Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

You like to explain everyone else's views in terms of psychological temperament. Have you ever considered this factor for your own view? I would specifically be interested to know where you fall on trait 'openness to experience' which is associated with a disdain approaching disgust for boundaries, physical and psychological. Also on trait conscientiousness which is associated with the opposite. I cannot think of many other reasons why you automatically associate hierarchical boundaries with "supremacism" no matter how many times and in how many different ways the distinction between the two are made clear to you.

It is possible that a tradition (or a philosophy or a worldview etc) A might be more complete and advanced and may hierarchically supersede a tradition B. But how do we find, prove and agree that this is indeed the case? At a minimum, you would need the members of both traditions to agree on that, not only the members of the tradition A who consider their tradition to be hierarchically superseding.

Now, forget about Buddhism for a sec. Let's take Judaism for example. Obviously, Christians believe that Christianity supersedes Judaism as it fulfills the prophesy of the coming of the Messiah. However, not a single Judaist will agree with that (try to get Shabiei to agree ). From the point of view of Judaists it's the other way around - Judaism supersedes Christianity. Now, how do we decide which position is closer to truth and how do we get everyone to agree on that?

The fact is - almost every member of a particular tradition, religion, philosophy is psychologically biased, they have beliefs/faith that their view is in some ways truer that others. And this is understandable. So, if you would ask any member of any tradition to be honest, they will say that their tradition/worldview is better in certain way. The difference is that some will say: my worldview/tradition of choice works better for me personally, it facilitates my spiritual progress and my sense of purpose and harmony, but that does not mean that it has to be this way for everyone else. While others will say: I believe my worldview or my tradition is hierarchically more complete and therefore would be a better choice for everyone. In the above examples, even though Judaists believe that Judaism supersedes other traditions in a spiritual sense, they do not hold a position that it is better for everyone, while Christians do. And, as we talked before, that's a recipe for a social disaster (totalitarian sects, communism, fascism, crusades and conquistadors, witch-hunt, etc)

[Soul_of_Shu]

Now, how do we decide which position is closer to truth and how do we get everyone to agree?

As a former union rep, I'd ask for arbitration ... In this case, not the moderator ... maybe Scott?

[Eugene I]

As a former union rep, I'd ask for arbitration ... In this case, not the moderator ... maybe Scott?

Arbitration is virtually impossible in this case because the arbiter has to be intimately familiar with both traditions under arbitration (including actually studying and practicing them and observing their spiritual benefits trough practice), and yet not to be personally biased towards any of them. And that is almost impossible, because for any such person one of the traditions would be eventually a better match according to their personal dispositions, would be more beneficial and give better results in a personal development sense, which would shape their personal bias towards the one that worked better for them. On the other hand, an "external" observer who never practiced any of these traditions might have no such bias, but they would not understand the practical and spiritual sides of those traditions and would only judge by external signs, so they would not qualify for such arbitration.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Arbitration is virtually impossible in this case because the arbiter has to be intimately familiar with both traditions under arbitration (including actually studying and practicing them and observing their spiritual benefits trough practice), and yet not to be personally biased towards any of them. And that is almost impossible, because for any such person one of the traditions would be eventually a better match according to their personal dispositions, would be more beneficial and give better results in a personal development sense, which would shape their personal bias towards the one that worked better for them. On the other hand, an "external" observer who never practiced any of these traditions might have no such bias, but they would not understand the practical and spiritual sides of those traditions and would only judge by external signs, so they would not qualify for such arbitration.

OK, I guess the mod has to make a ruling here ... which is, since this is the 'formal' discussions section, the thread should get back on the topic of the OP ... or I'll complain to the mod

[Eugene I]

Agreed

[Simon Adams]

Ah, here we go, Christian supremacism clams again

Funnily enough I have no problem with formlessness without forms, not just from experience of the state - it also just makes logical sense to me. I fo think it depends on which perspective you are looking from. We all start to learn through sensory experience, a baby locked away in a flotation tank with tubes feeding it etc until it’s an adult would probably not be able to say or even think much about it’s existence. So if we take that as our perspective, then we eventually get to what I think is Ashvin’s position.

But if, once having developed a meta-conscious awareness, you then relearn what that sits ‘on top of’ from scratch, you then connect to the screen in which the forms are expressed. This is a perspective from the other direction, where there is a formless ‘canvas’.

In my simplistic way, I think all these positions are not conflicting but are just looking at different aspects, from different perspectives. Whilst there is a formless canvas or ‘screen’, there is something that shapes forms in consistent ways. From my perspective I would call these divine ideas, which are simple and solid, but when they stir the formlessness they generate complex forms that come into existence and pass out of existence.

This is also another way in which the christian perspective is fundamentally different (in my very limited understanding), in that there is something of our individuality that rests at least in the solid world of divine ideas, not just in the formless realm they shape. Even when you experience complete formlessness such that all that you previously thought of as ‘you’ in time and space, has gone, there is still something that experiences individually. Your reaction to the ‘lack of any defined you’ is not a reaction that the whole universe is having (however much it may feel like that).

I’m fairly sure my distinction here between ‘divine ideas’ and forms will seem confusing, but it’s necessary in my view. The divine ideas are closer to archetypes, whereas a form can be as simple as a that which represents as a photon (or an entangled pair of photons), to a specific tree or a star. The divine ideas are in some ways what seem to be called “universals” in philosophy.

What I’m a little confused about is the difference between ‘man made’ forms and natural forms. The wholeness of natural forms seems to be more complete. You can create a table which has a form, and this is generated from an idea that is linked to a telos. In an eastern flavour of idealism this is presumably no different from forms that have evolved naturally (be it a tree, a river, a star etc). But from a christian idealism perspective, although it’s still a form generated by an idea, it does seem different (to me anyway). I can’t help thinking of Jesus saying to Peter “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”, but I suspect he wasn’t talking about this

Anyway, rather than helping bring light to the debate I’ve probably just confused everyone!

