Practice what you Preach...

FraterDavid wrote:

Alluvius wrote: For the community in general...I see a lot of novices (and I fully admit that this could be gross misinterpretation of the evidence at hand) striving to impress training masters who may be reading the threads with their own wisdom and perspective, rather than coming together in humility and common purpose to learn from each other. Not that I'm saying we can't express our own views, or even believe what we say. But the definition of the word novice is (to use dangerous paraphrasing) "you don't know everything, yet"...Should novices not be more open to an exchange of ideas rather than the simple gainsay of anyone they perceive as having less experience than they do (according to temple rank). Or do we hold that no life experience counts for anything until we hold temple rank?

I am curious who you are thinking of when you say this...

...I cannot actually answer that question without being in breach of the rules of conduct of this site...we debate ideas not people. Truly though, I'm not thinking of any specific person when I say that. As it says in the post I have noticed this tendency across multiple novices, and I intended to also imply, across multiple threads. But I also acknowledged in the post, and do again here, that this could just be my perception or some other gross misinterpretation of evidence. I will never deny that the failing could be my own.

what experience do you have that tells you that my beliefs are not in alignment with truth?

All of my experience tells me so.

Again, nice try, but what about your experience living in the world tells you that the world is not conscious energy? You didn't really answer my question. At all.

I do live in the world, and therefore have "a shred of experience" of it.

But I have yet to hear what experience(s) you have that tells you that I am mistaken.

All of my experiences tell me you are mistaken.

If single cells do not have consciousness, then how you do suppose that our human consciousness is expressed through a networked aggregation of single neurons?

The answer is in your question. The aggregation of single neurons has consciousness. The single neuron does not.

Regular, according to what sources?

According to most sources. That's why it's "regular".

Further experience on your part will resolve that problem.

What problem?

Your lack of experimentation in this regard does not constitute falsehood or nonsense on my part.

You know nothing of my suspected lack of experimentation.

No, in this case (and in as many cases as I can manage), I call truth whatever can be experientially confirmed time and time again in accordance with ancient ageless wisdom principles.

Interesting. I wonder what you think about all those other things that can be experientially confirmed time and time again in accordance with ancient ageless wisdom principles which do not support your views?

Not to sound semantic, but I never said you are "wrong". That would imply a personality judgement. I said your view on this particular topic is incorrect, in the sense that it is not inclusive of as many levels of reality as it could be. But I did not just stop there, I also told you, indirectly, how you can go about experimenting to confirm this for yourself. Whether you see fit to be adventurous will determine what is futile and what is not.

My experimentation has led me to my current views.

Again, what experiences of yours? It is one thing to just assume your experiences don't indicate universal consciousness, but if you don't examine them, how do you really know?

Again, you know nothing of my experimentation or the thoroughness of my examinations.

I have no problem with acceptance. I don't really care that you don't see the universe as I do.

Great.

You can use your kind of dismissive attitude as an excuse to continue being blind about anything you please.

Isn't that wonderful?

For a Jedi to be blind to the underlying nature of the Force, in a way that specifically prevents you from achieving any significant degree of knowledge or control of it, seems a waste.

I agree.

ren wrote:

If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition

Actually what I was talking about was how most of biologically defined life (you know, animal, plant, single cells) does not have consciousness.

I'm sorry Ren, but I feel I must step in here because you are wrong. The scientifically verifiable fact of the matter is: most biologically defined life (you know, animal, plant, single cells) DO, in fact, possess consciousness as you defined it. They are self-aware, they do perceive their surroundings. I can't remember right off hand who it was, but there were studies done in which plants were studied for reactions to various stimuli. They played different types of music for them, talked to them, cut them, damaged plants near them, and wounded insects around them and measured the responses. The instrument used to gather the data was similar to what is used to measure brain waves in humans, but obviously "adjusted slightly". The measured reactions of the plants very much indicated that they were conscious of what was going on around them. They were soothed by what was soothing, they had a measurable "pain" response when damaged, they had a measurable "fear" response when other living things were harmed around them...and the really interesting part was, that fear response even extended to the scientists simply having the "instruments of pain" in hand...before they were ever cut the plants exhibited fear of scissors and axes.

Single cells may not be aware of self as such, but are most certainly aware of what's around them, and animals are capable of demonstrating such awareness in ways that don't require specialized training or equipment to perceive.

I think what you meant was that most life forms don't possess the capacity for "higher reason and thought" like we do...but consciousness is undeniable.

Causality does not equal consciousness. Humans can react to stimuli automatically, without intervention of the brain (including the "unconscious"). For example, when you put your hand on a very hot surface, the decision to quickly move it is made in the spine.

