BRAHMA (Vedas) – A postulated ground state that is beyond definition or awareness.
GOD (Christianity) – A postulated Supreme Self to explain the appearance of existence
STATIC (Scientology) – A postulated Unmoved Mover that stands separate from the Universe.
GROUND STATE – The ground state has no awareness and no definition. The definition comes with awareness.
AWARENESS – Awareness is postulated to be the disturbance of ground state. It provides a definition. Awareness, as a disturbance, oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.
CONSCIOUSNESS – This is the awareness of the formed definition and properties. The physical form of consciousness is light. It has a frequency, wave-length and period. Consciousness is the divine principle that is fundamental to all existence.
SELF – Self is the definition or properties that arise. As frequency of consciousness increases, more and more definition comes about. The structures known as mind and ego are aspects of self at high frequencies. See A Model of Mind.
.
This seems to be a broad model of self.
- A self is a node in a very large matrix of selves in which communication flows.
- Each self is a compressed matrix of “definitions” (defined datums) among which logic flows.
- A communication particle arrives at the self and activates the flow of logic inside it.
- The logic flows through the complex matrix of definitions inside the self.
- These definitions are cross-indexed in a fantastically efficient way.
- This cross-indexing generates the framework of logic.
- The flow of logic consists of the sequences in which these relationships are activated.
- A score is kept in terms of the summation of the vectors of activated relationships.
- The final resultant vector is shaped into a communication particle.
- This communication particle is spitted out by the self.
We can probably make an animation out of the above model. This is a reality-centric model. There are an incredibly large numbers of variables here. How and in what sequence they could be activated provides an incredibly large number of choices for logic to flow. Here may lie the secret of “I”, “will” and “intention.”
This model may develop further.
Comments
Perfect!
LikeLike
I like how you are making less and less of the ground state!
LikeLike
It all depends on where one is looking from. When one is deep into non-awareness, the universe of awareness may simply appear like a small dot.
LikeLike
I think the self can know immanence without hope of transcendence.
LikeLike
Is their transcendence? If the Universe is the whole reality then one can only clarify it, until there is nothing more to clarify. There is no transcendence. There is only a clarification of what is there.
LikeLike
When one is transcending, one is only going beyond falsely imagined limits. One is only clarifying what one had misunderstood before. One never goes beyond the limit of the universe, because there is no limit to the universe.
LikeLike
One cannot look too closely at the self for destruction of the self will surely follow!
LikeLike
As one looks at self too closely it only disappears into a bigger self, and the process repeats almost endlessly.
LikeLike
No joking. This is a very good piece of work Vinay! A very workable model. I am impressed at how you continue to refine it.
LikeLike
In truth there is no transcendence of the self. There is only further understanding of the self. The expanded awareness of self includes earlier narrow awareness of self.
LikeLike
Unlike Hubbard and somewhat like the biologist that he despised, I believe a physical model of the self looks a bit like the inside of one’s brain. There is quite a bit more to learn . . . more than we previously knew.
LikeLike
Yes, this matrix resides inside the brain and its exrension, the body.
LikeLike
But that’s only the start. The entire body taken as a whole with all its musculature and chemistry has to be considered in the overall self. I wonder where else this will lead?
LikeLike
DNA coding and electrical impulses are part of the mechanics.
LikeLike
“DNA coding and electrical impulses are part of the mechanics.”
So beautiful.
LikeLike
Any solidity is condensed awareness. At the start one may only be aware of the particle, but as one looks at the particle more and more closely, a whole universe starts to gradually appear… a fractal one may say.
LikeLike
Lately I have been beating up on myself for unable to handle a student’s learning difficulties. This is a desperate attempt to look at myself objectively.
LikeLike
I have always been fascinated by my ability to walk without being able to describe precisely how I do that.
LikeLike
That’s Nike’s “Just Do It” phenomenon. 🙂
LikeLike
🙂 I’m off to work. I’ll check in later!
LikeLike
It is natural to look at oneself to see what one is doing “wrong” when things do not go just right. That’s a responsible first step. But it is also a self-centric step and may not provide the only solution. In this case, maybe the reality-centric view is needed?
LikeLike
I am trying not to look in terms of “right” and “wrong” but rather in terms of inconsistencies.
