I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe you’re too hard on yourself? 
<3
[QUOTE=Alix;38085]Number one.
[FONT=“Comic Sans MS”]Number two.
You brought up both points at post #11 and post #13 of this thread. I’m tired of reading about this in every single thread. I avoided going into the religion section tonight as I felt the need for something less antagonistic and gentle. I deliberately clicked on a post by Nichole as something I felt would be either soothing or mildly thought provoking and instead found the same rhetoric being spewed once again. [/quote]
Post #11 mentions both Hinduism and Buddhism and their view on myth/faith as an infection of the mind. This was a minor point. The main point in this post was argue that faith/myth is dangerous, infects the mind, opens it up to ignorance and vice. Very much on topic.
Post #13 was in response to Pawel’s example of creationism. The major point in this post was that reason is impartial and can be used to examine any statement. I used Pawel’s example of creationism to show that it does not stand up to reason. Again very much on topic.
It is a rather unfair assessment to dub the entire thread as being about Abrahamic god vs Hinduism, when in the entire thread these words only occur once and not even in the same post or context. Almost all my posts in this thread have been about science and reason. The vast majority of the posts have been talking about science and reason vs myth and faith. On topic.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38081]Here are some valid examples of reasoning given in Hindu logic.
Knowledge consists of three conditions 1) The knower 2) The object known and 3) The instrument of knowing
If there is no knower present it is impossible for there to be knowledge. As who is the one who knows the knowledge then? If there is no object present then from where does the knower get the impressions. Finally, it is shown that the knower does not receive knowledge even when the object is present, when its mind is somewhere else. In other words there must be an instrument which attends to knowledge and transmits it to the knower.
Something cannot come from nothin
Nothing can only produce nothing for it has no content. Something presupposes that there is already a content. Although it may seem sometimes that effects are issuing forth from empty space, the fact that there is content proves that the empty space is not empty but already has that content latent.
Reasoning is a very powerful tool which has the power to reveal the actual truths about reality without a single empirical experiment. It is highly neglected in modern science.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for explanations. I find them very clear and compelling.
But there are things that in my mind that confuse this clarity. For example:
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38081] I have never had any problem in demonistrating a false statement as false. That is because as soon as one makes a statement, they are by default engaging in logic. If I say even something simple as “Here is a cat” then it means it is not a dog. Now, if the author of the statement is calling a dog a cat then the statement can be disproven.[/QUOTE]
I remember in some other thread you argued that cup we perceive in every day life is not real (and that QM “disproved realism”). So if cup is not real, I assume that the cat from your example is either. So then, how come I can claim that this is cat if its not real? How can I make rational argument if entities (and therefore relationships between entities) I use in my reasoning are not real? How did you reconcile your conviction of lack of realism with rational reasoning?
[QUOTE=David;38087]I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe you’re too hard on yourself?
<3[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I am. Thank you for that David. I confess I was feeling rather irritated at the time.
I will reiterate that I’m heartily sick of seeing every thread take the same path. Sorry for the hijack Nichole.
Continue with your discussion folks, I’m off to read other threads and will stay out of these ones.
Women either seem to love him or some are not averse to trying to seek to portray him as the devil himself incarnate.I find that somewhat amusing and mildly ironic…lol
Let us look at a more sophisticated example of a false statement. If one makes a statement “All is material” Then one can contradict that statement by saying that the mind is not material. The mind is immaterial in that we cannot actually see it, feel it, touch it, taste it, hear it and nor can we divide it.
Something cannot come from nothin
Nothing can only produce nothing for it has no content. Something presupposes that there is already a content. Although it may seem sometimes that effects are issuing forth from empty space, the fact that there is content proves that the empty space is not empty but already has that content latent.
Sorry to perpetuate the tangent, but I see a contradiction in these two statements. If mind is not material, then what is it? We all agree that there is something called “mind”, and we know that something cannot come from nothing, so then where does mind come from? Furthermore mind has a dominant property of action or activity, which is a property of the natural world.
[QUOTE=Pawel;38105]Thanks for explanations. I find them very clear and compelling.
