the origin of life and the universe

[Nick the Pilot]

Nativeastral,

You said,

"…some indian philosophies do not equate mind with consciousness but with matter…."

--> I had not heard that before.

"…Christianities extreme separation of flesh and spirit."

--> I have never heard it said this way before, but it makes sense.

"…materialists can say mind is brain, but still have to account for …."

--> I watched a video where out-of-body experiences were discussed, and how they ‘prove’ that consciousness is separate of the body. One big part of the video is how scientists refuse to even consider things like out-of-body experiences.

"…western science's emphasis on concrete matter, religion's on abstract spirit, with the soul having to be 'saved' or liberated…."

--> I think this reliance is due to religious leaders trying to control the population, rather than science accepting the idea of the forgiveness of sin.

"…the embodied medium of creative energy and of life itself, downgraded in christianity to the snake,dragon,from water and eve's expulsion…."

--> I have a very different interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. That is a story of snakes pursuing fruit, which is a clear reference to human sexuality. I have a long thread elsewhere on the topic on this Forum, if you are interested.

"…mind is equated with prakrti [the primal substance and insentient or unconscious]…."

--> I do not think prakriti is the primal substance. Mulaprakriti is primal. Prakriti is the temporary, cyclical product of mulaprakriti. Mulaprakriti produced prakriti, which is the real meaning of Mary bearing Jesus.

"…mind is equated with prakrti [the primal substance and insentient or unconscious], composing of the faculties manas [perceptions and cognition] and buddhi [reason,intuition] - the mental, coupled with ahamkara [ego or phenomenal self] which appropriates the mental experiences to itself, posseses them."

--> I would rather say that mind is manas. Things like intuition are at a higher level than manas. I certainly would not say that mind is equated with prakrti. I think of it this way:

Mulaprakriti à prakriti à atman à buddhi à manas à astral à physical (with a few other stages left out)

The question is, where to hang the title of ‘soul.’ (It seems that you and I have a different definition of soul.) I see the soul as being atrman. I see prakriti as being at a much higher level of consciousness than what we call a soul. The easier way to refer to all of this is consciousness. Even prakriti can be easily referred to as consciousness. All these are levels of consciousness. I am sure there are levels of consciousness above atman (for example, purusha). But these are all levels of consciousness.

Prakriti may be referred to as matter, and purusha may be referred to as spirit, although that is a huge over-simplification. But let’s say that spirit/matter is purusha/prakriti. It makes these discussions simpler.

"…the mind or mentality is 'lit up' only from the illuminative purusa via the more refined buddhi 'organ' which is then coloured according to the manas/ego."

--> It is common in some circles to refer to our mind as manas, our intuition as buddhi, our soul as atman, and our Ego as atma-buddhi-manas. The trick is to have everyone understand everyone else’s terminology.

"…I do not know how to multiquote you…."

--> Just use quotation marks, as I do.

"…purusha is conceived as the cosmic man in the rig veda who was sacrificed to create matter then yes prakrti 'emanates' from purusha or spirit [or world soul?]…."

--> You use the term cosmic man. aka heavenly man, aka Adam Kadmon, aka the Kabalistic Sephiroth. Forgive me, but I see no need to anthropomorphise terms that describe the universe. To me, the universe is the universe.

Also, we are all familiar with Christian terminology, where God sacrifices Jesus for our sake. In another form, this purusha sacrificing the cosmic man to create matter. I see no need to use such ‘sacrificing’ terminology. The creation of our universe was a good thing, not someone’s ‘sacrifice.’ Christians tell me I must be good because I owe a debt to someone or something, but I do not see it that way.

"…creation…"

--> Here, too, I choose not to use the Christian terminology that the universe was 'created.' I say the universe emanated. There is a huge difference in the two meanings.

"…spirit/matter are two sides of same coin."

--> Yes.

"So how do you define energy in all of this?"

--> Energy is neither spirit nor matter. It is another, unexplainable aspect of super-manifestational reality. It just is.

