Samkhya

You misunderstand my analogy of the house. Yes, house is just a name, but it is not the point. The name house points to something real and definite. It does not point to anything. But I have shown that the name goes on to apply even when the thing named undergoes changes. I attempted to show that a man can keep its physical identity (its likeness with himself) without necessarily having a soul. To explain the identity of the man by a soul is a lazy and unscientific explanation. Life sciences are bringing the answer without resorting to the soul.

In spite of all these renovations, at each step, the house has remained a house and could be recognized as such. It had a door, walls, windows, a top, rooms, etc... It remained ESSENTIALLY the same, though minor details have changed. Likewise, the body remains ESSENTIALLY the same in spite of the change of chemicals, and so because of chemical, biological and organic processes which control how waste products are rejected and how new products are used to preserve the body. The body is like a machine... My point is that what makes a house a house remains unchanged, but little changes can occur to some extent. Especially little changes which do not occur at the same time.

I have no reason to suppose that matter has a beginning. And I have a reason to suppose that matter is eternal: the reason is that this hypothesis is simpler. In fact, if matter has a beginning, this raises new questions: what existed before? And how did matter come into existence? On the contrary, if we hold that matter is eternal, we avoid these questions. But God too is eternal.

I don't say that man is just chemicals. All that I say is that you defend the soul with poor arguments. The chemicals of the body constantly change but the STRUCTURE remains there. It's like... if this year you replace the door of your house. The next year you replace the windows. The materials have changed, but the structure has remained the same.

In my opinion, the soul is created by matter, but once created, the soul does not depend on matter for its existence. It's like: you come from your mother, but even when your mother has passed away, you still exist. You don't need your mother to exist. It's the same thing with matter and the soul. Matter is the mother of the soul. But the soul goes on existing without the help of matter.

Why do you suppose that the universe has to come into existence? Can't it exist from all eternity? As to the appearance of living organisms, ask scientists. Do a google search and choose scientific websites. But the most questionable part of your message is the "why". Why must there be a why? Why do you assume that there is a cosmic purpose? In my opinion, matter (prakriti) was not created by God (Ishwara). Prakriti does not exist for a purpose. Ishwara is the Lord, but she has limited powers. The goal is to get free from the bondage of matter and to unite with Ishwara.

Yes, chemicals can have influence on whether I go for a walk or not. But it is not the point. When I go for a walk, the chemical processes in my body undergo some changes. For instance, if I get a new memory while walking, the chemistry of my brain will change. """ Who handles the children makes NO difference to the physical and chemical compounds of the body. All this is nonsense explaination. """ YES it makes a difference at the level of chemical processes, processes for which new chemicals are not necessarily required. In other words, the chemicals present in the body behave in a new way as a result of external influences. Here's a description of chaotic systems: http://membrane.com/chaos/sidd.html My opinion is that man is one of these chaotic systems.

««« You are the ignorant one here, making your own assumptions and false beliefs YET have guts to come and questions others as if you are a great Buddha. »»» You think you are justified just because you have not met someone with the answers. It is merely by chance that you have not been disproved.

I realize that I did not make my point perfectly clear, because English is not my mother language. I will try to explain better: The environment of the two twins is not PERFECTLY identical, even if we say, for practical purposes, that it is the same environment. It is just ROUGHLY true. Suppose that, one day, one of the twins goes for a walk with the father whereas the other one remains at home with the mother. They will not live the same thing. The differentiation begins at birth: suppose one of the twins is taken care of by one nurse whereas the other one is taken care of by another nurse. They won't have exactly the same experiences. But, could you say, the difference between their experiences is very little whereas the differences between the behavior of the two twins is big. I reply that a little difference can result in a big difference in some kinds of systems. I am not sure of how they call it in English. In French they are called «chaotiques».

""" when something is done, there is a doer. """ And why something happens, must there be a "happener"? It makes no sense. Physical events happen, and there is no need of a creator. Even if we say that something is made, all that it means is that there is or there are some cause. This cause need not be a person or a supernatural being or even a unique thing. It may be a set of natural forces.

The question: «who made men out of chemicals» is unscientific. It is a hollow question, a question that prevents research. The real question, the question that leads to new discoveries, is: HOW were men made out of chemicals.

««« 2. WHY, even so a person born as twins - genetically similar and grow up in the same environment, get same educations etc can have two different Consciousness? »»» Twins are not PERFECTLY identical. They do not undergo exactly the same influences. Suppose one twin is with the mother and the other one with the father. They do not live exactly the same thing. Suppose the two twins are not in the same classrom. They are taught by two different teachers. So they undergo different influences. Your statement: «grow up in the same environment» is not true in an absolute sense. As to the rest, you are arguing from ignorance.

But free will does not exist. Natural forces and laws shape our behavior, along with a bit of chance. There remains no room for a conscious will which rules over matter. Think about that: as time goes on, science disovers more and more forces which act upon man and control his behavior. As time goes on, it becomes less and less reasonable to believe in free will. Therefore the concept of hell does not apply, unless God is a fiend. But the concept of salvation still makes sense.

I know a scholar on Hinduism who says that the book can't be as old as you claim... The book was presumably written between 1700 BCE and 1200 BCE

Don't forget Nepal. :-)

««« (1) Spiritual Kingdom of the world - INDIA »»» I like this one.

