prove it. If I were born in a non-religious family/society would you still believe I've realized god? If life is eternal as 'old' religious books said so then what was the population when the books were written and what is it now 7 billions! and according to that logic, the population of a species should be same as before and must not increase or decrease at all.
I don't know, but since I can remind of myself I felt lost in a way.... There is a key dream where I had dreamed: At 'my previous life' I died lying in a buggy being a baby. Watching it myself from outside.... I concluded in that dream it must be another life since I wasn't a baby anymore when I had that dream........ And when I was a child and tried to fall asleep, I suddenly became affected of massive fear of death. I imagined there will be a time where my life ends...and I cannot change that fact....... My parents educated me being a Christian...but I denied that. Then I tried to supress that fear..... When I was 10 I discovered to be very talented in Chemistry. I thought that is it. So I have studied organic Chemistry, but not to a doctor grade (some people said to me I would throw away my talent)...... At work I met people, people who traveled a lot. So I went to Asia and met people there. I came to Buddhism. Buddhism is made for scientific minds. Finally I came back to Christianity. Yes I have a lot of books. And I had practised meditation, yoga. And I experienced the 'moment' where the mind stands still, at meditiation the first time. It rarely happens, suddenly.....I am too busy and my mind is too strong and full of thoughts.....when I travel it happens at some places..... But as I have said: As long as there is a individual mind one needs to put the sight inwards... I got bliss, my fear of death is relative now..... I don't believe all this, I know it's true and I am grateful for 'god'. When I get asked about stuff like this I answer, with my relative POV, sometimes missunderstood......knowing the Self is our source. When nobody asks about I don't talk about, some already had said I am nuts. "If I were born in a non-religious family/society would you still believe I've realized god?" It doesn't matter what I think, it does what you do. The 'sin' of what you are talking of is to think that you are not realized, to confuse the Self with the non-self. But no problem, everything will end in the Self.
Yen sir, does dreams have any meaning? At least my dreams don’t seem to have any meaning. They are like crazy movies. My thinking is that the reticular formation in the brain- which is supposed to be the seat of consciousness- and the sensory part of the brain does not go to sleep simultaneously. May be there is a short time gap before the sensory part goes to sleep. During that interval random neuron firings unsupervised by the conscious brain may be occurring. I have read some where that dreams occur either just when the subject is falling asleep or just before waking and they last only a second or two while the subject feels it has lasted many minutes or hours. In any case I like them; they are like free movies. It is a proven fact that the universe we perceive is our experiential version and what is out there has a different form than what we imagine. But that is not reason enough to conclude that our perception is an illusion. We have evolved to perceive and interpret certain parameters of the universe in a certain way and we construct our own mental images which suits our way of life. At our level of perception they are real. Subjective realities are not objective realities, but they are not dreams either. As for the “oneness”, again it is obvious that we are very much a part of the universe but at our level of perception we are separate. I find it hard to believe that consciousness is something separate from my body. In that case why is it that a partial damage to my brain results in partial loss of consciousness? How is it that a simple injection to the body can knock out my consciousness? How a few pegs of whiskey makes changes to my consciousness? It is quite possible that consciousness, which certainly is different from matter, is another form of energy and it could be a so far unknown or unrecognized property of the universe. But I believe that individual consciousness arises from particular configurations of particles and it disappears once that configuration is destroyed. What is consciousness? What does consciousness do? What is the basic advantage of a conscious body? I think consciousness is an ability to recognize the identity of self in relation to the rest of the environment in order to react appropriately for the survival of self. If that be the case (which I feel is reasonable to assume) then there is basic consciousness present in all particles. All configurations of particles could be conscious to a degree that is necessary for the survival of that configuration. While admitting that science and scientists are not able to explain everything, the fact remains that scientific explanations are the only credible ones we have. I am not willing to give the same weightage to mystic explanations which is based on empirical thoughts, not tested or proved, may be we are not equipped to understand the quantum level behavior of nature. But does that mean one should go by the ancient and scriptural stories? My experience of the universe more or less matches with the experience described by others like me. So I reasonably conclude that my experience is not a dream but a reality. At the same time having learnt a little bit of science I know that what I and others like me experience is a construction of our mind which is a version of the universe at the human level of perception. There are other versions beyond our perception which we have been investigating through science. But at a certain level we have run into some confusing findings which may get clearer as time goes by. The first living cell also would have had its perception of a universe which presumably would have been very limited in size. But that too was a version of universe. "Individual consciousness does not exist. It is one of the attibutes of the mind, which is illusionary. Because we have an idea of an 'I' we think we have individual consciousness and hence we think other humans have their own.... In fact they don't have consciousness, 'they' ARE consciousness." If I understood you correctly , your view is that my consciousness is a temporarily extension of a superior consciousness or “mind of god” what ever. Assuming that be the case for a moment, it means what ever I do is the work of that superior consciousness. It is that god which decided what kind of consciousness I should have and how it should work; very similar to programming of a robot. In that case how am I responsible for what I do? If I pray to that god it will be like praying to the self. If as you say “there is a field of reality lying behind the illusory universe” why call it god? Why not call it an intangible field of reality? And why should anyone pray to that reality?
