Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on January 31, 2016, 04:46:36 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a video about 'what is God'. I am sure even atheists will agree with most of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9VOz4dV92Q
Try it!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Oh, perleeease!!! I dipped in for ten seconds at four or five places and that was quite enough!
-
Dear Sriram,
Brilliant old son ;) isn't it :P
Gonnagle.
-
I quite enjoyed it, having not expected to at first. Maybe many western atheists have become effectively allergic to talk of god because of the particular character of abrahamic faiths, they being much preoccupied with ideas around morality, sin, judgement, salvation, heaven and hell and onetruewayism. This was somewhat more nuanced perhaps.
-
I quite enjoyed it, having not expected to at first. Maybe many western atheists have become effectively allergic to talk of god because of the particular character of abrahamic faiths, they being much preoccupied with ideas around morality, sin, judgement, salvation, heaven and hell and onetruewayism. This was somewhat more nuanced perhaps.
Thanks for watching the video ...torridon.
The video brings out what I have been saying on here for years about Hindu concepts of God and about the different images of God that we create. In essence, it highlights what spirituality is all about towards the end.
-
Dear Sriram,
Brilliant old son ;) isn't it :P
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
Thanks for that.
I know you are a believer, but I have never been able to identify whether you are a Christian or a secular spiritualist.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I liked the delivery, reminded me of
https://www.youtube.com/#/results?q=dave%20allen%20on%20religion&sm=1
The first part is fine. It's the sort of stuff that I am sure puts a lot of people off god, that it is a big something. It's then very easy to drag down by saying you've just made that up. (see Lewis pointing this out in The Silver Chair - though his way out is an argument by consequences which isn't as elegant as the video)
The problem is the elision at the conclusion, that goes because there has been thought of something, then even with no discernible definitio, there is something. And dissolution is not defined either so it ends as mush for me. Pleasant well delivered non judgemental mush, but mush all the same.
-
"If you were a buffalo, you would think God is a huge buffalo" OK, whatever rocks you.
"And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, the Lord.
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed the Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exodus 34: 5, 6
Humans are not animals. I do not believe a chicken pops out of the egg and grows up to think about the big bird in the sky. All animals will learn to fear humans.
-
Why bother asking, there's nothing I've ever seen heard or read that has given me any reason to want to ask, plus there is no evidence any such thing has ever existed, pleasant enough chap, could do with a trim, plenty of the pointed finger assertionatron projector.
ippy
-
"If you were a buffalo, you would think God is a huge buffalo" OK, whatever rocks you.
"And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, the Lord.
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed the Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exodus 34: 5, 6
Humans are not animals. I do not believe a chicken pops out of the egg and grows up to think about the big bird in the sky. All animals will learn to fear humans.
Another one away with the fairies, Woody.
ippy
-
Humans are not animals.
Of course they are, you blithering fool. What do you think they are, trees?
-
No chopper, you are the one in fairy land.
Do us some chicken noodle soup ippy! You're a nice guy but having you around is like being alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbAdoos6HBg
-
We are set above the animal Shaker. OK, so you can't see yourself as anything but. I can understand why. (snork) ALL animals will learn to fear you.
-
We are set above the animal Shaker.
Oh? Says who? Not the scientific community, so who is doing this "setting above" exactly?
-
No chopper, you are the one in fairy land.
Do us some chicken noodle soup ippy! You're a nice guy but having you around is like being alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbAdoos6HBg
At least I'm another human animal just as you are too.
Woody, a serious question why don't you think we your fellow humans and including yourself are not animals?
What's wrong with being an animal?
It's very easy to see we are animals without a need to consult any experts, whatever makes you think we're not animals?
Seriously Woody why?
ippy.
-
At least I'm another human animal just as you are too.
Woody, a serious question why don't you think we your fellow humans and including yourself are not animals?
What's wrong with being an animal?
It's very easy to see we are animals without a need to consult any experts, whatever makes you think we're not animals?
Seriously Woody why?
ippy.
