05 Oct 07
1 edit
Thanks FreakyKBH and jaywill for offering your Christian understandings. I’ll just drop a bit of mine in here, and then let it go at that—
The world of our experience is maya, not because there is not a real world, but because what we experience are impressions formed by our brains. What we actually experience is that mental content.
I see the cat dozing in the sun. My brain makes a mental representation in the visual cortex from the sensory stimuli (upside-down, as I understand it). I smell the fragrance of the ginger-lilies; the same. I have a feeling of contentment; the same. I think a thought: “How wonderful!”; the same. I stub my toe: “Ouch!”; the same. I feel hunger; the same. I think another thought: “I”, and then a whole complex of thoughts about that “I”; the same. All natural content-making. No problem.
All mental impressions of my own making, some from external sensory stimuli, some from my own thinking, most perhaps an interweaving of the two.
_______________________________
You think: “I.” You have a thought: “I.”
And in that thought are likely enfolded a whole complex of thoughts about that “I”: memories, who you have decided you are, who other people have decided you are, names, beliefs, emotional dispositions—the whole somebody-self-construct as it has developed to this point.
You might call that “I” “me”, or “myself”—or simply “I”. You might think all kinds of theories about that “I”.
But—
What is thinking that “I-complex”? Who is making that whole somebody-self?
Who is the I thinking that “I”? Is that I another thought? A thought thinking a thought? If you think so, then who is thinking that I?
If you think about it, theorize about it—then you’re just making more thoughts, more content.
_______________________________
You—the you underneath all that content-making—are no content at all. You are that ongoing, dynamic (and from birth, developing) content-making sentient activity.
And that is personally testable, which is what meditation (of whatever technique) is all about: recognizing the nature of the content and the activity of content-making. And that is as far as the testing goes; after that, one can speculate—and that is more content-thought-making.
There is in this no suggestion of the supernatural or the mystical (except as the latter term might be very broadly understood). I don’t know how to separate the I from the physical/neurological activity that goes with “it,” any more than I really know how to separate “it” from the physical environment with which it is entwined, and from which “it” springs. The grammar of our consciousness is no more separable from the syntax of the cosmos than is our body. The I is no more separable from the world than my awareness is separable from “its” being-aware of something.
The only reason it makes some sense to talk about the I that is “prior” to the content it conjures is because, although not all of that content—e.g., sense-perception—is entirely volitional, the thoughts you choose to think are. As Nakagawa Soen Roshi put it, clearing up a bit of confusion in traditional Buddhist language, “There is really no such thing as ‘empty’ mind; there is only present mind.”
In Freaky’s and jaywill’s formulations, that may have nothing to do with the question of individual eternality anyway—since neither of them is positing simply an “immortality of the soul.”
I’m still not sure what the “soul” is, or whether that I that is prior to the content it makes could be called “soul” or “spirit”. I won’t use either word. I do not see “it” as being individually eternal, any more than its content. I see all that as metaphysical speculation (whether based on the founders, forbears and writings of this religion or that). But, to paraphrase Freaky, “They think I’m wrong, too.”
05 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdVisted,
Thanks FreakyKBH and jaywill for offering your Christian understandings. I’ll just drop a bit of mine in here, and then let it go at that—
The world of our experience is maya, not because there is not a real world, but because what we experience are impressions formed by our brains. What we actually experience is that mental content.
I see t ...[text shortened]... and writings of this religion or that). But, to paraphrase Freaky, “They think I’m wrong, too.”
Your reply is very thoughtful and philosophical.
My reply is this: Whatever a person regards as himself or herself, whether electrical impulses, the simple activity of neurons, an immaterial being, just their collection of memories or whatever abstractions we might imagine - WHATEVER - we should turn that over to Jesus Christ.
Whatever you imagine the "I complex" to be Christ died for you and demands that we turn what we are over to His eternal love and salvation.
" ... the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal.2:20b)
Whatever I consider myself to be - Christ has paid a great divine legal price in order to purchase me. He purchased me with His death out from under the law of God:
"Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf ... " (Gal. 3:13)
My response is to say Lord Jesus, whatever I am I was property of the curse of the law of God. You paid a price to redeem me out of that curse to own me for your eternal purpose.
I give myself over to you, neurons, synapsis, electrons in all. Whatever abstract entity the "I" is, you know God. I still recognize that you LOVED me and gave yourself up on the cross for me. I am constrained by your love to turn "me" over to you."
I do not want to come before Christ someday and say:
"Well, I just realized that what the "I-complex" was was so abstract and so mystical that I withheld myself from receiving the gift of eternal life. We could not resolve the problem of our memories and what REALLY is the "I"and the "me". So here I am Lord, without forgiveness, without redemption, without reconciliation, without the Holy Spirit, and without salvation."
