There is another reality in nature, different from matter.
It is the fundamental spiritual particle, (spiriton)...you
It is a transendental particle and is ontologically different from matter.
It has conscious property and has free will, contrary to material particles like the electron.
It is only by the presence of the spiriton, that matter appears animated.
Every life form is animated by the spiriton, including micro organizms, insects, aquatics, plants, reptiles, birds, and man.
The fundamental qualities of the spiritual particle or spiriton, are of the same nature of the Supreme Lord, and are:
eternal. / full cognition. / free-will. / blissfull
There are 2 categories of consciousness:
Gods consciouness is universal.
The spiritons consciousness is localized, and remains so, but both are ontollogically non physical in nature.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuNice fairy story, but where's your evidence for its existence?
There is another reality in nature, different from matter.
It is the fundamental spiritual particle, (spiriton)...you
It is a transendental particle and is ontologically different from matter.
It has conscious property and has free will, contrary to material particles like the electron.
It is only by the presence of the spiriton, that matter ...[text shortened]... ness is localized, and remains so, but both are ontollogically non physical in nature.
vishva
The problem with mumbo jumbo like this is that you can pretty much say whatever you like - just add some airfy fairy words, a bit of pseudoscientific language, and voila!
How is matter animated by the spiriton?
How do you know matter is animated by the spiriton?
What is this consciousness that the spiriton is supposed to have?
Originally posted by vishvahetuReligious gogly gook for someone who doesn't consider himself religious.
There is another reality in nature, different from matter.
It is the fundamental spiritual particle, (spiriton)...you
It is a transendental particle and is ontologically different from matter.
It has conscious property and has free will, contrary to material particles like the electron.
It is only by the presence of the spiriton, that matter ...[text shortened]... ness is localized, and remains so, but both are ontollogically non physical in nature.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuHilarious.
There is another reality in nature, different from matter.
It is the fundamental spiritual particle, (spiriton)...you
It is a transendental particle and is ontologically different from matter.
It has conscious property and has free will, contrary to material particles like the electron.
It is only by the presence of the spiriton, that matter ...[text shortened]... ness is localized, and remains so, but both are ontollogically non physical in nature.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuIn my experience my inner sense of spirituality has constantly made me reasses my evaluations concerning people and situations. Whenever I drew a line in my mind about what was spiritual and what wasn't, there would be doubting. My guiding principle made me question my motives for calling one thing spiritual but not another.
There is another reality in nature, different from matter.
It is the fundamental spiritual particle, (spiriton)...you
It is a transendental particle and is ontologically different from matter.
It has conscious property and has free will, contrary to material particles like the electron.
It is only by the presence of the spiriton, that matter ...[text shortened]... ness is localized, and remains so, but both are ontollogically non physical in nature.
vishva
I just had to accept that all things reside in dharma, even unenlightened souls such as police.
So treat the police like bhuddas? exactly! Although this is harder than it sounds initially.
edit: as for the spiriton, I've never heard of it. Is this your construct?
Originally posted by vishvahetuMy post had no spite or envy towards god since I don't believe there is such a thing.So, I'm still waiting for a response ... what is this spiriton and prove its existence for me will you?
Also...any enquiries full of spite and envy towards god, wil not be responed to!
vishva
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe living being is just the living being, and we can call it Atma, spirit, soul, spiritual particle, living entity, etc
In my experience my inner sense of spirituality has constantly made me reasses my evaluations concerning people and situations. Whenever I drew a line in my mind about what was spiritual and what wasn't, there would be doubting. My guiding principle made me question my motives for calling one thing spiritual but not another.
I just had to accept that a ...[text shortened]... sounds initially.
edit: as for the spiriton, I've never heard of it. Is this your construct?
The word spiriton, is just another string of letters to construct a word, meaning the spirit.
I did not think that word up, it was another person, and i am using it here because i like the sound of it.
vishva
Originally posted by amannionI know you want to get god, and put god under a microspoce for study, but this cannot be done.
My post had no spite or envy towards god since I don't believe there is such a thing.So, I'm still waiting for a response ... what is this spiriton and prove its existence for me will you?
You dont see god....you appreciate and perceive god, with insight and spiritual understanding.
You dont see music, do you!...but you appreciate it. (music exists)
You dont see mind, but we use it all the time.
Consciousness, should be proof of the spiriton, for the begginer.
The spiritual energy is real, but cannot be detected by any labratory instument.
The qualities of the spiritual energy are eternality, bliss, cognition, freedom.
Through the submissive adherance to the spiritual way of thinking, gradually that insight developes, and the person comes to understand the reality of the spiritual energy and god.
Any envious attitude, on the part of the seeker, will bar them from the insight they so desire.
Many people are passionately against the acceptance of god, because the religious beleivers, have mis-represented god to the people, with their erroneuos knowledge.
Modern science has generally been directed towards investigating the material world, "excluding" the consideration of the concsious scientist, who is essential to the whole process, since of course, the nature of the scientific endeavour "itself" depends upon that consciousness.
vishva
Originally posted by finneganBecause washing hands after the toilet stops the srpead of germs?
If everybody would kindly wash their hands after using the toilet then many infections would be halted.
Why is that?
Where you going with this? (Is this somehow analogous with (vishvas) spiritualty? )
Originally posted by vishvahetuBehind all the makings of the mind—
I know you want to get god, and put god under a microspoce for study, but this cannot be done.
You dont see god....you appreciate and perceive god, with insight and spiritual understanding.
You dont see music, do you!...but you appreciate it. (music exists)
You dont see mind, but we use it all the time.
