I have gained what I consider to be some valuable insights, and those mainly have to do with how one handles one’s ego. Whether how that has influenced me in what might be considered the intended way may be another story, but I’ll get to that later. For the time being, I wanted to throw something out there with respect to metaphysics.
The Eastern traditions don’t really subscribe to the anthropomorphic, personal God we know so well in the West. By many ways of thinking, here, they would be atheists. Of course, that was one element of curiosity for me — going back to the five years I lived in Japan in the 80s. There is nonetheless a struggle to serve God, but "god" is really, for lack of a better description, "consciousness." The rub is that by consciousness, I think they mean something with a different nature than we do.
Anyway, here was a sent item from this morning. Wondering if anyone had any particular thoughts, insights, or flames.
I can artificially categorize four metaphysical models implicit in all of our discussions, loosely describes as follows:
1. Anthropomorphic, personal God.
2. Physical world (existence), and the world of being (consciousness) as two separate halves of reality (yours).
3. Physical world/existence (literally everything), out of which sprang consciousness/identity (Rand).
4. Physical world; consciousness is an illusion (materialism).
I think that there’s far less real difference between 2 and 3 than you think there is, and what differences there are, are pretty marginal. That’s on a metaphysical level. The derivative ideas lead you and Rand in opposite directions (revealing as to metaphysical importance), but I am finding in lots of the stuff I read at "What is Enlightenment" and elsewhere that there is enough divergence, beginning with number 2, that there are significant overlap with divergences from number 3. This is where I think Kimura is at, and it has significant appeal for me.
Yes. If you’re quick, you have already noted that in number 2, the implication is that "consciousness does not exist." I’ve not gotten a direct answer to that question, but that’s partly because I’m more interested in what they think they mean, rather than strict definition and a tautological ‘gotcha.’
One refreshing element of all this is a clear and explicit acknowledgment that society is shaped by ideas, and ideas are the product of the very fundamentals (the title of the post).