The Bible and Yi

[jesed]

I've always wonder why most of the preachers of oneness reacts so badly and personally when somebody disagrees

 

[solun]

oh ...

???

I guess I am sorry that you are having a bad reaction. Maybe you shouldn't absorb negativity, and focus more on objective comparison and discussion. Which is more in line with what was going on.

 

[jesed]

Objective discussion? Let's see.

Consciousness as mental phenomena is the subject of research on philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science etc. All those studies accept that some level of brain evolution is needed before consciousness can be developed.

Can you provide some "objective" research about the consciousness of the moth?

 

[jesed]

btw
Instict is not consciousness -not even a low level of it- and that doesn't implies that you consider the moth is a machine.

 

[solun]

Your definition is very low level and encyclopedic. What qualifies it as objective?

As far as 'proving' that a moth has consciousness, in our discussion alone, I proved to you, using your own statement, that the moth had a consciousness of avoiding predation. To hand us a human definition of consciousness, qualified by our self -inflated notions of it, contradicts your general position.
Can you provide any research or proof that the moth does not have consciousness?

Instict is not consciousness -not even a low level of it- . - jesed

says who?
Define instinct. Here's yet another definition which is subjective.

Moreover, this is tiring and off point in the discussion. I really don't think youunderstand the level and process of meaning I an using in making my earlier points and comparisons.
I don't think this will go anywhere. Let's just move on.

 

[jesed]

Thanks for showing how an objective discussion is achieved: when any statement is conflictive to one's point of view, just say "says who? you're just below my level"

 

[bradford]

Consciousness as mental phenomena is the subject of research on philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science etc. All those studies accept that some level of brain evolution is needed before consciousness can be developed.

Consciousness also seems to require that the organism not be taking a nap. I prefer the view of consciousness as an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe. I for one see no evidence whatsoever of the latter, but I can the motives of beings afraid of death. That life emerges from chemistry, sentience from life, consciousness from sentience and spirit from consciousness does not negate their sacredness like the religious believers fear it does.

 

[jesed]

Consciousness also seems to require that the organism not be taking a nap.

OTOH... while taking a nap, you may experience dreams as a tool to bring issues into consciousness. But... consciounsness start while dreaming or only when you recall the dream?

 

[jesed]

My God! I just noticed in my profile: "Join Date: Sep 1970"

That's old, dude!

Now I can say: "You must believe in my readings because I've been a clarity's member for 39 years"

 

[bradford]

OTOH... while taking a nap, you may experience dreams as a tool to bring issues into consciousness. But... consciounsness start while dreaming or only when you recall the dream?

I sort of think of consciousness as a verb. Spirit too. I almost have half a lap when I stand halfway up, half a fist when I open my hand halfway, and just a flicker of consciousness the moment I start to dream.

 

[jesed]

Like it

 

[meng]

I logically understand the idea of consciousness being a waking phenomenon, and spirit being a verb. Those are what emerge to the surface, which if I understand correctly, Brad is calling consciousness.

I'm more inclined toward Solin's view of framing consciousness in broader terms. Not because I think it's the right view, but it's one I have an affinity for, on some subtle conscious level. Maybe a level more related to the moth.

Brad - It strikes me similarly to saying 'there is no sound beyond what I hear', while we all know that higher and lower frequencies don't disappear just because the human ear has a narrow frequency range. Why is consciousness any different from this? Maybe it's rather being more or less aware of what we're aware of, which you are calling consciousness?

 

[bradford]

I'm simply trying to adhere to the dictionary definitions of the word. For me, it's broader attribution as a fundamental dimension of existence is a classic case of projection.

 

[meng]

Yup, I could dig that. Seems a very disciplined and almost arid path, though. I mean, that's how it seems to me when I think in those terms. But I also understand the respectable traditions which embrace this definition, and I think certain benefits. There's just too much I don't know to say I know for certain the nature of consciousness. I know that I can't say "I am conscious" unless I am awake, whether during waking or while lucid dreaming. But I kind of consider that as being aware of consciousness, which is the observer of consciousness.

Projection can be a gift of insight, as well as a psychological malady. All art, for example, is projection. Isn't divination projection also?

 

[jesed]

Projection can be a gift of insight, as well as a psychological malady. All art, for example, is projection. Isn't divination projection also?

Indeed! I'm with you here.

When I say "this seems to be more a human projection" I didn't intent to diminish the value... as" projection is baaaaad!"

 

[solun]

Instinct as consciousness is related to sensory awareness, and awareness is consciousness.
I don't have formal permission to say that, btw. It's original to me. It's not always my first instinct to grab a dictionary, unless I am really unsure of myself. Which happens.

By saying that the moth is practising oneness with the tree does not imply consciousness one way or the other, as was earlier projected. It could just as well be a matter of [instinct] as could our propensity for religion or spirituality.