And if I were a Christian who one day became unsettled and confused about what the "I - complex" was I would not forget that Christ redeemed me and sent to my heart the Holy Spirit.
"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which you have from God, and you are not your own. For you have been bought with a price. So then glorify God in your body."(1 Cor. 6:18,19)
This is relevant to the discussion because the question regarded eternity and eternal life. And this eternal life is in the Son. Whoever has the Son has the life and whoever does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
The I, in whatever abstraction or scientific figuration we may imagine it to be, must receive the Son of God and the eternal life embodied in Him.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillBut what is the you that will come before Christ. You talk as if the "I" in your sentences is a fully conscious future form of your current "I-complex", yet you cant seem to explain how that is possible or whether or not it is meaningful in the first place. If you are lucky enough to grow old, and unlucky enough to 'loose your mind' ie go mad, loose memories etc, then when you stand before Christ you will not know who he is nor what to say. If your madness is somehow magically cured then it will not be you standing before Christ but some other entity altogether.
I do not want to come before Christ someday and say:
"Well, I just realized that what the "I-complex" was was so abstract and so mystical that I withheld myself from receiving the gift of eternal life. We could not resolve the problem of our memories and what REALLY is the "I"and the "me". So here I am Lord, without forgiveness, without redemption, witho ...[text shortened]... ex" was I would not forget that Christ redeemed me and sent to my heart the Holy Spirit.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by jaywillThanks, Jaywill.
Visted,
Your reply is very thoughtful and philosophical.
My reply is this: Whatever a person regards as himself or herself, whether electrical impulses, the simple activity of neurons, an immaterial being, just their collection of memories or whatever abstractions we might imagine - WHATEVER - we should turn that over to Jesus Christ.
Wha ...[text shortened]... to be, must receive the Son of God and the eternal life embodied in Him.
The “philosophical” part probably just reflects my recent attempts to put what I know experientially into words without using a bunch of Buddhist jargon (I did get “maya” in, though 😉 ).
You are right, though: None of that has anything at all to do with whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or something else.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead,
But what is the [b]you that will come before Christ. You talk as if the "I" in your sentences is a fully conscious future form of your current "I-complex", yet you cant seem to explain how that is possible or whether or not it is meaningful in the first place. If you are lucky enough to grow old, and unlucky enough to 'loose your mind' ie go ma ...[text shortened]... lly cured then it will not be you standing before Christ but some other entity altogether.[/b]
If you read the whole Bible perhaps you would surmise that these are not really obstacles for God.
Nebuchadrezzar was made to have the mind of a beast for a number of years (Daniel 4). He was driven from his royal throne and lived like a dumb ox. His hair grew like eagle feathers and his nails grew like claws. He suffered severe dementia. His human thinking falculties were "gonzo" - a pure madman!
At the end of this period of discipline his mind returned to him and he acknowledge the Most High God and humbled himself from his former great arrogance and pride.
Now if God could recover the damaged mind of the king of Babylon at the appropriate time I do not see that any of the mental issues you pose are obstacles to Him.
You can read the whole story and Nebuchadrezz's prayer for yourself in Daniel 4. They include these words:
"And at the end of those days, I Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven, and reason returned to me; and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored the ever-living One;
For His dominion is an eternal dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation ..." (See Daniel 4:34,35)
This history recorded is a testimony that the damaged mind is not an obstacle that God cannot overcome in bringing in repentence, humbling before God, and realization of the truth.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdThe original plan of God was that the human spirit would be the strongest part of man. And the soul and the body would be "organs" of the human spirit.
Thanks, Jaywill.
The “philosophical” part probably just reflects my recent attempts to put what I know experientially into words without using a bunch of Buddhist jargon (I did get “maya” in, though 😉 ).
You are right, though: None of that has anything at all to do with whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or something else.
In the fall of man, the human spirit became comotose and deadened. The soul of man rose up to be the strongest part. And the joining of man to God's enemy Satan brought about the self.
So the was polluted and ascended. The body was poisoned and bound to the fallen soul to make the flesh or the self.
When we are regenerated by the new birth in our spirit we must learn to deny the self and be strengthened into the inner man. This allows the Christ filled human spirit to ascend again to be the strongest part. The soul and the body take their subsevient place again in this transformation.
The new man is Christ living in the spirit and spreading out to permeate and fill the soul and the body.
This short post does not do the subject justice.
But the fall of man collapsed the God created humanity into a damaged self centered polluted thing. Yet God still loved man. He would not give up man. He became a man and He came with a salvation for man.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdI'd like to play a little devil's advocate here.
You—the you underneath all that content-making—are no content at all. You are that ongoing, dynamic (and from birth, developing) content-making sentient activity.
