Are animals unconscious then?

Are animals aware that they know they are aware?

I don't think so. If they did they'd be the same as humans, they'd be SELF-aware.

They could hardly be aware that they know they are aware and simultaneously not be aware of themselves.

Actually this is an interesting thought to ponder.

The fact that we are aware that we know we are aware.

Who is it that is aware that we know we are aware?

Who is it that is aware that I know I'm aware.

Like a mirror looking back at itself. I'm aware that I'm aware.

Why is there only two of me?

Why am I not aware, that I am aware, that I am aware, that I am aware, etc. ad infintum?

It seems that two of me will do just fine.

Or maybe none of me,...

Since I am aware of myself, I have no need for me.

Me, myself and I are an unrequired trinity.

Any two will do, thank you.

What?


Holy schmoly JB... enough of the holier than thou crappola....

You have your opinions, Michael has his..

Enough of the "I am right, and can hide behind my Brutal Truth banner. and all others MUST be wrong and watch me disseminate them all over the place, and shoot off my intellectual barbs"...

ENOUGH! It's offensive. and unintelligent and completely dispassionate.

Compassionate my arse!!!

Showing off, and attempting to PROVE you are right and someone else is wrong...

All I see is interegator and authoritarian guff.

ENOUGH!

Exactly. I have my opinions and he has his.

I am just trying to get Creative to tell me what he actually believes.

All he wants to do is argue and dismantle my conclusions. I want valid information.

He is not offering any.

JB

Excuse me? Offensive? Tell me what is so offensive.

I have always said that this is just my opinion. I have also said that NONE of these choices can be proven.

So instead of dismantling my choice, I seek new information that might give weight to the other two choices.

JB

Is that really true Jess?

Michael seems to be claiming that he has established or proven something as a fact.

Jeannie is the one who is stating opinions.

Michael is the one who is claiming to have proven something.

That's how it appears from my perspective. And, no I'm not in love with Jeannie. But this is utterly silly. Micheal is trying to claim that he has proven his position.

That's hardly just offering an opinion.

Ive thought about this:

I can offer my explanation in terms of Karma.

The more senses a living thing possesses

The higher its conciousness

This (the senses)has been the standard for determining Karma

In the eastern world for centuries.

So it stands to reason that conciousness

would be measured by the same standard

Sounds good to me Mirror.

This is how the ancient Hindus determined conciousness and therfore Karma in living things. They thought about it for thousands of years and it worked pretty well so who am I to argue with them

The core foundation of Hinduism is indeed the pantheitic view. The only thing that turned me off to Hinduism as a modern religion is that it became more and more dogmatic over the millennia. Today it supports a lot of ideas that I feel go far beyond it's origins. Although in truth, I can't say with certainty as I never really studied the modern versions of the religion.

I believe that it's fundamantal idea of God (I think it's Brahmin?) has grown to become an almost external godhead rather than the original pantheisic view.

I'm not sure about all of this precisely.

Have you studied Hinduism? Can you elaborate on the core beliefs of the modern version of the religion?

Well I for one am exhausted.

I don't think Creative is really an atheist, although he refuses to take a stand on what he believes. I suspect he is still very much a Christian or other kind of theist. Or maybe he simply does not know and is just confused. That would make him agnostic.


JB

Its all about Karma

Karma, reincarnation, law of cause and effect etc. Eckankar adopted a lot of those beliefs. Except in Hinduism you could reincarnate from being a human back to being an animal. (Eckankar did not embrace that idea.) I think the did have a manifestation of god on some level too. So did Eckankar. Their name for god is "Sugmad." They also spoke of the Hindu god Braham etc. but of course their god was above that one... on a higher plane. blah blah.

Goodnight folks.

Stories of the thousands of Hindu gods are not to be taken literally. The entire thing revolves around Karma. If you can understand Karma that is the key to understanding all of the eastern religions.

Jeanniebean I know the truth about Eckankar.

I found this in my research about Eckankar

You may know this as well

Are you ready to hear the true origin of Eckankar ?

I fully understand the idea of Karma, both in this life and as an idea with repect to the idea of reincarnation. I embrace the idea of Karma, especially within this life.

I seriously wish that I had been taught the idea of Karma (within a life) when I was a very young child. And I don't mean just as a superficial idea, but I wish I would have had an actual mentor who would have demonstrated it for me.

I would have lived a much happier and more productive life!

What is the truth about Eckankar?

The truth about Eckankar is that it is a form of Hinduism with a modern face.

Oriental Hinduism doesn’t appeal to the Western mindset because Hinduism conjures up pictures of women dressed in sari’s, men with turbans and baggy pants, or snake charmers sitting on street corners. We see poverty, filth, and cows wandering in the streets. That is not an attractive package to the Westerner. Enter Paul Twitchell, the originator.

When one looks at the pictures of the modern facility that houses the Eckankar movement in Chanhassen, Minnesota, and reads the advertising blurbs, it looks very Western and very alluring. The contemplative paths look inviting.

Paul Twitchell was an avid reader of eastern and occult literature. He studied with the Hindu guru Kirpal Singh and became a member of Swami Premananda’s church. He was also a staff member of Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology. In time, he broke with all three of these and denied any involvement with them.

Cult buster David Lane wrote a college term paper noting the similarities between Eckankar and Radhoasoami, a branch of surat shabd yoga, founded in India in the 19th century. The Radhasoami movement is a yogic teaching which is designed to enable the soul to ascend beyond the physical body to higher spiritual regions by means of an inner sound or life current. Lane claims that when Twitchell started his own movement of Eckankar he plagiarized entire chapters from Radhasoami texts, and lied about biographical details.

The teachings of Eckankar are Hindu in origin.

Yes I know, that really is no big secret, even when I was involved with it, it was clearly an eastern religion.

Here's a question for you Mirror.

Ancient Hinduism no doubt imagined reincarnation to be restricted to planet earth. In fact, they didn't even realize that the earth was a planet in the early going. They just thought the earth was "The World". So their ideas of reincarnation were ideas of being born again as either a human or an animal on earth.

I'm wondering if modern Hinduism has explanded on that idea to realize that reincarnation might actually occur anywhere in the universe now that we know it's true nature?

Do modern Hindus believe that they can be reincarnated on other planets? Other worlds? Possibly even as forms that might seem totally alien here on earth?

Or are they still locked into the very limited ancient idea that all reincarnation is still earth-based?