It is a classic case of projection to adamantly insist that 'science' is both sacred and truthful at the exclusion of all other forms of knowledge or deriving it. How dogmatic is that attitude!? Particularly in light of how often scientific 'opinions' are bought and sold.

I have studied biology and microbiology and chemistry and physics and definitely take them into consideration. I love science, but do not consider it definitive and comprehensive, by any means.

from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia '99
"Metaphysical speculation emphasizes knowledge in the context of meditative awareness and should be the basis of first attempts at systematic treatment of speculative 'scientific' thought."
Hey, it's from an encyclopedia! It must be true!

Lastly, disagreement and discussion I respond to gladly, but not antagonistic spirits.

 

[solun]

I think it's rather more the form of my discussion earlier, which was directed to posts by meng and panther, hoping to engage them further, which set some others off balance. There is a lot of common fear of 'Bible' and biblical related discussion. But it is more the content than the form that was in discussion. Although, the name of the thread is The Bible and the Yi.

However, if one wishes to explore other than dicitonary and encyclopedic definitions of consciousness, they can look to religious and philosophical thought. Try the Mandukya Upanishad. It talks about layers, like meng was earlier mentioning, of consciousness. Again, it too, may not be for everyone.

Soli

 

[jesed]

The 4 aspects of consciousness described in the Mandukya Upanishad are HUMAN activities

 

[jesed]

BTW... I don't think consciousness belongs only to humans. I do think "consciousness" is shared with other animals..and not only "great apes" but also dolphins, for example. There are several interesting test on this.

But also in those cases, the same conclusion is stated: there is a need to some level of brain evolution

 

[bradford]

There is a lot of common fear of 'Bible' and biblical related discussion.

It's not so much a fear for me - it's just plain icky and creepy.
The two books couldn't be further apart.

 

[solun]

There are 5 kosas mentioned in the Upanishad. They are layers of objectivity which externalise consciousness. In it, the human is specified as a microcosmic specimen in the entire creative process of the cosmos. You should probably actuallly familiarize yourself with the M. Upanishad.

You seem to be clinging to the notion that a moth has consciousness, an idea which you yourself introduced and are fighting against at the same time ... what?

If consciousness were merely a matter of brain development, then at which point does it ignite and which is it exterminated, when the brain dies? This is very limited and presumes way too much. Better to leave it open, particularly in regard to the nature of the topic. Closed mindedness is not an option.

bradford, I am sorry for you that you can only see icky in the bible. There is a lot that is curious, to be sure. But I don't advocate throwing out the baby with the bath water, even if you have had some bad experiences.

 

[jesed]

You seem to be clinging to the notion that a moth has consciousness, an idea which you yourself introduced and are fighting against at the same time ... what?

No. In no post I have say that moth has consciunsness. Where do you read such thing? And if you hadn't, why you say so?

If consciousness were merely a matter of brain development, then at which point does it ignite and which is it exterminated, when the brain dies?

I haven't say it is MERLY a matter of brain development. I do say that some level of brain development is needed. That's not the same.
And I don't state that as a definitive conclusion. I do say that is the present conclusion of the science; and asked you to provide any research that arrived at a diferent conslusion.

bradford, I am sorry for you that you can only see icky in the bible. There is a lot that is curious, to be sure. But I don't advocate throwing out the baby with the bath water, even if you have had some bad experiences.

I agree with you in this.

Best

 

[bradford]

bradford, I am sorry for you that you can only see icky in the bible. There is a lot that is curious, to be sure. But I don't advocate throwing out the baby with the bath water, even if you have had some bad experiences.

Hi Solun-
I have read the Bible, espesially the Tanach, several times, and in Hebrew where the portions were relevant to my Kabbalah and Qabalah studies. But outside of a few passages, like the one in Chronicles that names the Sephirot, just about any spiritual significance the scholars have found there have been found by way of apophenia and pareidolia, back to the projection phenomenon, just like so many people do with the Yijing. For the most part the Bible is just a guidebook for a culture too incompetent to cross a small desert in less than 40 years, led by a paranoiac with delusions of grandeur and persecution. Not the kind of guidance I seek.
However, on the chance that you have studied Kabbalah in more depth than I have, or in areas I have not, you are welcome to take a look at the relevant sections in this bibliography: http://www.hermetica.info/TongBib.htm I would appreciate any recommendations you might have.
I don't have my Vedanta library listed here, but I have studied the Vedas and Upanishads as well. The bug that I have in this conversation goes no further than abuse of the Western word consciousness, not with chittam
Brad

 

[jesed]

Hi Bradford

For the most part the Bible is just a guidebook for a culture too incompetent to cross a small desert in less than 40 years, led by a paranoiac with delusions of grandeur and persecution.

Just like the 3 or 10 years in the Yijing, the 40 years or 40 days in the desert are only symbols not to be taken literally.

And the historical context behind the symbol in the myth of Exodus is the transition from nomadism into sedentarism. There's a lot of this historical background behind biblical myths, like in Cain vs Abel or Yavhe vs Baal. etc.

