Here Be Dragons

[Churchyard]

[quote]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is interesting to me that both extremes . . .Western left brain-oriented understanding and the Eastern right-brain oriented understanding insist on denigrating the other half of our being as wrong . . . instead of seeking that which unites them. Why on earth would we have both capabilities if we are to ignore one over the other to achieve our purpose? Silly parochialism! I disagree . . . I embrace both and find them compatible . . . because ALL is natural . . . not "supernatural." We would not have both if we were not to use both.

I looked in vain to see where I'd brought the left v right brain idea into the argument - I don't think I'm as fixated on that as you seem to be, especially in the context of the debate we're having at the moment. It's an easy connection to make, I suppose, but is not directly relevant... I mean, western and eastern brains are configured in exactly the same way, as are southern and northern brains are for that matter. So there is no denigration of either. I see it as another instance of you relentlessly pigeon-holing your opponent's views into your constructs, and in this case, you have no grounds to do so, based on anything I said. That's probably why you find it disconcerting when I don't confine myself to any rigid distinctions.

We are but cellular consciousnesses that are supposed to spiritually reproduce the universal consiousness much as our cells reproduce us

Says who?

. . . we think our individual cellular spiritual existence is finite . . . but it is not. We can fail to do so properly . . . like spiritual cancer cells

That's because our individual spiritual existence (as an ego) IS finite and unstable. It may suit our present condition, but there is no logical reason why we as individual egos should continue in existence ad infinitum. That's the residual Christian theology at work in you. Why do you find it so difficult to follow your arguments to their logical conclusion and realise that how we want things to be isn't neccessarily how things ARE? The spiritual cancer thing may sound appropriate on the surface, but is ultimately devoid of real meaning. You can't always be making clever analogies stand for reality - a favourite trick of yours.

. . . and that is why we need both to more clearly understand our purpose. ALL is for edification of our embryo consciousnesses. I disagree. There is no contradiction or incompatibility . . . all is natural.

What purpose exactly? As long as you look for purpose in existence you will come up with all kinds of abstruse, elegantly persuasive fallacies. I've been down this route, too, but at the end of the day I had to admit to myself that I was being profoundly intellectually dishonest. What I was really looking for was comfort - but comfort is another human delusion, and being totally honest in the face of a morally neutral Universe is the only tenable position open to us. It's the ultimate liberation - fight it as you will.

The fact is, each of us knows far more about reality --- past, present, and future --- than we are able to understand and express rationally. And whether or not we work on our inner development, we all experience, with our intuitive minds, the most profound truths about our world and our destiny.[b] What we must do, then, is use our analytical, logical mind to bring this potentially vital information to the surface, where we can use it. . . . And, in doing so, we achieve the fulfillment that comes from leaving what we touch with our minds a little more evolved than we found it.

More of the same, then... this irrepressible need to look for 'development', our 'destiny' and 'becoming more evolved'...

We are not on a mission to improve ourselves, as you suggest, although I will admit that it's desirable to aim to be all we are capable of being - not at all the same thing. I may have the urge, just like you, to become 'complete' (as opposed to being psychologically fragmented as a result of the many destructive social pressures working on all of us) - but in the spiritual sense, we are already whole and complete, and can't add more to the sum total of understanding that already exists in the timeless dimension that is the real core of our (egoless) being.

So the argument for 'Spiritual Evolution' is just another fallacy - however instinctively we are drawn to it as an explanation for why we exist. In simpler terms - if we are essentially spiritual beings, we are already perfect, and it is only our finite perception that tells us otherwise. We are only Individualised egos, battling fruitlessly for self-authentication: Pure Buddhism (not the worshipping kind) comes closest to revealing the truth of the futility of this battle, but it offers such an utterly SIMPLE alternative world-view, that we prefer to cling to familiar attachments (like benevolent deities), and wonder why we're so confused (and confusing, Mystic, If I might be so bold)...

. . . it seems you are slave to any entirely intuitive mindset . . . mine is "ambidextrous" - It is interesting that you resort to a completely Western explanation for the existence of our brain capabilities . . . yet profess to embrace a completely Eastern understanding of what they enable us to experience. Very odd.

