|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2019 10:37:54 GMT -5
I would say there is only one kind of SR. Agreed. That can happen as many ways as there ever was and ever will be individuals that realize. It's only anti-climax if there was some sort of build-up to it.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 17, 2019 10:49:10 GMT -5
That can happen as many ways as there ever was and ever will be individuals that realize. It's only anti-climax if there was some sort of build-up to it. What is it that happens exactly? What happens in many ways is just what happens to be happening before you realize. As there is no causal connection between what is happening before realization and the realization itself then it is true that an infinite number of things could be happening, more happenings in fact than the number of people who realize.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 17, 2019 12:12:40 GMT -5
That can happen as many ways as there ever was and ever will be individuals that realize. It's only anti-climax if there was some sort of build-up to it. What is it that happens exactly? What happens in many ways is just what happens to be happening before you realize. As there is no causal connection between what is happening before realization and the realization itself then it is true that an infinite number of things could be happening, more happenings in fact than the number of people who realize. Admittedly, whatever might be happening in a human's life prior to SR can be significantly different, but it would be interesting to hear accounts where the realization didn't occur suddenly, and accounts which involved anything other than a specific and timeless "aha" moment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2019 14:04:18 GMT -5
That can happen as many ways as there ever was and ever will be individuals that realize. It's only anti-climax if there was some sort of build-up to it. What is it that happens exactly? What happens in many ways is just what happens to be happening before you realize. As there is no causal connection between what is happening before realization and the realization itself then it is true that an infinite number of things could be happening, more happenings in fact than the number of people who realize. Our perspectives on the topic are very different and unlikely to be reconciled, and I'm fine with that. Some people have one realization, some people have many, and what's often quite relevant to these stories of self-realization are all sorts of experiences, and even cultural conditioning, and then the informing of mind that happens in-between and after the realizations, as well.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2019 14:29:53 GMT -5
What is it that happens exactly? What happens in many ways is just what happens to be happening before you realize. As there is no causal connection between what is happening before realization and the realization itself then it is true that an infinite number of things could be happening, more happenings in fact than the number of people who realize. Admittedly, whatever might be happening in a human's life prior to SR can be significantly different, but it would be interesting to hear accounts where the realization didn't occur suddenly, and accounts which involved anything other than a specific and timeless "aha" moment. Tolle is an interesting example as far as this goes, because as you've noted yourself he had at least two major realizations. The first one was in the context of the panic attack that led directly to a perception when he woke up of the world as being profoundly alive. The 2nd was when he overheard a Zen guy describing the silent mind, although we might instead call that an informing of mind, and so that's an interesting example of where trying to define these events with a rigid intellectual structure fails. Tolle's tears of joy are quite different from Adya's description of his final realization. Hakuin's "I am Ganto!" is just one in a long series of events that he called "awakenings". Low gives an interesting and rather emphatic Hakuin quote on the topic of the multiplicity of awakenings. Niz described a gradual process, albeit with a final realization at the end, but much of what he tells some seeker's is consonant with the idea of a "tounge-tip taste of Zen", and the notion of "beginner's mind" further cross-references quite nicely with Sekida's notion of how we "retrace our steps" in his discussion (by my recollection) of Tozan's ranks. My recollections are of two sudden events, but neither really fully tracks your dichotomy model of "I am the world"(Kensho)/"I am not the person"(Satori), and I was culturally conditioned to be attuned to how reality is not as it seems (as well as several other existential notions) long before I stumbled onto meditation. In hindsight, it doesn't surprise me that I don't fit a Zen model, as I've never seen the inside of a Zendo.
