[MEGA] God

[gloggawogga]

Pantheism is not necessarily Animism and Animism is not necessarily Panthiesm (see the links above), but if you look at the Eastern religions, i.e Oneness of everything, compassion for all things etc., there are definetely Animistic elements. And Shamanism is very animistic, i.e. spirit animals, plants, etc. So really both Animism and Panthiesm are very old ideas, just "new" to Western culture.

 

[elemenohpee]

Now where does ultraconscious plants overflowing with limitless love fit into this? After re-reading the thread, my new age statement is back in effect. Mind you that new agers adopt beliefs from all over the place, including very old traditions.

 

[gloggawogga]

^^^^

Who said anything about "ultraconscious plants overflowing with limitless love". Edit: oops...Ok Jamshyd said that. Well...ok...that is new age. You're right.

Plants compete in the wilderness for survival just like everything else. Survival of the fittest. I'd bet if they are 'concious', life is a bitch for them too....

 

[Jamshyd]

I fail to see how "ultra conscious plants overflowing with limitless love" do not fit under "Animism" (or Monism) but fit perfectly under "new age"...?

In any case, I apologize if I offended any humans by saying that plants might be better .

 

[gloggawogga]

^^^

It does fit under those, I just don't know if traditional Animists or Monists believe that plants are simply overflowing with limitless love.

 

[Jamshyd]

I did, however, mention that by "love" I was not refring to egoistic human love. The love I was refering to is something along the lines of...

"Who sees all beings within his own self, and his own self within all beings, loses all fear" (From the Isha Upanishad)

Assuming you agree that plants are among what this passage considers as "beings," (and it does, as indicated in other Upanishads) and you see where "love" fits in this idea, there you have an example (albeit not the best one) right out of the heart of philosophical Hindu thought. Sure, context matters, but when you read a lot of Upanishads (I admit I have not read all of them yet), you would agree that this is rather representative.

In any case, you can lable me whatever you want - it doesn't make much differnce.

I speak the truth - do not believe me!

 

[gloggawogga]

"Who sees all beings within his own self, and his own self within all beings, loses all fear" (From the Isha Upanishad)

Assuming you agree that plants are among what this passage considers as "beings," (and it does, as indicated in other Upanishads) and you see where "love" fits in this idea, there you have an example (albeit not the best one) right out of the heart of philosophical Hindu thought.

I am quite familiar with that verse. You are contriving something that verse does simply not say. What that verse says is that if you see your self in all beings in and see all beings in your self then you will be without hatred or fear, thus you would have limitless love for all beings. The verse does not in any way suggest that plants or any other beings are enlightened beings or ultra conscious beings overflowing with limitless love.

Sure, context matters, but when you read a lot of Upanishads (I admit I have not read all of them yet), you would agree that this is rather representative.

I've read the major Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Sutra, etc. and studied several translations and commentaries of each. What you are saying is not representitive of Hindu philosophy. While some plants and animals may be worshiped as gods, plants and animals in Hindu philosophy are generally regarded as beings subject to the cycle of birth and death just like you and me, not some kind of enlightened beings.

And I'm not trying to label you. Maybe elemenohpee was doing that. But what you are saying is hardly traditional. And you said your self plants weren't perfect. Can you leave it at that?

 

[Jamshyd]

I never said that my beliefs were traditional, for the record. Monistic, maybe. But monism is not exclusive to hinduism.

I did not think what I said was representative of hindu philosphy, nor did I claim that. I meant it was representative of upanishadic philosphy in particular, and I still stick to that. But I thought that was understood without needing to be mentioned. In any case, there is the clarification.

I was also not trying to prove that plants were "enlightened" beings with that verse. I was simply using it in attempt to display what I meant by the word "love", regardless of plants, and you said it yourself:

What that verse says is that if you see your self in all beings in and see all beings in your self then you will be without hatred or fear, thus you would have limitless love for all beings.

I dont think this has much to do with belief. This verse is simply just another description of Brahman awareness, which is generally the main concern of most Upanishads,directly or not.

Now, whether you think plants are enlightened or not, I guess this is your subjective judgement. The way I see it, since plants are part of "all beings", they share this infinite love, but unlike egoistic humans, I do not see where plants want to hoard this love for their own selfish desires. When was the last time a tree denied you its fruit, or a blade of grass protested for your walking on it? Sure, I did say I thought plants are not perfection itself, but I still stick to my idea that plants are closer to perfection than humans are, given that, for me, perfection is a state of utter selflessness. I don't think I need to repeat for the 4th (or was it 5th?) time that I do not think plants ARE utterly selfless, but they certainly are more selfless than humans. Again, I am not trying to "prove" this to anyone or forcing them to agree. I am simply responding to all the misunderstanding I seem to be getting. When I first mentioned the idea, I thought people will either simply agree or disagree, without making of it something that it is not. But I guess simply stating that plants are possibly better than humans has injured many self-righteous egos. Heh.

