Just because you have never consciously met a saint does not mean they do not exist.
I do not refute the idea that Saints exist. But, to me, Saint means something else. It doesn't mean a person with extraordinary powers or the ability to commune with divine beings. For me, a Saint is a person who would willingly, and humbly, devote themselves to the serveice of others while expecting little or nothing in return.
PB Quote on Mentalism taken from Wisdoms website
Moderator: figaro
Back to the saints
Good morning, Anubis! I brought up the saints only as an example of a form of "evolution", or unfolding in the material universe, that was not just survival of the fittest, i.e. physical adaptation of a species.
Higher Self
I wrote: You also do not admit to a "Higher Self" and yet seem to make a distinction within man of his higher capabilities vs his lower passions.
You answered: That's just a basic evolutionary concept. Primitive vs. advanced, really. Man's reliance on instinct in the past to help him survive was a primitive way of doing things. But since then, we have realized the higher stage of our being by nurturing our mental capacity to the point where we've repressed instinct as our prime motivator and replaced it with logic and reason. So then, you would call supressing our lower passions or instincts and developing and using logic and reason 'evolution', and rightly so in my opinion. And this new Man using logic and reason as a result of evolution would be a higher Self - would you agree?
You answered: That's just a basic evolutionary concept. Primitive vs. advanced, really. Man's reliance on instinct in the past to help him survive was a primitive way of doing things. But since then, we have realized the higher stage of our being by nurturing our mental capacity to the point where we've repressed instinct as our prime motivator and replaced it with logic and reason. So then, you would call supressing our lower passions or instincts and developing and using logic and reason 'evolution', and rightly so in my opinion. And this new Man using logic and reason as a result of evolution would be a higher Self - would you agree?
Higher Self continued
How then do you define "Higher Self", that you would reject the concept? I seem to be a bit stumped by this question. Could you perhaps re-phrase it?? I get the first part, but the second part is throwing me.
Granted, our definition of "Higher Self" might differ slightly - but I was saying that it seems that you do have your own definition of Higher Self - in this case Man using Logic and Reason rather than coming from solely primitive instinct.
Granted, our definition of "Higher Self" might differ slightly - but I was saying that it seems that you do have your own definition of Higher Self - in this case Man using Logic and Reason rather than coming from solely primitive instinct.
the saints
I do not refute the idea that Saints exist. But, to me, Saint means something else. It doesn't mean a person with extraordinary powers or the ability to commune with divine beings. For me, a Saint is a person who would willingly, and humbly, devote themselves to the serveice of others while expecting little or nothing in return. I think this a very beautiful definition. And what you have written is the essence of sainthood.
Wouldn't you put this saintliness under the general category of evolution? If not: why not?
Wouldn't you put this saintliness under the general category of evolution? If not: why not?
More agreement
Do you believe that we all have greater potential than who we are in the moment? That the Idea of Man, or the Potential of Man - as a race - is greater than what we have yet achieved?
Absolutely.
I also share this view.
Absolutely.
I also share this view.
THought vs thoughts cont
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
I see why you are trying to bring it back to consciousness. But, whenever we discuss consciousness, I find it difficult to work past the idea that man has consciously created all of the things we are discussing. The soul, divine beings, spirituality, we've created all of that with our conscious mind.
Now you have lost me. We have created the universe?
I see why you are trying to bring it back to consciousness. But, whenever we discuss consciousness, I find it difficult to work past the idea that man has consciously created all of the things we are discussing. The soul, divine beings, spirituality, we've created all of that with our conscious mind.
Now you have lost me. We have created the universe?
Trying again
That is one reason why I keep trying to bring this discussion back to "Consciousness". You have a mind don't you? Thoughts?
Let me try something new ... If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? Or do you still retain Being and Awareness?
Thank you for this very interesting discussion, Anubis.
Let me try something new ... If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? Or do you still retain Being and Awareness?
Thank you for this very interesting discussion, Anubis.
Science
I have time for one more: Of course, I'm also a student of science, so naturally, my outlook will appear pessimistic, when in reality, it's only based upon observations of the natural world. I would think that the scientists would be the first to see the exquisite order and beauty of the material universe .... ? Isn't life itself a miracle than man cannot even explain?
And as a scientist, you would agree then that we beings of earth are not our physical bodies. And that the physical universe is not really as it appears, not even "material" in the sense we perceive it - rather mainly empty space, atoms, on the atomic level (and possibly at root energy, or even based on light as some physicists have discovered ... or as in quantum physics, dependent on the observer???)
And as a scientist, you would agree then that we beings of earth are not our physical bodies. And that the physical universe is not really as it appears, not even "material" in the sense we perceive it - rather mainly empty space, atoms, on the atomic level (and possibly at root energy, or even based on light as some physicists have discovered ... or as in quantum physics, dependent on the observer???)
And this new Man using logic and reason as a result of evolution would be a higher Self - would you agree?
Yes.
However, I would like to acknowledge one area of our discussion that I think has been causing a bit of confusion. Through out the course of our discussion, I've held that the highest form of man is exactly that, man - i.e. - man can only look to himself to better himself. I've also contended that the truest form of man is the ego, neglecting the soul as the truest form because the soul is a creation of the ego. Your rebuttal has been that the soul is the truest form of being and that the ego only defines our physical bodies. Is that pretty much where we have each been coming from in this discussion?? I just want to clarify what we've established before moving too much farther ahead.
Yes.
