Samkhya

"Oh, I have no illusion about the origin, if all you can offer is aliens and big bangs then I pity you, even a child can observe that a bang can only lead to destruction and ciaos; it can not bring about order and creation." You seem to deny Big bang with a commonsensical argument. As far as I know, "Big bang" is only intended to mean the beginning of the expansion of space and evolution of matter. But I need a confirmation.

««« your problem in the understanding of the karma law, is that you believe that karma law is to be a teaching a lesson »»» Ok. Therefore karma is a kind of natural law, like Newton's law of «action-reaction». ««« if karma were a school there was no need of religions, authomatically we were taught by karma and gradually we were automatically saved.. but we know that it does not happens like that »»» Of course, but it would have been safer than religions of which none is universal and which are often misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Hello, I would like to present an argument drawn from a book on the Vedanta, in which the author holds that karma is not really vedantic. The argument is that, according to karma, if I have a wretched life, it is because of my sins (bad deeds, if you prefer) in a previous life. But I have no recollection of this sinful life. But, for a punishment to be fair, he who is punished must have some recollection of what he has done, so that he can understand why he is punished. It is a necessary condition for someone to draw some benefit from his life. Therefore, karma implies recollections of previous lifes. But since there are no such recollections, we can infer that karma is at least partially false.

««« Why would sleep be a problem for belief in an afterlife in the first place? The Vedic rishis believed that it is only when you are ASLEEP that you are truly AWAKE in a sense. When you sleep, you're recharging, your soul or atma is somewhat disconnected from your body, yet it still exists. It's just not identified with your body at the time. Consciousness isn't "lost". Nothing is ever lost. It simply is displaced, or it simply has relocated. »»» But when I fall asleep, I am less and less conscious. The consciousness vanishes steadily, instead of being withdrawn from the body. Unless you argue that the consciousness may be unconscious? It is self-contradictory. You are free to say that when one falls asleep, something gets out of his body (as I am free to believe many things), but don't call it "consciousness".

««« Sorry, this ISN'T what is at stake with the recent discoveries. Whoever says it is, has a very narrow viewpoint limited only to themselves and isn't even considering other viewpoints. What IS at stake here is simply the understanding of what goes on in the body, and nothing more. »»» It is true, from a scientific standpoint. But, here we are interested in a philosophical viewpoint (view of the world). Of what use is such an inquiry into the biology of the faith if not philosophical?

««« saddam used gas (as did hitler) to just kill kurds easily in large numbers. »»» you have got a Godwin's point. ;-)

««« It does not give any indication as to whether God exists or not. »»» You're right, it does not disprove the existence of God. ««« the debate of whether God exists is pretty much unaffected by these discoveries. I think there would be just as many people satisfied in saying that there is a God with these newfound discoveries as there are just as many people who are skeptical of God's existence after learning of these newfound discoveries. In essence, nothing has changed, aside from our understanding of the physiological process of enlightenment. »»» I am not agree, in as much as such religious experiences could be used as a proof of God's existence (cf: Bergson). Today, this path is closed. To be fair, The author of my book (Andrew Newberg) thinks that, since the mystics perceive these experiences as as real (objectively true) as - and even more real than - normal experiences - it is a sign that these experiences are objectively true. So Newberg has settled this criterion: the more an experience is perceived as objectively true, the more it IS objectively true. Thus, even if dreams are thought to be real during sleep, when awoken, dreams are perceived as unreal. The same applies to hallucinations. But I am not agree with this reasoning: young children think that their dreams are as real as their waking experiences. This is presumably because their brain is not mature enough. But one can say that if the mystics perceive their experiences as real, it is because their brain is not mature enough to see their emptiness.

««« The whole body, including the brain exists within manas or mind which again exists within consciousness. »»» Sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean.

««« what scientists unfortunately are neglecting to recognize in their investigations is PURPOSE behind what they discover. »»» But in that case, there is nothing from which we can infer a purpose. The altered state of cousciousness is explained by mere naturalistic logic, and the author of «why God won't go away» also provides an evolutionary explanation of the «transcendent machinery». Although the belief in a purpose is not forbidden, for it is not self-contradictory or contrary to facts, it has neither rational nor empirical ground.

««« There was a belief system in India called the Charvaka system (which I guess you would gladly be a part of), that believed that our experience of God is simply a product of alterations in the brain chemistry and nothing more »»» Yes, it is precisely what is at stake with the recent discoveries. Here is the reasoning: Let us say that B is the opposite of A State A of the brain (normal level of sensory input) -> State A of the mind (sensation of a defined body) Physiological changes State B of the brain (reduced level of sensory input) -> State B of the mind (reduced sensation of a defined body, that which amounts to a stronger feeling of a limitless mind, hence the feeling of oneness with everything It is mere logic, and the state B has nothing supernatural. It is natural, however, that this state could be misunderstood on account of a lack of knowledge and construed as an insight into the Ultimate Reality.

According to me, the fact of Evolution is of a lesser importance that the mechanisms - the how - of Evolution. The problem is that the dominant theory, neo-darwinism, and also an evolutionary biologist as Stephen Jay Gould, give a large room to chance in the explanation of Evolution, that which seems at odds with the belief in a cosmic purpose.