There's really only ever one answer to that, and that's the desire to be a special little snowflake without the instincts, the unconscious drives, the appetites, the needs and the habits that we see in the rest of the animal kingdom. In essence.
-
Sriram,
Just watched it. Starts off ok - people create gods in their own images etc but having set off on a decent road, he then careers off it by assuming that the childhood assumption of a top down creator god must be the correct one and all we have to do thence is to "dissolve" into it. No telling us what this god might be, no explanation for why a god is necessary at all, no clues of any kind as to how we'd know we'd dissolved into a god rather than just got the wrong idea in our heads.
Seems to be a likeable chap, but nothing there to get your intellectual teeth into. Disappointing.
-
Sriram,
Just watched it. Starts off ok - people create gods in their own images etc but having set off on a decent road, he then careers off it by assuming that the childhood assumption of a top down creator god must be the correct one and all we have to do thence is to "dissolve" into it. No telling us what this god might be, no explanation for why a god is necessary at all, no clues of any kind as to how we'd know we'd dissolved into a god rather than just got the wrong idea in our heads.
Seems to be a likeable chap, but nothing there to get your intellectual teeth into. Disappointing.
Hillside is turning into Dawkins.
-
Hillside is turning into Dawkins.
Dawkins is already taken.
-
Dear Sriram,
I know you are a believer, but I have never been able to identify whether you are a Christian or a secular spiritualist.
Christian, it is written into my DNA, I am a Christian, Our Lord Jesus Christ is my Salvation, but where I differ from other Christians ( and I have said it before ) Christianity is my home not my prison, I can visit Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Paganism etc etc and find joy and enlightenment in their teachings but I always return home.
Where I can't visit is Atheism, a closed club, you need a certain kind of mind for that club, but it is fascinating trying to work out, what kind of mind :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram,
Christian, it is written into my DNA, I am a Christian, Our Lord Jesus Christ is my Salvation, but where I differ from other Christians ( and I have said it before ) Christianity is my home not my prison, I can visit Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Paganism etc etc and find joy and enlightenment in their teachings but I always return home.
Where I can't visit is Atheism, a closed club, you need a certain kind of mind for that club, but it is fascinating trying to work out, what kind of mind :o :o
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
That's a rare but very nice combination. A faithful Christian but also secular and integrative. Most Hindus would applaud that! So do I.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
"If you were a buffalo, you would think God is a huge buffalo" OK, whatever rocks you.
"And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, the Lord.
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed the Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exodus 34: 5, 6
Humans are not animals. I do not believe a chicken pops out of the egg and grows up to think about the big bird in the sky. All animals will learn to fear humans.
Hi OH MY WORLD,
It is true that we have created God in our own image because that is what we are programmed to do. When a child asks where the sun goes in the evening...we say it goes home and goes to bed. That's what the child can relate to. Most of our understanding is based on anthropomorphic concepts.
That would be true of a buffalo too...if they could think and imagine like us. Nothing new there.
You are mixing up the God that we create for our understanding... with the Real 'God' that is our source and ultimate destiny. The first is just an image, a symbol that we use to relate to the unknowable and using which we get over our fears and anxieties.
The second is what generates the world through its transformation and therefore forms the core of all creation. If you want to imagine it...think of it as similar to the String of String Theory.
Most Hindus are clear about the distinction. We know that the images, rituals and rules are only steps in the ladder that takes us closer to the real God within us.
I think the Gnostic Christians knew it too.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
Just watched it. Starts off ok - people create gods in their own images etc but having set off on a decent road, he then careers off it by assuming that the childhood assumption of a top down creator god must be the correct one and all we have to do thence is to "dissolve" into it. No telling us what this god might be, no explanation for why a god is necessary at all, no clues of any kind as to how we'd know we'd dissolved into a god rather than just got the wrong idea in our heads.
Seems to be a likeable chap, but nothing there to get your intellectual teeth into. Disappointing.
Blue,
Typically, as long as the Sadguru says what you believe in, you are fine..... but where he goes beyond your experience, you become restive and uncomfortable.