Certainly, a mind informed on the abstract structure of realization will agree that it's sudden, but to my eye there's quite a bit of legitimate variation as to the way the subject of the realization is described, and in particular, on the specifics of the final realization before the end of seeking. For example, there are some folks that I find are otherwise quite clear on the topics of Oneness, personhood, and what kensho reveals, but who insist that any path necessarily involves a "dark night of the soul". For some of them, I don't question their realization status, but I do think that they're wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 17, 2019 16:32:17 GMT -5
Nagaraja dasa says: In 1969, just a few years after Srila Prabhupada started his movement in the West, he prepared a test for his disciples. Those who passed the test would receive a Bhakti Sastri degree, signifying their understanding of the basic philosophy of Krishna consciousness. I came across the test recently and was surprised to find that eight of its fifteen questions deal with the same point: How to distinguish between religion and faith. Srila Prabhupada obviously felt this was an extremely important point. Prabhupada taught that Krishna consciousness—God consciousness—is different from what is generally called "religion." Taking up the practices of Krishna consciousness is not the same as converting from one religion to another. Hare Krishna devotees never say they converted from Christianity, Judaism, or some other faith. Prabhupada came not to make converts to Hinduism, he would say, but to give genuine spiritual knowledge. Because Krishna consciousness is the eternal function of the soul, it can’t be changed, as we might change our beliefs from one religion to another. We are all spiritual beings, by nature servants of God. To be Krishna consciousness is to understand our true nature and act accordingly. It’s that simple. Our Krishna consciousness is already there; we simply have to awaken it. We can’t remove Krishna consciousness from our very being any more than we can stop breathing, or any more than we can remove sweetness from sugar or liquidity from water. The Sanskrit word dharma is sometimes translated as “religion,” but dharma actually means “essential characteristic.” The dharma of fire is heat; the dharma of the soul is service to God. You are taking a name Krishna who is from Hindu religion, story is over. If you want to point out God consciousness, then say God's consciousness, don't say Krishna's consciousness, that would lead the connection with Religious. I am a Catholic. I hear mass on Sundays. Receive Holy Communion. Pray the Holy Rosary. Give tithe to the Church. These are religious activities. On the other hand, I don't go to the temple and worship the Deity Krsna or receive prasadam. I don't participate in reading Bhagavad-gita/Srimad Bhagavatam with Krsna devotees. All I do is chant from within my self, " Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare / Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare." I don't consider chanting the Hare Krsna mantra a religion. It's Krsna conciousness because consciousness is dovetailed to Krsna, the holy name of God. That is my version.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 17, 2019 17:33:13 GMT -5
Admittedly, whatever might be happening in a human's life prior to SR can be significantly different, but it would be interesting to hear accounts where the realization didn't occur suddenly, and accounts which involved anything other than a specific and timeless "aha" moment. Tolle is an interesting example as far as this goes, because as you've noted yourself he had at least two major realizations. The first one was in the context of the panic attack that led directly to a perception when he woke up of the world as being profoundly alive. The 2nd was when he overheard a Zen guy describing the silent mind, although we might instead call that an informing of mind, and so that's an interesting example of where trying to define these events with a rigid intellectual structure fails. Tolle's tears of joy are quite different from Adya's description of his final realization. Hakuin's "I am Ganto!" is just one in a long series of events that he called "awakenings". Low gives an interesting and rather emphatic Hakuin quote on the topic of the multiplicity of awakenings. Niz described a gradual process, albeit with a final realization at the end, but much of what he tells some seeker's is consonant with the idea of a "tounge-tip taste of Zen", and the notion of "beginner's mind" further cross-references quite nicely with Sekida's notion of how we "retrace our steps" in his discussion (by my recollection) of Tozan's ranks. My recollections are of two sudden events, but neither really fully tracks your dichotomy model of "I am the world"(Kensho)/"I am not the person"(Satori), and I was culturally conditioned to be attuned to how reality is not as it seems (as well as several other existential notions) long before I stumbled onto meditation. In hindsight, it doesn't surprise me that I don't fit a Zen model, as I've never seen the inside of a Zendo. Certainly, a mind informed on the abstract structure of realization will agree that it's sudden, but to my eye there's quite a bit of legitimate variation as to the way the subject of the realization is described, and in particular, on the specifics of the final realization before the end of seeking. For example, there are some folks that I find are otherwise quite clear on the topics of Oneness, personhood, and what kensho reveals, but who insist that any path necessarily involves a "dark night of the soul". For some of them, I don't question their realization status, but I do think that they're wrong about that.