Similarly, plants can react to sunlight and other stimuli. As do bacteria.

And viruses. And molecules. And atoms. And they're not even considered to be life forms.

We call the unconscious mind not conscious, yet you would have me believe that simple reactions are evidence of consciousness? I know that concept is difficult to define, but there is such a thing as pushing semantic boundaries too far. My computer reacts to stimuli too. Heck, it can even tell when it's running out of power and requires feeding. Send me messages and flashing red lights, makes a noise too. You'll have to do better than that to convince me it is conscious.

ren wrote: All of my experience tells me so.

If that is true, then you should have no trouble supplying a few examples.

ren wrote: I do live in the world, and therefore have "a shred of experience" of it.

That's not what I asked or how I asked it. I did not ask if you have a shred of experience of the world. That would be insulting and pointless, as obviously you are alive and must be experiencing the world. I said, "Do you actually have a shred of experience that the world is not conscious, radiant, living energy?" Simply experiencing life in general is not enough to discern whether consciousness is a universal truth or not. You would know that if you had had any of the experiences that actually lead to confirmation of the truth of universal consciousness.

ren wrote: All of my experiences tell me you are mistaken.

That's an easy enough thing to say. But according to what basis? I still have yet to see you provide any examples whatsoever.

ren wrote: The answer is in your question. The aggregation of single neurons has consciousness. The single neuron does not.

Ok, let me get this straight... you actually believe that human consciousness arises completely spontaneously from completely non-conscious entities? You think it just magically springs into being ex nihilo, with no previous forms of existence to summate from?

ren wrote: According to most sources. That's why it's "regular".

Just know there are other sources of far more fruitful use to this consideration. If you decide it's worth your time to seek them out. They are those in alignment with what ageless wisdom has always asserted on the matter.

ren wrote: What problem?

Pardon me, a rewording then: Further experience on your part will resolve that disparity in your mind between what I know to be truth from direct, repeatable experience (of the appropriate kind) and what you see as nonsense. There is a reason why the precursory phase of consciousness in the cycle of Force manifestation is called The Fool.

ren wrote: You know nothing of my suspected lack of experimentation.

In terms of specific details? No. Which is why I have repeatedly asked you for examples of any relevant experience or experimentation you may have. But I am also able to know a tree by its fruit. If you really have no awareness that the Force is pure radiant consciousness, and forms the basis of all the universe as such, then that is the fruit that tells me all I need to know about what the general limit of your experiences must be. You don't have to have seen someone flip a light switch in order to tell if it has been switched on by looking at the light shining from out of the bulb it controls.

Which is part of my purpose in asking you to provide examples; I suspect that you probably will not be able to, that your belief is founded on supposition and insufficiently examined experience. The fact that you have obviously been avoiding providing any examples of relevant experiences and their significance up to this point only serves as further confirmation of this likelihood. But hey, if I'm mistaken, then tell me something illustrative and non-avoidant that will demonstrate logically that I am in error. This whole thing is not a matter of opinion or belief; it is a matter of verifiable truth that exists everywhere in the world at all times.

ren wrote: Interesting. I wonder what you think about all those other things that can be experientially confirmed time and time again in accordance with ancient ageless wisdom principles which do not support your views?

I always update my views to keep them in as close an alignment with the ageless wisdom as possible. The need for adjustment doesn't arise very often any more, but it still does, from time to time. When it does, it is usually a minor insight more than a world-shattering reversal of perspective. But if the latter were to occur, as it has before, I would accept it as fair price in pursuing truth and knowledge of the Force. If you can give me any examples of such things that you think may be in alignment with ageless wisdom that do not support my current views, I would be most grateful to hear them. Truly.

ren wrote: My experimentation has led me to my current views.

I never said you have gone your whole life without experimentation of any kind. You can experiment with sex or drugs or riding a bicycle. So just because you may have experimented in various spiritual or religious ways, if they were not the ways advocated by ageless wisdom teachings, then that's not what I mean, and all bets are off.

Have you actively applied the Law of Suggestion over time to matters of true desire in your life? Have you made a consistent effort to apply either the Principle of Reversal or the Principle of Neutralization in the circumstances of your life? What is the longest you have meditated in a single sitting, and what is the best result you've achieved with meditation? There are other types of examples I could give, but these few are fairly salient.

ren wrote: Again, you know nothing of my experimentation or the thoroughness of my examinations.

I can tell a lot by your general attitude and lack of awareness of your own circumstances, including the meat suit you think your consciousness arises from for no discernible reason.

