Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 9:15 AM
345 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (5 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,072 Year: 25,678/21,208 Month: 1,305/2,338 Week: 62/364 Day: 13/49 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Belief Statements - Robinrohan
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 99 (337894)
08-04-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
08-04-2006 9:25 AM


Re: 72 young Virgins
Many of the young men whom I talk with have reported to me that one of the main reasons they attend church is because of pretty women.

I see. A social club.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 08-04-2006 9:25 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 08-05-2006 2:06 PM robinrohan has responded

  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 32 of 99 (337908)
08-04-2006 10:53 AM


I doubt that Robinrohan actually believes what he claims to. I've seen many of his posts and he strikes me as a fundamentalist Christian creationist who's taking everyone for a ride. That's just the impression that I get from his choice of words and overall attitude.

My $0.02


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-04-2006 11:02 AM Chronos has not yet responded
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 1:33 PM Chronos has not yet responded
 Message 55 by nator, posted 08-05-2006 6:05 PM Chronos has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 99 (337909)
08-04-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chronos
08-04-2006 10:53 AM


How I wish. Both Iano and I have presented the gospel to Robin many times to complete uninterest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chronos, posted 08-04-2006 10:53 AM Chronos has not yet responded

    
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 34 of 99 (337933)
08-04-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by robinrohan
08-04-2006 7:54 AM


I can't imagine there not being subjects and objects, things and beings.

That is where my feeling of futility comes from. How to explain how the subject object perception arises and how it resolves. I just haven't found a way to do it.

The nondual teachings point to only consciousness existing. Things are a perception, an idea that we become enthralled with. They are forms of consciousness. The metaphor is of gold that can be crafted into any shape but remains gold. You can melt the object down and recast it. The form changes but the gold remains the same. Things are temporary. Being is the unborn undying essence.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 7:54 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 1:38 PM lfen has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 99 (337935)
08-04-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chronos
08-04-2006 10:53 AM


I doubt that Robinrohan actually believes what he claims to. I've seen many of his posts and he strikes me as a fundamentalist Christian creationist who's taking everyone for a ride.

No, I just object to a sentimentalized version of life as inaccurate and to moralism as inconsistent. Somebody will proclaim that all morals are subjective, and then the next moment he will be solemnly moralizing: the righteous do-gooder mentality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chronos, posted 08-04-2006 10:53 AM Chronos has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 99 (337936)
08-04-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by lfen
08-04-2006 1:02 PM


The nondual teachings point to only consciousness existing

OK, what we are talking about here is an extreme form of philosophical idealism (everything is mental). I get that, but your version goes even further. Not only is there no physicality, there is no subject to be conscious. What we have is consciousness per se.

To me that's like saying there is nothing that is dead, but there is such a thing as deadness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 1:02 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 2:33 PM robinrohan has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 37 of 99 (337943)
08-04-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
08-04-2006 1:38 PM


(everything is mental).

Well the mind is denied also, so I think the implication is not the same thing as mental. I think it's more like Spinoza's use of the word "substance". The fundamental thing is mystery. You can go so far with explanations and then you fall into the mystery of being.

I get that, but your version goes even further. Not only is there no physicality, there is no subject to be conscious. What we have is consciousness per se.

But remember this is pragmatic. What the sages are doing are pointing to how you actually experience. Typically you point to some concept or state that you designate as your "self". The thing is that concept or state is an object in awareness. You keep looking at that awareness noticing that you/it keep identifying with an object as its self but.. that can't be as you/it are the subject. It begins to dawn on you that you can't define or know yourself. You know about the body, the mind but what do you know about the awareness of those objects? The awareness of existence, of isness is what you are and that is a mystery to be experienced finally in silence, that is with out concept, to taste it itself.

To me that's like saying there is nothing that is dead, but there is such a thing as deadness.

I'm not clear what you are saying here. When the void, that is nothingness as literally No Thingness is spoken of it is as of a deep mystery that is the creative source of the manifest universe.

Things are concepts and so deadness of a thing is a qualifier of a concept. We divide up the universe into parts or things like stars, planets and people. But life, or what I understand you to mean as beings depend on the entire universe for their existence. They aren't discrete.