It seems that blood pressure can affect one’s thinking similar to the way conditioning may affect thinking. The inconsistency creeps on the person without him realizing it. In case of blood pressure this influence is acute.
LikeLike
There’s no harm in calling things right when they go the way we want and wrong when they don’t. The ultimate mindfulness seems to do away with mind. I wonder what is left after that? You should come play a little over at Katageek’s. We’re playing with some ideas that are fun and Rafael showed up.
LikeLike
. . . and maybe “take a bath.”
LikeLike
Well, I have started following Katageek’s blog.
LikeLike
I like his extreme examples and stories about Phil.
LikeLike
I did a long mindful meditation on “loss” this morning. There seems to be very deep “frozen area” in my mind and corresponding areas in my body. This may not be so, but I find it one way to describe them. I shall be looking at them more closely in subsequent meditations.
https://vinaire.me/2014/08/19/loss/
LikeLike
I am very proud of your courage and conscientiousness in this. I hope it goes well, please let me know.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I would like to discuss this post with you, observing your procedure for discussion, KHTK and also mindfulness.
You wrote “BRAHMA (Vedas) – a postulated ground state that has no definition”.
To say “has no definition” is tantamount to a definition. How can we know with certainty that Brahma has no definition? Would it not be more correct to say that “Brahma is BEYOND definition” or even “I have no definition for Brahma”. Following your own rules of discussion KHTK and mindfulness it seems to me your statement “Brahma has no definition” fails these criteria.
Love and ARC
Pip
P.S. I do appreciate the work you put into your blog.
LikeLike
What you are looking at is a postulate.
A postulate is always defined. That is the nature of it. We usually make a postulate to generate a hypothesis. One can always modify it based on how the hypothesis works out.
There are no absolutes, so, most likely, there is no such thing as “no definition” in an absolute sense, but “no definition” may be approached. Calculus resolves such problems when calculating the sum of an infinite series by using the word “approaching,” It is approaching a limit that cannot be defined, but it can be approached as closely as one may imagine.
So, one may say that this postulate is about approaching “no defintion”. It is a problem of expression using the limited capablities of our language.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
My understanding of a postulate is “to say a thing is and to have it be”, so when you say you postulate a “ground state” I have no argument with that, but when you add on your definition of this postulated “ground state” and define it as having “no definition” that seems to me nothing more than your opinion.
I would be interested to know what Hinduism has to say about this ground state.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Based on the following definitions I would say that Ground State is the Working Hypothesis of KHTK.
Hinduism refers to Ground State as BRAHMA arrived at through the process of Neti neti.
.
Opinion
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
.
Assumption
something taken for granted; a supposition:
.
Postulate
something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.
.
Hypothesis
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
,
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I can’t see how your idea of Ground State can be a hypothesis if by your definition of hypothesis “a proposition or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena” when your basic definition of ground state is deduced from NETI NETI which rules out all phenomena.
Everything you have written about “ground state” seems to me to fit very nicely into your definition of OPINION.
Your assumption that you understand Jesus’ teachings also appears to rule out its central theme of RELATIONSHIP.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Dear Pip,
Proposition
Logic. a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.
.
The statement, “All definitions can be referenced from no defintion” is a valid proposition, which is what the ground state is all about. This is similar to the statement, “All numbers can be referenced from zero (no number).”
Regards,
Vinaire
LikeLike
A number = zero + the number
A definition = no definition (ground state) + the definition
.
LikeLike
Please see the following:
Scientific Method and Mindfulness
.
LikeLike
Hi Pip, Might as well hash it out here. Your point about defining nothing being something is well taken. Ground state is Vinaire’s conjecture. Physically it might be a kind of zero EMF between cycles. Philosphically, it is the conjecture that something arises from nothing. There is no nothing state in existence to compare this non-existence to so the answer seems to be “a place holder in a series of conjectures about what is yet unknown.” The ground state in its current state for me is an arbitrary starting point for what is yet out of sight. Looking more closely will undoubtedly move this starting point which has no point to another point. My own view is that ground state is a yet undefined ocean of something such as raw space-time. Please don’t start on me about thetans and statics having no location or wavelength, we’ve been over that until I am thoroughly done with that ambiguity. Forgive any offensive bluntness on my part, please. ~Chris
LikeLike
Hi Chris
My point exactly. Vinaire’s definition of this “ground state” is just that, his conjecture, and has no more validity than the idea that the world is built on the back of four giant turtles, and what you may ask is under them? Well it is just mud from there on down.