I suggest you to read The power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. Maybe you'll understand what Yen and I try to say. P.S. The mind can't see the SELF, has only thoughts that point to the SELF.
sid_16 I'll reply detailed later, when I have more time, but as always with a relative POV. One thing: God is only a word. It is even differently spelled at other languages. 'The evolution back to the Self' (btw I prefer the word :Self) is usually: No awareness of any higher power--->awareness of a higher power--->awareness that there is only IT, the 'higher' power. And a book recommendation as well: (I have recommended that book a few friends, also scientists-->people with a scientifically orientated mind), it is written by Ken Wilber, also originally a scientist: The Spectrum of Consciousness, author Ken Wilber This book was responsible that I have found a 'bridge' from science to spiritual matters. The first I have got from him. His last books are IMHO affected by returning into mind games, I cannot recommend, though. He has written a few very good books, also one where he describes what 'happens' when the 'mind stands still' But also not theoretically, he wrote from his own practical experience. It's actually a diary. One Taste: Daily Reflections on Integral Spirituality
For the time being whatever you learned from that book of Echart Tolly ,please clarify my doubt/query about the self as I posted earlier and if I get that mystic book I would like to learn. What exactly is self / self-awareness? Is it possible to describe it in a mechanical or algorithmic sense? Is it important, or just a rather hyped property of our mind? Would our mind be equally effective without self-awareness? Do mental properties like "volition/intention", "self" and "self-knowledge" really exist? What about "will"? One definition I'd heard, was that self-awareness is the ability to look in a mirror and realize that the thing you are seeing is you. Perhaps this is equivalent to having a "self" or "identity".
Yen sir, if I find The Spectrum of Consciousness, by Ken Wilber I would certainly read it and thanks for the recommendation. It is really remarkable that before modern science was born our ancestors could make a statement like “Aham Brahmasmi” (I am the creator) and it gets somehow validated by our modern science to some extent. It is true to the extent that the universe as we perceive is a creation of our consciousness. But the properties of the universe which enable us to create that perception are not our creation. How our consciousness which enable us to create our perception of the world got created and what is it made of? If universe can exist without somebody observing it, then why evolutionary forces created consciousness? Is it possible that consciousness was present from the beginning as a fundamental property of the universe? (In quantum de-coherence phenomenon both object and subject seems to be aware of each others presence). In that case is it not possible that it is present on the living as well as non-living? These are some of the interesting questions we need to know I think.It is easy to find a one word answer in “God”. But we need proofs.
Where does correct perception fit into your thoughts? and Can the "Big Bang" be merely our entertainment of the thought that we were separate from God and time began from that point perpetuating the illusion.. The healing of that thought may be what we have come to call higher consciousness.