We should resist too much emphasis on intellectualism. We can only understand things in terms of what we have experienced. If you have never experienced gravity....any number of classes on Newtons Laws will make no sense to you. It'll all be abstract (Ahem!...NS) and even weird. But one experience of gravity and it all becomes clear in a moment.
Its the same with God.
We know of the unconscious mind that forms a much larger part of our mental process than the conscious mind (like an iceberg). It knows more than the conscious mind and takes decisions faster than the conscious mind does. The conscious mind is only the front office of a much larger set up that we are not normally aware of.
For a start therefore, the unconscious mind can be seen as a larger and bigger part of ourselves that we wish to relate to or dissolve in. Nothing wrong with that!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
God is whatever the human ingenuity wishes it to be.
-
A reasonable stab at an explanation for why the gods we have are depicted as they are, but no explanation for why we should feel justified in accepting the claim of gods in the first place.
Some interesting things on the psychological expressions that are embodied in religious sentiment, but little on the foundations of theology in the first place.
O.
-
Oh, perleeease!!! I dipped in for ten seconds at four or five places and that was quite enough!
That's a shame!
I quite enjoyed it too.
I liked his point about creating a God in our own image.
I would have thought, even if you don't believe in anything, you could have seen some of his points.
I don't see things in quite the way he does, but enjoyed listening to him anyway.
I think you judged it too soon , and didn't bother to actually listen.
You can't give a valid criticism of something , if you don't bother to listen.
-
Sriram,
Typically, as long as the Sadguru says what you believe in, you are fine..... but where he goes beyond your experience, you become restive and uncomfortable.
Actually it’s the opposite of that – I like engaging with views contrary to my own because it allows me to test and re-evaluate my beliefs. My politics for example are left of centre, but I like reading the (right of centre) Spectator too.
In this case, it’s not that I’m “uncomfortable” but rather that I think he’s wrong, for the reasons I gave.
We should resist too much emphasis on intellectualism. We can only understand things in terms of what we have experienced. If you have never experienced gravity....any number of classes on Newtons Laws will make no sense to you. It'll all be abstract (Ahem!...NS) and even weird. But one experience of gravity and it all becomes clear in a moment.
How about Phlogiston? Or Scotch mist? See your problem here is that you can conjecture any manner of things outwith our “experience” but when you do, any conjecture is epistemically equivalent to any other. Which is fine and dandy as a party game, but if you want to claim that any of these fancies are actually true then you have to come up with a method, a process, a something for others to distinguish your claim from the rest.
Its the same with God.
No it isn’t. Gravity can theoretically be modelled even if you haven’t experienced it. “God” on the other hand is white noise – no definition, no rationale, no evidence, no anything to qualify it. As a conjecture, it’s what science refers to as “not even wrong”.
We know of the unconscious mind that forms a much larger part of our mental process than the conscious mind (like an iceberg). It knows more than the conscious mind and takes decisions faster than the conscious mind does. The conscious mind is only the front office of a much larger set up that we are not normally aware of.
Sort of. The limbic system (that we share with reptiles for example) takes care of many functions we’re barely aware of like breathing and also primal responses like fight or flight. The pre-frontal cortex (that we share with the other great apes) on the other hand does the rational thinking bit. If you haven’t read it already, you should try “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. You’d enjoy it I think.
For a start therefore, the unconscious mind can be seen as a larger and bigger part of ourselves that we wish to relate to or dissolve in. Nothing wrong with that!
No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.
-
It seemed to me that Sadhguru was not in fact making any claims, but essentially saying "find out for yourself". Did he claim that a god actually exists? Only that "your self" and "god" are difficult or impossible to define.
As NS suggested, it is more like Dave Allen, you can just enjoy it - trying to analyse it is a waste of effort.
-
Hi Gonnagle,
That's a rare but very nice combination. A faithful Christian but also secular and integrative. Most Hindus would applaud that! So do I.
