Kamal ThackerFire was known to the primitive man because of lightning, volcanoes and wild fires in forests. The natural gas fires have been burning in [the present day] Baku in Ajarbeijan for probably millions of years and was also known to the primitive man. Evolutionary scientists have proposed that the primitve man ventures into a burnt forest and accidentally found tubers and animals that were cooked, good to eat and digest. From there handling fire and starting fire were lessons that were learnt over thousnads of years.
Gordon PatersonAlso, the difference between man and animal might be the ability to conceive concepts by the former, which fire (or ignition) certainly is.
Happy New Year, Michael. Nirguna
Michael BelovedGordon Paterson, Concepts is a tricky word. Your specific use of it here eludes me. However animals (including the most versatile of the lot, Mankind) conceive concepts. The lower animals do that. It may be though that you mean the high concepts do not occur to the animals even though the basic ones about eating, sleeping, mating and defending do form as processes in their minds. They do have minds.
For that matter as soon as we use the word atma, individual living entity, we are admitting the ability to conceive. Animal forms (lower animals) have presiding atmas or presiding individuals using those bodies. While the human accessory for this supports philosophy and complex reasoning, the accessories in the animal forms have very limited capability.
Michael BelovedGordon Paterson, To be sure you get my point let me apply it to myself. If I were in a lower animal form, I could not write this even though I would have the potential to do so and the restriction would occur because of the limited brain capacity. That limitation is based on the body used not the atma using the body. The same atma in a lower body would be limited by the accessories supplied as that body.
In fact recently scientist gave us tools like computer which extent the human capacity. We can use these because again, it is the facility which is the limitation not the individual self (atma) involved. Of course that is a generalization because while one human uses a computer to put a rocket into space, another may only use it for reading emails.
No offense intended. This is just for clarification.
The very best of health for 2018!
Gordon PatersonWhat I was suggesting, Michael, is that although animals possess instinctive ways of doing things, along with the capacity to remember those things, and not questioning the inherent spirit within such as an Atman, animals cannot form concepts which mankind can. So if we asked a dog to subtract 19 from 25, we are likely not to get an answer.
As for fire----perhaps some animals create it accidently by knocking over a lantern, they probably wouldn't find much value for it other than for warmth (from a distance). And they wouldn't need it for food preparation.
Aside from humans with this unique ability to conceptualize, other sentient forms have limited mental abilities accorded them by the Consciousness manifesting them; creating concepts is not one of them. Best to you, Nirguna
Michael BelovedGordon Paterson, It is not clear how you are defining atman. Is the atman using animal bodies or only human one?
If it is not, then we can conclude that the animal has no access to the potential of the atman.
Now if you are saying that the atman uses animal bodies, then wherefrom the disability of the animal in terms of concepts?
This is just an inquiry for clarification of your views.
Gordon PatersonAma(n) is a term I seldom use. I was keying off your apposition and inferred that you meant "Consciousness," but, on further review, you might be just referring to "personality."
As you raised this term---atma---perhaps you could, for further clarity, expand on your idea of what you mean? Stay warm. Nirguna
Michael BelovedGordon Paterson, Atma(n) is used in the Upanishads as well as brahman. To under their use of the term, one has to also look at the term jiva-atma (jivatma) which is specific and indicates an individual living entity. Of course in the Upanishad the crowning term is brahman which in that literature is pointed to as the Ultimate Reality.
But then later we see that the term param was prefixed to brahman as for instance in the chant:
guru brahma guru vishnu guru devo mahesvara guru shakshat parambrahma tasmai sri gurudeva namah
So why was there the need to add param if brahman is the Ultimate Reality.
This means that the contention about what was the ultimate, continue beyond the discovery and use of the term brahman. Param means supreme, or what is superseding whatever or whoever.
Michael BelovedGordon Paterson, Atma does mean consciousness but only in the sense that consciousness is the common access for giving or taking information, for perceiving and inverting. However consciousness is too general of a term. Suppose I say air. Yes you understand that it is all-pervasive on earth but the type of air in a specific building, in a specific room of that building, may be different to the air outdoors which is shared by all buildings as their exterior environment.
Atma even as it is used in the Upanishads means the individual limited spirit. I could have said individual person but that would be atma only if I first cleared away the mock-up identity (identities) of the person. When all of the cultural identities are stripped away, what is left is the atma.
Who am I?
That is the question because until I can strip away those acquired social personality-costumes, I cannot know who I am when all alone without the socially-enforced role models.
The process of neti neti (na iti na iti) brings it into perspective, because then I am saying, “I am not this,” “I am not that,” endlessly because whatever I encounter which causes me to assume a certain character-personality is denied by me because it is an over-coating, a mask. But atma is the core which is none of the designations or assumptions which come about in my contacts.
I am not this, I am not that, does not mean that I am nothing but it means that at the core, I do not have a costume. That is atma(n), the nude persona.
