Identity, individuality

[iBrian]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

Jiddu Krishnamurti

www.interfaith.org

To be honest, though, Monty Python showed it more deliberately and perhaps definitively.

The key point is from 1 min 30 seconds:

 

[we6jbo]

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.

These lists I believe to be true based on what I’ve heard from some of the people that I follow. I believe there are at least two types of people who follow religions, and this is based on what I understand. There is the person who looks into a religion from the historical POV, and then there is the person who practices the religion.

The individual that I follow looks at the historical view of the Abrahamic religions and presents his content from things such as archaeological finds and stories that may corroborate events. While I am personally interested in and invested in this, I look at it more from a threat-based approach. So, things that could add risk to an individual or risk the continuation of humanity.

I come from examining pyramid schemes and some of the stuff that certain U.S. groups, not affiliated with Christianity, tried to do in order to get money out of people and make people feel mentally trapped or pressured to keep participating. But you do bring up a good point about the various people who claimed to be these figures, such as various Jesus claims, etc.

 

[we6jbo]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

Jiddu Krishnamurti

www.interfaith.org

To be honest, though, Monty Python showed it more deliberately and perhaps definitively.

The key point is from 1 min 30 seconds:

If I were to pinpoint these events to the moment they were happening, it would be difficult for me to understand why they were happening or what the true meaning or purpose of them was. They have evolved from things that were happening at the time into how we interpret them to this day.

The one thing I do know is that the times these people were showing up in were harsh. It would have been difficult if I time traveled back to those times to really understand why people were being nailed to crosses, or why all of the other techniques going on throughout those times, before those times, and after those times were being applied. So it is difficult for me to understand what messiahs were truly saying or why they were acting the way they were.

But should people follow them? I think that depends. Should we follow them today? I think it also depends on the individual. My concept of following depends on my personal beliefs because I have seen groups that use religion and religious-like practices to harm other people. A religion that tells people that they need to work for nearly no pay in the modern age, or sometime between the 1960s and 2026, would be a concern to me.

I do not know exactly what was going on when Life of Brian was made, but that video clip seems to speak to some real issues. Since then, what I have noticed is a mix. But for me to truly have faith in something, I cannot flex or bend backward to fit within someone else’s constrained view of the universe. What I believe would need to fit honestly with their mold. Otherwise, I would not be acting truthfully toward those people or myself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, this kind of argument proves nothing, really.
I could list pseudoscience theories, doesn't invalidate science, any more than bogus claimants invalidates religion.

Pseudoscience theories are not science. They exist in blogs and pseudo-academic internet sites:

https://www.researchgate.net/

"Access 160+ million publication pages and connect with 25+ million researchers. Join for free and gain visibility by uploading your research."

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you do bring up a good point about the various people who claimed to be these figures, such as various Jesus claims, etc.

There is no evidence that Zoroaster talked to Ahur Mazda, that Moses was given two stones by YHWH, that Jesus was of virgin birth or that he resurrected, that Muhammad and Husayn Ali Nuri or their likes (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahamadiyyas) were chosen by Allah as his messengers or Mahdi (Messiah).

 

[we6jbo]

There is no evidence that Zoroaster talked to Ahur Mazda, that Moses was given two stones by YHWH, that Jesus was of virgin birth or that he resurrected, that Muhammad and Husayn Ali Nuri or their likes (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahamadiyyas) were chosen by Allah as his messengers or Mahdi (Messiah).

I believe you. There is likely no evidence that Moses was given two stones by YHWH. However, Moses is also considered legendary by some people. I would consider Moses legendary. That does not mean Moses did not exist or that the events did not happen. It means there are likely truths in the stories, but the stories about Moses may not have happened exactly as they are told.

I rely on Mark Baker for my information about the Bible. His video talks about Moses here:

I would not rely on some Wikipedia sources exactly. The claim about religion and schizophrenia is probably exaggerated at best, but I would lean more toward it being made up. Unfortunately, the field of psychology can sometimes do this, and I think that may be why I was warned about blindly believing in science, because even science can be misused or overstated. If anything, religion can be seen as a test of how willing humans are to believe ideas when the person presenting them makes those ideas seem credible and true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that may be why I was warned about blindly believing in science, because even science can be misused or overstated.

Yes, many who have not done their search on what science knows and what it does not know, may make exaggerated claims. Even while posting my messages, I make a search to find how far what I am saying is truth.

 

[Thomas]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

I do not argue with that, but that does not actually invalidate a belief in that which we call 'God', rather, it points to the nature of humanity.

That people can be wrong does not mean they are never right ...

 

[Thomas]

... I cannot flex or bend backward to fit within someone else’s constrained view of the universe...

That phrase caught my eye. From my perspective, the empiricist view of the cosmos is the most constrained view one can have.

 

[Thomas]

Pseudoscience theories are not science.

And likewise, pseudoreligiosity is not religion, so that line of criticism fails.

Interestingly, I cam across the term "Pathological science"

Research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."

In his 2002 book Undead Science, sociology and anthropology Professor Bart Simon lists it among practices that are falsely perceived or presented to be science, "categories ... such as ... pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, pathological science, cargo cult science, and voodoo science."

Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the observer-expectancy effect and cognitive bias).

So 'science' as a discipline is never failsafe nor foolproof, hence peer review, evidential proofs when such are available, and so forth.

The same ideas cane be applied in other spheres, 'Pathological religion', for example, and one could write a book Undead Religion, listing ideas or that are falsely perceived or presented to be religion, "categories ... such as ... pseudoreligion, amateur religion, deviant or fraudulent religion, bad religion, junk religion, cargo cults, and tv evangelists..."

All very entertaining, but no more invalidating religious beliefs as such, any more than science is invalidated by the same errors and falsehoods.

 

[Thomas]

However, Moses is also considered legendary by some people. I would consider Moses legendary. That does not mean Moses did not exist or that the events did not happen. It means there are likely truths in the stories, but the stories about Moses may not have happened exactly as they are told.

That's how I read it.

I would not rely on some Wikipedia sources exactly.

I apply that rule moreso to YouTube. I always check the credentials of the person presenting materials.

Like @Aupmanyav's comment about Researchgate above, YouTube materials do not necessarily conform to the peer-review process.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The same ideas cane be applied in other spheres, 'Pathological religion', ..

I agree with you. And that is why 'Advaita Hinduism', as I see it, has no God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, redemption or ever-lasting life.
Once one is gone, one is finally and completely gone (Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasamagate).

 

[Thomas]

I agree with you. And that is why 'Advaita Hinduism', as I see it, has no God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, redemption or ever-lasting life.
Once one is gone, one is finally and completely gone (Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasamagate).

And I agree with you, as Christian apophaticism says much the same thing. The 'other shore' is the Ground that Eckhart speaks of ...

There is a commentary here – One River Zen – that says:
"Mahayana expresses this as the Three Kāyas — Dharmakāya (reality: emptiness), Sambhogakāya (wisdom/compassion shining), Nirmāṇakāya (appearance in this world). The Heart Sutra moves in all three — not as separate realms but facets of one reality."

There is a translation here, by Thich Nhat Hanh – Plumvillage.org – which opens:
"Avalokiteshvara
while practicing deeply with
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore,"

And ends
"Therefore let us proclaim
a mantra to praise
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore:

Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā,
Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā,
Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā!"

That last phrase, generally translated as:
"Gone, gone, gone over, gone fully over. Awakened! So be it!"

I suppose we could discuss the implications of this mantra until the cows come home, and not exhaust it.

 

[we6jbo]

That's how I read it.


I apply that rule moreso to YouTube. I always check the credentials of the person presenting materials.

Like @Aupmanyav's comment about Researchgate above, YouTube materials do not necessarily conform to the peer-review process.

I agree that YouTube videos do not automatically carry the same weight as peer-reviewed articles. I would not rely on something just because it is on YouTube. My point is more specific than that. I am using Matt Baker / UsefulCharts as a credentialed educational source for a historical-method claim about Moses, not as peer review and not as proof of a supernatural claim.

I am also taking the idea that Moses is “more of a legendary figure than a historical one” directly from Matt Baker himself at about 17:43 in the video. When I say Moses is legendary, I do not mean Moses definitely did not exist. I mean the Moses tradition may contain historical memory, theology, oral tradition, and later literary development rather than being a simple modern biography.

On the other hand, Wikipedia articles use other sources, and sometimes the article wording can go beyond what the cited source actually proves. The article I am looking at specifically is “Religion and schizophrenia.” It says that religious experiences often involve auditory or visual phenomena and that these may be similar to hallucinations and delusions in schizophrenia.

My concern is that the source being cited, The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered, is mainly a retrospective neuropsychiatric analysis of specific figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul. It is not the same thing as proving that ordinary religious experience should be compared with schizophrenia. The Wikipedia wording is talking broadly about religious experience, but the source is looking at specific religious figures and asking whether their reported experiences resemble psychotic-spectrum symptoms.

Also, symptom overlap is not diagnosis. Auditory or visual experiences can occur in many different contexts, including grief, sleep deprivation, trauma, substances, neurological conditions, mood disorders, psychosis, or intense religious settings. If we treated one overlapping symptom as enough for a diagnosis, then we would be mixing together many different conditions that have different causes and criteria.

For schizophrenia, there has to be a broader diagnostic pattern, including duration, impairment, and exclusion of other causes. So someone having an intense emotional or religious experience in church does not automatically meet criteria for schizophrenia.

So my point is not that YouTube is more reliable than peer review. My point is that Wikipedia can overgeneralize a source, and a careful historical claim about Moses being legendary is different from a psychiatric claim that religion and schizophrenia are basically the same thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The 'other shore' is the Ground that Eckhart speaks of ...

There is no 'other shore' in 'Advaita Hinduism". Things were none other than Brahman in the past, they are none other than Brahman at present, they would not be none other in future too.
Mahayana, many births are later developments in Buddhism. This denies 'Anatta'.

 

[Thomas]

I am using Matt Baker / UsefulCharts as a credentialed educational source for a historical-method claim about Moses, not as peer review and not as proof of a supernatural claim.

Fair enough. Baker draws on scholarship and presents their materials in an accessible manner.