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes me too :)
-
It seemed to me that Sadhguru was not in fact making any claims, but essentially saying "find out for yourself". Did he claim that a god actually exists? Only that "your self" and "god" are difficult or impossible to define.
As NS suggested, it is more like Dave Allen, you can just enjoy it - trying to analyse it is a waste of effort.
Yes, find that spark within yourself.
The bit that aspires towards being something nobler and greater.
Regardless of the trappings of your cultural background.
:)
He saw it as dissolving, I see it more as trying to aspire to or reaching towards ......
-
It assumed that the belief in God came to all of us in the same way and somehow we saw God reflected in the creation and image of man.
I watched and listened for a little while, but God never took human form for me at any time as a child.
It wasn't about creation speaking for myself. It was God and I, co-existing together and the reason God wanted us to know about him. Not a Holy God and a dirty world.
I think the world and creation and can waylay us from the way and true God.
My first thoughts of God was he was always there and that I thought everyone knew the same.
As I grew up into adulthood I knew not everyone perceived or saw God with the same eyes and presence as I.
Instead of creation and the darkness in the world making man draw closer to him it somehow made him withdraw even further away. Running to the enemy away from the safety of God.
It has been difficult for me to understand why someone would run from the one answer that would make them able to live their lives with understanding and peace.
-
Dear Rose,
You can't give a valid criticism of something , if you don't bother to listen.
We touched on this in the pub ( me, Gordon and Sane ) and I am guilty as charged, not listening, but not bothering to read a post properly before replying.
I catch myself doing it with my "oh you bloody well think so" attitude, that little thing the forum has, the bit where you press post and a warning appears telling you there have been other posts, now that has saved me quite a few times.
When you notice it in yourself you then start to see other posters doing the same thing, but I suppose it is a wee bit more complicated than that, ego is in there, also that ability to construct a post, put your thoughts into words, so many times I have thought, no that is not what I am saying >:( but when I read my post back, I think, Gonnagle you idiot, it might not have been what you mean't but that is how it reads.
Gonnagle.
-
No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.
I don't know a lot about the man but I suspect that his method is related to advaita (not two) and so it would be related to dissolving what stands in the way of 'oneness' e.g. notions which divide it into 'out there' and 'in there', 'we' and 'it', subject and object. As the method is experiential, consciousness is involved but not the analytical model making aspect of the mind. The reasoning, rationalising mind can't understand it and the words used are only pointers not descriptions. It is also necessary to dispense with western notions of 'god' which is what the guru was getting at, I believe.
-
ekim,
I don't know a lot about the man but I suspect that his method is related to advaita (not two) and so it would be related to dissolving what stands in the way of 'oneness' e.g. notions which divide it into 'out there' and 'in there', 'we' and 'it', subject and object. As the method is experiential, consciousness is involved but not the analytical model making aspect of the mind. The reasoning, rationalising mind can't understand it and the words used are only pointers not descriptions. It is also necessary to dispense with western notions of 'god' which is what the guru was getting at, I believe.
Which is all well and good, but he makes a specific claim of fact - "god". We can all think we "experience" any manner of things, but why would anyone else think he's experienced this god rather than, say, had a rush of blood to the head?
-
Did he say he experienced anything? If he did or did not why would it make any difference to us or you? His emphasis was on experiencing yourself.
-
ekim,
Which is all well and good, but he makes a specific claim of fact - "god". We can all think we "experience" any manner of things, but why would anyone else think he's experienced this god rather than, say, had a rush of blood to the head?
I'll have to listen to his talk again when I've got time, I expect, but I seem to remember him using the expression 'Isn't it' or 'Isn't it so' a lot. In other words 'Don't believe me, it has to be your experience' and the invitation is to use a method to clarify further. One of the expressions for 'god' that is sometimes used is 'Satchitananda' which I believe means 'being-consciousness-bliss' which perhaps suggests the bliss of simply consciously being rather than being this or that like being thoughtful or being emotional or being body beautiful, or being a rich celebrity.
