- Messages
- 3,781
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Points
- 108
Are you sure?
Identity, individuality
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
That does not hold. Buddha said that do not believe blindly on any scripture unless your mind says that is true. And if it does not, then reject it. Do not take it as the word of any God.
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
(although, I have problems as to who is to be considered to be wise).
As for the history of Advaita (Hindu non-duality):
Chandogya Upanishad (8-6 Century BCE) said: "yathā somya ekena mṛit piṇḍena sarvaṃ mṛin-mayaṃ vijñātaṃ syād vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ, mṛittika iti eva satyam" 6.1.4
(O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All change in names are mere disdtortions, earth alone is the reality.)
Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 6.1.4 (English and Sanskrit)
Verse 4: O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But...
www.wisdomlib.org
Katha Upanishad (5-2 Century BCE) said: "manasa eva idam āptavyaṁ na iha nānā asti kiṁcana, mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyuṁ gacchati ya iha nāna iva paśyati."
(Through the mind must we understand that there is nothing in this world that is really various; who thinks he sees difference here, from death to death he goes.)
Upanishads
upanishads.org.in
Sankara (8th Century) said: "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahamiva na parah."
(Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion, a living being is none other than Brahman.)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Brihadarnyaka Upanishad (8-7 Century, BCE, considered the oldest of Upanishads) said: "brahma vā idam agra āsīt, tad ātmānam eva avet, aham brahmāsmi iti." (1.4.10)
(This (self) was verily Brahman at first. It knew only itself as, I am Brahman.)
Further discussion, objections, questions and answers in words of Adi Sankaracharya at Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 VivekaVani.
tasya ha na devāścanābhūtyā īśate - Even the gods are powerless to prevent his becoming the universe
anyo’sāvanyo’hamasmīti, na sa veda - ‘He is different from me, and I am different from him’, does not know.
(This (self) was verily Brahman at first. It knew only itself as, I am Brahman.)
Further discussion, objections, questions and answers in words of Adi Sankaracharya at Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 VivekaVani.
tasya ha na devāścanābhūtyā īśate - Even the gods are powerless to prevent his becoming the universe
anyo’sāvanyo’hamasmīti, na sa veda - ‘He is different from me, and I am different from him’, does not know.
Last edited:
Of nothing. I'm pretty convinced though, can you name one that doesn't?
- Messages
- 3,781
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Points
- 108
I'm not convinced at all. But not being a physicist I'm not rock solid on definitions.
Your statement was:
"None of the sciences you name deal with anything that doesn't arise from electromagnetic matter and the forces that govern it."
I don't think all matter arises from electromagnetic forces? I think you can make the case that electromagnetic forces "govern" matter - or at least are part of what goes on between particles (I'm not confident it's the whole explanation either) but not necessarily that they give rise to matter?
When I looked it up quickly the AI overview said:
No, not all matter arises from electromagnetism. While the Standard Model of Particle Physics reveals that all matter and forces are excitations of fundamental quantum fields, electromagnetism is only one of four distinct forces shaping our universe. [1, 2]
Is the universe made of fields or particles?
A few ancient Greek philosophers seriously considered this question and concluded that everything is made of tiny particles moving in empty space. The key 17th-century scientist Isaac Newton agreed, but a century later, Thomas Young's experiments convinced him and others that light, at least...
blog.oup.com
(END OF AI OVERVIEW)
I'm not trying to get lost in the sauce/lose the plot here, I'm actually trying not to do that.
What I was questioning was what seemed like you lumping all sciences together, but then also not knowing quite what point you were making with that, theological or otherwise.
Sorry. By electromagnetic matter I meant matter affected or governed by electromagnetism, as opposed to dark matter which by definition isn't. Everything we are familiar with is made of the first kind.I'm not convinced at all. But not being a physicist I'm not rock solid on definitions.
Your statement was:
"None of the sciences you name deal with anything that doesn't arise from electromagnetic matter and the forces that govern it."
I don't think all matter arises from electromagnetic forces? I think you can make the case that electromagnetic forces "govern" matter - or at least are part of what goes on between particles (I'm not confident it's the whole explanation either) but not necessarily that they give rise to matter?
