Recent posts

#1

Religion / Re: new thoughts?

Last post by Novice - Today at 03:57:55 PM

That's excellent! Would love to hear your alternate views. Would also like to know the historical context of the Advaita and Madyamika.

If we distil out the clutter, what Jesus said can be summarized as follows.

1) There is God who is limitless
2) I (Jesus) am God or at the least I (Jesus) have God-like qualities
3) You (rest of the people) are Gods or at least have God-like qualities

Jesus propagated the message of love or unselfishness.

If I compare this to a message of Advaita distilled to its essentials
1) Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma - Limitless conscious reality called Brahman
2) Aham Brahmasmi - I am that Brahman
3) Tat Tvam Asi - You are that Brahman

Message of Advaita is oneness and implied unselfishness due to this. Vishishtadvaita basically is same as Advaita, except that it views individuals as divine parts which merges back with the whole.

Thus Christianity appears strikingly similar to these philosophies. It appears like we are viewing Advaita or Vishishtadavaita through a cloth with full of holes. Depending on which hole you look through, you get either Trinity or Father only or Father/Jesus combination.

All religions make claim about God. But God is separated from us by either time (you get to see God when you die) or distance (you get to see God when you go to heaven) or matter (you are different from God, but you cannot feel/see the presence). This renders the religions faith-based and requires belief.

Religions of Dvaitic traditions like Christianity, Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon), Islam and many other Hindu traditions fall under this path.

Advaita follows the path of enquiry and your experiences and does not require faith. You either realise whether it is true or not.  Advaita claims that you are God which means you are not separate by time or distance or matter with God. This gives very little hiding place, one cannot claim that you will get to know about God after you die. Advaita claims that you are separated from God only by ignorance and through enquiry if the ignorance is removed, you know your real nature.

But the process of removing ignorance is not easy. One cannot create a one-pager to describe what it is and it needs to be realized the hard way. The difficulty stems from two factors.

1) Language is limited. We are bound by the constructs of the language to communicate and certain concepts are difficult to communicate

2) Explaining about anything requires the thing that is explained has certain attributes or qualities, in other words, it is an object. The objects could be either physical entities (dog or laptop), emotions or feelings, thoughts or ideas, concepts etc. However, as per Advaita, Brahman is not an object, but the subject that experiences all these objects. Or in other words, if you are able to explain something then it is not God.

So, how does Advaitic teachings convince one about Brahman? Vedas, more specifically Upanishads and Bhaghavat Gita spend considerable effort and energy in identifying variety of different techniques to do that. It is impossible to cover all of them, so I will take one of the techniques and explain it here.

The first question is to answer 'who am I'. The natural tendency is to associate 'I' with the body-mind complex. Advaita says that 'I' am that which is 'conscious'. Even the more refined western philosophies equate the term  consciousness with thinking - e.g., I think, therefore I am. But, eastern philosophies go deeper than this and disagrees that consciousness is equated to thinking ability.

One of the techniques to figure out who you are is trig-drishya-viveka. This technique suggests that two things cannot be considered the same if -
- one is changing and other is unchanging
- one is observer and other is observed
There is more to it, but for sake of simplicity, I will skip the others. We can apply this technique to find out who we are.

Are we the body? Body changes all the time - from being a very small baby to a young man and to a withering old person. However, the first person experience of 'I' does not change. You can observe the body and not the other way around. Hence we can conclude 'I' am not the same as body.

If we go one level deeper, are we the mind? Several things go to make the mind - feelings, thoughts/ideas, memory, intellect. For each one of these, we can make the same argument. They change where as 'I' the see'r of the change do not change. 'I' observe them and not the other way around.

So, if I eliminate body, mind, feelings, thoughts, memory, intellect, then what is left? This is like peeling of onions. After you peel one layer after another in an onion, you are left with nothing. Till this point, Advaita and Buddhism go hand in hand. Buddhism stops at this point and says that there is nothing and once you realize this, you will be relieved of suffering (It is lot more nuanced than this, but hard for me to explain). Advaita goes one step further and says one cannot deny the first person experience. The experiencer of all these is the true 'I', this is the actual consciousness and it is distinct from body or mind.

Hence, as an experiencer, 'I' am neither happy or sad (it is the function of the mind), neither fat or thin (it is function of the body), neither intelligent or dumb (it is function of the intellect). 'I' am the experiencer and throw light on all these make them first person experiences.

So, the process starts with a self-enquiry. I intellectually understand this, but unable to apply it in practice.

There are multiple other techniques used in this enquiry process. After the 'I' is resolved, the next question is the claim that everyone is the same Brahman. If through the previous process 'I' is settled, one of the techniques here is to ask if you are different than me what is the difference?