The question I have for you is where do beings come from? How do they arise and where do they go at death? That is to ask what is birth and what is death?

lfen

Edited by lfen, : oops, meant to click preview wasn't done proofing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 1:38 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 3:00 PM lfen has responded
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-04-2006 5:45 PM lfen has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 99 (337945)
08-04-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by lfen
08-04-2006 2:33 PM


The question I have for you is where do beings come from?

From other beings.

where do they go at death?

They cease to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 2:33 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 4:33 PM robinrohan has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 39 of 99 (337949)
08-04-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by robinrohan
08-04-2006 3:00 PM


Are beings synonymous with organisms?
Are you using being as a synonym for organism?

And beings come into existence as a result of reproduction?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 3:00 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 6:25 PM lfen has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 99 (337960)
08-04-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by lfen
08-04-2006 2:33 PM


Reading your thoughts always makes me so happy that God is an object, a separate personality who loves and can be loved by a subject, and that he's promised us an eternal existence with our souls or is-ness intact and able to love him for that eternity.

There's just no way that most human beings can grasp such ideas as you are trying to convey, and even less that we can be attracted to such ideas that imply personal dissolution. Even if it were the truth it isn't a truth I could be happy about. I don't understand your attraction to it at all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 2:33 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 6:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 41 of 99 (337971)
08-04-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-04-2006 5:45 PM


Faith,

I understand what you say. And I'll try a quick answer and then see if something better comes to me later.

I think it may hinge on having a little taste of the experience, otherwise it probably is not something people can relate to.

I am also interested in the studies of semantic and philosophical modeling regarding what existence and an object is. This would include the teachings attributed to the Buddha and the philosophies derived therefrom as well as Wittgenstein and science. That is the intellectual aspect.

But the surrendering of the beloved Other is a crisis that some individual's have reported. Ramakrisha worshipped the Supreme in the form of the divine mother Kali. He was an ecstatic devotional type and he didn't want to go beyond that. There are others I have read but don't recall at the moment and as I'm heading out the door this will have to wait.

One function of posting here is challenging myself to understand and find ways of presenting these difficult to grasp notions and experiences. Maybe all I will learn is that they are ineffable and I should just remain silent, but until I've gotten that I'll keep trying approaches.

Before I head out the door I'll just note the account of the Buddha is that by examining his experience in phenomenological depth he discovered that there was no person there. But I know his insight is not appealing to most westerners.

perhaps later I'll find something more clarifying, or not ...

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-04-2006 5:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 99 (337972)
08-04-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by lfen
08-04-2006 4:33 PM


Re: Are beings synonymous with organisms?
Are you using being as a synonym for organism?

No, I'm defining being as that which possesses consciousness. That which does not possess consciousness, I call a thing.

And beings come into existence as a result of reproduction?

Yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 4:33 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 7:50 PM robinrohan has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 43 of 99 (337991)
08-04-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by robinrohan
08-04-2006 6:25 PM


Re: Are beings synonymous with organisms?
Okay, some of this is coming back to me from some time back.

Beings possess consciousness and you are referring chiefly if not exclusively to earth based lifeforms?

You are not sure if consciousness is a quality of all life, including bacteria or have you arrived at a cutoff point? Like say oh worms maybe?

It seems that you are then agreeing with the position that consciousness is an emergent quality in the universe that come about when? With cells? With sufficiently complex neural organisation? With brain?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 6:25 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 8:42 PM lfen has responded
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 08-05-2006 7:07 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 99 (337999)
08-04-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by lfen
08-04-2006 7:50 PM


Re: Are beings synonymous with organisms?
You are not sure if consciousness is a quality of all life, including bacteria or have you arrived at a cutoff point? Like say oh worms maybe?

I don't think consciousness is a quality of all life. Only the higher animals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 7:50 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by lfen, posted 08-04-2006 9:54 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 45 of 99 (338019)
08-04-2006 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by robinrohan
08-04-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Are beings synonymous with organisms?
Okay, so have you an accounting of where this being/consciousness originates? How it comes about?

Does some level of neural complexity give birth to it?

Think about an animal/thing with what a billion brain connections? Would the billionth and first connection suddenly switch on consciousness and voila sudddenly there is an animal/being?

Or does your model have somethng else occuring? It seems that you are saying that a sufficient complex thing suddenly turns into a being. Is that how you see it?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 08-04-2006 8:42 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-04-2006 10:46 PM lfen has responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017