My starting point for contemplating the nature of the “ground state” is to acknowledge that it must be something other than everything we can conceive, hence NETE NETE, but that still leaves the whole emotional aspect worthy of consideration.
Just because the ground state is devoid of physicality does not mean it is necessarily devoid of emotional content. What do you think?
Love and ARC
Pip
P.S. You’re forgiven!
LikeLike
The idea of ‘God’ is also a conjecture. Just because many people subscribe to it, does not change that status.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I agree “God” is also a conjecture in the same way that “ground state” is. The only actual difference is with the idea of God it is easier to attach an EMOTION to it, than it is to ground state. Although both “conjectures” have an emotional content which we ignore to our detriment.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Dear Pip,
Emotion has a definition, which can be referenced from the Ground State (no definition).
Regards,
Vinaire
LikeLike
Dear Pip.
I finally understood what you were pointing out.
I have modified the definition of BRAHMA as follows:
BRAHMA (Vedas) – A postulated ground state that is beyond definition.
.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
Thanks for the validation. It can appear that it is thinking that gives us identity but it is in truth LOVE that gives us identity.
Descartes said “I think therefore I am” when it should be I AM LOVED THEREFORE I AM.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Dear Pip,
I see thinking as a secondary operation. Before thinking, there is this matrix of definitions and logics. Thinking is the connection one makes within this matrix.
This matrix is made up of awareness. It provides the identity.
TRUTH is simply what is.
LOVE is complete awareness of what is.
Regards,
Vinaire
LikeLike
When we contemplate over the basis of all reality we have two choices.
(1) Make a temporary postulate and generate a hypothesis from it. Then keep on adjusting the basic postulate as the hypothesis pans out. This is the Scientific Method.
(2) Make an assumption and fix it in place as a firm belief. Then define all reality according to this assumption. This is the Religious Method.
In (1) above the basic postulate can be adjusted to bring about a more consistent and coherent view of reality.
In (2) the basic assumption cannot be adjusted. Instead it is defended and justified even when it creates inconsistency and incoherency in the reality that is viewed.
(1) above is an indication of a mature and stable mind.
(2) above is an indication of a mind that is desperately trying to become stable.
Insistence on the assumption that the basis of all reality is a being falls in category (2) above. This has been the case with Abrahamic religions and Scientology.
.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
There is a third choice, and that is to align oneself with another’s postulate, and then see whether this postulate explains phenomena. If it does, stay with it until it no longer predicts observable phenomena.
It seems to me there is little point in re-inventing the wheel for the sake of being original. Obviously if a particular position fails to explain reality then it should be let go of.
It is my understanding that Buddhism is built on the postulate of a NO-THING, as the “ground state”. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm
Could not this also be seen as EXISTENCE EXISTING before anything existed?
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Your third choice seems to be covered by the first two choices.
If you are taking another person’s postulate for granted, then it falls under choice (2).
If you are taking another person’s postulate as a test case, then it falls under choice (1). If it doesn’t pan out you reject it and look for a new postulate.
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
There is a line in ‘Corinthians’ that says “Love believes all things” note it does not say “love believes
anything”. Love is not gullible so it both believes and also evaluates hence it is a combination of both your choices. That is why I refer to it as a third choice.
This was always my approach to Scientology. I followed it as long as it worked and did not violate
my own understanding of ethics.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Hi Pip,
I see what you mean. There is no blind belief. I would still consider it to be choice (1) because there is a cautious acceptance and one maintains an open mind. But if you want to consider it a third choice then that is fine with me.
I do see that your approach to Scientology has been very mature and balanced in accordance with your own understanding of ethics.
Regards,
Vinaire
LikeLike
Whether it is your postulate or another’s postulate makes no difference. The difference is in how one deals with a postulate.
.
LikeLike
Buddha’s ground state is no different from what is being talked about here.
A postulated ground state that has no definition. The ground state has no awareness and no definition. The definition comes with awareness.