But there are things that in my mind that confuse this clarity. For example:
I remember in some other thread you argued that cup we perceive in every day life is not real (and that QM “disproved realism”). So if cup is not real, I assume that the cat from your example is either. So then, how come I can claim that this is cat if its not real? How can I make rational argument if entities (and therefore relationships between entities) I use in my reasoning are not real? How did you reconcile your conviction of lack of realism with rational reasoning?[/QUOTE]
It is not real according to the Western definition of the word real. If something is real it is said to have an independent and objective existence. Yet according to QM’s postulations of non locality and non realism the object has no independent and objective existence, but can only be seen as a relationship of everything. Nor can it exist without the observers presence.
It is real according to the Hindu definition of the word real. In the Hindu definition if something is said to be real, it means that it is perceivable. So even the mirage is real, because it is perceivable. However, everything exists simultaneously in several dimensions. The the cup as seen in the physical dimension is seen in another form in another dimension. At the highest dimension it is vibrating field of consciousness.
[QUOTE=core789;38118]Women either seem to love him or some are not averse to trying to seek to portray him as the devil himself incarnate.I find that somewhat amusing and mildly ironic…lol[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting that he said something that so accurately describes himself. I doubt he could have predicted he would become something of a “myth”.
Who portrays him as the “devil incarnate”?
[QUOTE=Asuri;38119]Sorry to perpetuate the tangent, but I see a contradiction in these two statements. If mind is not material, then what is it? We all agree that there is something called “mind”, and we know that something cannot come from nothing, so then where does mind come from? Furthermore mind has a dominant property of action or activity, which is a property of the natural world.[/QUOTE]
According to the Western definition of material the mind is not material. It is not extended, it is not divisible, it is not tangible. So in Western thought there is a strict dualism between mind and matter. The answer for where mind comes from is that mind is a pure substance. It comes from nowhere. Reality is made up of both mind and matter. Here mind is to be understood as the subjective world and matter the external world.
Of course this is the most problematic assumption in the history of philosophy and virtually all philosophers have a problem with this dualism.
According to the Hindu defnition of material the mind is a material thing. Something is said to be material if it has the nature of change, it has activity and is a product. As you rightly point out mind has activity, therefore it is a part of the material world. However, the material world in Hindu thought exists across a continuum of dimensions going from the most subtle(internal) to the most gross(external) Mind is not gross matter, but subtle matter. So we can still say mind is not a physical thing.
There is only a relative dualism in Hindu thought. There is matter and there is consciousness. However, while consciousness is an unchanging and simple substance, matter is a changing and complex substance which is always in activity under the forces of the gunas. However, there was a point when matter was in a state of complete dormancy(such as the beginning of the big bang or singularity) and the gunas were in equilibrium at that state there was only subject and no object. The object existed only as potentiality within the subject.
If you suspend yourself in a state of awareness. You will note that within your field of awareness various phenomena will take place. You will note physical things such as your body and things outside the body, you will mental things like thoughts, feeling, sensations and you will note different states of mind. In other words rather than the entire world being outside of you, it is all taking place inside you. All are events therefore within the field of consciousness. These events before they occur are just potential within the field of consciousness. In the same way waves that occur in the ocean are potential within the ocean. It is not that they are different substances, rather the waves are modifications of the ocean. Likewise, the Hindu view models all of reality as the consciousness field and everything as its modification.
If anything was examined in its entirety across the continuum of dimensions it exists in the ultimate conclusion would be it is the very same infinite consciousness field. Every point in the universe is the same infinite consciousness field. This is what is meant when they say, “All is Brahman”
from the OP - myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic - the enemy of truth.
According to the Western definition of material the mind is not material. It is not extended, it is not divisible, it is not tangible. So in Western thought there is a strict dualism between mind and matter.
I think this asertion of strict dualism between mind and matter is a myth. The term mind itself is nebulous. Mind could be said to have a characteristic of cognition, which is purely physical in nature. Mind can also be considered to have the characteristic of controlling the actions of the body, which is generally thought to work by electrical impulses that are transmitted along the nerves from the brain to the muscles. So the myth of strict dualism between mind and matter has been busted.
There is only a relative dualism in Hindu thought. There is matter and there is consciousness. However, while consciousness is an unchanging and simple substance, matter is a changing and complex substance which is always in activity under the forces of the gunas. However, there was a point when matter was in a state of complete dormancy(such as the beginning of the big bang or singularity) and the gunas were in equilibrium at that state there was only subject and no object. The object existed only as potentiality within the subject.