Again, I am well aware that HINDUISM does not talk about plants being enlighetend, or at least, not explicitly. I was simply using this example because, as I said, it was the first thing that popped into my head. But actually, I wonder what "traditional" hinduism is?? Beliefs in india are among the most perpetually changing ones I had ever come across. In fact, there is no such thing as "hinduism," it is simply an umbrella term for all the ideas in India. Where does one draw the line between "traditional hinduism" and "new age"?

However, I'm sorry if I used the wording "you would agree," since I guess agreeing with a loony like yours truly would offend you .

 

[gloggawogga]

I did not think what I said was representative of hindu philosphy, nor did I claim that. I meant it was representative of upanishadic philosphy in particular

Well, according to many Vedantists, you have to have birth a human body to have a chance to achieve liberation. If you have animal or plant birth you will have to wait until you have a human birth.

Now, whether you think plants are enlightened or not, I guess this is your subjective judgement. The way I see it, since plants are part of "all beings", they share this infinite love,

Grains of dust are beings too, and so is a violent supernova, and so are the roaches in my kitchen. I guess they all share in this infinite love.

When was the last time a tree denied you its fruit, or a blade of grass protested for your walking on it?

There are no plants with poisonous berries, or no other poisonous plants? Why do cacti have thorns all over them them? Ever heard of hay fever? Millions of people suffer allergies because some horny plants want to reproduce. Like all other biological life on earth plants are into self preservation and species preservation. This is a scientific fact. They act 100% selfishly, whether or not they are 'self aware'.

In fact, there is no such thing as "hinduism," it is simply an umbrella term for all the ideas in India. Where does one draw the line between "traditional hinduism" and "new age"?

Have you been to any teachers on Vedanta, or maybe a meditation teacher? Does your teacher have a lineage? Did your specific ideas about plants, i.e. how selfless they are, come directly from India? Or are they your ecclectic ideas that came about my mixing some ideas that came from India with your own personal insight and imagination or some other idea? Maybe its just language, but to me it sounds alot like the latter.

 

[Jamshyd]

Well, according to many Vedantists, you have to have birth a human body to have a chance to achieve liberation. If you have animal or plant birth you will have to wait until you have a human birth.

I do not understand what this has anything to do with my last post, since my post in its entirity was devoted to explaining that I used that verse to explain what I meant by the word "love," not plants' place in samsara. But to humour this, I am not a vedantist, and you do not need to be one to be able to understand the upanishads. As I said several times before (lost count), I used that verse because it was the first thing that came to my mind. Had I quoted a sufi or a gnostic text, would you be arguing with me that what I'm saying is not in synch with said traditions? The point is that I wasn't implicating that my ideas belonged to such traditions.

Grains of dust are beings too, and so is a violent supernova, and so are the roaches in my kitchen. I guess they all share in this infinite love.

I will simply reply to this as I replied to elemenopee's exact question: Sure, why not?

There are no plants with poisonous berries, or no other poisonous plants? Why do cacti have thorns all over them them? Ever heard of hay fever? Millions of people suffer allergies because some horny plants want to reproduce. Like all other biological life on earth plants are into self preservation and species preservation. This is a scientific fact. They act 100% selfishly, whether or not they are 'self aware'.

Ah, you people just love to implicate stupidity in those you argue with, don't you?

Has a plant ever produced poison in it's berries as soon as you touched that berry? Did the cactus grow its thorn in reaction of you touching it? Did the plant produce allergens as a reaction to you going near it? As with my explanation about plant reproduction above (which you probably didn't read), whatever selfishness is left in plants is at best vestigal and, more importantly, PASSIVE.

However, again and again and again I repeat that I do not think plants are 100% selfless. As I mentioned before (again!), I think to live is to be selfish - you are only 100% selfless if you die. I am just saying that plants are less selfish than all other living things because they feed themselves to other, more selfish creatures.

Did your specific ideas about plants, i.e. how selfless they are, come directly from India? Or are they your ecclectic ideas that came about my mixing some ideas that came from India with your own personal insight and imagination or some other idea? Maybe its just language, but to me it sounds alot like the latter.

My ideas did not exclusively come from India. Yes, I did say many times over that this is all my own personal insight, and yes, I do find reflections of them in Indian as well as other forms of thought - you are free to disagree with them, just try to be respectful. I know its hard, but try. This is not just for you glog, btw. I actually do not care much for being respected myself, but if you're respectful, it tends to make you a more pleasant person. Don't you think?

In any case, I am bored with having to write the same commentary over and over again for each post I make.

 

[vegan]

what was your question again?