I wondered whether you would pick me up on that, but I'm glad you did. All I want to say is - don't be so ready to jump to conclusions re: how other people's minds work. I don't need to be consistently attached to one camp or another, for the sake of argument - as long as it provokes you into deconstructing some of your pre-conceptions. Ambidextrous is a good word, then, but you can't claim a monopoly on it for your own way of thinking. I've followed your threads for a long time and although you tend go off on several tangents at once in the most disconcerting way, you are a deep thinker. But you do seem to have tied yourself in a knot of your own making when you struggle to build an impossible synthesis of so many conflicting ideas.

I mean, your theology is essentially Christian-based, but not in a sense that any practising Christian would go along with... Christianity is not a religion that can accommodate your assertion which is deeply flawed in its essentials, such as the brutality of the OT God; unless you adopt, as I suggested elsewhere, a Marcionite viewpoint that assumes that there is a different God at work in the old and the new testaments respectively...

In the next breath you display your credentials as either a Buddhist (ie. an atheist to all intent and purposes) - a Pantheist, or a devotee of Taoism (again, a non-theistic philosophy). The fact becomes inescapable that none of these provide you with the answers you are looking for, and only serve to weaken your argument by pulling you in wildly different directions. So, in debating with you, people run the risk that they are either viewed as inferior to your breadth of knowledge, thus making all their arguments invalid, or alternatively, they are on the right lines but will have to work a lot harder, and ditch a lot more of their beliefs to catch up with you.

That suggests to me a very un-Christian lack of humility, despite your claim to model yourself on the 'purified' person of Christ, and thereby you destabilise your own arguments.

BTW . . . why do you write off personal spiritual needs . . . as if they couldn't possibly have any impetus from outside the individual or any built-in impetus . . . like the survival need? Just curious. OF course they are natural . . . there is nothing else . . . but that is uninformative . . . it is just a word for "it just is." You have not provided any spiritual explanation (that odd disconnect again) for the existence of spiritual "machinery" within the brain . . .

I never denied having spiritual needs. I certainly don't think that such an impetus comes from without - for the simple reason that in spiritual terms there is no 'without' - I am already a part of all there is. Perhaps it would be easier to fall back yet again on my concept of the ego. I function as an ego in everyday life, just like everybody else, but where you and I differ, I suspect, is that to you and most Christians, the individual ego is irreducible - that it is literally who we are, and that it goes on forever... I view the ego as a sort of perishable skin that enables me to function in my present human state, but that it is not in any way permanent. Take that metaphorical 'skin' away and I instantly dissolve back into the Life Force that always existed.

Whether there is a special 'purpose' in this process is disputable, but I see it as a sort of Cosmic game, or a divine dance, (as the Hindus have it) where the universal life force amuses itself by playing at being different individuals, so you and I are one and the same, despite our differences. Once we become aware of this 'game' - it's very difficult to justify awarding ourselves an inflated status in the scheme of things.

Well, I can't speak for your ego and its capabilities . . . but mine seemed quite up to the task. Abandon the very capability that defines our very humanness and special role to experience "blindly" . . . no thanks. Drugs can do that and it is useless.

That sounds suspiciously patronising. I have never had the slightest inclination to experiment with mind-altering substances either, and if I thought that my humanity was defined by the illusions I cling to, as you seem to do, I would need to find a far broader definition of 'humanity'. I see no need to blindly abandon any part of me whilst I am in my present state, be it my rationality or my human compassion - but at the back of my mind I'm aware that being human is a temporary status. Whatever 'my' condition might be after I die is beyond speculation, but as long as I maximise my time here on earth, and am prepared for any eventuality, I think of myself as a freer, more flexible being than most.

[Churchyard]

Originally Posted by lwowl

Trembling with fear and weak knees (and no PhD) I enter the churchyard and behold they're discussing how many angels could possibly sit on the tip of a needle ... enter the clowns? Respect, ye merry gentlemen!

Further important update:

The argument isn't as straight forward as I was led to believe. I'm now told from On High that this conundrum has a geographical component to it. So, under normal conditions 38 angels can comfortably dance on the head of a pin... But if they come from Texas, only three angels (max) can perform this feat without over-crowding.

[lwowl]

Originally Posted by Churchyard

Further important update:

The argument isn't as straight forward as I was led to believe. I'm now told from On High that this conundrum has a geographical component to it. So, under normal conditions 38 angels can comfortably dance on the head of a pin... But if they come from Texas, only three angels (max) can perform this feat without over-crowding.