Consciousness, should be proof of the s , the nature of the scientific endeavour "itself" depends upon that consciousness.
vishva
before all concepts, thoughts, ideas, names,
including “I-thoughts” themselves—
is the mind-ground itself, aware.
The fruit of meditation
is first the realization of that,
and even “mind-ground”—
like consciousness or atman or spirit or the like—
is just another name.
Take it only as “a finger
pointing to the moon”.
Abiding in the mind-ground,
one is no more attached to thoughts
than to clouds that float across the sky;
one no more tries to cling to them
than one tries to lasso a passing cloud.
Thoughts arise, they are noted
for what they are—that’s all.
Abiding in the mind-ground,
the world is just-as-it-is, tathata,
without the need to add anything.
And the mind-ground is just-as-it-is,
without the need to add anything.
Abiding in the mind-ground,
thoughts are just-as-they-are,
without the need to clutch at them.
Leaving the mind-ground,
and following the thoughts that arise,
one may call them “insights”,
and give them names and form:
spirit, god, Krishna, Jesus and the like.
These thoughts may follow so closely
on the naked experience of clear mind,
that one is tempted to give them special due.
One weaves thought to thought
and thinks: “This is the way it is.”
But that is no different
from seeing faces in a cloud,
or trying to paint pictures
on an ocean wave.
And then people fight for their own
“discovered” faces and paintings.
But the mind-ground is itself
immune from all that;
it is untouched by arguments,
by our melodramas and religions;
it is unmoved by our translations
of it itself, or of its perceptions.
It is itself no content:
it is the witness, without conflict.
And thus it, in itself, bears no karma.
And that is the fundamental “I”,
before all “I-thoughts”.
Behind the makings of your mind,
you are none of that at all,
you are no content at all:
and thus you are Buddha.
I, too, am no content at all:
and thus I am Buddha.
The Buddha that I am bows
to the Buddha that you are. 🙂
With all of the above said—
Ultimately, there is the Whole, from which, in which and of which all transient phenomena are—including us with the activity of our consciousness. The phenomena are real, but they are no more separable from the whole than the gulfstream is from the ocean.
The phenomena and the whole can be spoken of as figures and ground: a gestalt. The figures can be perceived, but the ground cannot be perceived.
The mind-ground is analogous. You can perceive your thoughts, but not the ground from which they arise in interaction with the surrounding world. Your “I-thoughts” can be perceived; the I that thinks them cannot. That I is the atman. That I is Buddha-mind, Zen-mind. Any “I” that you can think is not that.
The mind-ground is sometimes called no-mind (mushin) to distinguish it from all mind-content.
The mind-ground cannot be perceived, but it can be realized by observing the mind-content, and how it arises (meditation). That realization is called kensho: seeing into your true nature. Living from/as that is being Buddha—which you always were.
Whether one is speaking of the surrounding world or of our own nature, reality is prior to everything that we can think about it. All that I say should be taken only as hints and allusions to that, which one has to realize for oneself. There is no sense in people arguing over what an orange “really tastes like”, and my description of how an orange tastes to me may be different from yours. The point is to taste the orange.
I don’t much like the word “spirituality” but, if it is to refer to anything real, then it refers (metaphorically) to tasting the orange—not to anything we think or believe about the orange either before or after we taste it.
To Vistesd
For those who dont know what Vistesd is saying , i will explain;
Siddartha Gautama left home a young man, in search of truth, because he saw so much suffering, and wanted to know why.
He concluded that all suffering is produced by the mind and in the mind, by being attached to things of this world, and by un-for-filled desire.
His ideaolgy was to negate the mind, and therefore negate suffering.
But this is also an erroneous assumption, because the mind is a gift of god, as well as the senses, and they are our tools for enjoying and navagating this world.
Siddartha was an ordinary man, but his teaching to meditate and negate everthing, was adopted by many people, because in truth if you switch off the mind, then you swich off suffering as well.
Our life can be enriched by having a correct understaning of the purpose of our existance, and exspanding our consciousness, instead of negating it, and it is the proper function of our mind, to use it to understand god and life, and to enjoy our life.
Suffering will decrease automatically when all of the people of the world, unite under the proper and true understanding of god.
Dear Vistesd, Buddhism is a million times better than atheism, keep well. (and thankyou for your imput)
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuI really don't want to 'get' god. I have no interest in putting it under a microscope. I don't think that's possible.
I know you want to get god, and put god under a microspoce for study, but this cannot be done.
You dont see god....you appreciate and perceive god, with insight and spiritual understanding.
You dont see music, do you!...but you appreciate it. (music exists)
You dont see mind, but we use it all the time.
Consciousness, should be proof of the s ...[text shortened]... , the nature of the scientific endeavour "itself" depends upon that consciousness.
vishva
No, I don't see music myself, I hear it - check out synesthesia though if you want to be really blown away with our brains and how they work - so that doesn't really help your case.
You want to refer to something that is completely intangible but yet we know it exists.
I would suggest you try the emotions - let's say love for example.
You might argue that we know love exists but how can we prove it. And I would respond that you are right, there are some things like this that seem physically intangible. This doesn't mean we can't investigate the nature of these things and how they work - when we feel these emotions and when we don't; why these emotions are useful to us; and yes, how they might have evolved.
I have the utmost respect for eastern religions and philosophies and their focus on experimenting with mind and consciousness.
But I have no respect for a position that completely misuses language to try to suggest a veneer of importance or science or rationality. This seems to be your position.
The spiritual energy? Eternality? (WTF?) Submissive adherence to spiritual way of thinking? Envious attitude?
Your thoughts are full of crap ...