Best

 

[meng]

Crossing the river on the backs of sacred cows is precarious, no matter which cow is relied upon. But to compare cows seems not a difficult thing. Someone hungry for understanding will discover answers in either place, and can as easily get stuck there. The point is to nourish and continue on.

I've gotten a lot of great images and stories from the Bible, and I have lots of respect for it, just not the same kind as a fundamentalist would have. I refer to it/research it at least a couple times a week, and almost always in association with a Yi reading or conversation. The comparisons are all over the place. Life lessons aren't limited to any one particular culture. We'll find them anywhere if we look for them.

 

[pantherpanther]

Crossing the river on the backs of sacred cows is precarious, no matter which cow is relied upon. But to compare cows seems not a difficult thing. Someone hungry for understanding will discover answers in either place, and can as easily get stuck there. The point is to nourish and continue on.

I've gotten a lot of great images and stories from the Bible, and I have lots of respect for it, just not the same kind as a fundamentalist would have. I refer to it/research it at least a couple times a week, and almost always in association with a Yi reading or conversation. The comparisons are all over the place. Life lessons aren't limited to any one particular culture. We'll find them anywhere if we look for them.

There are always "fundamentalists." On the other hand, many who follow a religion and its rituals are balanced people and good neighbors. It is interesting to study and compare religions. However, the experience and knowledge of the sacred is an art and a science.

Jesus says to Peter:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

Matthew 16:19

"As above , so below." The laws are the same on Earth and in Heaven, the scale is the difference. As in Taoism , there is Heaven, Earth and Man. The New Testament story is a new demonstration of what the Egyptian mysteries taught . The Christian rituals are very similar.

Jesus also says to Peter (paraphrase):

'You are a small rock: I AM a big rock, that is, I represent the I AM. Humanity is one. I am Thou ,Thou art I Learn to do as I do for the sake of all.'

As an individual may evolve, in time , so does Humanity on a larger scale , over the ages , 'until the end of days ' The completion the Buddha achieved , each can achieve.

"All must be called," as the Bible says.

Many are called but few are "chosen," that is, ready to undertake the way
of rapid , individual evolution for the sake of all in the name of I AM.

 

[meng]

Say Hallelujah and pass the snakes, brotha!

 

[meng]

There's something about "the bible" that freaks lots of people out, for and against. It's one of most difficult things to have a conversation about, I think because it's very subject to interpretation. Interpretation is one step away from being a belief. Once folks are talking from their beliefs, bar the doors, Katey! - there goes conversation.

But the same would be true to try and discuss Yijing with an average fundamentalist Christian. Trust me on this one! hahaha

 

[pantherpanther]

The Christian Herald, Jan. 27, 1923

The Devil's Plan
The devil met one of his local subordinates on the street of an American city not long ago, and said to him, "Well, how are things getting along in this town?"

"For the first time since I've been stationed here," said the subdevil, "they're looking pretty badly." "What's the matter?"

"See that fellow accross the street?"

"Yes. What about him?"

"Well, in some way he got hold of a grain of real, undiluted, concentrated truth. That grain of truth is like a deadly bomb. If he uses it rightly he can blow up our whole business here."

The devil looked carefully at the man on the opposite sidewalk. "I'll tell you how to handle him," he said. "You tempt him to take that grain of truth and organize it. Make it the basis of some kind of society, or lodge, or club. Then he'll spend his time running the club, and he won't have any time to use the truth against us."

From the latest report I hear that the man yielded to the temptation, and that the devil's plan is working beautifully. The grain of truth, which is the nucleus of the organization which he founded, lies in a glass case unused, in a corner of the gentleman's office in the building which the new organization erected. Some day the man who found it may take it out and use it; but just now he's too busy taking care of the organization to do any extra work."

 

[meng]

In the spirit of this thread's title, I'll do a little real time experiment. First, I'll use a reading generator for a hexagram: 42.2 to 61 (I'm not making this up).

From Bradford 42.2:

Somebody grants one ten (matched) pairs of tortoise shells
(One) can not refuse
Enduring commitment (is) promising
The Sovereign presents offerings to the divine
Promising

From LiSe:

Someone's increase. Ten pairs of tortoise shells cannot oppose it. A long range determination is auspicious. The king presents an offering to the Supreme Being. Auspicious.

From the KJV Bible:

And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. (Deu 7 and 14)

61:

Jhn 4:24 God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.

This is a random quickie. No rocket science, smoke or mirrors. Just an example of comparative lessons from different mediums.

However, I also share at least some of Brad's clear distinctions, in that the Yijing comes without the heavy hell and damnation contextual layers, which are an undeniable part of biblical fabric. For example, if we were to look at the specific context that some of those otherwise wise biblical quotes came from, they might not seem so wise. But by themselves, stripped of their moral overload, they are both wise and useful. The Yi doesn't carry or throw around that kind of weight onto folks.