Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

Life is a mess of conflicts and suffering which often results from the competition to survive, prosper, and procreate, which all animals possibly experience, at least from a human perspective.

 

With our capacity for abstract thought and language, it's not surprising that fictional stories of a 'loving God' have been created in order to give meaning to the awful conditions that most people in the past have had to endure throughout their life, and many people still endure in the present, despite significant, over all, economic development.

 

When I read the history which addresses the conditions that most people had to endure in the past, I feel very sympathetic, and putting myself into their situation (without modern education) I think I would grasp at the idea that, if I behave myself, and not steal, for example, because I am desperately hungry, I will get an eternal life in 'Heaven', after I die.
 

[Peter Denis]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

...

When I read the history which addresses the conditions that most people had to endure in the past, I feel very sympathetic, and putting myself into their situation (without modern education) I think I would grasp at the idea that, if I behave myself, and not steal, for example, because I am desperately hungry, I will get an eternal life in 'Heaven', after I die.

imo it is not so much 'modern education' or 'fear of reprisal' that primarily guides people's behavior but rather each person's inner moral compass (you could also call it the 'soul').  It has little to do with intelligence or education, although developed souls often display great wisdom (which is not to be confused with intelligence). 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

imo it is not so much 'modern education' or 'fear of reprisal' that primarily guides people's behavior but rather each person's inner moral compass (you could also call it the 'soul').  It has little to do with intelligence or education, although developed souls often display great wisdom (which is not to be confused with intelligence). 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I judge the quality of an opinion in terms of the evidence presented which supports the opinion. A so-called 'Inner moral compass or Soul' needs a precise definition.

 

My over all impression of human behaviour, from the various subjects I've read, is that our 'inner moral compass' is fundamentally similar to the 'inner moral compass' of all forms of life, in the sense that we give priority to our immediate family and group.

 

The history of humanity includes innumerable conflicts among different families, groups, and nations, as a result of competition for land and resources, and the control of such resources, which is basically no different from the situation in the animal kingdom. Consider the behaviour of what we might imagine is a very primitive form of life, the ant.

 

Ant colonies, such as Ant Hills, are like human cities with numerous paths, roads and tunnels which are continuously buzzing with activity. The ants form different groups which have different roles in maintaining the colony, which is fundamentally similar to the basic structure of human societies, although not identical of course. The single Queen ant in the colony lays the eggs. The Worker Ants provide the food and tend to the maintenance of the ant hill, and the Soldier Ants fight off predators.

 

https://scincing.com/can-ants-live-without-their-queen-13425272.html
"Ants identify each other by smell. They secrete a scent which coats their bodies and serves as a means of identification to other members of the colony. Even though ants are social by nature, they are only sociable to members of their own colony. An ant from another colony with a different smell that tries to enter their colony is viewed as an intruder and attacked."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_ant#:~:text=female worker ants.-,Soldiers,prey to the colony bivouac.
"The workers of army ants are usually blind or can have compound eyes that are reduced to a single lens. There are species of army ants where the worker caste may show polymorphism based on physical differences and job allocations; however, there are also species that show no polymorphism at all. The worker caste is usually composed of sterile female worker ants."

 

"The soldiers of army ants are larger than the workers, and they have much larger mandibles than the worker class of ants, with older soldiers possessing larger heads and stronger mandibles than the younger ones. They protect the colony, and help carry the heaviest loads of prey to the colony bivouac."

 

Regarding your comment: "it is not so much 'modern education' or 'fear of reprisal' that primarily guides people's behavior.."

 

Modern education does have a very primary and important role in guiding people's behaviour. The quality of that education will determine humanity's future. We have to do better than the ants. ????

 

Fear of reprisal has always been a significant factor in human behaviour. It's a part of the 'Carrot and Stick' method of control, which is basically the same as the 'Heaven and Hell' story in the Bible.

 

Have you ever wondered why the news media tends to focus far more on 'bad news' than 'good news'? It's because we are instinctively programmed to pay more attention to bad events that could affect our survival, or the survival of those with whom we identify or sympathize.
 