LikeLike
There is awareness and awareness of awareness. I found this article quite innovative
http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Deikman.html
LikeLike
Pip, thank you for providing that link. Here is the ABSTRACT from that link:
Introspection reveals that the core of subjectivity — the `I’ — is identical to awareness. This `I’ should be differentiated from the various aspects of the physical person and its mental contents which form the `self’. Most discussions of consciousness confuse the `I’ and the `self’. In fact, our experience is fundamentally dualistic — not the dualism of mind and matter — but that of the `I’ and that which is observed. The identity of awareness and the `I’ means that we know awareness by being it, thus solving the problem of the infinite regress of observers. It follows that whatever our ontology of awareness may be, it must also be the same for `I’.
.
Please see my model at A Model of the Mind. Here is a point summary of how I view this area:
(1) It all starts with awareness, which is postulated to be disturbance of ground state.
(2) Awareness is aware of itself. That is called consciousness.
(3) Condensation of awareness (see the whirlpool) appears as the mind.
(4) The most condensed part of the mind is the self.
(5) ‘I’ is the individuality associated with the mind and self.
(6) Mind, Self and ‘I’ are all constructed out of awareness per this model.
(7) For each point of awareness there is a corresponding form.
(8) The form associated with awareness is light.
(9) As awareness condenses, light also condenses.
(10) As awareness condenses into self, light condenses into body.
(11) Observer is distributed throughout awareness and it could be concentrated at any point of awareness as a viewpoint.
(12) From that viewpoint it observes rest of the awareness (its own distributed form).
(13) And that is consciousness.
.
LikeLike
“There is a third choice, and that is to align oneself with another’s postulate,…”
This is as as agreement, or as I think of it, harmonious and reinforcing waves.
LikeLike
“Mine” or “Another’s” seems to be tags applied to the definitions in the matrix of the mind. The mind may process a defintion differently depending on the tags applied to it.
LikeLike
“Could not this also be seen as EXISTENCE EXISTING before anything existed?”
Existence is space-time. I’m not quite following the idea of before space-time. I do not have any notion of understanding of this. Consciousness comes and goes into and out of existence. Where does it go when it goes away? (click here) This is a little video I took of the water swirling in a pool of water. This video is a real life model of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. For me, I see the shadows swirling representing the vortices coming and going into and out of existence. One cannot see anything there before the shadow appears and then one cannot see anything of the shadows after they disappear, yet it is easy to see that the reason for the coming and going is both physical and perpetually present. I guess I fail to believe in actual non-existence except for our abstractions.
LikeLike
That video reminds me of this old essay on this blog. 🙂
https://vinaire.me/2010/09/03/essay-2-something-and-nothing/
LikeLike
Yes, that is a good article.
LikeLike
Hi Chris
Indeed existence is space-time, but can space-time exist without MATTER and ENERGY? Aren’t we really talking about M.E.S.T.
I don’t believe we can understand what lies beyond MEST but we can EXPERIENCE IT. The physical universe is the product of MIND hence the human mind is not capable of UNDERSTANDING what lies beyond but the heart can experience it. I am not sure what you mean by “NON-EXISTENCE” being our abstractions. Surely you have to exist to even contemplate NON-EXISTENCE.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
This is how I see it:
“The extent and duration of form are defined by the dimensions of space and time respectively. Since the basic form is defined against the background of ground state, space and time are also defined against that background. Thus space and time are differentiated from spacelessness and timelessness of ground state.
“Extent and duration of form are defined by the dimensions of space and time.”
From The Nature of Form
LikeLike
Space and Time are dimensions that define extent and duration of form.
The form is made up of light that condenses into energy and matter.
.
LikeLike
PIP: “It is my understanding that Buddhism is built on the postulate of a NO-THING, as the “ground state”. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm
Could not this also be seen as EXISTENCE EXISTING before anything existed?”
The Ground State could be speculated to be anything, but that would be speculation only. Ground State happens to be beyond awareness. There is no awareness associated with it.
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
The ground state is indeed beyond awareness, for it is awareness that is aware that things exist, but that which can speculate about the nature of the ground state must be AWARE of AWARENESS. That is what is speculated to be beyond awareness.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
A speculation is a speculation. A speculation is made up of awareness.
The ground state is beyond any speculation because speculation is awareness, and ground state is beyond awareness.
Of course, awareness is aware of itself. That is its nature. The self-awareness is called consciousness.
.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I wonder how you would see DIVINITY in relationship to “ground state”?