"I am not sure whether hinduism sees Brahman as Ultimate Reality as eternal and unchanging [therefore immutable]…"

--> It does not. Please see my chart.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

Brahman refers to Father in the Father-Mother-Son Trinity. Parabrahman (literally, "beyond" Brahman) refers to Absolute, from which the Trinity emanates. I see the Absolute as immutable, while the Trinity is mutable. Even the Bible says Gods gets angry, which proves his lack of immutablilty and almightyness.

"…but certainly atman or soul within the individual must be capable of change/purification due their belief in karma and reincarnation?."

--> Yes. (By the way, I like your use of atman as meaning human soul.) We are on a path to a higher level. Our atman/soul is on the same path of ‘purification.’ (I prefer to say it is a path of spiritual evolution.)

"Yet In this article purusha is regarded as ontologically different from prakrti…."

--> It is. Purusha is spirit. Prakriti is our universe, a product of mulaprakriti (pre-matter).

"…purusha…is the undifferentiated Self, pure awareness and unchanging consciousness, manifested through the 'organs' of the mind, and having no gunas or tendencies."

--> It is said that Purusha/Father differentiates from Mulaprakriti/Mother. They then re-unite, and Mahat/Son manifests from them. There is some deep distinction between differentiating and manifesting, but I am not really sure what it is. But it is said that Purusha/father is differentiated yet unmanifested. I would disagree that Purusha is undifferentiated Self. Purusha is changing. It manifestes indirectly via Mahat/Son, then further indirectly via Atman/Human .Soul. I agree that Purusha has no gunas or tendencies.

"So prakrti is merely the medium for spirit purusha to manifest, not the source of consciousness, hence the 'problem' for science."

--> I like to ask people, which came first; their soul or their physical body? Most people answer that their soul came first. (I agree.)

Prakriti/Manifested Matter is the medium by which Purusha/Spirit manifests. Purusha/Spirit is the medium by which Prakriti/Manifested Matter evolves along a spiritual path. Each one is ‘useless’ without the other.

We discused,

"You say that 'soul is the marriage between spirit and matter'. I think that really depends on the definition of 'soul.' --> So what continues to the higher level? the soul as a vehicle?"

--> Consciousness. There is nothing that is not consciousness.

"… l intuitively see a truth in reincarnation [if we believe in the law of conservation] but have no definite ideas, prefering the mystery of it all."

--> I, too, find great logic in the idea of reincarnation. The mystery of it is that we must all work it out for ourselves. (No one has the right to dogmatically tell us what to believe.)

 

[nativeastral]

hi nick

you said,

"…some indian philosophies do not equate mind with consciousness but with matter…."

--> I had not heard that before. //

.......why the mind sees maya [and can be entrapped by it] .


"…western science's emphasis on concrete matter, religion's on abstract spirit, with the soul having to be 'saved' or liberated…."

nick:
--> I think this reliance is due to religious leaders trying to control the population, rather than science accepting the idea of the forgiveness of sin. //
....l didn't mean science had any views on that, they wouldnt..l meant the extreme poles of emphases with 'soul energy' getting kinda 'lost' in the middle but methinks it is the 'glue'.

"…the embodied medium of creative energy and of life itself, downgraded in christianity to the snake,dragon,from water and eve's expulsion…."

nick:
--> I have a very different interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. That is a story of snakes pursuing fruit, which is a clear reference to human sexuality. I have a long thread elsewhere on the topic on this Forum, if you are interested.//

...see above. Your ideas and beliefs are more salient and certain than mine which are nebulous to say the least

"…mind is equated with prakrti [the primal substance and insentient or unconscious]…."

nick:
--> I do not think prakriti is the primal substance. Mulaprakriti is primal. Prakriti is the temporary, cyclical product of mulaprakriti. Mulaprakriti produced prakriti, which is the real meaning of Mary bearing Jesus.//

...l see, mula being 'root', and 'para' beyond.. another higher level then to the source? with the produced prakrti being maya [surely not Jesus?]

