James S Saint wrote:
zinnat wrote:I understand your point. Yes, i may be a bit out of line here but as i mentioned previously, west/English does not have any proper name for that thing towards what i am indicating. That is why i am compelled to discern the quality (feeling) from the entity (consciousness), in order to name both differently.
Although you have agreed many times, I suspect that you are still not getting my point. Consciousness is not an "entity". It is a property that an entity might have. I am very much understanding what you are saying. But, take it from the other side. From my point of view, what would you call that entity which causes consciousness, if we assume that brain does not manifest it?
To "dicern the quality from the entity" is like discerning the color red from the object red. There is no "object red". There are objects that have the property
of redNESS. And there are objects/entities that have the property
of consciousNESS. That suffix "-ness" in English almost always refers to a property, not an entity.Though your grammatical analysis is right but other point is not. I think that most of the things can be deduced further in the terms of existence and character. And, yes, object red also exists like the color red. The waves of the wavelengths of 620–750 nm and the frequencies of 400–484 THz are the object red. Though we name them differently as waves too, but they are also the objects of the red color.
Besides that, James, as nothing can come from total nothingness, thus everything must take birth some other thing. That other thing is precisely the object for the former, be it quality or qualtity. Yes, that may also be deduced down further, but it is still collectively the object for that very quality.
zinnat wrote:But, i am taking up the issue what causes consciousness, or enables anything to become conscious.
I suspected that from the way you were speaking of consciousness, as if it was an entity. Yes, that is precisely what i am pleading all along.
You probably should use the Hindu word for whatever it is that causes the property of consciousness
Yes, that is also an option but as that term would be totally alien to the westerns, (like Chetna or Shurti) thus i am avoiding that route. English language does have any counterpart for those terms.
because in the West, that is assumed to be the nervous system, thus the West doesn't have a word for what you are talking about. "Consciousness" is NOT that word, but rather is the resultant property of whatever it is that that you are talking about.I got it, i will try other terms ans see what happens.
zinnat wrote:James, what i am trying to plead here is that let us discern mere the ability to detect or recognize from becoming conscious.
Again, that is like saying, "Let us discern mere red from the color red" or "Let us discern the difference between mere two and the quantity two." It is a nonsense proposal.No, it is not, as i explained above in the terms of red color.
James S Saint wrote:Try not to conflate "machines" with "mechanisms". The Abramic religions have social/spiritual mechanisms to cause things to happen. Those mechanisms have names. Only the seriously ignorant think of those mechanisms as "machines". Gabriel is the social mechanism for broadcasting (aka "trumpeting") the will of God (by definition). That mechanism spans the globe (aka "flies wherever around the world"). Gabriel is a communication network mechanism/strategy/"angel".
No, James. I understand the difference between the two very clearly. I am not talking about mechanisms only but machines also. In Hinduism, Puspak Viman was a pure machine, not any supernatural mechanism. Though, it is not clear in Islam how Gabriel was travelling up and down.
I don't know the word/name "Puspak Viman",Here it is -
In the Ramayana, the pushpaka ("flowery") vimana of Ravana is described as follows:
"The Pushpaka Vimana that resembles the Sun and belongs to my brother was brought by the powerful Ravana; that aerial and excellent Vimana going everywhere at will ... that chariot resembling a bright cloud in the sky ... and the King [Rama] got in, and the excellent chariot at the command of the Raghira, rose up into the higher atmosphere.'"
It is the first flying vimana mentioned in existing Hindu mythology texts (as distinct from the gods' flying horse-drawn chariots). Pushpaka was originally made by Vishwakarma for Brahma, the Hindu god of creation; later Brahma gave it to Kubera, the God of wealth; but it was later stolen, along with Lanka, by his half-brother, king Ravana.
James, look at the underlined portion.
but in the case of "Gabriel" the word was coined before the category and very idea of machines was known to Man. The closest thing to a machine was merely tools, carts, or physical puzzles, such as locking mechanisms. Automated mechanical devices such as clocks did not have a category name because there simply wasn't enough of their variety to warrant a general category name.
I already accepted that Islam is not as clear as Hinduism about this issue, which allows the various interpretations.
And being a little familiar with the Eastern mentality, I can pretty much bet that a guru/wise man type person mentioned their name for Gabriel and it was taken to mean something much more physically concrete because that is how gurus talk and that is how the Abramic religions were founded ("Abraham was giving up on his son when he was inspired by an idea - Abraham, Isaac, and the angel). In another thread, an author of a book was explaining the universe by proclaiming that there are "forces" of order and chaos competing with each other and thus causing the universe to be what it is. That is a very ancient Eastern type of mindset - presuming the property of force (or or intellect) to a mere state of being or situation. To Westerners, that is metaphor and/or poetry (eg. "Fate whispers to the wolf"). But very many in the East and Middle East of the population presume the words to be literal, thus situations such as fate, in the minds of the population, are thought to be forces causing destiny.
That is why there are literalists or "fundamentalists" around the world. They originally conflated properties, situations, and thoughts with living beings in their speech ("anthropomorphizing") or forces (metaphor) and thus caused the masses to believe that they were talking about actual living beings or forces. Again, it is merely a language issue although one that many influential people wish to use to their advantage. Islamics intentionally spread the rumor that their ancient texts are referring to modern ideas, such as UFOs (or machines). Whether intentional or not, it is a deception upon the populous. The world is filled with such deceivers because it provides for obfuscation, manipulation, and justfication - tools for social engineering and management (aka "religion").I agree with you to some extent here but not completely.
Like all other religions, Islam is also a mixture of metaphors and reality. As it is wrong to assume that everything said is reality, in the same way, it is also wrong to assume that everything is merely a metaphor. There is some reality in that too.