-
Dear ekim,
Isn't it :P I thought it was the man's catchphrase, but I now get Sanes Dave Allen analogy.
What is God.
God is a 56 year old Glaswegian who like a wee drink, enjoys a hot curry, supports the Gers and enjoys a well turned ankle, this is God ::)
And I know what you are thinking, okay not you, others, those pesky Christian types, straight to hell Gonnagle, well I will be saving them a front row seat.
Gonnagle.
-
Rose
I think that, even if there was something there that I did not know already, it would not be interesting enough to spend precious moments of my remaining life listening to! :)
-
It assumed that the belief in God came to all of us in the same way and somehow we saw God reflected in the creation and image of man.
I watched and listened for a little while, but God never took human form for me at any time as a child.
It wasn't about creation speaking for myself. It was God and I, co-existing together and the reason God wanted us to know about him. Not a Holy God and a dirty world.
I think the world and creation and can waylay us from the way and true God.
My first thoughts of God was he was always there and that I thought everyone knew the same.
As I grew up into adulthood I knew not everyone perceived or saw God with the same eyes and presence as I.
Instead of creation and the darkness in the world making man draw closer to him it somehow made him withdraw even further away. Running to the enemy away from the safety of God.
It has been difficult for me to understand why someone would run from the one answer that would make them able to live their lives with understanding and peace.
3
ippy
-
Sriram,
Actually it’s the opposite of that – I like engaging with views contrary to my own because it allows me to test and re-evaluate my beliefs. My politics for example are left of centre, but I like reading the (right of centre) Spectator too.
In this case, it’s not that I’m “uncomfortable” but rather that I think he’s wrong, for the reasons I gave.
How about Phlogiston? Or Scotch mist? See your problem here is that you can conjecture any manner of things outwith our “experience” but when you do, any conjecture is epistemically equivalent to any other. Which is fine and dandy as a party game, but if you want to claim that any of these fancies are actually true then you have to come up with a method, a process, a something for others to distinguish your claim from the rest.
No it isn’t. Gravity can theoretically be modelled even if you haven’t experienced it. “God” on the other hand is white noise – no definition, no rationale, no evidence, no anything to qualify it. As a conjecture, it’s what science refers to as “not even wrong”.
Sort of. The limbic system (that we share with reptiles for example) takes care of many functions we’re barely aware of like breathing and also primal responses like fight or flight. The pre-frontal cortex (that we share with the other great apes) on the other hand does the rational thinking bit. If you haven’t read it already, you should try “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. You’d enjoy it I think.
No, but that says nothing to the notion that there is a god “out there” that we can “experience” by “dissolving” into it. That’s where yer man’s speculations fall apart and will continue to until he manages to set out a cogent means of distinguishing that claim from, say, just having a bit of a funny turn.
Blue,
Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon. That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else. In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.
I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word.
Coming to evidence. Its all about experience. If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.
Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.
If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.
But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.
In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Dear Sriram,
Not got the time at the moment for a longer reply but good post, the term God is a loaded word, one to think about.
Gonnagle.
-
If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution ...
There's the "Uh oh ..." moment ...
-
Just because an experience occurs by chance or due to electrical or chemical interactions in the brain does not mean that they cannot be "profound and life changing" events.
And even if the experience is of an universal consciousness independent of the brain/body, this does not mean that one actually exists as such.
-
Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon.
Which 'phenomenon'? It's not a phenomenon at all, phenomena can be measured and recorded, investigated and inspected.
That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else. In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.
Our conceptualisation is always limited by our linguistic capacity, it's true.
I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word.
The word 'God' is no more loaded than any other word for a vague concept: honour, duty, mercy - all are open to interpretation, all are sometimes viewed highly, sometimes viewed dubiously. In the absence of anything definitive, any conceptual framework is by it's nature subjective.
Coming to evidence. Its all about experience.
The evidence of many experiments is that people's experience is highly questionable.
If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.