"…mind is equated with prakrti [the primal substance and insentient or unconscious], composing of the faculties manas [perceptions and cognition] and buddhi [reason,intuition] - the mental, coupled with ahamkara [ego or phenomenal self] which appropriates the mental experiences to itself, posseses them."

nick:
--> I would rather say that mind is manas. Things like intuition are at a higher level than manas. I certainly would not say that mind is equated with prakrti. I think of it this way:

Mulaprakriti à prakriti à atman à buddhi à manas à astral à physical (with a few other stages left out)//

...like l say, this was one guy's interpretation of sankhya and patanjali yoga, and hinduism is pretty diverse in its darsanas.

nick:
The question is, where to hang the title of ‘soul.’ (It seems that you and I have a different definition of soul.) I see the soul as being atrman. I see prakriti as being at a much higher level of consciousness than what we call a soul. The easier way to refer to all of this is consciousness. Even prakriti can be easily referred to as consciousness. All these are levels of consciousness. I am sure there are levels of consciousness above atman (for example, purusha). But these are all levels of consciousness.//

...l think l agree that atman is soul/Self and that there are levels, but lt is basic to hinduism that atman is a part of Brahman, Ultimate Reality [or pure spirit if you will].

nick:
Prakriti may be referred to as matter, and purusha may be referred to as spirit, although that is a huge over-simplification. But let’s say that spirit/matter is purusha/prakriti. It makes these discussions simpler. //

...aye

"…the mind or mentality is 'lit up' only from the illuminative purusa via the more refined buddhi 'organ' which is then coloured according to the manas/ego."

--> It is common in some circles to refer to our mind as manas, our intuition as buddhi, our soul as atman, and our Ego as atma-buddhi-manas. The trick is to have everyone understand everyone else’s terminology. //

...in the article it was l described, the mind like an empty vessel with the triple faculties but only buddhi was refined enough to enliven the others into a 'personal consciousness'.

"…purusha is conceived as the cosmic man in the rig veda who was sacrificed to create matter then yes prakrti 'emanates' from purusha or spirit [or world soul?]…."

nick:
--> You use the term cosmic man. aka heavenly man, aka Adam Kadmon, aka the Kabalistic Sephiroth. Forgive me, but I see no need to anthropomorphise terms that describe the universe. To me, the universe is the universe.//

...as l mentioned this is a creation myth 'the hymn of Man', or Purusa Sukta in the oldest sanskrit Rig Veda, though there is another one concerning the cosmic egg; such diverse Hinduism [probably exemplifying the many swathes of migrants through the Indus as linguists have unravelled]. Hindus would say 'our Lord' created cosmic man, which is where the varna or caste hierarchy 'evolved' from, bring dharma to each caste, and perhaps a justification for the priestly Brahmin caste, who 'emerged from the mouth' in possession of the sacred verbal formulas -
so here a link to Logos or Jesus in your line of thinking perhaps?]

nick:
Also, we are all familiar with Christian terminology, where God sacrifices Jesus for our sake. In another form, this purusha sacrificing the cosmic man to create matter. I see no need to use such ‘sacrificing’ terminology. The creation of our universe was a good thing, not someone’s ‘sacrifice.’ Christians tell me I must be good because I owe a debt to someone or something, but I do not see it that way.//

...yes similarities..whatever created cosmic man wanted to create [or in your words produce] matter and hindus do not see a separation of spirit and matter, they are part of both and honour both so they do not see matter as bad, but realize the Reality beyond the maya of matter. in hinduism, in contrast to creation ex nihilo they believe in satkaryavada wherby the 'effect pre-exists in the cause'.

"…creation…"

nick:
--> Here, too, I choose not to use the Christian terminology that the universe was 'created.' I say the universe emanated. There is a huge difference in the two meanings.//

...creation is not a term confined to christianity; these are not my words perse and l am familiar with neoplatonism and their emanation system where there is a hierarchy from the One, which l think they use hypostasize [dict: make into or represent as a substance or concrete reality, embody, personify].

"…spirit/matter are two sides of same coin."
nick:
--> Yes.//

...certainly according this article and what l've read on hinduism anyway which is why l like it. l didn't realize how important darsana [schools of philosophies but also the personal gaze between devotee and murti or image of their particular 'personification', this is a heightened consciousness,a spiritual connection much like the icon in orthodox christianity?].

