Samkhya

Hi, I think of becoming a hindu because as far as I know, I find in hinduism the solution to some problems concerning God. If God is all-good, why is there so much evil? Besides, some people claim that there are internal inconsistencies in the concept of God (shaped by Christianity). I think that the answer may consist in distinguishing two aspects of God: a personal aspect, with known determinations, such as will, love and intelligence, and an impersonal aspect, beyond all determinations. What gives me this idea is the hindu distinction between saguna and nirguna Brahman. Besides, it seems that there is some empirical support for the idea of reincarnation, but I don't know the affair very well. As for the law of dharma, it may mean that there are objective criteria of morality. There are some things that are absolutely right and others that are absolutely wrong. But I don't buy the jati system. Can you help me make my thoughts clearer please?

Now you have your examples, what are you going to do?

You have not replied to me: why do you put a soul beyond consciousness?

A CELL is less organized than a body, which consists of a net of cells. A MOLECULE is less organized than a cell. RUINS are less organized than a house.

""" Dead people do not remember anything. Any brain which suffers break down of oxygen supplies for more than 7 minutes WILL show signs of permanent damage. You should try harder in proving existence of your so-called "less organized system" before making statements. As for me, I could say there is no such thing. """ I don't understand why you speak of recollections? The concept of less organized systems turns around the levels of organization: atomic, molecular, cellular, organic, etc.. What I said is that consciousness may be a feature of a high level of organization, which is not eternal. """ Wrong ... it is NOT my fault if you don't know anything about the Brain yet speak as if you are a Ph.D in Neuroscience. Maybe you should have thought about that BEFORE opening a thread and ask about Afterlife. """ Try to make your case in a scientific forum (and let me know where), if you are so sure of your views that you don't fear to be disproven. Your arguments are still arguments from ignorance.

Besides, why to suppose a soul beyond consciousness? Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. And why would mind be an illusion?

"""Yes, the activities of the brain is similar, but the individual brains themselves are NOT. So what is the use of discussing the activity of the brain if what it does it different to each person?""" If the activities of the brain were different to each persone, neuroscience would be impossible. Likewise, drug therapy would be impossible. """Wrong ... your "ethics" embodied in your MIND and Mind is an illusion. IF your ethics is embodied in your brain like you said it is, then you could still withhold yourself from drunk-driving, rape someone, insult someone in the face, fights or dance in obscene manner when under the influence of drugs and alcholol. The very fact the your ethics fly out of the window the moment you are drunk shows that the brain, under the influence of chemicals could do things which you later identify as unethical. Which means that chemical CAN override your brain, which is false. You may feel like flying out of the window like superman, but that will not change your physical capabilities and give you superpowers. """ Mind and brain, perhaps only brain, are a field of battle between opposite forces, some pushing me to act immorally, others pushing me to resist. Under the influence of chemicals, one side gets stronger than the other and compels me to act that way. """I didn't say it, Science did by using MIR scanning which shows that portion of the brain DO sleep when you fall asleep.""" brain may do many things during sleep. Sleep may be more than one purpose. """Why don't you give an example of your so-called "less organized system" which will scrample your consciousness? I cannot think of any.""" The elements of a corpse. The corpse itself is not an unified system, but its elements are. *** Your arguments are sometimes arguments from ignorance. You are leading me beyond what I know about the brain, and I can't reply to you in a scientific way, but there is no reason to suppose that the scientific answer cannot exist.