FraterDavid wrote: You can use your kind of dismissive attitude as an excuse to continue being blind about anything you please.

To which

ren wrote: Isn't that wonderful?

No, Brother ren. It is not wonderful. It is exactly what we seek to overcome through contemplation of the second line of the Jedi Code.

FraterDavid wrote: For a Jedi to be blind to the underlying nature of the Force, in a way that specifically prevents you from achieving any significant degree of knowledge or control of it, seems a waste.

ren wrote: I agree.

Good, then we may make some progress. You said before that you believe the Force is all there is, that there is nothing other than the Force. That would have to mean that whatever we are, we are actually the Force, or at least a portion of it, because there is nothing else. Would you not agree? And if we are the Force, or a part of it, and we possess both self-consciousness and consciousness of the Force, then would not the Force also possess those awarenesses, since ultimately there is nothing but the Force?

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

If that is true, then you should have no trouble supplying a few examples.

You're shifting the burden of proof here.

Do you actually have a shred of experience that the world is not conscious, radiant, living energy?

Yes.

That's an easy enough thing to say. But according to what basis? I still have yet to see you provide any examples whatsoever.

I am sitting on my sofa. Looking around the room. I cannot witness any conscious, radiant, living energy.

Ok, let me get this straight... you actually believe that human consciousness arises completely spontaneously from completely non-conscious entities?

"Existence precedes and commands Essence" . It's in my profile.

Just know there are other sources of far more fruitful use to this consideration.

What consideration?

Further experience on your part will resolve that disparity in your mind between what I know to be truth from direct, repeatable experience (of the appropriate kind) and what you see as nonsense.

There is no disparity of this kind in my mind.

If you really have no awareness that the Force is pure radiant consciousness, and forms the basis of all the universe as such, then that is the fruit that tells me all I need to know about what the general limit of your experiences must be.

That's right. I do not have experience of things which do not exist.

Which is part of my purpose in asking you to provide examples; I suspect that you probably will not be able to, that your belief is founded on supposition and insufficiently examined experience. The fact that you have obviously been avoiding providing any examples of relevant experiences and their significance up to this point only serves as further confirmation of this likelihood. But hey, if I'm mistaken, then tell me something illustrative and non-avoidant that will demonstrate logically that I am in error. This whole thing is not a matter of opinion or belief; it is a matter of verifiable truth that exists everywhere in the world at all times.

I have never witnessed, not a single time in my life, that "pure radiant consciousness" you speak of. Considering I cannot put myself on the totjo server for you to inspect, You'll just have to take my word for it.

I can tell a lot by your general attitude and lack of awareness of your own circumstances, including the meat suit you think your consciousness arises from for no discernible reason.

Good for you.

No, Brother ren. It is not wonderful. It is exactly what we seek to overcome through contemplation of the second line of the Jedi Code.

Perhaps one day you will realize the error of your ways and will be able to follow that line. But it's OK if you never do. Lots of wonderful people never do.

You said before that you believe the Force is all there is, that there is nothing other than the Force. That would have to mean that whatever we are, we are actually the Force, or at least a portion of it, because there is nothing else. Would you not agree?

Yes. I am a unifying Force Jedi.

And if we are the Force, or a part of it, and we possess both self-consciousness and consciousness of the Force, then would not the Force also possess those awarenesses, since ultimately there is nothing but the Force?

Everything is within the Force, yes.

Good, then we may make some progress.

Not really. You didn't have to convince me that it is a waste for a Jedi to be blind to the true nature of the Force. But it's OK. Lots of people, just like you, fail to understand the nature of the Force, sometimes even fear it, and live fulfilling lives.

ren wrote: Causality does not equal consciousness. Humans can react to stimuli automatically, without intervention of the brain (including the "unconscious"). For example, when you put your hand on a very hot surface, the decision to quickly move it is made in the spine.

Similarly, plants can react to sunlight and other stimuli. As do bacteria.

And viruses. And molecules. And atoms. And they're not even considered to be life forms.

We call the unconscious mind not conscious, yet you would have me believe that simple reactions are evidence of consciousness? I know that concept is difficult to define, but there is such a thing as pushing semantic boundaries too far. My computer reacts to stimuli too. Heck, it can even tell when it's running out of power and requires feeding. Send me messages and flashing red lights, makes a noise too. You'll have to do better than that to convince me it is conscious.

