Matter, Consciousness, Experience

[Gypsy]

How is 'matter' experience or expressed by consciousness? If flesh became word, will thought-mind eventually understand it through technology or other ways for ego mind to understand itself within the absolute part of creation. This is taken from a guru:"Why is there evil in the world? --To thicken the plot--"

 

[Maddie]

What if I raise another question, is there evil in the world?

 

As to how matter or form is experienced by consciousness it is through the 6 senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and thought. Matter or form if the first of the 5 Skandhas and therefore the first delusion that we must see through clearly to progress to the next Skandha (which is sensation).

 

If we identify ourselves as being our body then that is the delusion of form, thus the first barrier to the ego understanding itself.

[voidisyinyang]

yeah just slower vibrations of light - or all light has the same energy just different waveform-frequency and spacetime.

 

The Emptiness is the unifying reality of matter-energy and spacetime -- it's the same process.

 

Evil is just the delusion of not being part of the Emptiness -- the fallen angel as modern humanity -- so evil does not ask why it exists because the why would lead to Why-Is-D'-OHM? Wisdom.

[Marblehead]

Evil is a subjective judgement. Humans like to define as evil things they don't approve of. Nature just is.

[Maddie]

...as evil, unwanted, uncomfortable, terrifying, cloying, disruptive, painful, [fill in your own descriptor]...?

 

Evil is a subjective judgement. Humans like to define as evil things they don't approve of. Nature just is.

I thought that was a pretty darn good answer to this question.

 

I'll go back to the 5 Skandhas again. (form, sensation, conception, volition, and consciousness).

 

First something happens. Lets say a clown comes up to you at your cousins Bar mitzvah and kicks you in the shin. The clown and your shin are form.

 

You see the clown with your eyes and feel your shin. This is sensation.

 

The visual signal your eyes pick up is recognized as a clown due to previous experience with clowns. The sensation of getting kicked in your shin is recognized as pain. This is conception

 

You then associate the clown that you saw with the pain that you feel. Now you realize the clown caused your pain. The pain feels bad, and since you recognize the clown as inducing the pain your assign the clown the distinction of being "evil". This is volition.

 

Finally you are aware of this process and its outcome with in your mind. This is consciousness

 

So it would be at the level of Volition that we assign the clown the judgment of being "evil". But this is still a matter of perception. Perhaps the clown saw a black widow spider on your socks and was trying to protect you. What you then just labeled as evil, the clown labeled as good or helpful.

 

Thus one act, and two completely different judgments about what type of act it was.

[Jeff]

 

 

I thought that was a pretty darn good answer to this question.

 

I'll go back to the 5 Skandhas again. (form, sensation, conception, volition, and consciousness).

 

First something happens. Lets say a clown comes up to you at your cousins Bar mitzvah and kicks you in the shin. The clown and your shin are form.

 

You see the clown with your eyes and feel your shin. This is sensation.

 

The visual signal your eyes pick up is recognized as a clown due to previous experience with clowns. The sensation of getting kicked in your shin is recognized as pain. This is conception

 

You then associate the clown that you saw with the pain that you feel. Now you realize the clown caused your pain. The pain feels bad, and since you recognize the clown as inducing the pain your assign the clown the distinction of being "evil". This is volition.

 

Finally you are aware of this process and its outcome with in your mind. This is consciousness

 

So it would be at the level of Volition that we assign the clown the judgment of being "evil". But this is still a matter of perception. Perhaps the clown saw a black widow spider on your socks and was trying to protect you. What you then just labeled as evil, the clown labeled as good or helpful.

 

Thus one act, and two completely different judgments about what type of act it was.

So "evil" comes down to the "intent" of the clown?

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by Jeff

[voidisyinyang]

So, then...why do we (at least some of us, at some times) experience these "different" vibrations as evil?

 

yeah the truth of the universe is universal love which we all have as the truth of our spirit-soul energy deep in our hearts.

 

So the "we" who experiences evil is not the "real" us -- obviously it feels like "us," etc. For example if someone does DMT which then opens up the heart astral energy - the rainbow vortex energy - so then everything else is experienced as a holograph -- external thoughts about "external" reality are really just projections of our internal energy blockages and blockages being cleared out - and this process is part of a deeper love process.