I won’t stir things up by suggesting how Buddha would react if he met Jesus

[AshvinP]

You like to explain everyone else's views in terms of psychological temperament. Have you ever considered this factor for your own view? I would specifically be interested to know where you fall on trait 'openness to experience' which is associated with a disdain approaching disgust for boundaries, physical and psychological. Also on trait conscientiousness which is associated with the opposite. I cannot think of many other reasons why you automatically associate hierarchical boundaries with "supremacism" no matter how many times and in how many different ways the distinction between the two are made clear to you.

It is possible that a tradition (or a philosophy or a worldview etc) A might be more complete and advanced and may hierarchically supersede a tradition B. But how do we find, prove and agree that this is indeed the case? At a minimum, you would need the members of both traditions to agree on that, not only the members of the tradition A who consider their tradition to be hierarchically superseding.

Now, forget about Buddhism for a sec. Let's take Judaism for example. Obviously, Christians believe that Christianity supersedes Judaism as it fulfills the prophesy of the coming of the Messiah. However, not a single Judaist will agree with that (try to get Shabiei to agree ). From the point of view of Judaists it's the other way around - Judaism supersedes Christianity. Now, how do we decide which position is closer to truth and how do we get everyone to agree on that?

The fact is - almost every member of a particular tradition, religion, philosophy is psychologically biased, they have beliefs/faith that their view is in some ways truer that others. And this is understandable. So, if you would ask any member of any tradition to be honest, they will say that their tradition/worldview is better in certain way. The difference is that some will say: my worldview/tradition of choice works better for me personally, it facilitates my spiritual progress and my sense of purpose and harmony, but that does not mean that it has to be this way for everyone else. While others will say: I believe my worldview or my tradition is hierarchically more complete and therefore would be a better choice for everyone. In the above examples, even though Judaists believe that Judaism supersedes other traditions in a spiritual sense, they do not hold a position that it is better for everyone, while Christians do. And, as we talked before, that's a recipe for a social disaster (totalitarian sects, communism, fascism, crusades and conquistadors, witch-hunt, etc)

How do we decide if Einstein's GR theory is more complete than Newtonian mechanics? I cannot see any good reason to treat metaphysical-spiritual frameworks as being qualitatively different from scientific theories. BK agrees, which is why he always emphasizes that he is a "naturalist". People who believe a specific spiritual framework "supersedes" another one also think it would be practically better for nearly everyone to adopt. To deny that is to be naïve. Does anyone think it's best for some people to keep using Newtonian theory of mechanics instead of Einstein's more comprehensive theory of GR?

[AshvinP]

Ah, here we go, Christian supremacism clams again

Funnily enough I have no problem with formlessness without forms, not just from experience of the state - it also just makes logical sense to me. I fo think it depends on which perspective you are looking from. We all start to learn through sensory experience, a baby locked away in a flotation tank with tubes feeding it etc until it’s an adult would probably not be able to say or even think much about it’s existence. So if we take that as our perspective, then we eventually get to what I think is Ashvin’s position.

But if, once having developed a meta-conscious awareness, you then relearn what that sits ‘on top of’ from scratch, you then connect to the screen in which the forms are expressed. This is a perspective from the other direction, where there is a formless ‘canvas’.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I also want to point out that the tabula rasa notion of the infant human mind is scientifically incorrect. We come into the world with a fair amount of innate ideal content.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I won’t stir things up by suggesting how Buddha would react if he met Jesus

If they met on the road, I imagine the chat might go like this ... Buddha says: "Did you hear the zen koan that goes: 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha" ... Jesus says: "Yeah right, tell me about it!"

[Eugene I]

Simon, right. I think everyone agrees that we, and conscious activity in general (ok, I accept your term ), has an innate ability to express, generate and experience meanings, ideas and forms. The question is - where do they come from, how are they generated, or perhaps they might always exist somewhere or somehow, or else? And, as you said, another question is: do the sense perceptions originate from ideas (as being Divine creations), or they somehow develop "naturally" through some different origination mechanism. So, different philosophies and spiritual traditions offer different answers to those questions, and the answers seem to be quite incompatible with each other.

One of the major demarcations in that sense is the difference between mono-theistic and poly-theistic (or-poly-creators) views. In the former one the ideas and the sense perceptions of the world both originate in the single supra-Divine mind, while the Divine allowing them to further run and develop "on their own" in the minds of the creature souls.

In the poly-creators view the ideas and creations originate in multiplicity of minds working together. Every individual stream of consciousness possesses the innate ability to created ideas and forms. But some of them may be local Gods-creators-Demiurges of a large intelligence and creative power scale, in which case the inhabitants of their realms would experience and view the ideas and perceptions as if originated from their local creator. In such case it is quite possible that the universe where we live is a creation of such local Divinity, and we experience ideas and perceptions of the world originated in him. The difference with the mono-theistic view is that this scenario is still not absolute and we are not constrained to experience only the ideas and perceptions originated in our local Divinity, but, as possessing the innate ability to create ideas and forms ourselves, can continue doing that on our own and regain our spiritual self-sufficiency and freedom from being bound to ideas and forms created by some other beings. Not that those pre-created ideas or forms are bad in any ways, but simply because we can do it and it is our path to learn how to do it, become creators and unleash our creative abilities. So, in a way, such local universes are local universities, "incubators" for young souls who have not yet fully developed their creative potential and need assistance and training from more developed "Divine" souls. For such young souls their supervisor may look like the highest-and-absolute-God-of-everything, just like children tend to "deify" their parents in their minds, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's entirely natural.