Right. How does the 'experience of the inner self' reveal anything about mystic concepts like 'spirit' or 'soul' or 'gods'. You suggest that 'god' is a loaded term, but so are those that the idea is phrased in. 'Honour' and 'justice' and the like are conceptual descriptions of behaviour, but 'gods' and 'spirits' are allegation of objects, of things, and yet there is no basis for presuming these. 'Things' interact, we can deduce their nature from these interactions, yet gods do not interact with anything, spirits are immune from physicality it appears.
Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.
And, as with all things, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate their case. The case for brain chemicals is well-established; if you wish to depict 'god' as something more than a mistaken interpretation of otherwise physical activity, it falls upon you to demonstrate that.
If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.
It's not about 'belief'. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, we've witnessed it in the laboratory, we've documented it in the wild, we've demonstrated it in the genetic records. The theory of evolution is a superlatively well-supported explanation for that demonstrable phenomenon. If you want to posit something more you need to justify the claim, not dismiss one of the most rigorously supported theories of human history as 'assumption'.
But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.
Your false equivalency is shown here; 'guided' evolution is an assumption, because you have no evidence for either a guide or for guidance. You presume, in the absence of support, that our existence has some significance in a grander scheme, and then use that as justification for presuming the grander scheme.
Creation and natural evolution are not two equally valid 'assumptions'. One is a well-supported deduction from the available evidence which has made predictions which have been tested and shown to be accurate, and the other is an assumption.
In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.
That experience may well be a life-changing one, and having gone through it in no way intrinsically makes you a 'bad person', I just want to make that clear. But that you choose to interpret your experience that way does not in any way signify that I have to accept your understanding is any more accurate than the belief that Christ is real or that aliens steal and probe hillbillies.
O.
-
Sriram,
Using he word 'God' can be misleading but that is the most popular word in english for this phenomenon. That's why most of us use the word 'God' instead of say....Universal Spirit, Common Consciousness or something else. In India we have various words for it and we don't use one word like 'God'.
I know that the word 'God' is loaded and carries with it certain imagery from the Bible which most of you are unable to shake off. But we Hindus (including Sadguru) have no option but to use the word.
Not really. Lots of people at lots of times have experienced episodes they found to be transcendent, profound etc and it’s part of our common psychology to reach for explanations outside of ourselves, bigger than ourselves. And these supposed “somethings” are often labelled “god(s)”.
What neuroscience in particular tells us though is that there are various explanations for the phenomenon that require no outside agency at all, and that fall within materialistic parameters. We can even induce these experiences artificially if we want to.
You can use the word “god” to mean “profound experience” if you want to, but what you cannot do is simply to elide that meaning into “a non-material, divine causal agency” just because it suits your cultural influences.
Coming to evidence. Its all about experience. If you haven't experienced 'love'....any amount of scientific explanations in terms of chemicals will not be sufficient. Its the same with experience of your inner self.
No. You’re conflating emotional responses with objective factual claims here. Yes someone who had never experienced love would struggle to grasp its full effect just from reading about it, but you can’t just claim that to be analogous with the supposed fact of a universe-creating deity.
What you’re attempting here is an old saw – love feels a bit, you know, mysterious, and it’s real, therefore…ta-daaaa!...other mysterious stuff must be real too!
All good fun when used to chat up impressionable young women, but logically hopeless nonetheless I’m afraid.
Now...whether the 'experience' is just the rush of come chemicals or something connected to the Consciousness beyond the brain and body is a matter of ones basic premise and assumption.
Nope. If you want to argue for something “beyond the brain and body” you have all your work ahead of you to make that case before you make claims for it.
If you believe that the human body (and brain) is just a product of chance biological evolution and the mind and consciousness are just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain....then obviously all experiences are just chemical in origin and nothing more. The 'God' experience would also be one such.
You fell off the cliff there with that “chance”. Try “purposeless” perhaps and there’s no “just” about it, but you’d be on the right lines, yes.
But if the basic assumption is that the biological evolution of our body and brain is guided... and Consciousness forms a fundamental aspect of the universe ....then the mind and consciousness become independent of the brain/body and the brain/body only form the platform for the consciousness to work.
