--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> > I've been staying out of this one, not because > I was out of posts for the week, but because > it strikes me as another way of phrasing the > question, "Is there a sentient God." Good point about the word "creation". It is perhaps the wrong word for me, and I'd rephrase it to consciousness being fundamental to existence, then. In that case it could apply to the uncreated, no-beginning/no-end fabric of all that is, manifest and unmanisfest together. And, the issue of whether or not it is "more fundamental" would not arise. In this case, perhaps integral is a more appropriate word. > > The only way the hypothesis that consciousness > "predates" manifest creation could be "proved" > is to hypothesize a time when creation was not > in existence, and I don't believe such a time > has ever existed. Does the question of a fundamental/integral substrate necessarily imply predating? > > As I suggested before, my intuitive "feel" for > such things is that the manifest universe has > always existed and will always exist; it is > therefore in a "codependent relationship" with > the unmanifest aspect of life that underlies it. I how like that paragraph conveys that simultaneity and interdependence. It sounds above (and below) as though you are equating the unmanifest with consciousness and when you say it "underlies" the manifest, doesn't that make it a fundamental substrate, with or without and act of creation? > Therefore there has never been a time when one > could *possibly* do any kind of "test" to "prove" > that some kind of unmanifest consciousness was > possible without a manifest structure to support > it. > True. I still like to turn the question around, just for fun, and ask is it possible to prove a "manifest structure" of any sort without consciousness of any sort? BTW, I don't expect you to answer, or even be interested in that question. I just like twisting my mind occasionally in trying to picture it. > I tend to see such questions as the projection > of existing beliefs (or hopes) onto creation. <snip> > > Take away that belief, and there is no need for > the question. I tend to see them as expressions of wonder and mystery. For me, considering such things is kind of like a mahavakya. It lets my mind spin out and out until it confronts the level where understanding is impossible, and then just lets go in the face of mystery. I reminds me of Castaneda's known, unknown, and unknowable.