Just to be clear, an initial kensho did not result in my thinking, "I am the world." The realizations that resulted from that kensho include: 1. Each human being is an infinitesimally tiny aspect of the Infinite though all are one-with the Infinite 2. Reality is not what I previously thought it was (a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy) 3. Reality is unified, alive, aware, mysterious, infinite, and perfect 4. An ineffable/incomprehensible/super-intelligent Presence pervades everything 5. Time, space, and thingness are cognitive illusions 6. There is no real birth or death (bodies come and go but the ultimate reality is timeless and unchanging) There was also the sense that nothing ever happens by accident, but this was more of a vague sense of an underlying truth rather than a completely self-evident truth. It may also be worth pointing out that I, too, had never been inside a kendo, grokked an answer to a single koan, or met anyone from the Zen tradition when the kensho occurred. I didn't get involved with Zen people until about six months later when I learned about a Zen group sponsoring a silent retreat and decided to go check it out. I fully agree with your comments about a "dark night of the soul." I never experienced anything like that, nor did I ever experience the sense of alienation that some mystics describe. As I've speculated before, perhaps some people are more strongly attached to certain ideas than other people, and when realizations occur that result in the collapse of those ideas, the effect is more impactful, more obvious, and more psychologically tied to a specific time and place. For example, I can remember almost exactly when and where each of five major realizations occurred that significantly changed my understanding. As you noted, Hakuin, by his own account, had more than a hundred kenshos, but he never differentiated clearly between kensho and satori in the way that we commonly do here, and to the best of my knowledge, most Zen people do not differentiate between experiences and realizations.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2019 19:42:39 GMT -5
Tolle is an interesting example as far as this goes, because as you've noted yourself he had at least two major realizations. The first one was in the context of the panic attack that led directly to a perception when he woke up of the world as being profoundly alive. The 2nd was when he overheard a Zen guy describing the silent mind, although we might instead call that an informing of mind, and so that's an interesting example of where trying to define these events with a rigid intellectual structure fails. Tolle's tears of joy are quite different from Adya's description of his final realization. Hakuin's "I am Ganto!" is just one in a long series of events that he called "awakenings". Low gives an interesting and rather emphatic Hakuin quote on the topic of the multiplicity of awakenings. Niz described a gradual process, albeit with a final realization at the end, but much of what he tells some seeker's is consonant with the idea of a "tounge-tip taste of Zen", and the notion of "beginner's mind" further cross-references quite nicely with Sekida's notion of how we "retrace our steps" in his discussion (by my recollection) of Tozan's ranks. My recollections are of two sudden events, but neither really fully tracks your dichotomy model of "I am the world"(Kensho)/"I am not the person"(Satori), and I was culturally conditioned to be attuned to how reality is not as it seems (as well as several other existential notions) long before I stumbled onto meditation. In hindsight, it doesn't surprise me that I don't fit a Zen model, as I've never seen the inside of a Zendo. Certainly, a mind informed on the abstract structure of realization will agree that it's sudden, but to my eye there's quite a bit of legitimate variation as to the way the subject of the realization is described, and in particular, on the specifics of the final realization before the end of seeking. For example, there are some folks that I find are otherwise quite clear on the topics of Oneness, personhood, and what kensho reveals, but who insist that any path necessarily involves a "dark night of the soul". For some of them, I don't question their realization status, but I do think that they're wrong about that.