However, I would like to acknowledge one area of our discussion that I think has been causing a bit of confusion. Through out the course of our discussion, I've held that the highest form of man is exactly that, man - i.e. - man can only look to himself to better himself. I've also contended that the truest form of man is the ego, neglecting the soul as the truest form because the soul is a creation of the ego. Your rebuttal has been that the soul is the truest form of being and that the ego only defines our physical bodies. Is that pretty much where we have each been coming from in this discussion?? I just want to clarify what we've established before moving too much farther ahead.
Wouldn't you put this saintliness under the general category of evolution? If not: why not?
Well, yes and no. Yes in the fact that the person in question has taken conscious steps to better themselves and works to implement positive effects on the world around them. However, it is no for the reason that it is only one person making the choice, and the choice of one person cannot be constituted as being evolutionary (or revolutionary) unless it is widely accepted and integrated into the modus operandi among the status quo.
Well, yes and no. Yes in the fact that the person in question has taken conscious steps to better themselves and works to implement positive effects on the world around them. However, it is no for the reason that it is only one person making the choice, and the choice of one person cannot be constituted as being evolutionary (or revolutionary) unless it is widely accepted and integrated into the modus operandi among the status quo.
We have created the universe?
No. Merely defined it.
If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? Or do you still retain Being and Awareness?
I believe that you would retain being and awareness. What you described here - If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? - the basic concept of "I think therefore, I am", is a notion that I find difficult to accept. Reason leads me to believe that if such a thought process were true, then each person on the planet would simultaneously have their desires fulfilled at a moments notice. Clearly, that has not happened.
No. Merely defined it.
If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? Or do you still retain Being and Awareness?
I believe that you would retain being and awareness. What you described here - If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? - the basic concept of "I think therefore, I am", is a notion that I find difficult to accept. Reason leads me to believe that if such a thought process were true, then each person on the planet would simultaneously have their desires fulfilled at a moments notice. Clearly, that has not happened.
I would think that the scientists would be the first to see the exquisite order and beauty of the material universe .... ?
I think there are a few schools of thought to subscribe to on this issue. Some may see the inherent order amid the apparent chaos in our world, contending that whatever happens in the natural world happens for the greater reason of balance. Others, like myself, tend to see the natural world as a violent place, wherein violence is merely a natural occurrence among living creatures as dictated by our nature. However, no matter what the thought process is, both are ways of justifying an otherwise chaotic world that appears to be devoid of reason.
Isn't life itself a miracle than man cannot even explain?
I think this can only occur if one over thinks the idea of life, in my opinion at least.
And as a scientist, you would agree then that we beings of earth are not our physical bodies.
Actually, as a student of science, I would say that science has proven us to be our physical bodies. Being that I believe in the Big Bang theory, I believe, as anyone who believes in the Big Bang theory must realize, that we are comprised of the material that emanated from that blast point. Everything in the Universe contains material from the birth of our Universe, even us. Science, has since proven what those materials are, atoms, molecules, etc.... In essence, science has managed to define us in our most rudimentary of forms.
I think there are a few schools of thought to subscribe to on this issue. Some may see the inherent order amid the apparent chaos in our world, contending that whatever happens in the natural world happens for the greater reason of balance. Others, like myself, tend to see the natural world as a violent place, wherein violence is merely a natural occurrence among living creatures as dictated by our nature. However, no matter what the thought process is, both are ways of justifying an otherwise chaotic world that appears to be devoid of reason.
Isn't life itself a miracle than man cannot even explain?
I think this can only occur if one over thinks the idea of life, in my opinion at least.
And as a scientist, you would agree then that we beings of earth are not our physical bodies.
Actually, as a student of science, I would say that science has proven us to be our physical bodies. Being that I believe in the Big Bang theory, I believe, as anyone who believes in the Big Bang theory must realize, that we are comprised of the material that emanated from that blast point. Everything in the Universe contains material from the birth of our Universe, even us. Science, has since proven what those materials are, atoms, molecules, etc.... In essence, science has managed to define us in our most rudimentary of forms.
defined
We have created the universe?
No. Merely defined it. I am relieved to hear this is your view ... Or our discussion would have been far more complicated ...
No. Merely defined it. I am relieved to hear this is your view ... Or our discussion would have been far more complicated ...
Thought vs thoughts
If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? Or do you still retain Being and Awareness?
I believe that you would retain being and awareness. What you described here - If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? - the basic concept of "I think therefore, I am", is a notion that I find difficult to accept. Reason leads me to believe that if such a thought process were true, then each person on the planet would simultaneously have their desires fulfilled at a moments notice. Clearly, that has not happened.
Good morning! This also might simplify our discussion. If we clear our mind of thoughts - I agree, we do retain Being and Awareness, we do not cease to exist.
Then how can you say we are our thoughts? That there is not a larger field of consciousness, a larger field of Being and Awareness than our thoughts and perceptions, i.e. a field larger than the ego?
I believe that you would retain being and awareness. What you described here - If you clear your mind of all thoughts - do you cease to exist? - the basic concept of "I think therefore, I am", is a notion that I find difficult to accept. Reason leads me to believe that if such a thought process were true, then each person on the planet would simultaneously have their desires fulfilled at a moments notice. Clearly, that has not happened.
Good morning! This also might simplify our discussion. If we clear our mind of thoughts - I agree, we do retain Being and Awareness, we do not cease to exist.
Then how can you say we are our thoughts? That there is not a larger field of consciousness, a larger field of Being and Awareness than our thoughts and perceptions, i.e. a field larger than the ego?