"So how do you define energy in all of this?"

nick:
--> Energy is neither spirit nor matter. It is another, unexplainable aspect of super-manifestational reality. It just is.

...science hasn't been able to delineate spirit but it sure has found energy in matter, perhaps this is what consciousness is but as yet undetectable. We find it in living things, we know plants respond to intent/ electromagnetism in healing hands let alone the animals including us. You think people hug trees for the fun of it? no there's energy there! what about all those 'rock lovers'- goofy?!

"I am not sure whether hinduism sees Brahman as Ultimate Reality as eternal and unchanging [therefore immutable]…"

nick:
--> It does not. Please see my chart.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

Brahman refers to Father in the Father-Mother-Son Trinity. Parabrahman (literally, "beyond" Brahman) refers to Absolute, from which the Trinity emanates. I see the Absolute as immutable, while the Trinity is mutable. Even the Bible says Gods gets angry, which proves his lack of immutablilty and almightyness.//

... so everything below Brahman [where you mean para; and is mulapraktri on par with this as uncreated cause in partnership?]. ln hinduism the trinity is in Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu and of course shakti, the primordial praktri which even in hinduistic exegesis is overlookedat the expense of the abstract.


"…but certainly atman or soul within the individual must be capable of change/purification due their belief in karma and reincarnation?."

--> Yes. (By the way, I like your use of atman as meaning human soul.) We are on a path to a higher level. Our atman/soul is on the same path of ‘purification.’ (I prefer to say it is a path of spiritual evolution.)

"Yet In this article purusha is regarded as ontologically different from prakrti…."

nick:
--> It is. Purusha is spirit. Prakriti is our universe, a product of mulaprakriti (pre-matter).


"…purusha…is the undifferentiated Self, pure awareness and unchanging consciousness, manifested through the 'organs' of the mind, and having no gunas or tendencies."


nick:
--> It is said that Purusha/Father differentiates from Mulaprakriti/Mother. They then re-unite, and Mahat/Son manifests from them. There is some deep distinction between differentiating and manifesting, but I am not really sure what it is. But it is said that Purusha/father is differentiated yet unmanifested. I would disagree that Purusha is undifferentiated Self. Purusha is changing. It manifestes indirectly via Mahat/Son, then further indirectly via Atman/Human .Soul. I agree that Purusha has no gunas or tendencies.//

... am a little unclear at this point too


"So prakrti is merely the medium for spirit purusha to manifest, not the source of consciousness, hence the 'problem' for science."

nick:
--> I like to ask people, which came first; their soul or their physical body? Most people answer that their soul came first. (I agree.)

...too true l have a body but l am not my body, l have emotions but am not my emotions, l have thoughts but l am not my thoughts.. what am l then?
'that thou art' [like salt dissolved in water].

nick:
Prakriti/Manifested Matter is the medium by which Purusha/Spirit manifests. Purusha/Spirit is the medium by which Prakriti/Manifested Matter evolves along a spiritual path. Each one is ‘useless’ without the other. //

...yes the soul is embodied as atman but now am unclear bout soul/spirit [tired from being on niteshift!]

nick:
We discused,

"You say that 'soul is the marriage between spirit and matter'. I think that really depends on the definition of 'soul.' --> So what continues to the higher level? the soul as a vehicle?"

nick:
--> Consciousness. There is nothing that is not consciousness.

... certainly agree which brings me back to my initial posts which was the 'problem' for conscioussness in science, the what,where,how why in their 'physical' world, and import of q.m.

"… l intuitively see a truth in reincarnation [if we believe in the law of conservation] but have no definite ideas, prefering the mystery of it all."

nick:
--> I, too, find great logic in the idea of reincarnation. The mystery of it is that we must all work it out for ourselves. (No one has the right to dogmatically tell us what to believe.)

...yes, getting back to astrology [which l find the books on esotericism and theosophy fascinating but complex as all systems are] the moon, associated with 'mother' the past [mind?] and soul [according with descartes and ancient philosophers immateriality of soul/mind].

