by ronnewmexico » Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:16 pm
REgarding personal view I mention that to differentiate that from a buddhist view. Some Buddhists may hold this view.....but to qualify it as a "official" buddhist view I don't want to engage and am not a lineage holder to summarily say it is so. Simpler points I may state are buddhist views and I can represent what I state in buddhist text but do not want to engage that issue.....it is a waste of time generally. Who cares....if it is true it is true. Name doesn't matter. Discssions of this sort seem to go two ways....devolve into sutric battles to whit with various sanskrit terms and conceptual names of incredible complexity often in different languages, or devolve into how many angels can fit on the head of a pin discussions.... to whit with technical jargon taken from various internet sites, and the assumption one or a few are really incredibly advanced. So I can avoid the first, the second is a bit harder. This is a new discussion so the second has not yet arisin. If it had I would never participate. I largly fail to be impressed by "scientists" or namedroppers on the internet. Some discussions call for those sorts of things and are necessarily endeavored to engage.... these sort of discussions, do not generally.
Both bore me.
As to this...."So what do you think, ronnewmexico, is all that is required for you to travel via laser beams to distant stars, a mere "translation" of your phenomenal identity into bits and digits? And if not, why not?" That to my view is a real question.
This would seemingly equate with cloneing of a thng to be equal to that thing by containing the direct correct translation of that thing genetically and other wise.
The circumstance of the translation would itself, not be translated. So thusly what would be traveling would not be the same you that is translated. A close approximation....certainly. But as with a cloned animal it misses the mark. The idea our identity can be so reduced in total to bits and digets.....Parts only....are not enough to be considered the you that we may find going in a bus from one place to
another.
So not and that is why not I can elaborate.
I would suppose our perceptions, the ruler I mentioned, are already bits and pieces and though valid as perceptions do not represent the true identity of any single thing. So thusly represented without a means to jump from the perceptable to the reality of any object, the seperation of that object from that which perceives it being not possible the reality of any object is never fully approximated. Thusly as all interacts in this fashion such reduction would always miss the mark. To completely reduce things, the reduction would by the constraints of our reality have to include all that interacts with our object of reduction..which is basically everything known.
So like a cloned animal....close but no bannana.
Regarding this.....I don't want to come off as picky, but shouldn't this read "elaborated in our awareness"?
No I purposely wrote it that way. Awareness being composite but display of awareness being a finetuning of that same awareness not something contained within. MOre like a centrifuge participating particles from a larger mix is what I was hitting at. Awareness to my view being a quality not quantity or object.
Like a 1970's mood ring. Thinking of this larger thing as all being a function of awareness, as a inert nail or hair on our head, may be a function of our aware senseing body. Similiarily any elaboration is not in anything but in everything. Our reality being alive in a way, more akin to being alive then to being as we normally assume it to be,with clear distinctions between inert and aware.
If I wanted to replicate or move a consciousness from one place to another to my view all I would have to do is replicate the circumstance that the present consciousness exists in to include its habital derived historic tendencies. If I replicated the circumstances exactly...exactly equal would be the result. I would not assume this is not presently happening. There may be a thousand pretty equal to me consciousnesses(we simply do not know). But a me moving on such basis....none exists. So unless circumstance and tendency to boot... could be moved with me no real movement could occur.
This is a differing view of rebirth. WE never rebirth.... what percipitates is our consciousness when circumstances precipitate our consciousnesses presence. This includes habitual tendency and retention of the basis of such so it seems to be a singular entity. It is not. The only continuance is in the circumstantial elicitation, and the quality of awareness being present . Like the color green presenting with someone mixing a blue and yellow. However similiar is one green to another perhaps virtually identical never are they the same in other manner. One is mixed at one time one at another. So large is this thing of reality we cannot discount the possiblity of all potential mixes even some other being mixed in the same fashion at the same time and having same exact result but that is not to say me the mix is the same as well. Though it presents as exact it holds differing spacial quality if nothing else and thusly though not necessarily perceptable as different is by such virtue different.
I'd suppose scientists tend not to see the constraints upon their reality, and its limitations reflecting in our perceptive ability. We see generally the ruler nothing else.
Some buddhists hold consciousness to be a soul like thing migrating from one birth to another. Some buddhists hold consciousness to be a wholly created upon circumstance thing, presenting when circumstance exactly fits its presentation. Essentially it could be thought of as the reality of the moment essentially calling for its presence. If our particular nuance of consciousness fits exactly.... it presents.
I hold to that second view. Keep in mind the death process modifies consciousness with experience and habitual retention of aspect, and thusly we find not a 80 year old dead person rebirthing as a newborn who is 80. But a 80 year old feeling death and then with consequential change to consciousness rebirthing in a differing form, perhaps a newborn human. But in every circumstance the death and birth it is but the circumstance that elicits what we call a particular consciousness. It is not a singular seperate thing. Awareness is a quality only with retentive aspect. Not a object.
Since is has no such composition as object it cannot be transported suchly in bits and pieces.
As a aside...... by mentioning our entire reality as being alive I don't mean the newage ghia world concepts or even conscious universe concept but the idea every single aspect of reality functions in relationship to consciousness or more basically awareness. Thusly considered as evidenced in either a very small small sense or in a large large sense....the characteristics of everything are no different than our own characteristics. Aware. Everything functions as such a nature or relationship to such a nature.
Not inherantly existant nature but when presenting. Always aware nature. Suchly any inert object would be considered implicit of the aware which constructs such. As our hair and nails speak of a aware body which grows such. We think of awareness and resultant consciousness as being a mystical mainly nonunderstandable process....it seems rather simply a way of knowing of things. Hence retentive aspect and other things, it is built to understand. It would follow that our reality is then also just built to understand. Behaviors of things even inert would speak to that by my personal view, if studied long and hard enough. As is in the scientific community recently the smallest of the small particles is found behaveing in a seemingly conscious manner. The internet is a good source to find that reference as I do not have it handy, the names of the particles the study and such. They behave as conscious or aware.
To a largest extant....I suppose we will find the same if we ever can study the largest extant.
Imagine we are a human body one trillion times exemplified. Imagine then one cell is our universe. Our universe located upon that body perhaps at the juncture of a hair folical and a scalp or some similiar situation. Our universe then reflecting mostly inert(hair)billions of miles of inert, as opposed to aware. Imagine the possibility if that one cell(universe) was located in a brain or eye area..... what would we see then? Would that then be a nirvana state or some godly realm? And does not the fluidity of thoughts and reality and such speak not against the conventional but to such conceptions?
Imagine a scope in which every possibility of aware presentation is exemplified.... every single one.....that would be the consequence of reality as a function of awareness to my opinion .
But that is diverging from the issue...the rest is not.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