Is there any part of your I that you feel is immutable? The genetic imprint of your brain is not part of that ongoing, dynamic part of your "I", at least certainly not to the same degree. Does that mean you do have an almost immutable "core-I" onto which your "dynamic-I" builds upon? This is particularly important considering the trend regarding the behavioural importance of genes, that seems to be so fashionable these days.
Under this perspective, in high likelihood there are some unchanging facets of ourselves. Can't that be an interpretation of what the "soul"/"spirit" of some religions describe? That is, if such a concept exists, can it be the genetic imprint? Interestingly, this would mean that our "souls/spirits" are intimately related to our progenitors.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by PalynkaJust to throw another wrinkle into the wash...
I'd like to play a little devil's advocate here.
Is there any part of your I that you feel is immutable? The genetic imprint of your brain is not part of that ongoing, dynamic part of your "I", at least certainly not to the same degree. Does that mean you do have an almost immutable "core-I" onto which your "dynamic-I" builds upon? This is particu ...[text shortened]... is would mean that our "souls/spirits" are intimately related to our progenitors.
As has been stated, the soul that stands before God is the soul restored and renewed, as it were. At the end of the Church Age, both the dead and the living believers will see their earthly bodies rejuvenated and elevated to hitherto unimagined properties and abilities.
As our bodies will be improved/restored, so will our souls.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat means no more hangovers?
Just to throw another wrinkle into the wash...
As has been stated, the soul that stands before God is the soul restored and renewed, as it were. At the end of the Church Age, both the dead and the living believers will see their earthly bodies rejuvenated and elevated to hitherto unimagined properties and abilities.
As our bodies will be improved/restored, so will our souls.
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThanks, Palynka. I don’t reject that notion. But perhaps it forces me to try to be more specific with my own language...
I'd like to play a little devil's advocate here.
Is there any part of your I that you feel is immutable? The genetic imprint of your brain is not part of that ongoing, dynamic part of your "I", at least certainly not to the same degree. Does that mean you do have an almost immutable "core-I" onto which your "dynamic-I" builds upon? This is particu is would mean that our "souls/spirits" are intimately related to our progenitors.
There is no content of what I identify as the “I-complex” (the somebody-self-construct, the ego-self) that seems to me immutable. Nor does my body seem to me to be immutable, say in the sense that Freaky means.
What does seem to be immutable is—
(1) My basic humanness (the fact that I am a human being, and all that entails, including embodiedness).
(2) That basic humanness includes the particular (paradigmatic?) nature of our consciousness, how it develops and works generally—what I sometimes call the “grammar of our consciousness” within (and itself an aspect of) the “syntax” of the world/cosmos.
What you are calling the “core-I”, I might call Buddha-nature. I would think of it more in terms of potentialities, capacities, even tendencies or proclivities that actual mental-content. Such tendencies or proclivities are individual within the overall paradigmatic structure; that is, there is within that a range of individuation.
If one wants to think of the underlying physiological/genetic base as “content,” I have no objection—however, it might also be possible to think of it in terms of process.
EDIT: My questions about individual eternality were intended as an example-framework to get at what people mean when they use the word "soul" or self" (or "core-I" ).
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdBut what about the genetic imprint in all of us?
Thanks, Palynka. I don’t reject that notion. But perhaps it forces me to try to be more specific with my own language...
There is no [b]content of what I identify as the “I-complex” (the somebody-self-construct, the ego-self) that seems to me immutable. Nor does my body seem to me to be immutable, say in the sense that Freaky means.
What does se ...[text shortened]... framework to get at what people mean when they use the word "soul" or self" (or "core-I" ).[/b]
Is that not an immutable part of the self? If, for example, your genes determine your sexual preferences, how can we not consider that a part of our "immutable self"?
09 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI’m not disagreeing. For example, I would think that the genetic disposition toward a particular sexuality is part of that. That is what I meant by: “I would think of it more in terms of potentialities, capacities, even tendencies or proclivities that actual mental-content. Such tendencies or proclivities are individual within the overall paradigmatic structure; that is, there is within that a range of individuation.” Sexuality per se is paradigmatic (we are mammals); one’s personal, genetically inherited, disposition is individual.
But what about the genetic imprint in all of us?
Is that not an immutable part of the self? If, for example, your genes determine your sexual preferences, how can we not consider that a part of our "immutable self"?
When I speak of “Buddha-nature,” I am referring to the paradigmatic nature of our consciousness; but I accept your expansion of that to include genetically-individuated aspects—things that we cannot change by thinking about them, or having certain emotional content about them. For example, unless one wants to argue that every single thought that I have is individually genetically pre-determined (including the specific word-content of what I am typing now), then my Buddha-nature includes the fact that I think (the paradigmatic nature of my consciousness), and my individual capacities/tendencies to think a certain way generally (including, perhaps, my particular susceptibility to conditioning)—but not my actual thought-content.