Kamal Thacker Fire was known to the primitive man because of lightning, volcanoes and wild fires in forests. The natural gas fires have been burning in [the present day] Baku in Ajarbeijan for probably millions of years and was also known to the primitive man. Evolutionary scientists have proposed that the primitve man ventures into a burnt forest and accidentally found tubers and animals that were cooked, good to eat and digest. From there handling fire and starting fire were lessons that were learnt over thousnads of years.
Gordon Paterson Also, the difference between man and animal might be the ability to conceive concepts by the former, which fire (or ignition) certainly is.
Happy New Year, Michael. Nirguna
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson, Concepts is a tricky word. Your specific use of it here eludes me. However animals (including the most versatile of the lot, Mankind) conceive concepts. The lower animals do that. It may be though that you mean the high concepts do not occur to the animals even though the basic ones about eating, sleeping, mating and defending do form as processes in their minds. They do have minds.
For that matter as soon as we use the word atma, individual living entity, we are admitting the ability to conceive. Animal forms (lower animals) have presiding atmas or presiding individuals using those bodies. While the human accessory for this supports philosophy and complex reasoning, the accessories in the animal forms have very limited capability.
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson, To be sure you get my point let me apply it to myself. If I were in a lower animal form, I could not write this even though I would have the potential to do so and the restriction would occur because of the limited brain capacity. That limitation is based on the body used not the atma using the body. The same atma in a lower body would be limited by the accessories supplied as that body.
In fact recently scientist gave us tools like computer which extent the human capacity. We can use these because again, it is the facility which is the limitation not the individual self (atma) involved. Of course that is a generalization because while one human uses a computer to put a rocket into space, another may only use it for reading emails.
No offense intended. This is just for clarification.
The very best of health for 2018!
Gordon Paterson What I was suggesting, Michael, is that although animals possess instinctive ways of doing things, along with the capacity to remember those things, and not questioning the inherent spirit within such as an Atman, animals cannot form concepts which mankind can. So if we asked a dog to subtract 19 from 25, we are likely not to get an answer.
As for fire----perhaps some animals create it accidently by knocking over a lantern, they probably wouldn't find much value for it other than for warmth (from a distance). And they wouldn't need it for food preparation.
Aside from humans with this unique ability to conceptualize, other sentient forms have limited mental abilities accorded them by the Consciousness manifesting them; creating concepts is not one of them. Best to you, Nirguna
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson, It is not clear how you are defining atman. Is the atman using animal bodies or only human one?
If it is not, then we can conclude that the animal has no access to the potential of the atman.
Now if you are saying that the atman uses animal bodies, then wherefrom the disability of the animal in terms of concepts?
This is just an inquiry for clarification of your views.
Gordon Paterson Ama(n) is a term I seldom use. I was keying off your apposition and inferred that you meant "Consciousness," but, on further review, you might be just referring to "personality."
As you raised this term---atma---perhaps you could, for further clarity, expand on your idea of what you mean? Stay warm. Nirguna
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson, Atma(n) is used in the Upanishads as well as brahman. To under their use of the term, one has to also look at the term jiva-atma (jivatma) which is specific and indicates an individual living entity. Of course in the Upanishad the crowning term is brahman which in that literature is pointed to as the Ultimate Reality.
But then later we see that the term param was prefixed to brahman as for instance in the chant:
guru brahma guru vishnu
guru devo mahesvara
guru shakshat parambrahma
tasmai sri gurudeva namah
So why was there the need to add param if brahman is the Ultimate Reality.
This means that the contention about what was the ultimate, continue beyond the discovery and use of the term brahman. Param means supreme, or what is superseding whatever or whoever.
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson, Atma does mean consciousness but only in the sense that consciousness is the common access for giving or taking information, for perceiving and inverting. However consciousness is too general of a term. Suppose I say air. Yes you understand that it is all-pervasive on earth but the type of air in a specific building, in a specific room of that building, may be different to the air outdoors which is shared by all buildings as their exterior environment.
Atma even as it is used in the Upanishads means the individual limited spirit. I could have said individual person but that would be atma only if I first cleared away the mock-up identity (identities) of the person. When all of the cultural identities are stripped away, what is left is the atma.
Who am I?
That is the question because until I can strip away those acquired social personality-costumes, I cannot know who I am when all alone without the socially-enforced role models.
Michael Beloved Gordon Paterson,
Atma is the cleaned up, bare, identity of “I am.”
The process of neti neti (na iti na iti) brings it into perspective, because then I am saying, “I am not this,” “I am not that,” endlessly because whatever I encounter which causes me to assume a certain character-personality is denied by me because it is an over-coating, a mask. But atma is the core which is none of the designations or assumptions which come about in my contacts.
I am not this, I am not that, does not mean that I am nothing but it means that at the core, I do not have a costume. That is atma(n), the nude persona.