...all very interesting.. must read further on these particular schools, which was substance dualism, and so differentiation, as compared to the other one of monistic idealism by goswami [probably loads on you tube on him as he is a physicist not a philosopher like schweizer]

 

[_Z_]

good thread!

mind if i make my own up?

as you can take part of a tree, plant it and it will grow into another, and as there is a kind of fish which when the male copulates with the female, it then sticks to the side of her body and dissolves leaving only spermsacks, and as we are made up of billions of life-forms, then; obviously we cannot see ‘life’ as individualistic?

then as when life began it was only chemicals which formed the building blocks of life, and that one period is no different to another they just have a different configuration, we must ask if life is something universal? ..or if it is nothing at all.

so it ends up a bit like being or awareness, we either go with the materialist and say they don’t exist, which frankly i find ridiculous, or we say that these things belong to a non material ‘pool’ which is indistinct.
we can ‘know’ that life, being etc are real to us but are they real to reality.

fundamentally and prior to this question, we must ask if reality allows for such a thing. i would say that the universe is only a fraction of reality it cannot be the whole, as there are only examples of fractions, there are no examples of ‘wholes’ as everything is part of something else.
this leaves us with a reality map where nothing can define the entirely and it cannot ever be a whole thing. more importantly it declares that the material is not entire!

so now we may look for that which is not material and yet seemingly present e.g. life/aliveness, being, awareness/consciousness.
perhaps the greater reality simply allows for absolutely anything to exist [being infinite], otherwise you have to have something which stops a given thing from existing. the universe is simply everything which is material forming its existence, along with that are all things which are non material yet related to it.

fundamentally there must be universal ‘entities’* [in the very widest expression of the meaning of the term*] which form the building blocks of all that follows. things like life, energy, mind, intelligence [patterns and processes]. equally as these universals have no edges as such, we may break them down further into a single homogenous entity which is neither of these things and yet may be all of them and none of them.

universal formula for all of the above...

IT = EITHER, NEITHER AND ALL

 

[nativeastral]

cool, mr z[ero?]

Sounds like Leibniz's monads what little l've read and along the lines of Whitehead's pan psychism philosophy too etc. Human's cannot but be individualistic, self-referential and from what l've studied doing philosophy of mind science is still stuck in the 'everything is little bits of matter' so no immateriality but they cannot keep up with this paradigm due to q.m.; not so much the indeterminancy principle [which Eistein did not agree saying we still lack the measurement capability and further information and knowledge so still causal ie g#d does not play dice with the universe!] but more the observer affects the observed and l think we can all attest to that on the macroscopic level. Does that mean that determinism is true, really? Seems qm is pointing to mind stuff rather than matter stuff.

In this respect Hinduism realise the whole is greater than the sum of parts and is said to inhere in parts hence their lack of distinction between spirit/matter therefore atman within is like the microcosm of the macrocosm of Brahman.

Ramakrishna says 'the way of devotion is as good as the way of knowledge, but as long as g#d keeps the feeling of ego in us, it is easier to follow the path of devotion'.

 

[_Z_]

cool, mr z[ero?]

can be or it can be the end Z [last letter in the alphabet]. ...as like; the place at the end of the universe is the same as the one at the beginning. thanks

i don’t know leibniz etc

science is still stuck in the ‘everything is little bits of matter’ so no immateriality but they cannot keep up with this paradigm due to q.m.;

absolutely, we must really start looking at the connectivity as there arent really any edges to things. by looking at bits and at reductionism generally, we largely fail to comprehend the whole. although unfortunately there is no whole as such.

Seems qm is pointing to mind stuff rather than matter stuff.

or to something that may be both.

In this respect Hinduism realise the whole is greater than the sum of parts and is said to inhere in parts hence their lack of distinction between spirit/matter therefore atman within is like the microcosm of the macrocosm of Brahman.

i agree as concerns the unity, although i don’t think we should rightly say hinduism says this or that, we should just say what this or that is [i.e. truths belong to themselves]. secondly we should not say it all belongs to brahman a, before we say what brahman is specifically, and b, considering that there are other things bar brahman hence he is not the whole, c, the whole is not a thing and entity or a definable nature of reality.