[Sheryl]

An off-topic trolling post has been removed

[mauGR1]

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Have you ever wondered why the news media tends to focus far more on 'bad news' than 'good news'? It's because we are instinctively programmed to pay more attention to bad events that could affect our survival, or the survival of those with whom we identify or sympathize.
 

Did you just find out that the survival instinct is the strongest instinct in the  nature ?

Did you just find out that the organisation of human society has been evolving since aeons, from bands, tribes, to kingdoms and empires ?

Methinks you are stating the obvious, and @Peter Denisis right in saying that individual "moral compass", which is something more than just survival instinct, is a very important force which contributes hugely to the individual and collective evolution. 

Unless you want to say that "moral compass" is some electrical impulse randomly originating from the physical human brain, you may concede that there must be some higher consciousness which humans, well, some humans, are trying to reach to.

As for the soul existence, spiritual science explains that while humans, well, some humans, are individual souls, while animals, including insects, have not an individual consciousness. 

Simply by observing different forms of life and their evolution, one should be able to see that the souls exist, imho.

[Tagged]

32 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Did you just find out that the survival instinct is the strongest instinct in the  nature ?

Did you just find out that the organisation of human society has been evolving since aeons, from bands, tribes, to kingdoms and empires ?

Methinks you are stating the obvious, and @Peter Denisis right in saying that individual "moral compass", which is something more than just survival instinct, is a very important force which contributes hugely to the individual and collective evolution. 

Unless you want to say that "moral compass" is some electrical impulse randomly originating from the physical human brain, you may concede that there must be some higher consciousness which humans, well, some humans, are trying to reach to.

As for the soul existence, spiritual science explains that while humans, well, some humans, are individual souls, while animals, including insects, have not an individual consciousness. 

Simply by observing different forms of life and their evolution, one should be able to see that the souls exist, imho.

The behaviour from animals, indeed have a great moral against and among their own specie. Can you we say humans have better moral against animals, than other animals? 

 

And still a bit provoked you claim humans have a consciousness, and animals can or do not have. 

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, Tagged said:

The behaviour from animals, indeed have a great moral against and among their own specie. Can you we say humans have better moral against animals, than other animals? 

 

And still a bit provoked you claim humans have a consciousness, and animals can or do not have. 

Just some thoughts and soul-searching on this matter.  Of course only 'my opinion' and not based on scientific studies, but rooted in my experience and beliefs.

 

It is largely true to state that animals have collective 'shared' consciousness and that humans are special because they have individual consciousness.  But of course there are grades/shades between the extremes of that consciousness spectrum (and all of them are connected to and part of the One Consciousness).

When looking at the behavior of ants or flocks of birds / schools of fish that are collectively and at the very same instant changing direction, it is clear that the individual ant/bird/fish is part of a larger entity (the flock/ the school) that governs it.

Higher animals although still firmly rooted in the collective consciousness of their species, will show individual traits (the character of dogs, cats, horses, etc are not uniform as they have their own 'personality').

Humans have individual consciousness, which could be regarded as a kind of 'valuable but at same time poisoned gift'.  The fall from Eden, when humans did not have individual consciousness (knowledge of good and evil), was the fall from the collective consciousness into individuality.  Modern 'civilized' man is very far from that collective consciousness, while primitive tribes having to live in close harmony with their surroundings are often more connected.

But it is kind of a paradox that the deeper you can fall, the higher you can sore.  The end of your individual journey is a return in the Oneness, but bringing with you the lessons you learned during that journey.  Obviously these lessons are not 'scientific knowledge and faits-divers' but the human qualities you developed during that journey (the obstacles you encountered and overcame being your biggest teachers).

To paraphrase Richard Bach > Maybe this was all meant, to try us out.... 

[n00dle]

Covid is proof of god. 

 

It is simply a more selective version of the flood.

 

Only sinners get covid.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

The behaviour from animals, indeed have a great moral against and among their own specie. Can you we say humans have better moral against animals, than other animals? 

 

And still a bit provoked you claim humans have a consciousness, and animals can or do not have. 