And if that is pre-determined as well, so is the fact that I don’t know it, and have difficulty imagining it... I think that the Buddha-nature includes the capacity for choice/decision; but I am not a libertarian free-willist.
EDIT:
Ah! I think perhaps my use of the term “I-complex” was confusing. What I mean by that begins when one is able to think “I” (which comes at some point in childhood development). I should perhaps say, the “I-thought-complex.” (And , if that clarifies things, I will in the future.) Your “immutable self” and my “Buddha-nature” are prior to that, just as awareness is prior to our thought-constructs regarding that of which we become aware...
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdAh, interesting. I wasn't understanding what you were saying at all. 🙂
I’m not disagreeing. For example, I would think that the genetic disposition toward a particular sexuality is part of that. That is what I meant by: “I would think of it more in terms of potentialities, capacities, even tendencies or proclivities that actual mental-content. Such tendencies or proclivities are individual within the overall paradigmatic str ...[text shortened]... just as awareness is prior to our thought-constructs regarding that of which we become aware...
In fact, I believe that the "I-complex" you describe is actually more dynamic that you seem to be arguing. The organic/biological nature of our brain also changes, and not via the adding of content. To put it dramatically, a lobotomy cannot be said to be content-based change, yet it enforces a dramatic change. I think that it is very hard to think of anything else immutable beyond our genetic imprint. At least from my atheist point of view. This, in any way, is meant to diminish the important of both content and the organic structure (i.e. the brain) of our thought.
If one wants to think of the underlying physiological/genetic base as “content,” I have no objection—however, it might also be possible to think of it in terms of process.
I would actually object! 😉
And what do you mean by process here? Sorry to keep asking you, but (through professional defect) I associate "process" with dynamics. By process, do you mean something akin to structure?
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by PalynkaIn fact, I believe that the "I-complex" you describe is actually more dynamic that you seem to be arguing. The organic/biological nature of our brain also changes, and not via the adding of content. To put it dramatically, a lobotomy cannot be said to be content-based change, yet it enforces a dramatic change. I think that it is very hard to think of anything else immutable beyond our genetic imprint.
Ah, interesting. I wasn't understanding what you were saying at all. 🙂
In fact, I believe that the "I-complex" you describe is actually more dynamic that you seem to be arguing. The organic/biological nature of our brain also changes, and not via the adding of content. To put it dramatically, a lobotomy cannot be said to be content-based change, y ...[text shortened]... ) I associate "process" with dynamics. By process, do you mean something akin to structure?
I’ll buy this, too. 🙂 The best quick example I can think of is in childhood development—e.g., the neurological development that permits complex thought, and language acquisition. But I also think that the adding of content is dynamic. That is why it is important to occasionally go back to the foundations of one’s thought...
What do you mean by process here? Sorry to keep asking you, but (through professional defect) I associate "process" with dynamics. By process, do you mean something akin to structure?
Rather than “structure”, how about “pattern”? That would seem equally applicable to substances and processes (that’s likely a quibble, though).
I would say that the Buddhist notion of transience reflects dynamic process. Is even the genetic imprint immutable—say, in the face of exposure to radiation? Or, long term, evolution generally? I’m not a biologist, but I suspect that even the genetic imprint is not strictly immutable...
________________________________
I do take the Buddha-nature as being embodied. That probably means that I reject some Buddhist metaphysics, at least in any terms other than symbolic/metaphorical.
I have been trying of late to translate my Zen viewpoint into some common language, without all the Buddhist technical terminology (jargon). That has not gone particularly well—and I suspect that you’re not understanding me is my fault. However, you are pressing me to clarify, not only my terminology, but my thought as well. That is always welcome...
____________________________________
Re: “professional defect”—
Darned economists! (Well, that’s what my M.A. was in; but I have forgotten just about everything...) 😳
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdI love it that you actually manage to be precise (and argue for preciseness) in your explanations of Buddhist terminology and concepts. It's a feat in itself!
I have been trying of late to translate my Zen viewpoint into some common language, without all the Buddhist technical terminology (jargon). That has not gone particularly well—and I suspect that you’re not understanding me is my fault.
I confess that I usually I felt that most people use such vague concepts to mask the cognitive dissonance in their own thinking. I think I am now more tolerant (even if not completely 😛) of the use of this type of impreciseness in explanations, and in the most part is due to your efforts (and perhaps some others here)!
So many words just to say your efforts are much, much appreciated. Maybe I'm losing my cutting edge. 🙂