 

So like it's said how everything is a learning experience and pain is actually a symptom of future learning - like growing pains.

 

So the Western modern world is structurally defined by EVIL - the mathematical logic is based on "containing infinity" through geometry - irrational magnitude - using symmetric logic.

 

This is why original Sin -- it's from the Moon goddess of Sumeria.

 

Hold on....

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/soc.culture.malaysia/MLsIOyCAuEE

 

something I wrote on the subject:

 

 

Why the Alphabet is Satanic

B09368 / Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:57:27 / Intelligence

 

 

Yeah so evil is literally this attempt by the Solar ritual priests to "contain" infinite Cosmic Mother formless awareness - the Emptiness -- into a solar geometry calendar technology.

[Marblehead]

So, then...why do we (at least some of us, at some times) experience these "different" vibrations as evil?

Likely because we have had the same, or at least similar, learning experiences. Therefore our moral values would be very similar.

[Marblehead]

Lets say a clown comes up to you at your cousins Bar mitzvah and kicks you in the shin. The clown and your shin are form.

Little wonder the majority of children have a fear of clowns! They kick you in the shin!

[Maddie]

So "evil" comes down to the "intent" of the clown?

 

No "evil" comes down to the interpretation of the clown's action by the person getting kicked

[Jeff]

No "evil" comes down to the interpretation of the clown's action by the person getting kicked

Didn't you just point out above that one can't tell in your example? May have been saving from the spider.

 

Karma (and "evil") are found in the intent of the act. Not the action itself.

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[voidisyinyang]

Didn't you just point out above that one can't tell in your example? May have been saving from the spider.

 

Karma (and "evil") are found in the intent of the act. Not the action itself.

 

Best wishes, Jeff

 

 

Right -- the evil intention is the lower chakra electromagnetic energy living in the illusion of a "contained infinity" as material reality - so they live in a dualistic win or lose mentality -- "If I don't win they I lose so I have to make the other person lose first."

 

It is an illogical reality but the dominant modern mentality and also built into our mathematics. haha.

[Maddie]

Didn't you just point out above that one can't tell in your example? May have been saving from the spider.

 

Karma (and "evil") are found in the intent of the act. Not the action itself.

 

Best wishes, Jeff

What I mean is that the notion of "evil" is the point of view of the person getting kicked from a subjective point of view, not that I'm saying there is any objective sense of good or evil in this example.

[Gypsy]

Thanks for the great responds! Evil is another product of time. Mind is a product of conceptual duality of time. This whole Taoist Playground within projector outwardly of word opposites-Positive/Negative energies. Manly P. Hall lectured on this topic of Healing.

http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.divinehealingmanly.7.htm

 

Namaste is a form of One Hand clapping ~ left/right place together as One 'being' grateful (c:

[silent thunder]

I'm perceiving things less in terms of good and evil, right or wrong.

 

For me, it's getting less personal. It's all vibration.

Higher and lower vibration.

[Jeff]

Right -- the evil intention is the lower chakra electromagnetic energy living in the illusion of a "contained infinity" as material reality - so they live in a dualistic win or lose mentality -- "If I don't win they I lose so I have to make the other person lose first."

 

It is an illogical reality but the dominant modern mentality and also built into our mathematics. haha.

 

Interesting concept... So by your definition of subjective win/lose perspective, you would not consider an intent to harm as "evil" or wrong? Is there any intended act that you would define as "evil"?

 

 

 

What I mean is that the notion of "evil" is the point of view of the person getting kicked from a subjective point of view, not that I'm saying there is any objective sense of good or evil in this example.

 

So your definition of "evil" is that it is only a subjective perceptive of the recipient of an act (with limited perspective)? And as such, there is no such thing as wrong or evil?

 

Thanks, Jeff

[Jeff]

How is 'matter' experience or expressed by consciousness? If flesh became word, will thought-mind eventually understand it through technology or other ways for ego mind to understand itself within the absolute part of creation. This is taken from a guru:"Why is there evil in the world? --To thicken the plot--"

 

I think you have raised a very interesting question that most face. Do you have a definition of "evil" that you would use? Are there "intended acts" that can be universally defined as evil/wrong?