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Well, your question made me look at the following essay that I wrote a long time ago in the nineties, and later republished on my blog with some modifications that showed evolutions of my views from Scientology.
IS THERE DIVINITY?
Have fun with it. 🙂
Let me know if any further questions arise.
.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I read your article “Is there divinity” with interest and my attention was particularly drawn to this statement “when we observe this universe we cannot separate GOD from BEINGNESS…….” I would suggest that we can, in fact I would go so far as to believe it is essential.
The term PERSONHOOD is not easily defined. I have checked it out in Wikipedia and they freely admit it needs improvement.
For me LOVE is a prerequisite for BEINGNESS and I am not talking about AFFINITY. It is for this reason that I maintain that PERSONHOOD precedes BEING, which is affirmed in this article The Ontology of Personhood – http://www.leithart.com/archives/003435.php
I would like to tell you an anecdote that I think demonstrates my point.
All my life I have lived very close to the sea, most of my youth literally in a house on the beach. One of my favourite hobbies was “beach combing” which comprises walking along the tide mark looking for things that have been washed up that might have a use or a value. One of the unwritten laws of beach combing is that if one comes across “a goodie” that is not on the shore line but has purposely been set aside above the tide line, then it already belongs to someone else. If the tide is both the CAUSE and the EFFECT then it is yours for the taking. However if there is a PRIOR CAUSE i.e. someone has already earmarked it then to take it would be unethical. It is as if once PERSONHOOD has entered into the equation MORALITY becomes an issue.
I wonder whether it is for this reason the popular view is BEING precedes PERSONHOOD rather than PERSONHOOD precedes BEING. What do you think?
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
There seems to be some confusion here about definitions.
It seems that the word BEING is associated with humans only as in human being. So, BEING is given human like qualities. For example, the concept of being shall not be associated with animals. Thus, the word BEINGNESS is associated with human like qualities only.
I am using these words differently. For me, if something is being, it is existing, and beingness would mean existingness. It is much more general meaning. It has nothimg to do with humans or humanlike qualities.
Now personhood is the status of being a person. A person, like being, is defined with human like qualities. Therefore, personhood is also associated with humanlike qualitiies.
Personhood, thus comes from a human-centric viewpoint. I am talking from a reality-centric viewpoint, which is a much broader viewpoint. From reality-centric viewpoint LOVE would be coherency and consistency among things. It would be absence of inconsistency. Everything would just flow together smoothly.
So, my frame of reference is very different from yours. I see humanity as part of reality and not the other way around. In my view reality does not come forth from humanity or from human like qualities.
A human-centric view projects human like qualities into God. A reality-centric view does not.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
I agree there does seem to be some confusion here about definitions. LRH wrote an article once in an OT magazine where he spoke about the Beingness of a “buzz saw”. From what he wrote I understood him to be saying that everything has a beingness, which is what it is designed to do.
So I would suggest that simply everything has a beingness. A human is being a human just as a stone is being a stone, the only difference is the level of awareness, so like you I am using the word being in a very general way, but assigning it different properties depending on its awareness.
PERSONHOOD could be defined as “that awareness that precedes all beingness” and hence precedes HUMAN BEING. Personhood does not come from a human-centric viewpoint that would be where a human being comes from.
You speak of a “reality-centric” viewpoint and here we really do need to clear confusion of definitions. If you are using the word REALITY in the same way it is used in Scientology it would mean you are talking about “agreement-centred” view point, or is it that you are saying M.E.S.T. agreed awareness?
Until we can clear what you mean by reality-centric viewpoint there seems little point in discussing where LOVE fits in to the equation. My gut feeling is you are talking about AFFINITY, something quite different to LOVE.
I have no issue with humanity being part of reality, but humanity is not the issue here, PERSONHOOD is, which reverses your last statement and I would maintain that humans are capable of GOD-like qualities, which might be called a God-centric view.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
PIP: “… so like you I am using the word being in a very general way, but assigning it different properties depending on its awareness.
Alright, if we are going to move away from a human-centric viewpoint, then what is awareness from a reality-centric viewpoint? Is a stone aware? To what degree is it aware?
Hubbard defines awareness as, “the ability to perceive the existence of… awareness itself is perception.”
I see awareness as defined in The Ground State of the Universe
Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.