This is the myth of philosophy masquerading as knowledge. If, as you say, before the universe came into being, its existence was only potential, then there was nothing in existence that was knowable. So to say that the object existed as potentiality within the subject is pure speculation, and there is no evidence to support the assertion.
If you suspend yourself in a state of awareness, you will note that within your field of awareness various phenomena will take place. You will note physical things such as your body and things outside the body, you will mental things like thoughts, feeling, sensations and you will note different states of mind. In other words rather than the entire world being outside of you, it is all taking place inside you.
This is the myth of some kind of objective basis for your previous assertion. In order to manufacture some evidence, you come up with the fable of suspending oneself in a state of awareness, which is stated as a matter of fact. You cannot demonstrate that this is anything but imagination. In reality your assertions are based on scriptures, not any real phenomena, physical or otherwise. I think this is probably a good example of confirmation bias.
Asuri,
It is often the case that when a reason is provided, however logical it maybe, it leads to debate. This is a very good thing. It has always been the Vedic tradition to debate propositions in order to arrive at the doubtless truth. Truth should be able to pass the highest scrutiny of reason. If my statements do not pass this test, I will concede to you. However, will you condede to me if your statements do not pass the test?
I think this asertion of strict dualism between mind and matter is a myth. The term mind itself is nebulous. Mind could be said to have a characteristic of cognition, which is purely physical in nature. Mind can also be considered to have the characteristic of controlling the actions of the body, which is generally thought to work by electrical impulses that are transmitted along the nerves from the brain to the muscles. So the myth of strict dualism between mind and matter has been busted.
No, because the definition as per the Western definition was that mind is non-extended and indivisible. You are saying the brain meets this criteria. No, because the brain is extended and measurable and it is divisible. We can dissect the brain to the smallest fibre. So the brain is not the mind.
The aspect of us that in Sanskrit is called the anthakarana(internal instrument) that perceives thoughts, feelings, desires, imagination, dream and states of consciousness is what is called the mind. This not extended, measurable and divisible. You cannot see somebodies thoughts. They are private. All you see is the physical body. Nor can we split open the brain and discover sombodies memories stored there. This internal universe is not at all accessible in the physical world. So what is the brain? The brain is the physical manifestation of the mind. When the mind thinks something this causes electrical activity in the brain.
This is the myth of philosophy masquerading as knowledge. If, as you say, before the universe came into being, its existence was only potential, then there was nothing in existence that was knowable. So to say that the object existed as potentiality within the subject is pure speculation, and there is no evidence to support the assertion.
Yep there was no subject-object knowledge of reality because there was no knowable object. There was however always a subject, because the subject’s existence is axiomatic. For If there is no subject(knower) there cannot be any knowledge. If there is no subject there cannot be any reality for there would be none to perceive it.
There are plenty of arguments that prove the existence of the subject.
Argument of the doubtless subject
Try to doubt the subject and you will find it impossible. Let us try: I doubt the “self” Who is the one that doubts the self? The doubter. Then the doubter must doubt the doubter.
Argument of unique properies
The subject is not of the nature of activity, is not a product like matter is(object) It is possessed of the properties of knowledge and ignornace, bliss and suffering which are not properties of matter. Does the sun discriminate? If it did, it would be a worry, if the sun decided one day, “I am not going to shine today” it would be the end of all life on earth. Therefore it is proven that a subject exists in addition to the objective.
Argument of supervisor
If there is no subject then what supervises and guides matter and brings it into existence? If matter is at one point potential. Then what collapses it outside of the potential state? Does it collapse by itself? Does a fire put itself out? No, an external non-material cause is required to collapse the potential state. Then once collapsed how does matter go onto form living organisms and then animals and humans. Does it do it by itself? How? Does clay ever form into a pot by itself? Even seen a building that builds itself? A painting that paints itself? No they require a potter, a builder and a painter.
Argument of the unchanging subject
The subject’s existence is also proven by the fact that matter is possessed of the properties of activity and change and the subject isn’t. Atoms are constantly in a state of change and so are the cells of the body. Mental activity is also in a constant state of change. I experience thousands of thoughts in a short space my time. However, the subject endures nonetheless and always remains a passive witnesses.
Argument of the knower and object of knowledge
The subjects existence is also proven by the fact that all that the subject knows are objects of its knowledge but not the subject itself. I do not call the chair myself because it is my object of knowledge. Similarly, I do not call thoughts, feelings and sensations myself, because they are objects of my knowledge.