When I looked it up quickly the AI overview said:
No, not all matter arises from electromagnetism. While the Standard Model of Particle Physics reveals that all matter and forces are excitations of fundamental quantum fields, electromagnetism is only one of four distinct forces shaping our universe. [1, 2]
Matter with mass (like atoms, electrons, and quarks) is created through processes like cosmic inflation. While high-energy photons (light) can convert into physical mass through pair production, the fundamental particles themselves arise from interactions across multiple different fields, including the electron, quark, and Higgs fields. Furthermore, electromagnetism is not responsible for creating the atomic nucleus (dominated by the strong force) or driving radioactive decay (handled by the weak force). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]Is the universe made of fields or particles?
A few ancient Greek philosophers seriously considered this question and concluded that everything is made of tiny particles moving in empty space. The key 17th-century scientist Isaac Newton agreed, but a century later, Thomas Young's experiments convinced him and others that light, at least...blog.oup.com
(END OF AI OVERVIEW)
I'm not trying to get lost in the sauce/lose the plot here, I'm actually trying not to do that.
What I was questioning was what seemed like you lumping all sciences together, but then also not knowing quite what point you were making with that, theological or otherwise.
My only point was that 95% of what our universe appears to be made of is opaque to science - we are aware of its existence but not its nature.
I value science. I do science. But it's a long, long way from having all the answers.
- Messages
- 3,781
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Points
- 108
Few people would claim that it does. That's why research keeps going...
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
AI is correct. Where @Bloodshot stumbled was to pick up only one of the four fundamental interactions. The other three are:
1. Weak interaction - It is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive beta decay of atoms. The effective range of the weak force is limited to subatomic distances and is less than the diameter of a proton.
2. Strong interaction - It confines quarks into protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles, and also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei. The strong force is approximately 100 times as strong as electromagnetism, 106 times as strong as the weak interaction, and 1038 times as strong as gravitation.
3. Gravity - It is a fundamental interaction, which may be described as the force that draws material objects towards each other. Surprising that Gravity is the weakest interaction of all the four.
I too, am not a nuclear scientist. My information also is from AI, Wikipedia, and other science sites. (Quotes above are from Wikipedia)
Last edited:
To differentiate between normal matter, and dark matter, i focused on the force normal matter is affected by, and dark matter is not.
You can replace "electromagnetic matter" with "normal matter" in any of my posts. I chose a more precise phrase but it seems to have caused confusion.
I think we're saying the same thing differently: Don't take my word for it.
I see the same issue. That 'unless' in the first quote "unless your mind says that it is true" covers a multitude of sins.
Is 'beginner's mind' in a position to say what is true?
The Advaita philosophy I have no issue with. It neither contradicts nor is contradicted by my own beliefs.
+++
A question: where do you view what we call 'consciousness'?
The strict materialist says is a by-product of the brain, whereas Advaita regards treats of consciousness in a broader sense?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
There is no distinction here of a 'beginner' and an 'expert'. There are many doubters who stick to views that their mind does not agree to. I was such a doubting theist for a long time.
Same answer that I have always given. Consciousness is an emergent property of brain. It exists till the organism lives and not beyond that.In Advaita we have various views. Sankara's view is different from views of Sri Ramanujacharya or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
My view is stricter on non-duality than Sankara. Sankara accepted 'Ishwara' in pragmjatic reality (Vyavaharika Satya), I don't.
So when I talk about Christianity, for example, I do not try to change the definition of the religion. I understand because of it that I am an atheist. I am not a Christian. However, from Andy’s perspective on why we believe, I have been trying to form a connection to being a member of those who have the capacity to believe because of some of the traits that we share, such as wondering what is in the pitch black, etc. That is all I can say that I believe in at this time.There is no distinction here of a 'beginner' and an 'expert'. There are many doubters who stick to views that their mind does not agree to. I was such a doubting theist for a long time.
In Advaita we have various views. Sankara's view is different from views of Sri Ramanujacharya or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
My view is stricter on non-duality than Sankara. Sankara accepted 'Ishwara' in pragmjatic reality (Vyavaharika Satya), I don't.
When I looked at your reference using AI, I was given the following: “The context is the Kalama Sutta, also called AN 3.65. The Kalamas were confused because different religious teachers came through their town, each one praising his own teaching and criticizing the others. So they asked the Buddha how to know what to believe. His answer was not ‘believe nothing.’ It was more like: do not accept a teaching merely because of tradition, scripture, logic, a famous teacher, or authority. Examine whether it leads to harm or benefit.”