Just to be clear, an initial kensho did not result in my thinking, "I am the world." The realizations that resulted from that kensho include: 1. Each human being is an infinitesimally tiny aspect of the Infinite though all are one-with the Infinite 2. Reality is not what I previously thought it was (a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy) 3. Reality is unified, alive, aware, mysterious, infinite, and perfect 4. An ineffable/incomprehensible/super-intelligent Presence pervades everything 5. Time, space, and thingness are cognitive illusions 6. There is no real birth or death (bodies come and go but the ultimate reality is timeless and unchanging) There was also the sense that nothing ever happens by accident, but this was more of a vague sense of an underlying truth rather than a completely self-evident truth. It may also be worth pointing out that I, too, had never been inside a kendo, grokked an answer to a single koan, or met anyone from the Zen tradition when the kensho occurred. I didn't get involved with Zen people until about six months later when I learned about a Zen group sponsoring a silent retreat and decided to go check it out. I fully agree with your comments about a "dark night of the soul." I never experienced anything like that, nor did I ever experience the sense of alienation that some mystics describe. As I've speculated before, perhaps some people are more strongly attached to certain ideas than other people, and when realizations occur that result in the collapse of those ideas, the effect is more impactful, more obvious, and more psychologically tied to a specific time and place. For example, I can remember almost exactly when and where each of five major realizations occurred that significantly changed my understanding. As you noted, Hakuin, by his own account, had more than a hundred kenshos, but he never differentiated clearly between kensho and satori in the way that we commonly do here, and to the best of my knowledge, most Zen people do not differentiate between experiences and realizations. Well, in any event, I know you've mentioned before that there wasn't much of an American culture of nonduality when you popped like a kernel back then, and there wasn't going to be an internet for many years afterward. I don't think I can ever say thanks, enough times, for your presence on this forum, as well as several of the other voices here and a few other corners of the web. Seems to me, looking back, it made the necessary informings of mind (at the very least) much easier and more accessible than otherwise would have been the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 21:18:15 GMT -5
Just to be clear, an initial kensho did not result in my thinking, "I am the world." The realizations that resulted from that kensho include: 1. Each human being is an infinitesimally tiny aspect of the Infinite though all are one-with the Infinite 2. Reality is not what I previously thought it was (a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy) 3. Reality is unified, alive, aware, mysterious, infinite, and perfect 4. An ineffable/incomprehensible/super-intelligent Presence pervades everything 5. Time, space, and thingness are cognitive illusions 6. There is no real birth or death (bodies come and go but the ultimate reality is timeless and unchanging) There was also the sense that nothing ever happens by accident, but this was more of a vague sense of an underlying truth rather than a completely self-evident truth. If 'thingness' is a cognitive illusion then #4 seems to be misconceived. ie; If there are no actual 'things' then how can there be a presence that pervades every-thing? And re: #2, prior to realization, did you really think that the world was a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy? what about all the trees and grass and plants and animals and people and stuff?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 17, 2019 23:26:27 GMT -5
Just to be clear, an initial kensho did not result in my thinking, "I am the world." The realizations that resulted from that kensho include: 1. Each human being is an infinitesimally tiny aspect of the Infinite though all are one-with the Infinite 2. Reality is not what I previously thought it was (a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy) 3. Reality is unified, alive, aware, mysterious, infinite, and perfect 4. An ineffable/incomprehensible/super-intelligent Presence pervades everything 5. Time, space, and thingness are cognitive illusions 6. There is no real birth or death (bodies come and go but the ultimate reality is timeless and unchanging) There was also the sense that nothing ever happens by accident, but this was more of a vague sense of an underlying truth rather than a completely self-evident truth. If 'thingness' is a cognitive illusion then #4 seems to be misconceived. ie; If there are no actual 'things' then how can there be a presence that pervades every-thing? And re: #2, prior to realization, did you really think that the world was a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy? what about all the trees and grass and plants and animals and people and stuff? The ineffable Presence that pervades is the Base/Ground of what we see/experience as things. ZD just means there are no separate/individual things. All "things" are a process, a moving unfolding and enfolding process. Nothing is ever static. This process/flow is depicted in the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching, they cover all the circumstances of life. Second paragraph, ZD means everything besides what we call living, is also alive. I'd say this is the view of Native Americans (where is Istahota?), everything is alive, not just what we consider is alive.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 18, 2019 0:10:28 GMT -5
The challenge in these discussions is that what we are talking about is prior to mind. And what is prior to mind can only be understood from prior to mind. By definition, the mind can’t grasp it. Which means we need to have the actual realization in order to understand the realization that’s been pointed to. Everything else will be just speculation.
When we look at this topic from the perspective of mind and we hear ‘alive’ we automatically think of trees and bees and flowers and animals and humans because we need to objectify. And yes, that’s what the word ‘alive’ refers to based on the dictionary. Not so the pointer ‘alive’. The pointer ‘alive’ is not pointing to something objectifiable. Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions and categories always refer to something objectifiable. Which means those definitions and categories are meaningless for our purpose of pointing. So that’s where language becomes a problem (especially for the literally minded among us). In our example, the pointer ‘alive’ does not refer to the dualistic ‘alive’ as in ‘dead vs. alive’ the dictionary refers to. That’s what a CC/kensho reveals, that the usual categories of ‘dead vs. alive’ are bogus and that what we usually call ‘alive’ doesn’t even come close to the actual because it’s just a mere shadow of the actual, an abstraction. And what we usually call ‘dead’ quite frankly doesn’t even exist.