Well, we have talked already a lot about various degrees of consciousness, or awareness,  I think that Peter Denis' last post kind of gives you some answers. 

..And if you say that some humans are far worse than animals,  of course I agree !

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

And still a bit provoked you claim humans have a consciousness, and animals can or do not have. 

He didn't claim that. He said animals have a collective consciousness, while humans have an individual consciousness, generally speaking.

[VincentRJ]

For those interested in the subject of animal consciousness, the following scientific study should provide a bit of enlightenment. ????

 

"Dimensions of Animal Consciousness

 

There is an emerging consensus that current evidence supports attributing some form of consciousness to other mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish).

 

If we try to make sense of variation across the animal kingdom using a single sliding scale, ranking species as ‘more conscious’ or ‘less conscious’ than others, we will inevitably neglect important dimensions of variation.

 

There is a need for a multidimensional framework that allows the conscious states of animals to vary continuously along many different dimensions, so that a species has its own distinctive consciousness profile."

 

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(20)30192-3#:~:text=In 2012%2C the Cambridge Declaration,complex enough to support conscious

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

For those interested in the subject of animal consciousness, the following scientific study should provide a bit of enlightenment. ????

 

"Dimensions of Animal Consciousness

 

There is an emerging consensus that current evidence supports attributing some form of consciousness to other mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish).

 

If we try to make sense of variation across the animal kingdom using a single sliding scale, ranking species as ‘more conscious’ or ‘less conscious’ than others, we will inevitably neglect important dimensions of variation.

 

There is a need for a multidimensional framework that allows the conscious states of animals to vary continuously along many different dimensions, so that a species has its own distinctive consciousness profile."

 

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(20)30192-3#:~:text=In 2012%2C the Cambridge Declaration,complex enough to support conscious

Interesting approach.  I read through half the article before I lost interest though. Maybe you can give us a summary, if you've read it to the end.

I'm glad that you are within that part of the multidimensional atheist framework that allows for the existence of consciousness, even if it's only restricted to being the owner of a body, be it human or animal. Some more radical materialists here would probably call it an invention of hipster tree huggers, religious freaks and tripping hippies. So, good for you. ???? 

This question bugs me though....Why spend time to find out to what degree a specific animal is conscious, when we know so little about human consciousness and even less about our very own individual consciousness? I would think that learning about ourselves, both objectively AND subjectively, should be of the highest priority. Don't you agree?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

This question bugs me though....Why spend time to find out to what degree a specific animal is conscious, when we know so little about human consciousness and even less about our very own individual consciousness? I would think that learning about ourselves, both objectively AND subjectively, should be of the highest priority. Don't you agree?

 

Everything is connected to some degree, in some way, directly or indirectly. Protein-encoding DNA is like an instruction manual which tells an organism, including humans, how to grow, build itself and operate. The protein-encoding DNA represents about 2 percent of our genome. The rest is non-coding DNA which used to be thought was 'junk DNA', but recent research has discovered that at least some of that so-called 'junk DNA' plays an essential role in the regulation of gene expression.

 

A good analogy would be a symphony orchestra. If the protein-encoding genes represent all the individual players in the orchestra, such as the violinists, trombonists, cellists, flutists, and so on, then the non-coding DNA represents the music that is played.

 

The reason I'm mentioning this topic of DNA is because it's amazing is how much of our DNA is shared with other animals and plants, although the estimated percentage of genes which are shared is sometimes confused because of the large number of non-coding genes whose role is not yet fully understood.

 

For example, it is often stated that we share about 50%, or even 60%, of our genes with the banana fruit and insects such as the fruit fly (Drosophila).  But that's around 50% of the 2% of our DNA that is protein-encoding.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that understanding what we have in common with other forms of life should help us to understand ourselves better.
 

[Tagged]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

He didn't claim that. He said animals have a collective consciousness, while humans have an individual consciousness, generally speaking.

Good morning, I kind of jump to conclusions and fire up ????