Ramakrishna says ‘the way of devotion is as good as the way of knowledge, but as long as g#d keeps the feeling of ego in us, it is easier to follow the path of devotion’.

devotion to what? i would go with the knowledgeable route. ...with universal respect ~ as all things including gods make utility of the same universals.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

nativeastral,

You said,

"l see, mula being 'root', and 'para' beyond.. another higher level then to the source? with the produced prakrti being maya [surely not Jesus?]"

--> No. The ultimate source is the Absolute, about which we know almost nothing. Mulaprakriti is the root of matter ("pre-matter") only. (It is certainly not Jesus. Jesus/God/Mahat is the physical universe, which emanates from Father and Mother, which emanate from Mulaprakriti/Father-Mother, which 'emanates' from the Absolute.)

"l think l agree that atman is soul/Self and that there are levels, but lt is basic to hinduism that atman is a part of Brahman, Ultimate Reality [or pure spirit if you will]."

--> Atman is defintely part of the One Reality -- and so is everything else. (But what Buddha was trying to say -- and what Buddha is always misquoted on -- is that Atman, like everything else, is merely an illusion when compared to the One Reality.)

"Hindus would say 'our Lord' created cosmic man, which is where the varna or caste hierarchy 'evolved' from, bring dharma to each caste, and perhaps a justification for the priestly Brahmin caste, who 'emerged from the mouth' in possession of the sacred verbal formulas - so here a link to Logos or Jesus in your line of thinking perhaps?]"

--> No. The issue of casts is completely different. But Brahmins may have used their superior status to justify all sorts of language that forces the lower classes to obey them.

"...hindus do not see a separation of spirit and matter...."

--> Technically, I agree with them. Spirit and matter are merely two, temporary, illusional 'attributes' of the One Reality, temporarily 'created' to provide us with a plaform from which we can raise of levels of spirituality. But spirit and matter are not true parts of the One Reality. All is illusion except for the One Reality.

"...they do not see matter as bad...."

--> Good for them. On this point, they got it right, and Christians got it wrong.

"...but realize the Reality beyond the maya of matter."

--> Correct. There is only One Reality.

"science hasn't been able to delineate spirit but it sure has found energy in matter, perhaps this is what consciousness is but as yet undetectable. We find it in living things, we know plants respond to intent/ electromagnetism in healing hands let alone the animals including us. You think people hug trees for the fun of it? no there's energy there! what about all those 'rock lovers'- goofy?!"

--> I guess what we are saying is, spirit, matter, and energy are the same thing, just in different forms. That makes sense to me.

"so everything below Brahman [where you mean para; and is mulapraktri on par with this as uncreated cause in partnership?]."

--> No. Parabrahman is the One Reality. Brahman is the Logos, the Trinity. (Brahman emanates from Parabrahman.) Mulaprakriti is the 'substance' from which Brahman/Father and Matter/Mother is created. Before a universe begins to emanate, there is nothing but a 'substance' called Mulaprakriti. It is called Father-Mother. At the first flash of the begining of a new universe, Mulaprakriti splits or differentiates into Father and Mother. (Please recall how Genesis says in its very second sentence that spirit (Father) moved across the waters (Mother). the two interact to create the universe (Jesus). So, to answer your question, Brahman/Father is 'built' from Mulaprakriti (pre-matter).

The Bible describes the moving of Father over Mother, but does not describe the event just before, which was the separating of Father-Mother into Father and Mother. It is a shame the writers deleted this from the original story.

"In hinduism the trinity is in Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu and of course shakti, the primordial praktri which even in hinduistic exegesis is overlooked at the expense of the abstract."

--> Fascinating. But they must admit that Mulaprakriti is even more primordial than prakriti. And, they are correct that Brahman/Father emanates from Parabrahman/Absolute.

"...l have a body but l am not my body, l have emotions but am not my emotions, l have thoughts but l am not my thoughts.. what am l then?"