The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.
The ground state has no definition. The definition comes from awareness.
Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state, which is unknowable.
.
Therefore, to me everything is aware to some degree. A stone is aware of being a stone from the viewpoint of a stone and NOT from some human-centric viewpoint. That awareness of a stone lies in its properties. The essence of a stone (what makes it a stone) constitutes the awareness of a stone. Similarly, the essence of a human (what makes it a human) constitutes the awareness of a human.
What is your understanding of awareness?
.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
On your blog you write “Non-theism is based on the reality of existence”. Is this not the same as saying EXISTENCE EXISTS? I am not saying “God Exists” I am saying “God IS existence”. Surely this is the same as “the reality of existence”?
Once you introduce the concept of viewpoint you introduce AWARENESS. If we say something exists there must be awareness to be aware of its existence. In the search for the ground state there has to be a searcher, even to say NETI NETI there has to be an entity that is not only aware but is aware of awareness.
How much awareness a stone has I do not know, I do know that all life forms have awareness to the degree that they can self determinedly survive. I would understand man to be at the top end of that scale of survival and as such not only being aware but capable of BEING AWARE OF HIS AWARENESS. In this respect man is capable of God like qualities, and can choose to be God-centric, hence there is reality-centric, human-centric and God-centric.
Your opening statement in your article “The Ground State of the Universe” says “Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.”
Well you may well “assume” (make an ASS out of U and ME) but this presupposes that the “ground state” is at the effect of awareness, which has no more relevance than the idea that it is the ground state (awareness of awareness) that effects AWARENESS.
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
Pip: “On your blog you write “Non-theism is based on the reality of existence”. Is this not the same as saying EXISTENCE EXISTS? I am not saying “God Exists” I am saying “God IS existence”. Surely this is the same as “the reality of existence”?”
.
Pip, you don’t really need to use the word “God” anymore if God is existence. I have no idea what you mean by “God is existence.” Is this the same thing as saying, “Existence is God?” I don’t think so. You are attaching some connotation to the word “God”, which does not apply to the word “existence”. In short, I don’t buy your logic.
“Reality of existence” simply means “seeing existence as it is” without adding any connotations that come with the word “God.”
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
I am differentiating EXISTENCE from that which EXISTS. That which exists begs the question “then who or what created it?” but the one thing that is undeniable is EXISTENCE for to challenge existence it is first necessary to accept that EXISTENCE EXISTS. In other words EXISTENCE IS.
Now since this is an undeniable fact and will never change I choose to call it GOD. You may well call it GROUND STATE but calling it God for me gives it a definite emotional dimension and by attaching the idea of PERSONHOOD makes sense that what we are really talking about as the source of everything is DIVINE LOVE.
I cannot decide whether I would consider existence God, but I would say that GOD IS THE SOURCE OF EXISTENCE.
You define “Reality of existence” as “seeing existence for it is (should there be a WHAT in there?) In doing so you are admitting the “Reality of existence” needs a seer.
There is a passage in the Bhargava Gita that goes something like “To know the transcendent god only one is in darkness, to know the imminent god only one is in greater darkness still. To know both the imminent and the transcendent god is to be on one’s way to enlightenment.”
Love and ARC
Pip
LikeLike
The question, “Who or what created it?” is significant only from a human-centric viewpoint, which is a very narrow and specific viewpoint. Otherwise, from a reality-centric viewpoint, this question is insignificant. Please see
The Nature of Awareness (Part 3)
LikeLike
Pip: “Now since this is an undeniable fact and will never change I choose to call it GOD. You may well call it GROUND STATE but calling it God for me gives it a definite emotional dimension and by attaching the idea of PERSONHOOD makes sense that what we are really talking about as the source of everything is DIVINE LOVE.”
What you are describing above is a human-centric viewpoint that is coloring the reality by adding humanlike characteristics to it. It may make you feel comfotable, but you are not looking at reality with mindfulness.
LikeLike
Pip: “I cannot decide whether I would consider existence God, but I would say that GOD IS THE SOURCE OF EXISTENCE.”
Here you are up against the limitation of the human-centric viewpoint. It is almost like being hypnotized. You are assuming the concept of God out of thin air because you cannot answer the question, “What is the source of God?” and you cannot see the irrationality of it either.
The truth is that the source of God is the human-centric viewpoint.