 

but, it brings us back to something we really do not know. Animals have language beyond what we know or knew, they even have dialects, and they do have outstanding creative abilities we even can not copy yet. Nature is greater than us as we all know by now, and we need to take that in to consideratio that we are part of the nature as one with the plants and the animals. We have not even managed to understand how complex everything is, and how everything is depended on each and one, therefor we can with sure say we are one, as we are one with our solar system where every planet have its own purpuse so it can be life on planet earth. 

 

So, if animals have only collective conscinous, why do humans have their own? Why are we different from animals. I do not accept that we play instruments, or we are creative, it have to be something else. As we see, humans also copy each others beheviour and are not that different from each other as we like to think. I would say we do not have a huge difference in induviduality if we are not born in the middle of rainforrest in Brasil or New York, there will be minor differences do to cultur and social standards, but the differences are smaller than you think. 

 

Of course their genetic memory will be a bit different and give slightly minor differences.  

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Tagged

[Peter Denis]

25 minutes ago, Tagged said:

... Animals have language beyond what we know or knew, they even have dialects, and they do have outstanding creative abilities we even can not copy yet.

...

But what if dolphins do not WANT to swim with retarded people... ????

[Tagged]

16 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But what if dolphins do not WANT to swim with retarded people... ????

well they have the power to single out one by one, but I think they know whats have been happening to the sharks and are a bit more awhere and concinous 

[mauGR1]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The point I'm trying to get across is that understanding what we have in common with other forms of life should help us to understand ourselves better.

Have to say that I fully agree with this point.

Moreover,  if we recognize the universe as a very complex,  yet well organized system, understanding what we are able to see, is a key to understanding what we are not able to see.

"As above as below ".

[Sunmaster]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Everything is connected to some degree, in some way, directly or indirectly. Protein-encoding DNA is like an instruction manual which tells an organism, including humans, how to grow, build itself and operate. The protein-encoding DNA represents about 2 percent of our genome. The rest is non-coding DNA which used to be thought was 'junk DNA', but recent research has discovered that at least some of that so-called 'junk DNA' plays an essential role in the regulation of gene expression.

 

A good analogy would be a symphony orchestra. If the protein-encoding genes represent all the individual players in the orchestra, such as the violinists, trombonists, cellists, flutists, and so on, then the non-coding DNA represents the music that is played.

 

The reason I'm mentioning this topic of DNA is because it's amazing is how much of our DNA is shared with other animals and plants, although the estimated percentage of genes which are shared is sometimes confused because of the large number of non-coding genes whose role is not yet fully understood.

 

For example, it is often stated that we share about 50%, or even 60%, of our genes with the banana fruit and insects such as the fruit fly (Drosophila).  But that's around 50% of the 2% of our DNA that is protein-encoding.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that understanding what we have in common with other forms of life should help us to understand ourselves better.
 

I agree. We should never stop to inquire and never lose the curiosity to understand what is happening around us. In a way it helps us to understand ourselves, like you say.

But if understanding ourselves is the main goal, then perhaps we ought to look within ourselves in the first place. As the great sages have been telling us for ages, once we know our true identity, all else will be revealed automatically.

What I mean is that we're trying to objectively understand the subjective nature of consciousness. If it has been near to impossible to do so with humans, who can to some degree communicate their subjective experiences for objective scrutiny, how much more difficult will it be to do so with animals, who are not able to effectively communicate what they experience?

[Neeranam]

22 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

how much more difficult will it be to do so with animals, who are not able to effectively communicate what they experience?

My dog just communicated with me in a very indirect way(being Thai). I had to read between the lines but understood that he felt like everyone was laughing at him for wearing a gay doggy coat. 

[VincentRJ]

On 1/13/2021 at 12:22 PM, Sunmaster said:

But if understanding ourselves is the main goal, then perhaps we ought to look within ourselves in the first place. As the great sages have been telling us for ages, once we know our true identity, all else will be revealed automatically.

 

"All else will be revealed automatically?" I don't think so. After Gautama Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi tree and began teaching what he'd learned, there were still many questions he apparently could not answer.