All sentences have a subject, the predicates can be added, removed and changed but the subject remains the same.
This is the myth of some kind of objective basis for your previous assertion. In order to manufacture some evidence, you come up with the fable of suspending oneself in a state of awareness, which is stated as a matter of fact. You cannot demonstrate that this is anything but imagination.
It is not a fable, it is a rational exercise that you can go and do right now. Sit down and just allow yourself to be just be aware. Then document what occurrs to your awareness. You are neither of those things which you are aware of. Are you the chair and tables, then who is the one that is aware of the chairs and tables? Are you the body with all its organs of heart, brain, stomach etc, then who is the one that is aware of the heart, brain, stomach? Are you the thoughts, feeling and sensations? Then who is the one that is aware of the thoughts, feelings and sensations?
Clearly then the subject or “I” is nothing that forms an object of your knowledge. Everything that is an object of your knowledge is taking place within time and space. Therefore, the “I” is not in time and space. If it not in time and space it is infinite and eternal. It cannot then be a separate thing.
Like I said earlier the tool of reasoning is an incredible tool. It can be used to discover truths about reality without a single empirical experiment.
I’m tempted to just let this thread die a natural death, but that might be construed as a concession. I find myself conceding my mistakes more often than I care to admit, but this is not one of those times. I will say only that, in common usage, mind may considered different from matter, but there are plenty of western materialists who believe that all mental activity has a physical basis. You cannot assert strict dualism in western thought in the face of this kind of materialist thinking.
Even if I were to accept your arguments for the existence of a subject, that would not disprove the speculative nature of the primordial prakriti and your assertion that it exists within the primordial subject. And even if I were to accept that suspending oneself in a state of awareness is not a fable, that would not prove that all activity takes place within the self. I don’t believe you have overcome my objections to your rationale, and I don’t believe you proved that your original statements were not contradictory. I’m sorry but, in this case, I do not concede anything .
Please don’t make Myth a 4-letter word. Don’t make Joseph Campbell roll over in his grave; like his Hero icon- Myth can be dressed up Truth- accentuating it’s light with a Fashion that stands the test of Time and puts a light to lies . Can’t we call those contiguous lies something else ? In the Greater Greek Myth, Eros, (Love ) was created first out of the original Chaos ( no order ) and he created everything else by making attractions between one thing and another (patterns of love and order). Now there’s a Myth. Myth is the language of the soul describing mental incomprehensibilities. That other thing, the enemy of Truth, is the language of Fear describing itself ( Gollum ).
I know there are plenty of Western materialists that do not accept this dualism. This is why I said that this Cartesian dualism has been the most problematic thing in the history of Western philosophy, and most philosophers have a problem with it. The materialist philosopher prefers material monism. However, this dualism still persists to this date because no materialist philosopher has been able to prove materialism.
In modern times this dualism is expressed as the duality of religion and science or faith and reason. Thus it is safe to say in Western philosophical thought this strict dualism has been very influencial and still continues to shape Western thought.
Even if I were to accept your arguments for the existence of a subject, that would not disprove the speculative nature of the primordial prakriti and your assertion that it exists within the primordial subject. And even if I were to accept that suspending oneself in a state of awareness is not a fable, that would not prove that all activity takes place within the self. I don’t believe you have overcome my objections to your rationale, and I don’t believe you proved that your original statements were not contradictory. I’m sorry but, in this case, I do not concede anything .
It follows that because the subject is forever existent and Prakriti, however, at one time is not existent but only potential, then all that originally exists is the subject. Therefore prakriti is simply a potency that exits within a subject. The exercise I showed you indicates this, for whatever does ever occur always occurs within consciousness and nowhere else. The entire world takes place within your consciousness only. The slideshow of objects in the physical world and and objects in the mental world that you are witness too every moment of your life is all taking place within the field of conscousness. Your waking moments and your dream moments are all taking place within the field of consciousness.
Their objective existence is only insofar as you have language to differentiate the field of consciousness into a plural of objects and plural of categories(inside, outside) If I take a piece of clay, I can start to mould that into various forms and each time I do so I create a plurality of things and a plurality of categories. But the reality is the their existence is onlysofar as name and form only, they are still the same primordial substance of clay.