Now, the challenge here for everyone who wants to understand this is to not get stuck on the exact words and instead look where the words are pointing to. And that’s easier said than done when we don’t have an actual reference for what’s been pointed to because in that case all we’ve got is the words on the page, i.e. the abstractions. Usually we won’t even be aware that such a context even exists or that such a context might even be possible. Because it is utterly inconceivable to the mind. Which means even if we would be open minded enough to at least theoretically allow such a context in our attempt to understand what’s been pointed to, all we could ever only do with an intellectual approach is speculate. And that’s not very encouraging news for deep and eager thinkers. There’s always only one way out of this dilemma and that is having the actual realization. Nothing else will ever do. We have to see for ourselves. We can’t just extrapolate it from the abstractions others have left us.
So if our objective in these discussions is to get more clarity about what that realization actually is, then that’s not going to happen. What is more likely to happen is that we get more clarity about what this realization is not. So maybe that should be the focus of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 18, 2019 0:31:45 GMT -5
The challenge in these discussions is that what we are talking about is prior to mind. And what is prior to mind can only be understood from prior to mind. By definition, the mind can’t grasp it. Which means we need to have the actual realization in order to understand the realization that’s been pointed to. Everything else will be just speculation. When we look at this topic from the perspective of mind and we hear ‘alive’ we automatically think of trees and bees and flowers and animals and humans because we need to objectify. And yes, that’s what the word ‘alive’ refers to based on the dictionary. Not so the pointer ‘alive’. The pointer ‘alive’ is not pointing to something objectifiable. Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions and categories always refer to something objectifiable. Which means those definitions and categories are meaningless for our purpose of pointing. So that’s where language becomes a problem (especially for the literally minded among us). In our example, the pointer ‘alive’ does not refer to the dualistic ‘alive’ as in ‘dead vs. alive’ the dictionary refers to. That’s what a CC/kensho reveals, that the usual categories of ‘dead vs. alive’ are bogus and that what we usually call ‘alive’ doesn’t even come close to the actual because it’s just a mere shadow of the actual, an abstraction. And what we usually call ‘dead’ quite frankly doesn’t even exist. Now, the challenge here for everyone who wants to understand this is to not get stuck on the exact words and instead look where the words are pointing to. And that’s easier said than done when we don’t have an actual reference for what’s been pointed to because in that case all we’ve got is the words on the page, i.e. the abstractions. Usually we won’t even be aware that such a context even exists or that such a context might even be possible. Because it is utterly inconceivable to the mind. Which means even if we would be open minded enough to at least theoretically allow such a context in our attempt to understand what’s been pointed to, all we could ever only do with an intellectual approach is speculate. And that’s not very encouraging news for deep and eager thinkers. There’s always only one way out of this dilemma and that is having the actual realization. Nothing else will ever do. We have to see for ourselves. We can’t just extrapolate it from the abstractions others have left us. So if our objective in these discussions is to get more clarity about what that realization actually is, then that’s not going to happen. What is more likely to happen is that we get more clarity about what this realization is not. So maybe that should be the focus of this discussion. Words from Srila Narada Muni, a self-realized soul. “Many years passed by. I lived on the fruits and leaves of the forest. My mind was immersed in contemplation. As time passed, I realized that God is present everywhere and in all objects. One day I saw a brilliant flash of divine light. I saw that the Lord was standing before me. His magnificent form thrilled me. Everything else looked meaningless. I was over- whelmed. I began to wander everywhere. I longed to see that divine form again. Then I heard a divine voice: ‘you will not see me once again in this birth. I do not appear before people who have not rid themselves of desire and anger. As you have seen me once, your devotion for me will now become more steadfast, especially since you keep company with good men. In your next birth you will be one of my close attendants.'” “I felt somewhat relieved after I heard that voice. I felt a surging spirit of renunciation. The world appeared to be pervaded by the Lord. There was no trace of ego in me. I remained loosely attached to that body for a while like a drop of water on a lotus-leaf. Once, while I was in deep meditation, I felt as if I was touched by a divine light. Immediately I cast away my body. Then the deluge came. I along with all the living creatures became absorbed in the body of the Lord.”