 

"In Buddhism, unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded" are a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts. The Pali texts give only ten, the Sanskrit texts fourteen questions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

 

Gautama's mission was all about eliminating the suffering that so shocked him when he first went outside the palace where he was brought up, and saw the conditions that the common folk had to endure. It is reasonable to presume that the conditions of the common folk in India 2,500 years ago would have been absolutely awful by today's standards in developed countries and even in undeveloped countries.

 

"What I mean is that we're trying to objectively understand the subjective nature of consciousness. If it has been near to impossible to do so with humans, who can to some degree communicate their subjective experiences for objective scrutiny, how much more difficult will it be to do so with animals, who are not able to effectively communicate what they experience?"

 

You raise an interesting point. The main characteristic of humans that separates us from other animals, is our capacity for complex language and abstract thought. Thinking and talking about issues, as well as learning and increasing our knowledge about ourselves, others, and our environment, is encouraged soon after we are born. It becomes an entrenched activity.

 

It's very difficult to sit quietly, whilst awake, and not have any thoughts at all. However, this is what Buddhist 'meditation practices' seek to achieve. When someone eventually achieves such a state, sometime called Samadhi or Nirvana, it seems to be an experience which is very difficult to describe, as though it is beyond our capacity for language and abstract thought.

 

Now, I don't wish to offend anyone who is practicing meditation, but it has occurred to me that perhaps this state of Samadhi, being able to perceive things without any associated thoughts, might be very similar to what our ancient ancestors experienced, whilst inactive, before they developed the capacity for language and abstract thought. ????
 

[Tagged]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

 

Now, I don't wish to offend anyone who is practicing meditation, but it has occurred to me that perhaps this state of Samadhi, being able to perceive things without any associated thoughts, might be very similar to what our ancient ancestors experienced, whilst inactive, before they developed the capacity for language and abstract thought. ????
 

Some animals who seems to have reached a zen state is all vegetarians. Animals who have reached their top of their food chain, is a different story, 

[VincentRJ]

38 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Some animals who seems to have reached a zen state is all vegetarians. Animals who have reached their top of their food chain, is a different story, 

 Cows are vegetarian. They often look very peaceful, like a Buddhist meditating. ????

[Tagged]

48 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 Cows are vegetarian. They often look very peaceful, like a Buddhist meditating. ????

I never looked at a cow as in zen moment, but many other animals do look line have a zen state presence.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

"All else will be revealed automatically?" I don't think so. After Gautama Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi tree and began teaching what he'd learned, there were still many questions he apparently could not answer.

 

"In Buddhism, unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded" are a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts. The Pali texts give only ten, the Sanskrit texts fourteen questions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

 

Gautama's mission was all about eliminating the suffering that so shocked him when he first went outside the palace where he was brought up, and saw the conditions that the common folk had to endure. It is reasonable to presume that the conditions of the common folk in India 2,500 years ago would have been absolutely awful by today's standards in developed countries and even in undeveloped countries.

 

"What I mean is that we're trying to objectively understand the subjective nature of consciousness. If it has been near to impossible to do so with humans, who can to some degree communicate their subjective experiences for objective scrutiny, how much more difficult will it be to do so with animals, who are not able to effectively communicate what they experience?"

 

You raise an interesting point. The main characteristic of humans that separates us from other animals, is our capacity for complex language and abstract thought. Thinking and talking about issues, as well as learning and increasing our knowledge about ourselves, others, and our environment, is encouraged soon after we are born. It becomes an entrenched activity.

 

It's very difficult to sit quietly, whilst awake, and not have any thoughts at all. However, this is what Buddhist 'meditation practices' seek to achieve. When someone eventually achieves such a state, sometime called Samadhi or Nirvana, it seems to be an experience which is very difficult to describe, as though it is beyond our capacity for language and abstract thought.

 

Now, I don't wish to offend anyone who is practicing meditation, but it has occurred to me that perhaps this state of Samadhi, being able to perceive things without any associated thoughts, might be very similar to what our ancient ancestors experienced, whilst inactive, before they developed the capacity for language and abstract thought. ????
 

I'm not going to discuss what Buddha could or couldn't answer. But him "refusing to answer a question" is not the same as not having the answer. 