sid_16 The Spectrum of Consciousness was released and printed in India (Delhi 2002) as well. When going to books.google.com and you enter the book title you can have a preview of the Indian release written in English. I am surprised how many pages are fully available at google. There are even two different editions listed. This book is a recommendation that comes from heart. I just have got mine from the bookshelf again. The last time when I have read it was some years ago. It looks pretty 'used', because I had borrowed it to many friends. Wilber's knowledge is very varied. He relates to quotes from scientists all over the world, Carl Jung also. It has many psychological aspects, because consciousness is a psychological matter also. It has spiritual aspects from Hinduism and Buddhism and cosmological aspects. It suits very well to the the topic here and I think you might like it. It is a book that can be read many times. And if it shouldn't be interesting, then put it into the bookshelf. Read it again after some years. My copy is 8 years old already. The claim for proofs. How many times I wanted proofs in my life for something. Being scientist it is actually my profession to hunt for proofs. It hindered me more than it had been a benefit, the hunt for proofs. What is actually a proof? It is nothing more than an agreement with somebody's opinion / theory. A proof can only be made by the mind. But what if it's the mind that distracts us from the Reality? A scientific orientated mind needs to hunt for proofs to get their real value. That's OK. I had mentioned that your way of thinking reminds me of my way when I was younger and is still a part of me. But I guess you will encounter as well in life that the value of a proof at this matter is overestimated. They always cause new unanswered questions. And to have got a proof causes a sort of pseudo-safety for the ego. I can prove it. This statement, what is it actually worth? To want to prove something distracts from the original 'thing' (Self) what we actually want to know when talking about this topic. The absolute cannot be proven. A proof is a relative matter. A relative matter can be proved. How / why to prove the taste of coffee? How / why to prove the beauty of a sunset? Does one need to prove them at all, to enjoy, to experience them? Does a complex theory about them change my experience? Both simply are, presently. "It is really remarkable that before modern science was born our ancestors could make a statement like “Aham Brahmasmi” (I am the creator) and it gets somehow validated by our modern science to some extent." Oh yes it is. And it should us make to think about if wisdom has to be gained, proved, or if it is 'something' that is ever present. And finally I want to add something about dreams. Dreams are usually interesting, because they appear to be something completely different to our (awake) life. There is another physics. I can jump down a high roof and simply move along further, I can fly, I have different powers. There is another idea of 'I' and another idea of the world. And there is a reason why we think the dream world is not real, compared to the awake world. I had posted about that already, in fact both are actually dreams. The awake world and the dream world, both have their places in the mind. The meaning of a dream is also reflected by the mind. We are dreaming every night. But we can only remember to have dreamed when we wake up at once after the dream. There are also nested dreams. With even more levels. We think we are woken up from a dream, but in fact we are still dreaming. So we have dreamed to wake up. We notice about only when we have gained our imagination again of 'I' which is the same at the 'awake' world. In fact we need to wake up one more time. I can tell from my own experience. When I did meditation every day an hour I experienced that I needed less sleep and had lucid dreams. 'I' could actively act in my dreams. The difference of the dream world and the awake world vanished more and more. Their nature is the same. So to answer the question: There is no more meaning at dream worlds compared to the awake worlds. It will be always a relative meaning, which can have a relative benefit. I do not write this to convince you or somebody. Everybody has to make his own meaning by experiences.
The 13.7 billion year old theory is based on what is observable, the problem is that the observable is not necessarily all there is to see.
A homogeneous (no preferred place ) , isotropic (no preferred direction) and expanding space begins with a singularity if Einstein general theory of relativity holds in all situations. This is the main idea which lies at the heart of big bang theory. Planets, stars, galaxies etc., born and die this we know from observations. We can see stars being born and galaxies being assembled. Although these objects take million and billion years to born and die but we can make their evolutionary history by observing them in large numbers. However, that cannot be done for the universe since we have just one sample of the universe ! This means that we cannot have that much confidence in our theories of the origin and evolution of the universe as we have in theories of stars and galaxy formation. We know energy exists in various form including that in stars, planets and visible matter. There exist many other forms of energy which we do not notice in our day to day life. In physics we call every component of energy a "field" . The most common "fields" are electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Energy can propagate from one field to another field. For example at the big bang the energy from some field was utilized to create the matter in the universe.More information is here and here . Olber paradox says that if the universe is infinite in size and age then the night sky should look as bright as the surface of the sun ! Since no matter along which direction we look into the sky our line of sight will end on a star. There is no doubt that this problem can be solved in the most satisfactory way if we assume that the universe has a finite age and light from the distant part of the universe still has to reach us. I read somewhere that the "big bang may not be the origin of the universe". In the Big Bang theory universe in time is not symmetric i.e., no two moments of time are identical to each other, however, at any moment of time all spatial locations are identical (this is called cosmological principle). In the steady state theory it is proposed that the universe is symmetric not only in space but in time also or it follows the "perfect cosmological principle". This is the main difference between these two theories. In Big Bang Theory all matter in the universe was created in the first few moments of it's birth but in the steady state theory matter is continuously created just to keep the density of the universe constant when it expands (quasi steady state theory).