What more basic display of self-awareness is there than acting in self-preservation? What more basic display of awareness of surroundings is there than reaction to stimuli? You did not define consciousness as having to come from some "higher brain function", you simply stated awareness of self or awareness of surroundings (and I did use the definition you provided as the basis of my response). I demonstrate that all life forms exhibit both levels of awareness, and you changed the "requirements". If you're going to ignore evidence just to be able to thumb your nose at all who oppose your view and say "nyah, nyah, I'm right and you're not"; or change the "rules of the game" just so you can "win", then what can we hope to accomplish by discussion with you? You have said repeatedly that "all" of your experience verifies your correctness, but even the Dalai Lama says that if science opposes Buddhism, then Buddhism must be in error and should be redefined to accommodate newly "discovered" truths. Do you then posit that you are more wise than the Dalai Lama? Or are you simply being stubborn to "prove a point" that somehow I'm not understanding? Is this perhaps intended to be an exercise in patience, or possibly diplomacy? If that is the case then I'm truly sorry for my failure in these areas.

What more basic display of self-awareness is there than acting in self-preservation?

Computer viruses act in self-preservation, yet, do not display self-awareness.

you simply stated awareness of self or awareness of surrounding

Yes.

I demonstrate that all life forms exhibit both levels of awareness

No.

and you changed the "requirements"

When did I change the requirements?

If you're going to ignore evidence just to be able to thumb your nose at all who oppose your view and say "nyah, nyah, I'm right and you're not"; or change the "rules of the game" just so you can "win", then what can we hope to accomplish by discussion with you?

I think you'll find this all started with "What can I say, I do not believe as you do". You keep on trying to tell me I'm wrong: "I'm sorry Ren, but I feel I must step in here because you are wrong. " There's nothing to win.

You have said repeatedly that "all" of your experience verifies your correctness, but even the Dalai Lama says that if science opposes Buddhism, then Buddhism must be in error and should be redefined to accommodate newly "discovered" truths.

I think you'll find it means exactly the same thing.

Do you then posit that you are more wise than the Dalai Lama?

It would seem I am as wise as he is in this instance, since him and I seem to agree our experience defines our beliefs. Thanks for the pointer.

Or are you simply being stubborn to "prove a point" that somehow I'm not understanding? Is this perhaps intended to be an exercise in patience, or possibly diplomacy? If that is the case then I'm truly sorry for my failure in these areas.

Something that could have been avoided had you understood the meaning of this very simple sentence: "What can I say, I do not believe as you do". I must grant you however, that at least, and unlike others, you weren't being condescending. What did you think? That I have been on this path for 8 years now, and had never given any of this some thought? Conscience is one of the toughest subjects to cover in philosophy because the general consensus is that it cannot be defined, so we all give it a guess. The subject of conscience is doomed to be a matter of opinion. It even creeps in politics for things like abortion laws. There is no end to it, and only one conclusion can be drawn.

Aren't we all practising ?

Who's preaching ? Rather, why 'preach' ?

Tao Te Ching - 16

Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace.
Watch the turmoil of beings,
but contemplate their return. Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity. If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kind hearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.
Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready.

And to go back a few posts, just to address the 'opposites' notions argued about previously, why would the 'opposite' of a house be an empty lot ? The empty lot, before the house is built could be as much part of the house to be built there (or whatever comes to be in the lot) for the house (or whatever) has to have somewhere to be ... Moreover, we build a house, but it is not a solid block - some of the 'empty lot' remains inside to be the useful part of the house, the part we live in (Tao Te Ching - 11).

So, where are the opposites ? Are not passion and serenity mutually arising ? Are not emotion (disturbance) and peace ? Or, if one wants to go all 'polar', are not 'Jedi' and 'Sith' also mutually arising ... ?

All practising, none perfect .... Let's let it be and have a laugh.

Please take no offense to this, but may I ask: Are the lot of you a bunch of stoners or something? This sounds like one of THOSE conversations, where everyone is majorly baked and drastically over thinking EVERYTHING. I mean no disrespect but seriously? "Try Hard" much? And why is it the calm, cool, collected, centered, serene, self proclaimed or otherwise Jedi always seem to get so edgy and irritated when someone questions them or their logic? What is this paradigm? I notice this twinge of attitude that arises when the battle of wits and words ensues, definitions become concepts and concepts become definitions, accusations in the form of critiques arise, backhanded comments and challenges show themselves under the guise of genuine interest, etc.... Why? Because someone always has to be right, and by their being right, the other person must be wrong. So what we see are ego's and ideas jockeying for position on the hierarchical scale rather than an actual exchange of ideals, or a genuine dignified conversation. I think this evident malady works contrary to the threads heading "practice what you preach". Of course, that's just my opinion I could be wrong.