Identity, individuality

[Aupmanyav]

Ah, so you are worried about identity, individuality.
In East, it is considered a mirage. Oneness requires abandonment of (edit: spurious) identity, individuality.

I would love to hear more about this. I don't supposed you'd care to start a new thread about it? In the Belief or Eastern section, wherever suits you best.

'Who we are?' is a big question. In non-dual Hinduism, Advaita philosophy, we are what all things in the universe are made of, no different.
Hindus gave it a name - Brahman, that which constitutes the Brahma (universe). That is our permanent identity. All other identities are temporary and will disintegrate in time. Nothing is excluded in it.

That was said by Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in 800 BCE. "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman).
This was repeated in Chandogya Upanishad in 600 BCE. "Tat twam asi" (You are That).
Identities of humans, animals, trees last only till they are alive. (Aupmanyav, Johny the poodle, Akshay Vata (eternal bunyan) in Allahabad, India)
When they die, they are absorbed back into the environment and their identity is no more.

People hanker after individuality, thinking that it will escape death. That is why we fear death. That has given rise to beliefs in God, Soul, judgment, end of days, heaven and hell. But there is no evidence for that. Rebirth, reincarnation, being raised from death, eternal life.

Why not accept the reality?

 

[muhammad_isa]

People hanker after individuality, thinking that it will escape death. That is why we fear death..

I don't think that we all fear death..

Why not accept the reality?

I cannot "unlearn" what I have discovered in life, through experience and study.
We have all still got things to learn, regardless of age.

"Reality" is what you think it is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't think that we all fear death..

I cannot "unlearn" what I have discovered in life, through experience and study.
We have all still got things to learn, regardless of age.

"Reality" is what you think it is.

Perhaps true. You look for eternal life and escape from hell (anger of your God). He has explained in Qur'an as to what torture can he put you through if you disobey his mandate or his messenger.
Learning new may requires unlearning old.
Reality is where evidence points and not always where an old book points..

 

[Thomas]

Reality is where evidence points and not always where an old book points..

But you do seem to make judgements about reality that lie outside the scope of the 'evidence' you rely on?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you do seem to make judgements about reality that lie outside the scope of the 'evidence' you rely on?

If I have done so anywhere, I will readily retract my statement.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He has explained in Qur'an as to what torture can he put you through if you disobey his mandate or his messenger..

What I understand, is that our deeds carry consequences.
..and that G-d is the Fairest of All Judges.
No soul will be wronged in the slightest, for what it is not guilty of.

I understand that G-d is not a person, per se, and is not comparable to any other.
Criminals don't like the police .. why not, do you think?
I would say that it was because they wanted to break the law.

 

[Thomas]

If I have done so anywhere, I will readily retract my statement.

You seem to require empirical evidence?

Yet the empirical sciences agree that the question of God lies outside their scope.

 

[Thomas]

Then again, sciences like panpsychism present their evidence for universal consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You seem to require empirical evidence?
Yet the empirical sciences agree that the question of God lies outside their scope.

No, science can study the claims by religions. Virgin birth, Resurrection, for example.

Then again, sciences like panpsychism present their evidence for universal consciousness.

You mean everything happens according to the four fundamental forces in the universe. I agree.

 

[Thomas]

No, science can study the claims by religions. Virgin birth, Resurrection, for example.

Yes they can, but they cannot give definitive answers, can they?

Science requires predictability and replication to test its hypotheses. Since miracles are non-replicable events, science cannot investigate them directly. What science can do is investigate claims to rule out fraud, or erroneous methodology.

You mean everything happens according to the four fundamental forces in the universe. I agree.

I mean the four fundamental forces are not the totality of the universe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes they can, but they cannot give definitive answers, can they?

I mean the four fundamental forces are not the totality of the universe.

They can give definite answers. Science does not believe in miracles.
What else? There is no evidence for anything more.

 

[Thomas]

They can give definite answers. Science does not believe in miracles.
What else? There is no evidence for anything more.

Wrong.

Some scientists believe in miracles, some don't, some are open-minded.

Science doesn't speak on the topic. Scientists do ... some informed, some ignorant. Some theist, some agnostic, some atheist.

Your science v religion is a false dichotomy, if that's your only reason for atheism, then it's founded on smoke.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't think that we all fear death..

What fear is it makes us panic when something life threatening or just potentially life threatening shows up?

 

[TheLightWithin]

You seem to require empirical evidence?

Yet the empirical sciences agree that the question of God lies outside their scope.

Hence the infinite conundrum.

In the absence of empirical evidence, what is it that we acknowledge and accept?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Then again, sciences like panpsychism present their evidence for universal consciousness.

Is that a science or a philosophical speculation? Its one I like, I just wonder about the evidence?
Do you mean something like research in cognitive science?
Or theoretical physics where it meets metaphysics?
Or something else?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Then again, sciences like panpsychism present their evidence for universal consciousness.

I'd like to know more

You mean everything happens according to the four fundamental forces in the universe. I agree.

What are you referring to

No, science can study the claims by religions. Virgin birth, Resurrection, for example.

They can verify that those things cannot be confirmed to occur on the regular. However the claims of miracles being special one-off occurrences or extremely rare occurrences just exist in defiance of whatever happens "on the regular"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wrong.

Some scientists believe in miracles, some don't, some are open-minded.

Your science v religion is a false dichotomy, if that's your only reason for atheism, then it's founded on smoke.

Open-minded does not mean believing. it means 'not rejecting it out-right'.
Believing if evidence is available. otherwise rejecting it.

My belief, Advaita (non-duality) is exactly the same as science.
There is no dichotomy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are you referring to?

However the claims of miracles being special one-off occurrences or extremely rare occurrences just exist in defiance of whatever happens "on the regular"

"In physics, the fundamental interactions or fundamental forces are interactions in nature that appear not to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist: gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction*, and strong interaction**."
* Mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles.
** It confines quarks into protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles, and also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei, where it is called the nuclear force.

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'Defiance of regular' is special pleading. I do not believe in special pleading.

 

[Thomas]

Open-minded does not mean believing. it means 'not rejecting it out-right'.
Believing if evidence is available. otherwise rejecting it.

Again, wrong.

If evidence is there, then one can believe in the evidence.

If evidence is not there, then one can have an open mind about it.

You seem to be arguing that:
If it falls within the remit of the empirical sciences, then it is believable.
If it falls outside the remit of the empirical sciences, then it should be rejected on that bases – which is not science, but 'pseudoscience', or 'scientism' or what have you – whatever one calls it, it's a scientific error.

My belief, Advaita (non-duality) is exactly the same as science.
There is no dichotomy.

I have no issue with that – that's your belief – and if your interpretation of Advaita is such, then I'm OK with that.
My interpretation of non-duality is different, as it allows for deity.

But, in the end, both yours and mine are faith statements.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What fear is it makes us panic when something life threatening or just potentially life threatening shows up?

That is an instinct for self-preservation..
..not what @Aupmanyav was discussing.

He said:
"People hanker after individuality, thinking that it will escape death. That is why we fear death.."