There is some sacred hindu text saying that castes should not exist, because all people are children of God, and children of the same father belong to the same caste.

Well, I also met many atheists on forums, but in addition, I read some atheistic books where great philosophers explained in an intelligent way the tenets of atheism. You should read some of them. Perhaps a good starting point is the large on-line library www.infidels.org

But what are these spiritual truths? It's precisely what I am looking for. I forgot an important point of the hindu creed: the law of karma, closely associated, but not only, with reincarnation.

Well, I think that Hinduism is a hazy concept, hard to grasp in its wholeness. There were definitions of hinduism which proceeded by elimination: Hinduism is what is not islam, buddhism, jainism, etc... However, I think that we can get an agreement on some basic features on hinduism: - The system of castes, though its interpretation may vary. - The belief in reincarnation - The faith in the authority of the Vedas. - The belief in the existence of an eternal soul. - The belief that the ultimate goal of the life is the liberation of the soul from the bondage of this world (moksha) I don't include the belief in Brahman, because Mimamsa, Yoga and Sâmkhya seem not to acknowledge it. Mimamsa and Sâmkhya are more atheistic and Yoga is theistic. I don't include either the belief that individual souls are manifestations of a unitary great soul, Atman, because Sâmkhya and Dvaita Vedanta are pluralistic. Do you agree?

To sephiroth ««« Atheists however are delusional people who pretends that they know everything. »»» No, they just claim that there is no evidence for the claims of religions, that some religious ideas are illogical or at odds with science and that there are convincing naturalistic explanations of religion. They don't have to know everything to make these statements.

For me the self is that part of the person which is the witness of external and internal (such as feelings) events. This part of the person is spiritual (that is: not physical), eternal, and is wrongly identified with material things, hence its state of bondage. The goal of the existence is moksha, the liberation of the self from matter to reach a state of inner peace.

Dear cyber-hindus, Here is the paradox of the souls: there is an infinite number of souls. But souls can be in two states: bondage and salvation. But suppose that at the beginning all souls are in a state of bondage. They make up a set called: "set A". And then suppose one soul is freed. So the remaining souls will form a new set called "set B". What I ask is whether the set B is infinite or finite? If it is infinite, it means that it is equal to the set A. Therefore, infinite = infinite - 1. It is a non-sense. If, however, the set is finite, it means that: infinite - 1 = finite, or, once we have changed the place of the terms, finite + 1 = infinite. It does not make sense either. Perhaps you would object that additions and subtraction do not apply to infinite sets in the ordinary sense. But in the physical world, there is nothing, no rule, to prevent us from using additions and subtractions. It has also been objected that there are many kinds of infinite. So, when we say: infinite = infinite - 1, we are speaking of two different infinites. The problem is that the identity of a number is made up of its units. Once we remove or add a unit, the identity of a number is destroyed. It is not merely a superficial change, such as one losing his hair. It's a substantial change. I thought that to say that there is a kind of infinite whose definition is: "infinite - 1" is self-contradictory. As soon as an infinite loses one of its units, its identity changes, I thought, and it loses the status of an infinite... However, the problem can be settled by saying infinite is not the name of an individual but the name of a species of numbers. Thus, subtraction can change the identity of an infinite number, but its identity changes within the species it belongs to. I conclude that there is no obvious contradiction in the statement that there exists an infinite number of souls. What is your opinion?

Sâmkhya is usually understood as an atheistic dualism - though some scholars say that Sâmkhya does not explicitly denies God - which claims that there exist two natures: prakriti, the matter, and purushas, the souls. Contrary to the Upanishads, Sâmkhya teaches that souls are many. That's why it is said that Sâmkhya puts reason above the Scriptures. Matter, according to Sâmkhya, is made up of three interacting components: sattva (goodness, light), rajas (activity, pain) and tamas (heaviness, apathy). At the beginning, these components were in a state of balance, but for an unknown reason, the balance was broken, and as a result, prakriti began to evolve and took gross forms. The evolution of matter is goal-directed in Sâmkhya: matter evolves for the sake of the soul. Mind, insofar as it is applied to material things, the self, and intelligence are material in nature. Whereas matter is active, soul is passive. Soul is a kind of witness. Soul is in a state of bondage, and this bondage stems from the false identification of the soul with matter. The means to salvation according to Sâmkhya is discriminative knowledge: the soul has to know that it is different from matter to be freed.

Dear cyber-hindus, It seems that in your view, the world is cyclical in nature. That's why there are three gods, one who creates, one who sustains, and one who destroys. And there is the metaphor of the breathing of Brahman. The problem is that if all that is in the world is doomed to happen again, then there can be no definitive salvation. Suppose your soul is saved in this life. In the next cycle, when it will come to the time you should be born, will you leave moksha and come back to samsara? If no, what would happen? Another soul will take your place? But where does this soul come from? Is there an infinite number of souls waiting to take a body? But an infinite number does not make sense. So there must be a finite number. But if there is just a finite number, and if the world is eternal... all souls should be saved by now! Is the soul created by Brahman? But it does not settle the problem, because since the world is eternal, there should be an infinite number of created souls to make up for the eternal duration... I find this thought very worrying. I hope you will get me out of the hole...