If one says it is the body or mind or intellect, it is easy to counter that as we have previously established that they are not 'you' or 'I'. The feeling of 'I' is identical universally and indistinguishable. This is a tough philosophy, but I can relate somewhat to this. Even as a ten-year old, I was contemplating if someone feels a different 'I' than me and it led to serious disillusionment with the world as I thought what is the point of anything? I shut the thoughts down at that time, but I can deal with them now and grasp them better.

Advaita scholars give example of waves of ocean as an analogy. Are waves different from ocean? Waves come and subside back into the ocean. It will extremely odd for a bigger wave to look at smaller wave and feel somehow more important or smaller wave to look at bigger wave and feel jealousy. All waves are made of same essence and subside back to the same ocean.

Advaita paints the same picture. Brahman is real like the ocean and universe including us is transient forms just like the waves.  Scientifically speaking I see an element of truth here. We are clearly transient, come from the earth and go back to the same earth literally. Every atom in our body comes from the apples and oranges (food that we eat) which in turn come from the soil and earth. Your body's sub-atomic particles could be come from Einstein or may be from Hitler or from a dog that died million years back. All this particles will go on to create a newer and newer forms. Fundamentally, we are just re-cycled particles over and over again just like the waves of the ocean. The only thing that is real is the 'existence' (Brahman) and things that 'exist' are transient forms of the 'existence'.

There is so much more to Advaita or Buddhism than this short summary. I am really thankful to Swami Sarvapriyananda's YouTube videos. If you are interested more, you should listen to them. He will provide a far more insightful picture. For a person who has very less patience to watch or read anything, I am hooked on to his videos.

I agree with Advaitic interpretation on the following things.
- I agree with enquiry into self and identification of 'I' as distinct from body-mind complex.
- I partially agree with elaboration that one 'I' is non-distinct from any other 'I'
- I completely agree that such a realization will make me free of suffering and world will be free of evil.

I am unable to agree with Advaita on the following counts
- The concept of reincarnation. If we are Brahman, then 'who' is reborn?
- Advaita does not explain clearly the purpose of our temporary existence. The best it can get to is what Alan Watts wrote as a story. There was only God at one point, God got bored and since he was very intelligent and came up with a solution. He disguised himself and played not-God. Since God was so good in what he was doing, not-God completely forgot he was God. So, we (not-God) are all trying to get to a point where we realize we are God.
- Advaita does not explain clearly the reason for existence of evil or even natural calamities. The best it can get to is, if you have self-realization, it is impossible for one to be evil, simply because you cannot harm yourself.

Hence I remain an agnostic though I feel I have moved further in my spiritual journey in the last few months. Sorry for the long Francisque post.

#2

Anything You Like / Re: My environmental rant

Last post by Shnozzola - Today at 01:45:08 PM

Thinking of how we NOW take atomic explosions seriously (I guess there could be some that think worrying about nuclear bombs is overblown - sorry, pun intended) makes me consider what it is currently that we pooh pooh and don't take seriously, because it's government overreach or some nonsense by tree huggers.

One new thing is pfas.  The forever chemicals.

https://www.epa.gov/pfas

#3

Entertainment / Re: a new joke thread?

Last post by none - Today at 05:37:35 AM

there is a reason DONALD Trump likes McDonalds....

#4

Anything You Like / Re: My environmental rant

Last post by none - Today at 05:36:55 AM

I don't think it is legal to send the raw sewage upstream to the elected officials.

#5

Anything You Like / Re: My environmental rant

Last post by 8livesleft - Today at 03:16:45 AM

Then again, I think local governments, like corporations, follow a complaint:action ratio - where they'll only act depending on the number of complaints and I guess they simply get more complaints for other things that cost the same amount of money to rectify.

At least it seems it's based on the populace. Here and other poor countries, it depends on the complaints of the elites and/or the politicians themselves as to what things are rectified.

#6

Anything You Like / Re: My environmental rant

Last post by 8livesleft - Today at 02:53:57 AM

Raw sewage? That's terrible

Maybe you can ask your local officials to study how other countries do it? I'm sure the best minds there can come up with a good cost-benefit study. 

#7

Anything You Like / My environmental rant

Last post by Shnozzola - Today at 02:48:22 AM

This week, Harrisburg PA spoke about their sewer systems and how the outdated infrastructure can't handle the storms, like cities all across the US.

"heavy rain or snow greatly increases stormwater running through the aging stormwater and sewer system, overwhelming its capacity and causing untreated sewage to reach the Susquehanna River. 

Our infrastructure is undersized and overwhelmed by all the rainwater that runs off of buildings and streets as our city has been built out over the decades."

(What happens is, across the United States, when we get large storms, say over 4 inches of rain in 24 hours, our sewer plants are overwhelmed and need to release raw sewage into our rivers.  It really is leftover stupidity from when we ignored our water systems and thought they would just move our problems downstream, like the Cuyahoga river in Ohio (https://www.nps.gov/articles/story-of-the-fire.htm#:~:text=Railroad%20bridges%20near%20Republic%20Steel,damage%20to%20the%20railroad%20bridges) catching fire in the late 60s, leading to the clean water act the epa enforces.