--> You are a form of consciousness that is superior to your physical, astral and mental forms. It is called Atman/Soul. Many people have a hard time understanding this concept, so if it is difficult for you to understand, this is quite normal. Most people cannot imagine a level of consciousness higher than rational thought or intuition. According to my belief system, there are forms of consciousness that are MUCH higher than rational thought or intuition. There are forms that are even higher than Atman, but that is a topic of a whole different discussion.

"..yes the soul is embodied as atman but now am unclear bout soul/spirit [tired from being on niteshift!]"

--> The soul is Atman. Consciouness is embodied as Atman. Like I just said, there are forms of consciousness even higher than Atman.

"… l intuitively see a truth in reincarnation...."

--> I am glad to hear that.

"...but have no definite ideas, prefering the mystery of it all."

--> Ask more questions! The more questions, the better.

"...the moon, associated with 'mother'...."

--> The moon symbolizes our astral bodies and our emotions. This ties into incarnations we had on the moon a long time ago, before we were human, before we had our present intellectual capacity. At that time, our main thoughts were only emotions, which is what this moon-as-emotions is really about.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Z,

You said,

"...when life began it was only chemicals which formed the building blocks of life...."

--> Would you say 'souls' existed as this time? Does the existence of 'souls' predate these chemicals?

"...the universe is simply everything which is material forming its existence, along with that are all things which are non material yet related to it."

--> What do you think will happen to our consciouness when the physical universe disappears?

 

[citizenzen]

Z,

You said,

"...when life began it was only chemicals which formed the building blocks of life...."

--> Would you say 'souls' existed as this time?

Well... maybe chemical souls.

"...the universe is simply everything which is material forming its existence, along with that are all things which are non material yet related to it."

--> What do you think will happen to our consciouness when the physical universe disappears?

Nobody can answer that! Why not ponder something useful, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[shawn]

At the end of the day, regardless of what we feel about the matter, all we have are theories and speculations, some more reasonable than others.
From the Jewish people I know I get that Genesis (and Judaism) is thought to be a collection of ideas which arose from earlier Sumerian influence.
The Sumerians got their ideas from the earlier cultures and so on.

From the Indian heritage which I know (I spent over a decade living on a reserve in Canada) I see that many tribes have a belief in beings who do not come from earth, but elsewhere, who were directly responsible in some way with us being here.
there is belief in reincarnation, an eternal soul/spirit and a divine Source from which all things originate, call it whatever you want, but it is the Source of everything that is and we all have a connection to it without some savior figure needed or some priest either.

If one believes in accidental evolution it is improbable that life first began by chance here on earth.
It is after all a big galaxy and life can travel like spores and seed new planets with that which began elsewhere.

I don't believe in accidental evolution.

here is an interesting short clip which has an interesting conclusion:
YouTube - Tour Through Reality

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Shawn,

Thank you for joining our discussion on the origin of life and the universe. These are fascinating questions that make us more human merely by our pondering of them.

You mention different stories of cosmogenesis from different cultures. I love to find points where different cultures agree in their theories.

You mention how the Jews got the Old Testament from the Sumerians. I think the source of the original story goes back much farther than that.

 

[Avi]

I don't believe in accidental evolution.

Evolution is not accidental. It has an underlying random component with a vector in the direction of natural selection.

Out of curiousity, are there any evolutionary biologists in this forum ??

 

[nativeastral]

not me but if your a mathematician explain yourself in laymans terms

 

[shawn]

Shawn,

Thank you for joining our discussion on the origin of life and the universe. These are fascinating questions that make us more human merely by our pondering of them.

You mention different stories of cosmogenesis from different cultures. I love to find points where different cultures agree in their theories.

You mention how the Jews got the Old Testament from the Sumerians. I think the source of the original story goes back much farther than that.

The sumerian thing is just one of the first links in a long chain which goes back....way back.
They keep digging up remains which carbon test at really old dates which shoots their timelines down in flames.
Personally I think that humanity has been here a really long time.
I am partial to the idea of catastrophism and think that people have risen to technological peaks of advancement in times past, but some form of disaster threw us back to the stone age a few times, from which we laboriously climb back out of....slowly.