"""No ... energy is pure form.""" What does that mean? """If that is true, then you cannot possibly be dreaming. Dream should occur to a certain people alone while others shouldn't be getting it. WHY? Because not all cerebral activities are the same for everyone, yet 99% of humans do dream but most of them forgot their dreams when they awaken. Hell ... even cats and dogs dreams also.""" Cerebral activity undergoes changes during sleep after definite patterns, which allow dreams to occur after a time of loss of consciousness. Nothing supernatural about this. """ Also, dreams could be irrevelant to your daily lives. Sins of your guilt shouldn't be shown in your dreams and torment you IF your consciousness is simply based on your own brain. There is no purpose for it. Why should the brain show you your sins by tormenting you in your sleep? What is the purpose? It even goes AGAINST the very activity of sleeping where the brain shuts down most of its activity to rest but rest is not given IF dreams of torment is fill your dreams. """ My ethical principles are embodied in my brain. My brain is influenced by these principles when it invents dreams. Besides, your understanding of sleep may be inaccurate if you say that in sleep, the brain "shuts down most of its activity to rest". There is presumably more to say. """ According to my belief, stating you LOSE consciousness when you sleep is equal saying that you are a Vampire (an Undead) and you die everytime you go to bed. """ My consciousness is lost, but the conditions of existence of my consciousness remain, so that my consciousness can exist anew after sleep. What is more puzzling is the fact that I feel that experiences before sleep are MINE. It may be an argument for the existence of the Self in sleep. """ Wrong again. If your Self if destroyed, then you will not have the same emotions you carried forth the night before. If you go to bed with anger, most likely you will wake up with the same anger the morning after. Nothing is destroyed. And we all know that the "Self" is just an illusion - an Ego. It doesn't exists. """ Perhaps my emotions are not carried by my self, but by my brain. """ Yeah, and you can use the same bricks, doors, windows and furnitures to build or add onto another house. Restructuring occurs all the time in matter, one destruction of one matter (no matter how complex it is) doesn't mean that the elements will dispers in the air and vanish. That is against Laws of Nature. In same way is human soul. Just because your body falls and returns to Earth, your soul WILL remain - whether to be reborned or simply go to a higher plain. """ If my consciousness is a feature of a highly organized system, the brain, it will be lost when the system will turn into a less organized one. """ where did the flame of the 1st torch comes from? Someone lit it? Which means that someone used another torch to lit this one and you will use this torch to lit another. """ Command, one can light a fire without another fire. My example attempts to show that a phenomenon may be continuous even when its causes are changing. You say that since consciousness is continuous and brain is changing, brain can't be the cause of consciousness. But the fire analogy challenges such a reasoning.

««« Unfortunately, you are not made of pure energy alone, you consists of pre-modified matter. Your heart is matter, your lungs, your brain also and such. »»» But is not matter a form of energy? ««« And you do not lost consciousness when you sleep. Your brain remains active but studies shows only small portions of the brain remains active while others rest. »»» You assume that there is some consciousness as long as there is cerebral activity. But maybe consciousness arises only when there is a certain kind of cerebral activity. The view that I lose consciousness when asleep is quite obvious, and the burden of proof is upon you. ««« If you say you lose consciousness when you sleep, it is like saying you're an undead and you die everytime you fall asleep which is untrue (for non-Undeads anyway). »»» Your analogy fails because my vital functions does not stop when I sleep. But perhaps it is true to say that my Self is destroyed each night and is reborn each morning. ««« Wrong ... "organization" of matter is simply breaking down and restructuring "bonds" between two or more atoms (of same elements or others) to form matter. »»» But there are things which are more organized than others, and perhaps a high level of organization is required for consciousness to arise. Organization does not disappear completely, but things may become less organized, as when I destroy a house. ««« So, you are saying an Atheists (who don't believe in a soul) could kill without guilt. Or a Christian or a Muslim who do not believe in Hindusm could hurt a Hindu without sense of guilt. Is that right? »»» The feeling of guilt may be a social necessity, and therefore it is a good thing to impart it to children. There may be a biologically-rooted «openness» to the experience of guilt, and people decide that for their collective survival, they should encourage this experience, but it does not entail that the feeling of guilt is something supernatural. ««« And since your matter always changed and your cells always in constant dead and rebirth mode, then whatever holds your consciousness is independant to your body and brain. We calls it a Soul. »»» This is an argument for the existence of a soul independently of the body. But take a flame which is burning on a torch. When the torch is worn out, we put the fire onto another torch. The fire has a continuous existence on the two successive torches, even if its cause is altogether replaced by another cause. So the mind may be caused by the body, even if the components of the body are constantly being replaced whereas the soul has a continuous existence.

I don't see what the relation is between the soul and guilt. The feeling of guilt may be an effet of our upbringing or even an evolutionary feature.

