There is no such thing as 'cosmic mind', cause there is no one to "think" of any thoughts.
If 'beingness' or consciousness is like electricity, then 'beings' or entities are like light bulbs. I think Ramana gave that analogy. The rules that govern the universe seems more like a computer code, which is more of an impersonal intelligence. Theists are basicaly of two types, impersonalistic theists and personalistic theists. If one goes by what Judy says, classical theism is a more ambiguous category. > --- anartaxius <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > jr_esq, > > The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe > came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not > mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such > thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two > general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the > first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed > by an intelligence. In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes > into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both > scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that > somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of > simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. > Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to > parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view > through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that > in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and > the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. The basic fact is there is the > experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine > results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience > happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering > and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. > > > --- John <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > Xeno, > > > > You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to > > explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' > > without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of > > space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' > > might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. > > consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or > > identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual > > quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the > > experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there > > is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience > > simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the > > consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but > > separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical > > coherency." > > > > I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. > > If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you > > attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. > > > > At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and > > the mind. > >