Do you find that the fact of sleep is a problem for belief in an afterlife? I mean that from the fact of sleep, we know that consciousness is an unstable and discontinuous entity, that consciousness can be lost depending on the state of the brain. My point is that if consciousness were an unbreakable substance, it would be continuous in time, and not discontinuous, interrupted by times of sleep. Or, you can state that what is immortal is not the consciousness as such, but a "soul", of which consciousness is just a property. So, the fact that consciousness is lost or mental powers are impaired by physiological factors do not imply that soul is affected. But, in that case, how do we know that there is a soul, which is not identical with consciousness, and therefore, beyond our internal experience? Moreover, if the soul is to go on existing after death, as the soul finds itself conscious and unconscious in this life, what tells us in which state the soul will be later?

««« and trying to imply that if some one feels unitly with all then it is some disorder in brain. when one feels one with all due to his spiritual advancement, then due to his high position, sure some change will happen in his mind, brain, body. that then is the consequence not the cause. »»» I would not use the word «disorder». It is certainly an unusual state of the brain, but I do not see any evidence that it is a pathology. I don't believe that the state of the brain described above is a CONSEQUENCE of the mental experience of the mystic. It is more logical to hold that the changes in the brain GENERATE the mystical experience. Why is it more logical? Because we know that the normal functioning of the Orientation Association Area, that I have alluded to in my first message, is responsible for the feeling of a limited body. In other words, it is the CAUSE of such a feeling. But, the feeling of oneness with all the things is the opposite of this feeling. Therefore, we can expect that the feeling of oneness will occur when the Orientation Association Area does not work in a normal way. More precisely, what enables the normal functioning of the Orientation Association Area is a constant sensory input. But, when the level of the sensory input is lower, the feeling of a defined body fades accordingly. And at which time is the sensory input lower? During meditation!

It seems, according to my experience on Internet, that there is a way of philosophizing which consists in casting doubt on every statement offered as evident in itself... he who doubts is in a better position than he who asserts. He has nothing to lose. He is satisfied with uncertainties and he revels in shattering others' beliefs. It is so easy to state that what you present as evident is not enough evident for me. It is so easy that it does not require much reflection.

««« something to say is that all god's manifestations or emanations are eternal »»» How is it possible? My house did not exist 100 years ago. It is not eternal. And What about Evolution? Do you imply that the history of the universe is cyclical and will occur again in some billions of years? This view is incompatible with the statement that there is a way to free oneself from the bonds of the world. For, if the history of the universe is cyclical, my life, and therefore my bondage, must be also cyclical, since I am an element of the universe. This means that, even if I am freed for a while, I will eventually go back to the world...

Hello, Have you read «why god won't go away»? The author of the book tells us that the deep feeling of oneness with everything experienced by mystics is explained by the fact that the area of the brain which is responsible for creating the sensation of a limited, physically defined body, no longer receives the sensory inputs which allow it to work normally. As a result, the sensation of a limited and defined body disappears and what is experienced instead is a feeling of oneness with all the reality. This explanation is supported by a brain imaging technique which shows us that the activity in this area is diminished while a meditative exercise is performed. I could give more details. The book is beside me.

No, I am not talking about him who determines the form of the manifestation. If, according to you, "manifesfation" can be defined simply as "coming into existence", so there cannot be any matter of disagreement. And if this is how the writer of my book understands "manifestation", my criticism is futile. But it is not the way I understand "manifestation". To my mind, manifestation is the process by which something previously hidden becomes apparent to a knower.

Hello, I am picking up my Webster's New World Dictionary. Webster says that "manifestation" is "a manifesting or being manifested". So let's go to the definition of "manifest". Manifest: 1) "apparent TO THE SENSES OR THE MIND, obvious". Here is the knower I am talking about, he with "senses or mind". 2) "to make clear or evident, reveal" Without an act of knowledge, a thing is "clear" or "evident" only in potency.

I would say that "the nothingness cannot create something" because creation is a relation between a creator and an effect, and for a relation to be real, the two terms of the relation must be real. It is as if you have to build a bridge between two edges. This is possible only if the two edges are there. And if you quibble on this latter statement, you're incurable...

Hello, My point is that "manifestation of something" necessarily implies someone whom the thing is manifested to, for the word "manifestation" involves the idea of becoming known. Is it clear? Such an idea is not involved in the word "mode".

Hello, First I wish to apologize for my poor English: it is not my mother language. I am from Quebec. I have just read a book on the philosophy of Vedanta. I am not satisfied at all with the view that the finite beings are the "manifestations" of the Absolute. For, if this is so, the question inevitably dawns upon me: manifestation for whom? Whom are the finite beings manifested for? A manifestation, by its notion, implies a knower. The finite beings are manifested EITHER for the Absolute itself, OR for a being outside of the Absolute. If the former, how can we explain that the Absolute has to manifest itself for itself? Is it like a baby who discovers his body? If the latter, it means that the Absolute is not the only Substance. There is a being which exists independently of it, and which «sees» the manifestation of the Absolute as a kind of show... The Vedanta philosophers did not seem to have seen this problem.