Did I say I needed to kiss 38 Frogs? 3 Kings ("a few good men") would just do and not be done,byFull Stop!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Churchyard

I looked in vain to see where I'd brought the left v right brain idea into the argument - I don't think I'm as fixated on that as you seem to be, especially in the context of the debate we're having at the moment. It's an easy connection to make, I suppose, but is not directly relevant... I mean, western and eastern brains are configured in exactly the same way, as are southern and northern brains are for that matter. So there is no denigration of either. I see it as another instance of you relentlessly pigeon-holing your opponent's views into your constructs, and in this case, you have no grounds to do so, based on anything I said. That's probably why you find it disconcerting when I don't confine myself to any rigid distinctions.

Au contraire . . . I not only don't find you disconcerting . . . I quite enjoy our discussions. You seem to have a fine intellect and a strong sensitivity to the spiritual . . . we have a lot of common ground.

Says who?

Me

That's because our individual spiritual existence (as an ego) IS finite and unstable. It may suit our present condition, but there is no logical reason why we as individual egos should continue in existence ad infinitum. That's the residual Christian theology at work in you. Why do you find it so difficult to follow your arguments to their logical conclusion and realise that how we want things to be isn't necessarily how things ARE? The spiritual cancer thing may sound appropriate on the surface, but is ultimately devoid of real meaning. You can't always be making clever analogies stand for reality - a favourite trick of yours.

Of course we disagree about the finiteness of the ego . . .but my view is based not just on spiritual insights (although the unmistakable sensing of multiplicity during the breakthrough meditation . . . like a crowd cheering . . . was probative) , , , it is informed by the physics of our universe itself. Everything that exists AND acts independently in the universe must be energic (composed of some form of energy). Energy is permanent (conservation) unless acted upon to transform it into other forms. Our consciousness exists AND acts independently in the universe despite being an abstraction (or composite) of individual brain activity and NOT the individual brain activity itself. This composite abstraction must be composed of some form of energy despite our inability to measure it (or capture it or transform it . . . or whatever). It is most likely non-baryonic as we suspect dark energy and dark matter are.

Absent some identifiable method to disperse or transform or otherwise disrupt the consciousness that is continually produced . . . it MUST still be present within the universe (energy cannot be destroyed) . . . only the creation of additions to it can be terminated by death . . . that which has already been produced remains (and it already has the uniqueness characteristic of our individual self.) . . . Or so I believe and my experiences do not give me any reason to question it.

What purpose exactly? As long as you look for purpose in existence you will come up with all kinds of abstruse, elegantly persuasive fallacies. I've been down this route, too, but at the end of the day I had to admit to myself that I was being profoundly intellectually dishonest. What I was really looking for was comfort - but comfort is another human delusion, and being totally honest in the face of a morally neutral Universe is the only tenable position open to us. It's the ultimate liberation - fight it as you will.

The purpose is to live and produce consciousness ( a specific "basic" pattern . . . but infinitely diverse as is each individual) . . . nothing more. The basic pattern contains the non-neutral morality that negates and transcends your view of the universe, IMO.

More of the same, then... this irrepressible need to look for 'development', our 'destiny' and 'becoming more evolved'...

We are not on a mission to improve ourselves, as you suggest, although I will admit that it's desirable to aim to be all we are capable of being - not at all the same thing. I may have the urge, just like you, to become 'complete' (as opposed to being psychologically fragmented as a result of the many destructive social pressures working on all of us) - but in the spiritual sense, we are already whole and complete, and can't add more to the sum total of understanding that already exists in the timeless dimension that is the real core of our (egoless) being.

So the argument for 'Spiritual Evolution' is just another fallacy - however instinctively we are drawn to it as an explanation for why we exist.

Nothing in our universe is exempt from evolution . . . on what basis do you impute a non-evolving spirituality?

In simpler terms - if we are essentially spiritual beings, we are already perfect, and it is only our finite perception that tells us otherwise. We are only Individualised egos, battling fruitlessly for self-authentication: Pure Buddhism (not the worshipping kind) comes closest to revealing the truth of the futility of this battle, but it offers such an utterly SIMPLE alternative world-view, that we prefer to cling to familiar attachments (like benevolent deities), and wonder why we're so confused (and confusing, Mystic, If I might be so bold)...