.
LikeLike
Pip: “You define “Reality of existence” as “seeing existence for it is (should there be a WHAT in there?) In doing so you are admitting the “Reality of existence” needs a seer.”
The reality of existence is seeing existence for what it is. It is the reality looking at itself from different angles without any filters.
The idea that an observer must be separate from what is being observed comes from a human-centric viewpoint. It implies that the observer can never observe itself because there is no separation. To observe oneself one would require an infinite regression of observers. This is an inconsistency.
But, it becomes possible to observe oneself when one assumes the reality-centric viewpoint. Any viewpoint is part of reality. So it is reality looking at itself from different angles. In this case there is no observer separate from what is observed. The reality-centric viewpoint simply recognizes reality for what it is.
.
LikeLike
Pip: “There is a passage in the Bhargava Gita that goes something like ‘To know the transcendent god only one is in darkness, to know the imminent god only one is in greater darkness still. To know both the imminent and the transcendent god is to be on one’s way to enlightenment.'”
The transcendent god is behind the curtain of non-awareness. The imminent god is this universe of awareness.
The idea of god in Vedas is all about the “awareness – non-awareness” dichotomy. God is in everything whether one is aware of it or not. 🙂
Everything is the manifestation of God.
.
LikeLike
Pip: “Once you introduce the concept of viewpoint you introduce AWARENESS. If we say something exists there must be awareness to be aware of its existence. In the search for the ground state there has to be a searcher, even to say NETI NETI there has to be an entity that is not only aware but is aware of awareness.”
.
I believe that awareness is the first thing to come into existence. Without awareness there is no existence or viewpoint. This is a universe of awareness. Everything is made up of awareness. Please see my recent essay The Nature of Awareness (Part 1). I am in the process of writing Part 2, which will cover in more detail the points I am making here.
“Separation of observer from observed” comes from a self-centric viewpoint. The reality-centric viewpoint simply recognizes reality for what it is. There is no observer separate from what is observed. The viewpoint is part of reality. It is reality looking at itself from different angles.
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
Awareness may well be the “first thing to come into existence but “to come” denotes something prior and that I would suggest is AWARENESS of AWARENESS which just IS.
LikeLike
Pip: “Awareness may well be the “first thing to come into existence but “to come” denotes something prior and that I would suggest is AWARENESS of AWARENESS which just IS.”
In my reality-centric view “awareness or awareness” is a human characteristic that is late in the chain of evolution. It is preceded by awareness.
“Awareness – non-awareness” is an interesting dichotomy. For all practical purposes “non-awareness” is like an impenetrable curtain for us. We do not know what lies behind it. But we are aware of what is in front of it.
As actors appear from behind the curtain, existence comes into awareness, when we were not aware of it before. It is that simple. Our human-centric viewpoint complicates the matter.
.
LikeLike
Pip: “How much awareness a stone has I do not know, I do know that all life forms have awareness to the degree that they can self determinedly survive. I would understand man to be at the top end of that scale of survival and as such not only being aware but capable of BEING AWARE OF HIS AWARENESS. In this respect man is capable of God like qualities, and can choose to be God-centric, hence there is reality-centric, human-centric and God-centric.”
.
A specific type of the “self-centric” viewpoint is the “human-centric” viewpoint. It was the human-centric viewpoint that looked at “earth as the center of this universe.” It also looked at “sun to be revolving around the earth.” Now it is this human-centric viewpoint that is looking at awareness in terms of human characteristics only. It believes that awareness evolved from humanlike beingness it calls “God.”
But awareness forms the very fabric of this universe. Everything in this universe is imbued with awareness. This has been so even before animated life emerged in this universe. It is the human-centric viewpoint that limits awareness to things like itself. Awareness is not something absolute. Awareness is spread over a huge spectrum. “God-centric” is simply another type of “self-centric” viewpoint.
LikeLike
Pip: “Your opening statement in your article “The Ground State of the Universe” says “Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.” Well you may well “assume” (make an ASS out of U and ME) but this presupposes that the “ground state” is at the effect of awareness, which has no more relevance than the idea that it is the ground state (awareness of awareness) that effects AWARENESS.”
.
All postulates are no different from assumptions in their nature. That means Hubbard made an ass out of all Scientologists. 🙂
LikeLike