This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe. we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes

so does that mean that it wasn't our universe that you were talking about when you said that "if there was nothing before the 'universe' ('multiverse' it seems now), then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed.. i see no problems here"?
do you think that our universe, not being the whole multiverse, could indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?

this was the question : could our universe indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?

and please don't say one more time that "the universe is everything" since you've agreed yourself that "what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe " and thus that our universe could be only a part of "the infinite universe"

and do you still think that something can exist outside of everything? or am i misunderstanding you again?

i never said so
you have a fruitful imagination

i was not pretending, but i guess you won't take my word for it

it's already dubious enough that you'd have a friend reading a thread you posted on the internet; at your place; having the same ideas as you do; caring enough to post about it; using your account to do so; taking it personally enough to feel the urge to taunt; but also a disclaimer to save the honour of his buddy
but i'd have been willing to believe it if you had done what anyone concerned would do if his account had been used against his will : to delete the posts
so no, i won't take your word for it

you kept asking the same questions and i kept giving the same answers dispite whatever misconceptions we discovered

since the misconception has been cleared but the question not answered, i asked the same question again. but instead of answering, you just repeated that we had a misunderstanding, which was not true anymore

why then did you keep fueling it?

i said it, i'm a big child. and it's a mind game to me

 

[vegan]

If god was the universe, and therefore we are all the one conscious being, then damn I'm messed up. Not only am I standing on myself right now, but this morning I ate myself, and yesterday I shat on myself

you didn't eat yourself, you used a part of yourself, just as inside your body, certain parts synthesize chemicals that are used by other parts
still, you never think about your organs as different entities but just as different parts of yourself, one unique being

if you go down one level, you can have the same observation about the cells composing your organs. you don't think about all the cells as different entities, but as part of a whole, the organ

our perception of this whole usually stops at the body scale because of the physical link
but what's so relevant about this physical unity?
to use the same example as earlier in this thread, it's not even the physical unity we perceive it to be
we perceive a continuity of matter when it's in fact only a continuity of electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces

do they define where our consciousness is?
if so, when we cut off our hair, do we cut off a part of consciousness?
is our consciousness only contained in our brains? or maybe are we just parts of a bigger entity whose consciousness manifests itself subjectively in each of its components (as different fruits on a tree taste different but are still parts of the same tree)?

that said, i think the word "god" has nothing to do with universal consciousness and i don't see why people who don't believe in an [omnipotent and/or all knowing and/or creator of all and/or white bearded, etc... being] still use it. it can only lead to a misunderstanding of their idea of universal consciousness

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

<<<<could our universe indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?>>>>>


i think it is silly to distinguish between "our universe" and anything else

this is my point

that should answer the question.... or atleast show you how from my POV the question is based in assumptions of language.

 

[B9]

you are only 100% selfless if you die. over and over again.

The highest state of enlightenment you aspire to then is absolute non contact/interference with any living thing. Surely this is death. If you regard being dead as a "state of grace" so to speak why are you still posting and not busily decaying to feed the green things of this earth.

zophen(curiouser and curiouser)

 

[Jamshyd]

True. However, knowing that, I think that one should live life in a state of minimum selfishness, giving love and hoping that it will make others realize that state. If everyone were to act selflessly, then the minimum requirements for life would be fulfilled through the giving of others. Unfortunately, the untamed ego only wants to take.

Although I try my best to avoid a my-mission-in-life type of statemnt, I guess my reply to your question sounds something like that. I hope my reply was satisfactory

EDIT: Btw I do not dissagree at all with your previous post about the Ego, nor do I exclude myself from it.

 

[B9]

^Okay fair enough, i take your point. Although i agree with the general idea meaning to give as much as possible and to be as selfless as possible etcetera, i personally find that i fall woefully short of these aspirations, which leads me to conclude that i'm either inherently selfish or weak willed or both.
It seems to be extremely hard to exist in the modern world and to carry out the priniciples of "gentleness". I suppose becoming the equivalent of a hermit/monk would be the only way to achieve anything remotely like this.
Unfortunately i'm too fond of sensual pleasures to really want to do such a thing. I suppose that i'm simply a bad/evil person.

zophen(characterless oaf)

 

[Jamshyd]

I disagree . I think the very fact that you talk about yourself being lacking of those qualities means that you are aware of them and see them as somehow detrimental. Perhaps, although you enjoy them, you actually automatically avoid them. Of course, I am in no position to judge. The real danger IMO, is when one revels in selfishness and does not see it as such.

 

[B9]

^Never thought about it like that , you're too kind.

zophen

 

[vegan]

i think it is silly to distinguish between "our universe" and anything else

this is my point

that should answer the question.... or atleast show you how from my POV the question is based in assumptions of language.

8)
well, you can always re-read the thread if you're interested in understanding why it's not silly

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

^ you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality


i am also not articulat in the least...


if anyone can jump in and clarify what is going on here... I would aprechiate it

otherwise..... this is pointless


my assupmtion is that the universe is infinite.... what's outside of the uiniverse then? <-- since that is impossible..... simply more universe

we just have 2 different theories.... debating which one is right is pointless..... as neither of us can prove what we are arguing

just drop it

TIA