 

Thanks, Jeff

[Maddie]

 

 

 

 

 

So your definition of "evil" is that it is only a subjective perceptive of the recipient of an act (with limited perspective)? And as such, there is no such thing as wrong or evil?

 

Thanks, Jeff

 

To have a perception of evil, there must first be a perceiver

[Jeff]

To have a perception of evil, there must first be a perceiver

 

I would say that it depends on how one define "evil". Are you stating that you have no "independent view" of consciousness/existence? Also, if there is no perception... there is no such thing as "free will" to have "intent"?

[Maddie]

I would say that it depends on how one define "evil".

 

And everyone has a slightly different definition of what "evil" is, thus back to perception.

 

 

Are you stating that you have no "independent view" of consciousness/existence? Also, if there is no perception... there is no such thing as "free will" to have "intent"?

I think free will exits in the universe, but that most people do not posses a completely free will until they reach enlightenment.

 

I have a view for sure, but just how "independent" it is, is impossible to say as I am as of yet still not enlightened and therefore have not freed myself completely from delusion.

[Jeff]

And everyone has a slightly different definition of what "evil" is, thus back to perception.

 

 

I think free will exits in the universe, but that most people do not posses a completely free will until they reach enlightenment.

 

I have a view for sure, but just how "independent" it is, is impossible to say as I am as of yet still not enlightened and therefore have not freed myself completely from delusion.

 

I would definitely agree that definitions of evil vary. But, in our shared human perspective, are there intended acts that can be agreed upon as evil? Or, are you stating that there is no such thing as evil?

 

I would also agree that most acts are autopilot conditioned responses. My question about "independent view" came from your statement of "there must first be a perceiver". I took that to mean that you did not perceive there to be a perceiver.

[Maddie]

I would definitely agree that definitions of evil vary. But, in our shared human perspective, are there intended acts that can be agreed upon as evil? Or, are you stating that there is no such thing as evil?

 

I would also agree that most acts are autopilot conditioned responses. My question about "independent view" came from your statement of "there must first be a perceiver". I took that to mean that you did not perceive there to be a perceiver.

Oh no I definitely think there is a perceiver as perception is the second skandha. If we keep going with the skandhas then after an act is perceived and then conceived then our volition often adds a judgment of what we think that act is, in this case either good or evil.

 

Again as to whether or not there is something called "evil" depends on what you mean by the term. If you mean evil exits as a matter of perception and volition on the part of the observer then many versions and definitions of evil exist.

 

If you are meaning a more objective standard of evil even this can still come down to perception and conception. To the cat the rat is evil for chewing a hole in the wall of its owners house. To the rat the cat is evil for trying to eat it. To the cat wanting to eat the rat is simply its nature, and to the rat chewing holes in the walls is simply its nature.

[silent thunder]

I love this topic. I use an analogy of a wolf and a deer.

 

As the wolf tears the deer's belly, if the deer can conceive of evil, I'm sure that this would fit 'a' definition.

At the same moment, the wolf cubs hear the dinner bell and they are filled with the joy of a good hunt and a life sustaining meal.

 

It's a rough analogy I know, since I have no way to know if wolves or deer are even hampered by such distinctions, but it comes as close as I can to finding a scenario in which good and evil exist in the same act at the same moment, from varied perspectives.

[Jeff]

That is why I asked the question on defining "evil". I think we can all agree that a cat eating a mouse or a wolf eating a deer is "nature" and not evil. Just as a flood (is nature) and not evil.

 

But, to move away from nature, could evil be defined as "action with the intent to cause pain & suffering in another"? A cat or wolf does not attack for food or survival, but just for the fun of hurting and causing suffering. Does that ever happen in nature?

[Maddie]

That is why I asked the question on defining "evil". I think we can all agree that a cat eating a mouse or a wolf eating a deer is "nature" and not evil. Just as a flood (is nature) and not evil.

 

But, to move away from nature, could evil be defined as "action with the intent to cause pain & suffering in another"? A cat or wolf does not attack for food or survival, but just for the fun of hurting and causing suffering. Does that ever happen in nature?

We come from and are part of nature so where does one draw the line?

 

I've seen a cat play with a mouse, kill it (slowly for fun) and not even eat it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by dmattwads