On what basis do you infer automatic spiritual perfection . . . given the difficulty involved in achieving any sort of spiritual development . . . and in the absence of a single instance of instant and automatically perfect ANYTHING in our universe.

I wondered whether you would pick me up on that, but I'm glad you did. All I want to say is - don't be so ready to jump to conclusions re: how other people's minds work. I don't need to be consistently attached to one camp or another, for the sake of argument - as long as it provokes you into deconstructing some of your pre-conceptions. Ambidextrous is a good word, then, but you can't claim a monopoly on it for your own way of thinking. I've followed your threads for a long time and although you tend go off on several tangents at once in the most disconcerting way, you are a deep thinker. But you do seem to have tied yourself in a knot of your own making when you struggle to build an impossible synthesis of so many conflicting ideas.

The conflicts are illusory once you dig deep enough using both forms of knowledge of reality.

I mean, your theology is essentially Christian-based, but not in a sense that any practising Christian would go along with... Christianity is not a religion that can accommodate your assertion which is deeply flawed in its essentials, such as the brutality of the OT God; unless you adopt, as I suggested elsewhere, a Marcionite viewpoint that assumes that there is a different God at work in the old and the new testaments respectively...

You make the mistake of using error-prone primitive human-derived conceptualizations of our earliest spiritual experiences as recorded and interpreted by flawed humans (barely used to thought itself let alone writing ) to portray contradictory or conflicting Gods. It is not God who is contradictory . . . but the descriptions and recordings.

In the next breath you display your credentials as either a Buddhist (ie. an atheist to all intent and purposes) - a Pantheist, or a devotee of Taoism (again, a non-theistic philosophy). The fact becomes inescapable that none of these provide you with the answers you are looking for, and only serve to weaken your argument by pulling you in wildly different directions.

This sort of incoherence is difficult to resolve with purely left brain analytical logic and reasoning . . . but our right brain capabilities are not so limited. I will admit that it was not easy tho.

So, in debating with you, people run the risk that they are either viewed as inferior to your breadth of knowledge, thus making all their arguments invalid, or alternatively, they are on the right lines but will have to work a lot harder, and ditch a lot more of their beliefs to catch up with you.

Wow . . . your discussions have in no way presented an inferior intellect or spirituality . . . but I have been at this a long time (senior citizen) . . . so that can provide a modicum of advantage from sheer length and breadth of exposure.

That suggests to me a very un-Christian lack of humility, despite your claim to model yourself on the 'purified' person of Christ, and thereby you destabilise your own arguments.

My certainty can easily be interpreted as arrogance or lack of humility, I suppose . . . but I simply have no doubts whatever about the majority of my views (there are areas of ambiguity and uncertainty . . . but very few). Sorry.

I never denied having spiritual needs. I certainly don't think that such an impetus comes from without - for the simple reason that in spiritual terms there is no 'without' - I am already a part of all there is. Perhaps it would be easier to fall back yet again on my concept of the ego. I function as an ego in everyday life, just like everybody else, but where you and I differ, I suspect, is that to you and most Christians, the individual ego is irreducible - that it is literally who we are, and that it goes on forever... I view the ego as a sort of perishable skin that enables me to function in my present human state, but that it is not in any way permanent. Take that metaphorical 'skin' away and I instantly dissolve back into the Life Force that always existed.

Well . . . should we discover the form of energy that comprises our consciousness and some dispersive or transformative millieu for it . . . it might shake my certainty . . . but not until then . . . especially since there is no conceivable way (to me) to remove the uniqueness and individuality that characterizes each of us.

Whether there is a special 'purpose' in this process is disputable, but I see it as a sort of Cosmic game, or a divine dance, (as the Hindus have it) where the universal life force amuses itself by playing at being different individuals, so you and I are one and the same, despite our differences. Once we become aware of this 'game' - it's very difficult to justify awarding ourselves an inflated status in the scheme of things.

We disagree about the inflated status . . . it is what it is.

That sounds suspiciously patronising. I have never had the slightest inclination to experiment with mind-altering substances either, and if I thought that my humanity was defined by the illusions I cling to, as you seem to do, I would need to find a far broader definition of 'humanity'. I see no need to blindly abandon any part of me whilst I am in my present state, be it my rationality or my human compassion - but at the back of my mind I'm aware that being human is a temporary status. Whatever 'my' condition might be after I die is beyond speculation, but as long as I maximise my time here on earth, and am prepared for any eventuality, I think of myself as a freer, more flexible being than most.