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 18, 2019 0:51:38 GMT -5
Well, in any event, I know you've mentioned before that there wasn't much of an American culture of nonduality when you popped like a kernel back then, and there wasn't going to be an internet for many years afterward. I don't think I can ever say thanks, enough times, for your presence on this forum, as well as several of the other voices here and a few other corners of the web. Seems to me, looking back, it made the necessary informings of mind (at the very least) much easier and more accessible than otherwise would have been the case. I don't get this gratitude thing. I don't think ZD is posting here in the spirit of being of service to humanity. That would be odd. I think he's just doing what he likes doing. Also, don't underestimate your own part in all of this. ZD just being here all alone doesn't work. You have to show up here too! But no matter how helpful a teacher or mentor initially is, at some point they become a burden. They have to be tossed aside. You have to find your own truth, your own style, your own words in order for it to be genuine. And breaking free from your teachers and mentors my actually be even harder than just breaking free from the consensus trance of society. But it has to happen at some point or else you'll just be a clone of your teacher or mentor. And speaking of teachers, Seth once said that we should see what he tells us more like picture postcards sent to us from the non-physical, the Unknown Reality as he calls it. Similar to picture postcards that you get from friends who travel to distant places. And he also suggested to treat those picture postcards just as snapshots of this Unknown Reality. And that's what I would suggest to everyone reading those accounts of CC, kensho, satori, SR, NS or whatever. See it as mental picture postcards sent to you by someone who has been traveling far into the Unknown. There's nothing you are supposed to do with it. But if you like what you are seeing, then find out for yourself what the Unknown actually is. Don't take the picture for the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 18, 2019 3:15:42 GMT -5
The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body. In it, the Absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a Self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates. See that there is no such thing as a permanently separate person and all becomes clear. Awareness, mind, matter are of one reality in its two aspects as immovable and movable and three attributes of inertia, energy and harmony. Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.
Ramana
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2019 6:24:28 GMT -5
If 'thingness' is a cognitive illusion then #4 seems to be misconceived. ie; If there are no actual 'things' then how can there be a presence that pervades every-thing? And re: #2, prior to realization, did you really think that the world was a dead place full of inorganic matter and electromagnetic energy? what about all the trees and grass and plants and animals and people and stuff? The ineffable Presence that pervades is the Base/Ground of what we see/experience as things. ZD just means there are no separate/individual things. All "things" are a process, a moving unfolding and enfolding process. Nothing is ever static. This process/flow is depicted in the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching, they cover all the circumstances of life. Second paragraph, ZD means everything besides what we call living, is also alive. I'd say this is the view of Native Americans (where is Istahota?), everything is alive, not just what we consider is alive. Yes. One of my major existential questions from the age of 20 to 40 was, "How did life appear in a generally lifeless universe?" The usual explanations suggested by the scientific community made no sense. Today the explanations may be a bit more sophisticated, but I suspect that a large number of scientists still believe that random physical processes (lightning in a reducing atmosphere, etc) create simple amino acids which then interact in random ways, and eventually give rise to primitive life forms that eventually evolve into more and more complex life forms. At the time I went to college, back in the dark ages, the process was analogized as a monkey randomly hitting keys on a typewriter and eventually writing a set of encyclopedias. I didn't buy that idea because the odds against even a primitive lifeform arising in that manner seemed absurd. I think the odds of drawing a full house in a game of poker are about 32,000 to 1 and there are only 52 cards in a deck. If odds were applied to the arising of life from inorganic compounds, then the number would be an astronomical one. After the CC, I realized that the ideas of what constitute life and death, themselves, are also cognitive illusions, and it is closer to the truth to consider reality, itself, as alive. Again, these words are just pointers, and each human must discover what's going on for him/herself.
|
|