In the end the world is made out of some ultimate substance. Is it matter? Not by the Western definition of the word, because then it does not account for mind. Is it mind? Not by the Sanskrit definiton of the word, because the mind is also a produced thing and subject to activity like everything else. Is it pure consciousness? Yes, because that is the only substance that is changless and unproduced and it forms the very background of all of reality.
The subject is axiomatic and the only reality that can be said to exist. Everything else is transient and dubious. But nobody can consistently deny the self.
The entire world takes place within your consciousness only.
I guess I’m just not smart enough to swallow all this logic and reasoning. To me it sounds like the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. You should find someone else to preach to, because I’m really not buying it. Sorry. And by the way, I still don’t think you’ve proved your point. You’re back to teaching philosophy as if it were actual knowledge, which it isn’t.
I guess I’m just not smart enough to swallow all this logic and reasoning.
It is pretty obvious, if anybody is honest enough about it. The entire world is taking place within consciouisness. Take out the consciousness(subject) there is no world anymore.
Very easy way to prove it: Alter your state of consciousness and instantly your world alters as well. Thus proving absolutely the inseparability of consciousness and the world.
I have just been honest enough to accept this conclusion.
Funny, by pretending to be stupid, I finally got you to agree to something. You would be no fun at poker. Too easy.
I see what you are saying. You are insisting on the interdepedence of consciousness and and the world.
Whereas what I am saying is that the world itself emanates from consciousness and dissolves into consciousness. All you can honestly say about the world is that it is a content of consciousness, and as a content of consciousness it posteriori to consciousness. First there is consciousness, then there is content of consciousness and not the other way around.
The world is possessed of the property of becomingness and consciousness the property of beingness What is being is unchanging, otherwise it would be becoming. And what is becoming is changing, otherwise it would be being. Thus what is constantly changing cannot have real beingness or real existence, it appears and then dissappears as if it was not there in the first place. The world is like that, it is incessantly changing, as if it is not there in the first place. But the consciousness that apprehends it is forever still.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;38040]Good piece Omamana, about the phenomenon of ‘selective perception’.
A lie and a myth seem to differ in yet another way. A lie occurs first as an intention and the liar constructs suitable articulation to deliver it. While myth is a delivered result like a web woven out of sticky half-truths, mostly unintentional.
A liar has a cunning design that seeks an effect beyond the lie; and so any attempts to disprove the lie may meet with more lies because the liar is not interested in the truth, but only the effect. You can kill a lie by ignoring and not engaging with.
While a myth-bearer usually detests intellectual probes and is eager to lean on ‘something’ unaware that it is a half-truth. So, a myth can be busted by waking him/her up by providing better or pure truth to lean on. But, the wake-up call has to be genuine, warm and patient; not loud, intellectual and arrogant. That makes it so tough these days.[/QUOTE]
Myth is justified by the Myth-bearer as faith. If I say to a believer if there is any evidence for what they believe, if there is none, they will fall back on faith - “I believe because I believe” Sometimes this is harmless, but at other times it becomes dangerous. Countless wars have been waged on the grounds of faith.
In Hinduism and Buddhism faith is seen as an infection of the mind. It is a terrible disease which weakens our intellect and leaves us vulnerable to the germs of ignorance and vice.
This is why I tell everybody to stick to evidence and never venture outside of evidence into faith and speculation.
[QUOTE=lencoo12;38684]Myth is justified by the Myth-bearer as faith. If I say to a believer if there is any evidence for what they believe, if there is none, they will fall back on faith - “I believe because I believe” Sometimes this is harmless, but at other times it becomes dangerous. Countless wars have been waged on the grounds of faith.
In Hinduism and Buddhism faith is seen as an infection of the mind. It is a terrible disease which weakens our intellect and leaves us vulnerable to the germs of ignorance and vice.
This is why I tell everybody to stick to evidence and never venture outside of evidence into faith and speculation.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think its so straightforward to claim that faith is leading to ignorance and violence and reason and intellect leads to peace. There were many wars starting from religious motives, but don’t forget about such things as communism. This ideology is fully rational - there is no place for faith there. Everything is rationally explained and, what is worse, the motives are noble. And probably you know how this ideology lead to people suffering throughout history (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror). So I think searching for the cause of our mistakes and violence in just faith (usually done by intellectually enlightened people) or just reason (as some religious people do) is missing the point.