I am also taking the idea that Moses is “more of a legendary figure than a historical one” directly from Matt Baker himself at about 17:43 in the video.

I generally agree with that, although I'm not sure 'the Historical Method' would rather say that Moses is entirely a legendary figure?

The article I am looking at specifically is “Religion and schizophrenia.” It says that religious experiences often involve auditory or visual phenomena and that these may be similar to hallucinations and delusions in schizophrenia.

This is inevitable when the same 'wiring loom' is involved.

As you point out, the too-easy but fallacious argument is that because psychological states can manifest as auditory or visual hallucinations, then all accounts of auditory or visual events are therefore hallucinations.

How much does the research allow for the possibility of the metanormal?

I can quite understand how a metanormal event can trigger an 'overwhelming' of the psyche, resulting in all manner of reactions; feinting, fits, seizures. Then again, they can also produce a range of responses to "Oh, they're in a world of their own" to "disassociative behaviours".

My concern is that the source being cited, The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered, is mainly a retrospective neuropsychiatric analysis of specific figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul.

And it will find as it expects to find, I'm sure ... but this cannot, or should not, rule out a metanormal alternative.

As the research cannot analyse such figures as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul other than with the tools and methods of their own disciplines, surely the outcome is a foregone conclusion?

Psychiatryonline says, in its abstract:
"The authors have analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders."
I would suggest that analysing any experience from within a given set of parameters can only produce a result consonant with those parameters? This seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me?

Are we not just validating our expectations?

I would be interested, if such existed, on a commentary by a skilled Buddhist, say, or a qualified Spiritual Director, who might well produce a response along the lines of "this and this look like pneumatalogical experience, whereas there are there look like psychosomatic reaction".

 

[Thomas]

There is no 'other shore' in 'Advaita Hinduism".

OK. There is in translations of the Heart Sutra you referenced ...

+++

I suppose the root of the dialogue between us is I regard Brahman in line with Sat-Cit-Ānanda (Sanskrit सच्चिदानन्द, Saccidānanda), whereas, it seems to me at least, you regard those three qualities as arising from a by-product of activity in the brain.

I can't help feeling there's a disconnect here as, again it seems to me, a purely materialist physicalism would dismiss the ideas of Brahman, Ishwara, Maya, etc., as abstract and illusory mental constructs. Brahman is no more real than unicorns, etc ...

Why not stick just with a philosophy of materialism and dismiss everything else as wishful thinking?

 

[Thomas]

Would you not say your position is closer to the Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक Cārvāka) school of philosophical materialism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you not say your position is closer to the Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक Cārvāka) school of philosophical materialism?

Chavaks were not fools (Ajit Kesakambli, Buddha knew of him)). But all we know about Charvaks is from biased reports by Buddhists and Hindus.

"Bhasmibhutasya dehasya, punaragamanam kutah?" (Once the body is cremated, where is coming back? - true even today)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can't help feeling there's a disconnect here as, again it seems to me, a purely materialist physicalism would dismiss the ideas of Brahman, Ishwara, Maya, etc., as abstract and illusory mental constructs. Brahman is no more real than unicorns, etc ...

What is Brahman? It is what all things in the universe are made of (ionized plasma). Materialistic view does not dismiss 'maya', it explains it. Your finger is nearly a void with electrons flying around as if the foot-ball players in a huge stadium.

"Atom and Nucleus Size
Diameter of an Atom: Ranges from about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers (nm).
Diameter of the Nucleus: Approximately 1/100,000 the size of the atom, which translates to about 1 femtometer.

The exact size of an electron is not definitively known, but it is generally considered to be a point-like particle with no measurable dimensions, often described as having a radius less than 10^−18 meters. Some theoretical models suggest a classical electron radius of about 2.8179×10^−15 meters, but this does not represent a physical structure.

Relative Distances
The distance between the nucleus and the electrons is significant compared to the size of the nucleus itself. Most of an atom's volume is empty space, with electrons occupying regions around the nucleus at varying distances.
This structure illustrates how subatomic particles are organized within an atom, emphasizing the vast empty space that exists between the nucleus and the electron cloud."

Is there anything physical in an atom?

Property	Proton	Neutron
Composition	2 up quarks, 1 down quark	1 up quark, 2 down quarks

Do quarks have weight?

Quark Type	Mass (MeV)	Mass Relative to Proton
Up	2	0.002%
Down	4.8	0.005%
Strange	92	0.1%

How do quarks acquire weight?
"Quarks gain a small amount of mass through the Higgs mechanism. This process involves interactions with the Higgs field, which imparts a bare mass to the quarks. However, this contribution is minimal, accounting for less than 2% of the mass of protons and neutrons.
Strong Nuclear Force:
The majority of the mass of protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks, arises from the strong nuclear force that binds these quarks together. This force is mediated by gluons, which carry the strong interaction. The energy associated with this binding contributes significantly to the overall mass of hadrons, making it much greater than the sum of the individual quark masses."

Source of Mass	Contribution to Mass
Higgs Mechanism	< 2%
Strong Nuclear Force	> 98%

(Note: All quotes from answers from Duck Assist, generally through Wikipedia)