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

It's very difficult to sit quietly, whilst awake, and not have any thoughts at all. However, this is what Buddhist 'meditation practices' seek to achieve. When someone eventually achieves such a state, sometime called Samadhi or Nirvana, it seems to be an experience which is very difficult to describe, as though it is beyond our capacity for language and abstract thought.

 

It's not "as though it is beyond our capacity for language". It IS beyond our capacity for language to express. That's why allegories, stories, metaphors, art and music etc are used to somehow describe the experience. All of them will fall short of the experience itself though.

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Now, I don't wish to offend anyone who is practicing meditation, but it has occurred to me that perhaps this state of Samadhi, being able to perceive things without any associated thoughts, might be very similar to what our ancient ancestors experienced, whilst inactive, before they developed the capacity for language and abstract thought. ????

Hmmm 
From how understand it, Samadhi is the state you achieve when you stop identifying with your body and ego and become aware of your true identity: ever present, unlimited pure consciousness. The absence of language or higher abstract thought doesn't automatically imply the absence of a separate sense of self (ego). For that reason, I don't think we can speak of the "noble savages" as enlightened beings.
That being said, to paraphrase those who did achieve that state permanently, the state of Samadhi is already and always present, fully formed in everyone of us. It is not really something that has to be "achieved", but rather rediscovered and uncovered, as it is our true, most fundamental nature. Taking the example of Platos cave allegory....while we are imprisoned in the darkness of the cave, the light outside is always there to reveal the full spectrum of reality.                          

[Sunmaster]

 

 

 

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Now, I don't wish to offend anyone who is practicing meditation, but it has occurred to me that perhaps this state of Samadhi, being able to perceive things without any associated thoughts, might be very similar to what our ancient ancestors experienced, whilst inactive, before they developed the capacity for language and abstract thought. ????

Hmmm 
From how understand it, Samadhi is the state you achieve when you stop identifying with your body and ego and become aware of your true identity: ever present, unlimited pure consciousness. The absence of language or higher abstract thought doesn't automatically imply the absence of a separate sense of self (ego). For that reason, I don't think we can speak of the "noble savages" as enlightened beings.
That being said, to paraphrase those who did achieve that state permanently, the state of Samadhi is already and always present, fully formed in everyone of us. It is not really something that has to be "achieved", but rather rediscovered and uncovered, as it is our true, most fundamental nature. Taking the example of Platos cave allegory....while we are imprisoned in the darkness of the cave, the light outside is always there to reveal the full spectrum of reality.         

 

-----------------------

Also, for that reason, we can't speak of infants as "enlightened" (the way the Buddha was for example), as it would be a pre - trans fallacy. Pre-egoic is not the same as trans-egoic. An ego has to be developed first to be transcended.              

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not going to discuss what Buddha could or couldn't answer. But him "refusing to answer a question" is not the same as not having the answer.                         

Fair enough! One could speculate endlessly on what the Buddha really knew and whether or not he refused to answer certain questions because he realized he did not have a satisfactory answer.

 

"It's not "as though it is beyond our capacity for language". It IS beyond our capacity for language to express. That's why allegories, stories, metaphors, art and music etc are used to somehow describe the experience. All of them will fall short of the experience itself though."

 

So you're making a distinction between a 'capacity for language' and the 'expression of language'. Aren't they both directly related? Language by itself doesn't exist.

 

"From how understand it, Samadhi is the state you achieve when you stop identifying with your body and ego and become aware of your true identity: ever present, unlimited pure consciousness. The absence of language or higher abstract thought doesn't automatically imply the absence of a separate sense of self (ego). For that reason, I don't think we can speak of the "noble savages" as enlightened beings."

 

Ancient savages also had a language. Even Neanderthal Man might have spoken a language. Genetic analysis of Neanderthal remains imply they had the necessary genetic requirements for language.