I am wondering if that is what you believe. I am also trying to verify if what AI gave me is correct. I am also trying to figure out if there are parts that I am missing or do not understand. Also, just to note, while I do consider myself an atheist, I do participate in religion because I am capable of doing that.
I thought I'd also add that I'm checking for unchecked authority and I'm checking for conflicts in some of the ideas I believe in including Andy's video and some of the issues I believe are a result of issues we have today. Those are two areas I'm personally curious about.
It's there in many schools.
The beginner's mind swings both ways, but initially I had in mind the concept of shoshin (Japanese 初心), 'beginner's mind', introduced by Dōgen Zenji, founder of Sōtō Zen and author of Shōbōgenzō. In it's ideal form it's a mind free of preconceptions and open to new ideas. On the minus iside, it can also refer to ingrained habit and cognitive bias.
I am 'search engine informed' it's in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita; in Taoism in the concept of Pu, 'Uncarved Block', and referring to the "childlike mind" that remains receptive to the natural flow of the Dao. It's there in the New Testament (Matthew 18:3). It's there in Sufism, as fana, the annihilation of the ego. It's there in the Kabbalah as bittul hayesh, the nullification of the ego.
At it's best it's always the same – letting go of fixed ideas that close the mind to awe and wonder, to other realities.
OK. That's pretty much a 'faith' or a 'conviction' position, given the current state of affairs regarding 'the problem of consciousness' in the sciences. Obviously I align to other theories.
OK, but all three were theists, and all believed in consciousness outside the physical organism.
OK.
Assuming non-duality, we have Brahman and we individual subjectivity, then surely some kind of pragmatic approach is necessary?
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
It is partly the same. Though Buddha was more rigorous, talked about 10, AI talks about 5 only.
Hi @we6jbo –
I have largely not engaged with your debate because it seems to me another instance of the "science v religion" argument, which I regard as a false dichotomy, the 'either or' fallacy ... to me it's not science or religion, it's science and religion – I reject neither, although I argue with both when either party strays into the other's domain.
I am a Christian, but I do not entertain Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design.
For the same reason, I have not engaged in the Andrew Thomson videos. I will admit that I am ill-disposed towards anyone who would risk their reputation by association with The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
I have largely not engaged with your debate because it seems to me another instance of the "science v religion" argument, which I regard as a false dichotomy, the 'either or' fallacy ... to me it's not science or religion, it's science and religion – I reject neither, although I argue with both when either party strays into the other's domain.
I am a Christian, but I do not entertain Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design.
For the same reason, I have not engaged in the Andrew Thomson videos. I will admit that I am ill-disposed towards anyone who would risk their reputation by association with The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Some who are considered masters, may also have 'beginner's views'. Prejudices may have their hair-hold even on wise people.
Advaita is one such subject. One has to start with a complete blank slate.
Not being argumentative here ... well I suppose I am, but, given the ten points of the Kesamutti Sutta:
"1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), oral history
...
10. nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū), authorities or ones' own teacher."
How is one supposed to move at all? Just about every step from that blank slate is dismissed?
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Some of the most materialist, money-grabbing people I have met, and some were real grifters, would claim they are abiding in just such a way.
It's all contextual, is what I'm saying ... and that's no critique of our or anyone's dialogues, or any scripture, but we are all, inevitably and inescapably, trading soundbites and snippets here.
"1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), oral history
...
10. nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū), authorities or ones' own teacher."
How is one supposed to move at all? Just about every step from that blank slate is dismissed?
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Some of the most materialist, money-grabbing people I have met, and some were real grifters, would claim they are abiding in just such a way.
It's all contextual, is what I'm saying ... and that's no critique of our or anyone's dialogues, or any scripture, but we are all, inevitably and inescapably, trading soundbites and snippets here.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Evidence, science.
Well, frauds, scammers are always there in all religions. Claims without evidence.
Very few in science because theories are repeatedly checked, also against new information available nearly every day.
List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia, List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, List of people who have been considered deities - Wikipedia, List of people claimed to be immortal in myth and legend - Wikipedia, Predictions and claims for the Second Coming - Wikipedia, List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia, Messiah complex - Wikipedia, God complex - Wikipedia, Jerusalem syndrome - Wikipedia, Religious delusion - Wikipedia, Religion and schizophrenia - Wikipedia.