Again . . . I apologize for any appearance of patronizing or lack of humility . . . I am neither. We disagree about the temporary status for the reasons stated above. I repeat . . . I enjoy our discussions Churchyard.

[Churchyard]

[quote=MysticPhD;6552978]

Au contraire . . . I not only don't find you disconcerting . . . I quite enjoy our discussions. You seem to have a fine intellect and a strong sensitivity to the spiritual . . . we have a lot of common ground.

Thank you, Mystic: coming from you that is indeed a complement!

Of course we disagree about the finiteness of the ego . . .but my view is based not just on spiritual insights (although the unmistakable sensing of multiplicity during the breakthrough meditation . . . like a crowd cheering . . . was probative) , , , it is informed by the physics of our universe itself.

You have the advantage over me in that you have had such a transformative experience. I have to assume that when that rare event takes place it somehow alters your understanding and your mindset for good. So it'd difficult for me to meet you on your own ground, although I have had the odd flash of insight myself from time to time... Looking back on such episodes, I realise that there has been nothing of a contradictory nature in my modest 'insights' into things Spiritual - I mean, the direction I found myself pointed towards has been both consistent and cumulative. Were it otherwise, I would doubt the validity of insight more than I do.

Everything that exists AND acts independently in the universe must be energic (composed of some form of energy). Energy is permanent (conservation) unless acted upon to transform it into other forms. Our consciousness exists AND acts independently in the universe despite being an abstraction (or composite) of individual brain activity and NOT the individual brain activity itself. This composite abstraction must be composed of some form of energy despite our inability to measure it (or capture it or transform it . . . or whatever).

OK. Let me go along with that for a moment: You are saying, as I understand it, that the human race generates a sort of collective mindset out into the Cosmos? I have no quarrel with that as a possibility, but such an idea instantly suggests to me that it is precisely this phenomenon which is responsible for all theistic notions down the ages, and in all cultures. In other words, we tend to give this the name 'GOD'.

This composite of all human thoughts and aspirations may well be able to act as an independent energy - and may even be drawn on for inspiration or guidance in some abstract sense. Such thinking is a major feature of some Theosophic writings, particularly in the arcane world depicted by Madame Blavatsky and her followers - and especially by Charles Leadbeater early in the last Century (Wlkiepedia has an article on him)... You remind me of the remarkable Leadbeater in many ways, especially as he had a very idiosyncratic take on religion, not unlike yours, I think - being himself an ordained priest (albeit a highly unorthodox one). Energy of the sort you speak of was, of course, less well understood in scientific terms in those days, but your thinking has many remarkable parallels.

Absent some identifiable method to disperse or transform or otherwise disrupt the consciousness that is continually produced . . . it MUST still be present within the universe (energy cannot be destroyed) . . . only the creation of additions to it can be terminated by death . . . that which has already been produced remains (and it already has the uniqueness characteristic of our individual self.) . . . Or so I believe and my experiences do not give me any reason to question it.

Very possibly - but where we part company is in our long-term view. I would insist that even if a mass of energy taking this form cannot be destroyed - it is still subject to transformation, and as such, will probably cease to exist as anything recognisable as human after such transformations take place. In other words, what some people would identify as a humanly-generated god will be re-absorbed into the Infinite and thus cease to 'exist' as a unique entity, along with all the attributes we attribute to 'Him'...

Simmilarly, the dynamic energy that constitutes our individuality as humans (If I read you correctly) will suffer the same fate at some future stage, because I believe that all integrated phenomena are prone to constant disintegration - otherwise we have a static, and not a DYNAMIC Universe on our hands. It is this attempt by theists (of all stripes) to 'FREEZE' the status quo for all eternity that is so repellent to my rationality. It flies in the face of the way I understand not only the known laws of physics (where nothing is ever static), but also the most sublime spiritual principles, which emphasise progression through multiple manifestations. Because we now exist, (as self-conscious egos) - doesn't necessarily imply that we will retain our present individuality for ever. The forces of disintegration and re-creation are already at work on us.

The purpose is to live and produce consciousness ( a specific "basic" pattern . . . but infinitely diverse as is each individual) . . . nothing more. The basic pattern contains the non-neutral morality that negates and transcends your view of the universe, IMO. Nothing in our universe is exempt from evolution . . . on what basis do you impute a non-evolving spirituality?

