I too have looked closely at the Bahai faith…first heard of it back in the early 70s at a Seals & Crofts concert in Florida. I’ve studied many of their tenets, talked with their members and been a member of online discussions. And, if one of my links was from their library it was only by chance. I selected the first two that seemed to be at least fairly accurate about Nagarjuna.
When it comes to what we ‘sense’ (using any number of our specific physical senses…something that has been found to be a questionable practice almost forever), we clearly do not see things like a ‘table’… what our senses pick up our brain may interpret as being a table, but what is it? If examined more closely, we find atoms and space…if even more closely….well, we could go down to even the concept of strings. So, what is it we see? Yes, on a practical level, we can accept its appearance…however, for those who wish to examine things in more detail rather than merely succumbing to utilitarianism, such further determinations must be made…in the exact same spirit as scientific inquiry. So, when ‘we’ (few agree upon what it is to be a human being) touch (something that is impossible in a physical way due to electromagnetic activity) something, the thing being touched as well as that perceived as being the one who touches are in fact imaginations created within our thinking… It is for these reasons I find such lines of inquiry to be valid in an attempt at learning the true nature of reality and mind. On Sep 10, 7:02 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting that you chose a Baha'i library as one of your resources. > I am familiar with that religion and of all the religions I've gotten > close to, Baha'i is one of the most rational and concerned with the > true well-being of humans -- Catholicism being at the other extreme. > Yet after three years of being intensely involved with Baha'i, I > finally left it as well since regardless of its rationality and > concern, it's members corrupted it and twisted it to their own > purposes as they have with all religions. > > Regarding your primary question, it has always puzzled me how anyone > can conceive of the seat of consciousness as being anywhere else but > in the mind. I do understand that many put the center of emotion in > their hearts and stomachs because that is where they mostly feel it to > be. But the mind -- for me at least -- has it's center in the brain. > I can feel my consciousness, thoughts, memories and ruminations > centered there. > > A table is a what I have come to call a table as a result of adopting > that designation for anything which has a more or less flat surface > upon which objects can be placed. It has a hard surface and generally > is raised above ground level by things we call legs or mounts. I can > physically appreciate it's composition and makeup and thus can > extrapolate from the specific to the general so that I am able to call > any number of variations on that theme as a table. Tables can change > however. They can become platforms, daises, shelves, tinder (if made > of wood), and many other things, depending on who is perceiving that > object and for what purpose. They have a substance and form which we > have come to recognize as a table. > > Yet as with anything in our universe, it's perceivable reality depends > in great deal on the perceiver. This can also be carried out in > absurd extrapolations that question whether or not anything is real > but that is just a mental game we sometimes tend to play. > > On Sep 9, 1:14 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, we have been addressing quite a few rather heady topics recently. > > I thought that in order to help some of the materialists get up to > > speed philosophically, I would start a topic on emptiness. This notion > > is near the core of much I have been writing recently. It directly > > addresses the nature of reality in a scientific way albeit with a > > different approach than that which can be addressed by the science > > most are familiar with. > > > Why would one say or even suggest that the brain is not where > > consciousness resides? Why would one suggest that what we feel and > > see is in fact not there? …valid questions. And, little within the > > western tradition of philosophy will address these and other > > metaphysical issues…except perhaps science when it comes to the actual > > nature of things say physically exist…and, of course, this does > > include ‘us’…and our brains, thus that which many demand is the seat > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a > > table ever change what it is? Etc. > > > To get a better view of some of the issues for those willing to take > > the red pill and not remain in the habit of eating blue pills, I will > > introduce you to one of the greatest philosophers of all time, > > Nagarjuna. Vam may have some clear and perhaps opposing views, and, I > > hope for a lively discussion. > > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology? > > Why would you not agree with him? > > >http://www.iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/... > > (a couple of resources)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