««« You know, your signature - "Sâmkhya philosophy teaches how to get out of the hole." reminds me of an atheist I know from a website called Internet Atheist Org or something. »»» It can't be me. I don't currently hang out on atheist forums. However, I think I saw you on a Christian forum. You say that energy does not disappear, but only undergoes transformations. But when I fall asleep, I lose consciousness, though in your view I have just undergone a change. The laws of nature, associated with my loss of consciousness, are not broken by my sleep. And what if death was similar to sleep, a sleep without dreams and without awakening? According to John Searle, consciousness is a feature of the brain, but at a higher level of description than neurons and synapses. But there is no law stating that "levels of descriptions" (and not: energy) can't disappear when the body undergoes changes. Think about it: matter always remains, but organization can disappear. If consciousness requires organization to arise, then consciousness is dependent upon some states of matter and will perish when matter will lose its form.

What's the evidence for the existence of the afterlife? Are not there some arguments AGAINST the existence of the afterlife? For instance, according to Occam's principle, entities must not be multiplied without necessity. Therefore, why to postulate a soul when it is possible to explain mental events by brain processes alone? But it seems that there is a field of enquiry which provides us with evidence for afterlife: parapsychology (psychical research).

I am not a Christian because the way I conceive God (a transcendent being, over the universe) makes it impossible for him to become a man. A being cannot change his nature without ceasing to exist. God cannot do what is logically impossible, and it is logically impossible for him to become a man (Jesus) and to have human experiences. God is God and man is man. Period. Jesus is at best a prophet blessed by God, but not God embodied. Also, I don't see how to make sense of the expression "son of God".

But for the thing to pass from a state to another one, there must be a cause distinct from the thing, a kind of mover. In other words, the thing cannnot by itself pass from a previous state to the next one. It requires the involvement of a "mover". This is why monism seems to be false, unless you propose another version thereof.

Can you remind me of what is satkaryavada and its opposite? Use examples, please.

"We exist, and god exist... we are part of god and simultaneously separated by him.." I can't figure it out. How can a part be separated from the whole? Are we distinct or not from God? Do you think of reality as a kind of organism, being one, but having internal differentiations?

Before I consider becoming hindu, I would like to ascertain that monism (vedantic monism) is thinkable, that is, an intelligible hypothesis. According to Sankara, we don't know it, but we are the same thing as Brahman. But if Sankara is right, if there is any ignorance, it must not be attributed to us, as distinct entities, but to Brahman. But for Brahman to be ignorant is impossible. According to Ramanuja, reality is like an organism, which is one, but has internal differentiations. But this is not possible, because every organism is related to his environment. If an organism grows, it is because it borrows matter from the environment. But there can't be an "environment" around reality, because reality is all. If we say that Brahman is the soul of the world, we could ask: how were this soul and the world united? By what? All thinkers who make of Brahman the material cause or the substance of the universe are suspect, because a material cause or substance does not account for the existence of his modes, just as the stone out of which the statue is made does not account for the form of the statue. There must be, in addition, an efficient cause to produce the modes or to shape the statue.

My argument in the first post means that God cannot be the stuff out of which things come from. God must be beyond the universe. God cannot be the material cause of the world, but only his efficient cause. I think it is what Dvaita teaches.

To what extent is Sanskrit similar to Hindi?

I should have said: "so a great being". Sorry for the grammar error.

Sorry, but pleasure makes no sense for a being so great.

Order as such requires an explanation, because order is a unity brought in a diversity. Diversity by itself is many, and it stands in opposition to unity. Therefore, if some unity finds itself in diversity, this would mean that diversity has been acted upon from without by some principle. Therefore: every order has a cause. There are two kinds or order: material, in the world, and mental, in the mind (there is in the mind an order among the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc.). These two kinds require a cause. But suppose you want the first ground of all. It cannot be matter, and it cannot be mind, therefore it is some mysterious being in which all qualities are melt into some homogeneous "soup", and which in consequence exhibits no order, but perfect unity. But these thoughts bring a problem: how can diversity come from a perfect unity?

You say that you "know" it is not true, but does it mean that you have a proof that it is not true?

Hi all, Do you feel ill at ease with the islamic belief that non-muslims go to hell? (at least, those who are acquainted with islam).

Hello all, Don't you find that dvaita vedanta is quite close to monotheism? There is even a hell that lasts forever. Does this mean that Madhva was influenced by Chritians?