 

The state of Samadhi requires a cessation of all thought. Thought is related to language. Achieving a state of 'no  thought' obviously does not mean one has lost one's capacity for language, but thought and language are related to a sense of self and ego, desire, and aversion, and so on, which have to be removed to experience a state of Samadhi.
 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

"It's not "as though it is beyond our capacity for language". It IS beyond our capacity for language to express. That's why allegories, stories, metaphors, art and music etc are used to somehow describe the experience. All of them will fall short of the experience itself though."

 

So you're making a distinction between a 'capacity for language' and the 'expression of language'. Aren't they both directly related? Language by itself doesn't exist.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. 

Sure, language and the ability to express yourself through it are directly related. At the same time, language is a skill that can be more or less mastered. To make a very rough generalization...Shakespeare and Trump are on 2 opposing side of the spectrum when it comes to using language in a coherent, meaningful and beautiful way. 

Language is the result of thoughts. Thoughts are products of the mind which operates within a framework consisting of our core beliefs. For this whole system to work, the first necessity is the creation of a separate self. Everything starts with the "I"- thought. "I" as opposed to something else/others/the world. 

Like you said, this puts the Ego in a direct relationship with language.

 

Then there is the fact that it is impossible to effectively convey with words the full meaning of a spiritual realization. We "mere mortals" already struggle to communicate our simple feelings, imagine how much more difficult it must be to put into words something that can radically change you at the very core of your being!

 

 

[Sunmaster]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Fair enough! One could speculate endlessly on what the Buddha really knew and whether or not he refused to answer certain questions because he realized he did not have a satisfactory answer.

....or maybe he realized that his listeners were not ready for that answer, that it would confuse them even more than they already were...

When we teach our children, we don't tell them the whole truth about life straight away. We don't tell them that there is not just love and family and caring, but also horrible things in the world, because they are not ready to hear them yet and we want to protect them for as long as we can. 
Maybe Buddha felt something like that? Maybe not...

In any case, to reconnect to what has been said earlier about language. I remember you asking me for a precise definition of what God is (for me). I didn't answer you at that time, not quite knowing why, but it stuck in my head until we spoke about language and the difficulties we face when transmitting information through it.
I think the reasons I didn't answer are twofold. For one, the already mentioned limitation that the written word has, especially in regards to spiritual (subjective) experiences. I would tell you about concepts, feelings, intuitions that for me are loaded with profound meaning, but all you would receive would be empty shells...words that have no connection to your own experience.
And that brings me to the second point. What good would it do to you to know how I see/define God? What benefits would you get from it other than more ammunition for intellectual, hair-splitting arguments?

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Then there is the fact that it is impossible to effectively convey with words the full meaning of a spiritual realization. We "mere mortals" already struggle to communicate our simple feelings, imagine how much more difficult it must be to put into words something that can radically change you at the very core of your being!

 

Well, that's a starting point by saying: "This has radically changed me at the very core of my being."

 

You could then go into more detail, using the best of your language skills, and describe examples of those fundamental changes to your core being, and how such changes have affected you in the present, compared to how you might have behaved or reacted the past, before those core changes took place. To confirm that such changes you've experienced really are at the core of your being, you could also undergo an fMRI scan of your brain to reveal any unusual activity in certain areas of the brain which might be indicative of 'core changes', and so on. ????

 

Of course, the full meaning of any thing or any experience, is perhaps impossible to describe and explain. There are usually further and further questions which eventually have no satisfactory answers, because everything is so complex with so many influencing factors.

 

For example, why does a person like or dislike a particular photo or painting? Some people might respond to the question, saying, 'I don't know. I just like it.' Others, might go into more detail and describe the different shades of light and contrast that they find appealing, and so on.

 

Why does a person like a particular piece of classical music? If one digs deep enough, one might find that the person first heard that music whilst still in his mother's womb and experienced, through hormonal effects, the joy that his mother felt whilst listening to the music. As a young boy and adult, the person would have no memory of his experience in the womb, yet the effect might still be there at a subconscious level.

[Tagged]

How much do we know about Buddha, and what Buddha really said ? I guess it requires the same questioning as Jesus. Who where they? Did they exists? And is it littarly they who speaking or is it many who made Jesus and Buddhas teaching?