On the basis that I explained before, that is, I can't see that there is ultimately a need for spiritual evolution. Just as new matter cannot be created, according to science, likewise no new or improved universal awareness can be created (or developed, if you prefer). You have to assume, as I said, that such TOTAL AWARENESS already exists - that there is already perfection - otherwise you have to postulate an incomplete or faulty Cosmos - but that's another can of worms.

So I completely refute your idea that our purpose is to - "live and PRODUCE consciousness" - for several reasons. Humanity may progress towards a realisation of Universal Consciousness (for whatever reason) but that's a long way from saying that we CREATE it in any sense. We partake of consciousness, if you will, and it may well be that the struggle to attain it is the key to our aspirational existence, (always assuming there IS such a key).

On what basis do you infer automatic spiritual perfection . . . given the difficulty involved in achieving any sort of spiritual development . . . and in the absence of a single instance of instant and automatically perfect ANYTHING in our universe.

I refer you to the above. Anyway, how can you assume that there isn't anything perfect in our universe? The laws of Physics seem pretty miraculous to me, the way so many forces converge so perfectly to generate the world as we see it. If there was a single serious flaw in the system, the whole thing would be in trouble, everything being so intricately inter-connected. The whole set-up looks pretty phenomenal from where I'm standing, and we're an intrinsic part of it - that's enough for me to ponder on for the time being...

The conflicts are illusory once you dig deep enough using both forms of knowledge of reality. You make the mistake of using error-prone primitive human-derived conceptualizations of our earliest spiritual experiences as recorded and interpreted by flawed humans (barely used to thought itself let alone writing ) to portray contradictory or conflicting Gods. It is not God who is contradictory . . . but the descriptions and recordings.

Do I? -- I would like to meet the person who is less inclined than I am to rely on faulty conceptualisations of God!!

You seem to have a special relationship with your version of said God (which I must respect, if not understand). What I prefer to believe is that such a God is not neccessary to personify the myriad metaphysical answers we seem to be endlessly chasing after in our attempt to integrate ourselves into a moral order, relevant to our personal lives. Once you personify things in this way, you immediately diminish the scope of such a god, because you are limiting 'him' to a form which is comprehensible to our finite minds. Furthermore, such a personalised god becomes an end in itself - and therefore a barrier to further exploration of the Infinite.

... especially since there is no conceivable way (to me) to remove the uniqueness and individuality that characterizes each of us. We disagree about the inflated status . . . it is what it is.

Perhaps you are choosing to look at this the wrong way? Instead of saying "remove" the uniqueness and individuality that characterizes each of us, you might think more in terms of 'extending' that uniqueness? - I mean, you can only extend any uniqueness so far before it reaches a tipping point, along the lines typified by the ancient principles of the I Ching. What happens then is that instead of progressing too far in the same direction, that direction is reversed, in the interest of restoring balance. As far as our present egos are concerned, that would mean we reach a certain peak of individuality, maybe, and then we revert to being undifferentiated again, though not necessarily losing our greater consciousness - only our self-consciousness. And so the cycle continues...

Again . . . I apologize for any appearance of patronizing or lack of humility . . . I am neither. We disagree about the temporary status for the reasons stated above. I repeat . . . I enjoy our discussions Churchyard.

Ditto - Anyway, Mystic, I'm pretty opinionated myself!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Churchyard

Simmilarly, the dynamic energy that constitutes our individuality as humans (If I read you correctly) will suffer the same fate at some future stage, because I believe that all integrated phenomena are prone to constant disintegration - otherwise we have a static, and not a DYNAMIC Universe on our hands. It is this attempt by theists (of all stripes) to 'FREEZE' the status quo for all eternity that is so repellent to my rationality. It flies in the face of the way I understand not only the known laws of physics (where nothing is ever static), but also the most sublime spiritual principles, which emphasise progression through multiple manifestations. Because we now exist, (as self-conscious egos) - doesn't necessarily imply that we will retain our present individuality for ever. The forces of disintegration and re-creation are already at work on us.

We seem to have two very different understandings of dynamic and static. My biggest stumbling block in accepting the Eastern viewpoint was the realization that the only reason there was no God in Buddhism was that Gautama really didn't trust the existence of any permanent entity . . . because it could mean the entire cycle could be started over. He wanted a permanent end to the cycle so he posited a complete cessation of all desire and individuation. I OTOH simply couldn't wrap my mind around a system that would go to all the trouble of creating individuation only to eliminate it in the end.