 

[_Z_]

nick tp

i was using that to say how life is non specific, in other words, there is an aliveness which is universal.

i think our consciousness is largely dependant on having a brain [although not entirely], however awareness is a universal like life and belongs with the eternal.

shawn
interesting! we druids call what you describe the ‘awen’, it is this that i am attempting to describe ~ as it becomes life and awareness etc.

i think evolution is not just to do with life but also that the entire universe evolves. to me this clearly means there is a blueprint and an intelligence, although i do not think it is ever fixed as one thing, i see it as more fluid, so the blueprint is rewritten over and over again.

 

[Avi]

Hi Nativeastral,

not me but if your a mathematician explain yourself in laymans terms

I am not a mathematician, I am an engineer, but I would be glad to summarize my ideas about evolution, and I will give you a couple of references if you want to look further at them.

In her book, “Evolution and Christian Faith” (Island Press, 2006), Joan Roughgarden discusses ideas of evolution, ID and other current issues in this debate.

I will quote from her book:

“ I suggest we begin by disputing the secular philosophy of our day which glorifies the dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest, as excusable and even meritorious because such conduct supposedly expresses basic human nature. This is the philosophy of “social Darwinism”, which I think amounts to the application of a mistaken understanding of evolution to human social behavior. We shouldn’t allow opposition to social Darwinism and emphasizing cooperation in its place to be dismissed as romantic, wishy-washy thinking. Philosophers refute social Darwinism on the grounds that “science says what is, not what ought to be”. Therefore even if evolution were a nasty business, it shouldn’t matter for human ethics. That’s nice, but this dismissal doesn’t end the matter. I’m troubled by how the science itself is continually misrepresented. Nature is not simply dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest, and therefore the possibility of transferring this view of nature from animals to humans is incorrect to begin with. So what can be done ? We need to understand and to publicize better the biology of animals with complex social systems in which organisms do not live as simple individuals but as members of social groups".

Kevin Padian is another scientist who has done breakthrough work in this area.

Next – random mutation

 

[Avi]

Oops, I realized I should give a little interpretation of Roughgarden's comments. She is an advocate for breaking the antagonism between evolutionists and religious believers. She is a gifted evolutionary biologist and explains evolution in laymans, non-threatening terms. She is a kind and very unique person.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Shawn,

I agree that we have been here a long time, much longer than scientists postulate. There have been many Floods and catastrophes, not just the one in the Bible. There has been a whole series of advanced civilizations that have come and gone. I also agree that we have had to pull ourselves out of a Stone Age many times. And, the story of Genesis has been handed down through all of these civilizations. Unfortunately, the story has been changed as it has been handed down through seemingly countless centuries.

Z,

You said,

"i think our consciousness is largely dependant on having a brain"

--> This begs the question: What happens to our consciousness when we die, and no longer have a physical brain? And what about out-of-body experiences that scientists refuse to acknowledge?

 

[nativeastral]

devotion to what? i would go with the knowledgeable route. ...with universal respect ~ as all things including gods make utility of the same universals.

devotion to a point of reference beyond the ego or little self?
tell us more about the concept awen, being a celt l am interested!

 

[nativeastral]

Oops, I realized I should give a little interpretation of Roughgarden's comments. She is an advocate for breaking the antagonism between evolutionists and religious believers. She is a gifted evolutionary biologist and explains evolution in laymans, non-threatening terms. She is a kind and very unique person.

hi yes l think biology in its now many strands is refuting the reductionism apparently implicit in the rest of science until recently; are you referring to absolute/inherent ethics/morals rather than it being an evolutionary progression? like platonism's Forms?
Also l think l am with you as regards mathematics reflecting some sort of extraordinary truths coinciding the All; it certainly been used as an analogy for our link with g#d/ulltimate reality.

would be interested if Hegelian Geist- of the world/nature/divine is becoming...bit like awen? Apparently he's poopooed as a romantic idealist who talks nonsense but what little lve read l resonate with..any thoughts?

 

[shawn]

devotion to a point of reference beyond the ego or little self?
tell us more about the concept awen, being a celt l am interested!

Being somewhat celtic myself (of the Cornish variety) I would like to hear about it as well.