The United States continues to kick the can down the road.  I actually thought, as much as I despised Trump, he could be the hardhat wearing infrastructure president that fixes sewer plants, lead pipes across American cities, and coal ash storage nationwide. Of course, he did nothing.

In 2008 (I was surprised it was that long ago)  in Tennessee the coal ash storage mountains collapsed after giant storms (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill)



Can you imagine that is your house?

We really must start acting like adults.

(It isn't just the US.  In china, the pork industry is so huge, the manure from giant farm operations is ignored and not properly spread across areas to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen levels that affect streams, drinking water, human pregnancy,  etc.)

We really need to address the importance of science at a time when people are questioning and ignoring science.

End rant.  (Oh god will take care of us.  Eternal life is all that matters anyway.....🥵🤯)

#8

Religion / Re: What the hell is trinity?

Last post by 8livesleft - Today at 01:33:58 AM

Certainly the gene changes experienced reality, similar to to how the synthesia gene changes experienced reality.

Maybe this is the group that the bible considers as "chosen?"

So, it's not really a good vs evil thing but rather a genetically distinct group vs others? Because the "others" wouldn't even consider satan/demons real and aren't these demonic allies who God's forces are apparently against?

I am somewhat if a mystic and have a spiritual life without believing in what is called "the supernatural".

Let me see if I understand. Mysticism and spirituality are rooted in reality but it's just that the phenomenon you observe haven't been scientificially defined/discovered yet?

Personally, I do believe that there are real phenomena that science hasn't studied enough yet that aren't supernatural.

Things like how one twin "feels" what the other feels even if they're in different countries for example.

Karmic relationships, people who can predict specific events accurately, past lives...things relating to an unquantifiable "interconnectedness" for example.

Would ^that be similar to what you're saying?

[Supernatural]

#9

Religion / Re: What the hell is trinity?

Last post by Kiahanie - Today at 01:16:01 AM

••••

••••

The god gene "predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences." "Supernatural" stuff is only one aspect.

Aren't those 3 speaking of the same thing or at least related to each other? I use them interchangeably.

Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Spiritual: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL

:of or relating to sacred matters

Mystical: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality

Still, it would be interesting if the gene changes the reality that these individuals experience. Because that could be the cause of the schism.

Certainly the gene changes experienced reality, similar to to how the synthesia gene changes experienced reality.

Concerning your trilogy, they are aspects of the same thing being described from different perspectives. I am somewhat if a mystic and have a spiritual life without believing in what is called "the supernatural". In fact, my own understanding of the supernatural (existing in the dynamic processes of reality, beyond that which exists and including all, metaphysical.) bypasses godly things altogether.

Process theory helps smooth out a lot of bumps.

#10

Religion / Re: What the hell is trinity?

Last post by 8livesleft - Today at 12:14:35 AM

8lives, the nonexistence of god is a proven fact, borne out by all the reasonable evidence. no other conclusion can reasonably be reached after looking at the data.

it is a fact that jesus christ never existed, and that the gospel stories are fabrications. the evidence speaks for itself. proven fact after fact demonstrates that the first century accounts of early christians are political and social hoaxes, designed to deceive any who would read them.

the data and the evidence all require that any reasonable inference cannot differ from this except in minor details.

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus an 'apocalyptic' Jewish preacher likely existed and his arguments are incredibly strong.

I agree that defining 'god' , which 'god' is impossible, but this whole evolutionary 'random chance 'vs the  'fine tuning ' of our universe is not factual understood by humans,....let alone completely dismissing a higher intelligence/ god as mastermind behind life as we know it.

For me dogmatic religion and the CURRENT scientific community have a common denominator.
Both are 100% sure their foundations are solid .
Both really don't like their foundations being challenged, despite paying lip service to the contrary.
Both discourage those who want to challenge what has been 'proven' long ago.
Both ignore and silence those who still try to challenge the cherished narratives, despite lip service to the contrary.

And i have mostly experience with religion, little with the scientific community.
But 25 years of searching the internet and personal encounters have made me wonder about the dogmatic nature of the current scientific community and their many deceitful ways when power and money is guiding the outcome of 'scientific research'.

satire.

this was satire.

Ahhh totally missed it.
I feel stupid 

dont.

youre native tongue is one that 99.9999 percent of the world finds totally incomprehensible.

if i could speak dutch i would hire myself out to the UN as a translator and become rich.

Dutch to me sounds like a mix between german and english. 

Russian, chinese, japanese, arabic...wow. 

But I guess it's the same for a foreigner hearing bahasa, filipino hehe