Our best understanding of the universe indicates that the expansion is accelerating (nothing static about that) and that a mysterious form of unmeasurable energy (non-baryonic dark energy) is responsible for it. Similarly, a mysterious form of unmeasurable energy (non-baryonic dark matter) is responsible for the formation of and maintenance of galaxies. What I find instructive and intriguing is that there are two forms of unmeasurable consciousness . . . thoughts and feelings . . . constantly being PRODUCED (ok, transformed from other forms . . . if you prefer). The spiritual intuitions about heaven and hell seem apropos here because one of the fates purportedly awaiting some of our consciousnesses is the "lake or pool of fire" . . . which is the definition of a galaxy formed by dark matter. If some of our unmeasurable consciousness is this dark matter(failures) and some is dark energy (successes) . . . the creation of galaxies and the accelerating expansion of the universe would certainly be probative . . . don't you think?

Prior to the Big Bang theory there was a mathematically elegant theory by Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term Big Bang. He advocated that the Universe had no beginning, and that new galaxies formed in the gaps as others moved apart. In spite of mainstream consensus to the contrary, he continued to attack the Big Bang theory up till his death. His most recent and robust defence of a compromise 'quasi-steady state' Universe was presented in A Different Approach to Cosmology (2000). Two of his disciples( the Burbidges) are currently still pursuing the theory, despite limited access to the telescope time necessary to validate their latest refinements (the fate of all who "swim upstream" against the current consensus in science).

On the basis that I explained before, that is, I can't see that there is ultimately a need for spiritual evolution. Just as new matter cannot be created, according to science, likewise no new or improved universal awareness can be created (or developed, if you prefer). You have to assume, as I said, that such TOTAL AWARENESS already exists - that there is already perfection - otherwise you have to postulate an incomplete or faulty Cosmos - but that's another can of worms.

So I completely refute your idea that our purpose is to - "live and PRODUCE consciousness" - for several reasons. Humanity may progress towards a realisation of Universal Consciousness (for whatever reason) but that's a long way from saying that we CREATE it in any sense. We partake of consciousness, if you will, and it may well be that the struggle to attain it is the key to our aspirational existence, (always assuming there IS such a key).

I disagree . . . ALL the evidence points to evolution as the modus operandi of the universe. If the "creation" verb bothers you, we can call it transformation of the many other forms of energy into the ultimate form . . . consciousness. The total awareness that forms the universal field for the entire universe is constantly expanding (growing . . . if you will) via this dark energy and dark matter from somewhere. I doubt we are the only species of life in the universe with consciousness . . . and I doubt we are all equally evolved. There has to be a progression.

You seem to have a special relationship with your version of said God (which I must respect, if not understand). What I prefer to believe is that such a God is not neccessary to personify the myriad metaphysical answers we seem to be endlessly chasing after in our attempt to integrate ourselves into a moral order, relevant to our personal lives. Once you personify things in this way, you immediately diminish the scope of such a god, because you are limiting 'him' to a form which is comprehensible to our finite minds. Furthermore, such a personalised god becomes an end in itself - and therefore a barrier to further exploration of the Infinite.

I take comfort and confirmation in the spiritual inspiration and intuition that produced this particular passage of scripture in Genesis 3:22,

. . . the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! And now perhaps he will put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever!

That hardly sounds like the personification of a singular Him (God) and tends to corroborate my breakthrough sensing of multiplicity in the oneness.

Perhaps you are choosing to look at this the wrong way? Instead of saying "remove" the uniqueness and individuality that characterizes each of us, you might think more in terms of 'extending' that uniqueness? - I mean, you can only extend any uniqueness so far before it reaches a tipping point, along the lines typified by the ancient principles of the I Ching. What happens then is that instead of progressing too far in the same direction, that direction is reversed, in the interest of restoring balance. As far as our present egos are concerned, that would mean we reach a certain peak of individuality, maybe, and then we revert to being undifferentiated again, though not necessarily losing our greater consciousness - only our self-consciousness. And so the cycle continues...

Sorry . . . it seems like such a waste to individuate only to eliminate any such individuality within the oneness. Sounds boring, monotonous, and thoroughly unappealing to me.