You can make that assumption if you want to despite the absence of any evidence for it, but then again I could make any assumption I want with no evidence to support it either.
How would that help either of us?
In this case, moving from an individual consciousness to a more universal consciousness is a profound and life changing event. That is what I (and the Guru) are talking about.
It may be a “profound and life changing” belief, but that would say nothing to whether there’s even one iota of truth to it.
-
Gonners,
Not got the time at the moment for a longer reply but good post, the term God is a loaded word, one to think about.
Sorry my friend, but it wasn't a good post at all. Mush (as NS puts it) is mush, regardless of who spouts it.
-
hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants?
-
Udayama,
hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants?
Hey, it's not my argument! Essentially it goes something like, "Hey, love feels all real and mysterious right? And love isn't physical stuff you can weigh or measure now is it? Right then, in that case here's something else I call "god" (or leprechauns, or the Man in the Moon) that really feels real to me and that can't be weighed or measured either so...
...(quickly says, "is that a flying kangaroo going past the window?" so no-one notices the switcheroo)...
...ta-daa, god must be real too!"
That's the schtick Sriram is attempting here - it's all very sixth form and it relies on a false equivalence for its effect, but there it is nonetheless.
-
hmm .. "love" is real? Surely it's just another form, mainly hormonal, of self-delusion? One that is helpful in maintaining the production of descendants?
It's certainly a word which seems to take on many shades of meaning. Some people loves trees, dogs, cats, the sea etc but I doubt whether in a sexual or procreative sense. In a number of religions it sometimes takes on the meaning of 'being at one with', attuned to or at-one-ment and to attain this often requires self sacrifice or self abnegation rather than self delusion, as it is self centeredness which gets in the way of the union.
-
Hi everyone,
There is very little point in going on and on with these kind of arguments. All of us are programmed to think in different ways (by our culture and upbringing). Impossible to make all minds meet!
What I write is for information of those who are able to understand that particular point. Not for those who don't.
My purpose in linking the video was to highlight the argument that different deities and images of God are just symbols that we humans create. The real God within us however, is common to all and does not depend on the image we worship.
We can access the real God through prayer (to any image) or good deeds or Yogic techniques and meditations, duties etc., depending on our individual nature and preference.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Dear Sriram,
I watched a few more of your man's video's, I like his simple honest sense of humour which I think comes from a life time of studying just how silly us humans can be, very refreshing.
He also talks about the "why" question, in fact he may have got the idea from the same place I did, Hawking's A Brief History of Time, he did mention that scientists are more interested in the how rather than the why, but then I think the "why" question is in us all, part of us.
Yes I definitely connected with the man, we are asking the wrong questions, but frustratingly he doesn't mention what the right questions are, maybe I need to watch more of his video's ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Try this one Gonnagle..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2EPuGabgpc
-
Dear ekim,
Clarity of thought, that eureka moment but why does it take my mind so long to have that eureka moment :o
I watched the next video and I think he might have given me the answer, Diarrhea of the mind, only fill your mind with good thoughts, good advice. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
There is very little point in going on and on with these kind of arguments. All of us are programmed to think in different ways (by our culture and upbringing). Impossible to make all minds meet!
Then why post it?
What I write is for information of those who are able to understand that particular point. Not for those who don't.
None taken, of course... We don't have a problem understanding what you're saying - or what he's saying - it's just that we can see that what you're saying doesn't make sense.
My purpose in linking the video was to highlight the argument that different deities and images of God are just symbols that we humans create.
On that we can agree - the concept of a 'god' seems near-universal, and certainly the idea of an unseen cause for inexplicable events is easy to picture; a picture that is then culturally shaded with time.
The real God within us however, is common to all and does not depend on the image we worship.
And that's where we part company - what 'real god'? What evidence do you have that 'god' is anything more than a human-created concept, in which case what sense is there in the idea of a 'real' god?
O.
-
Then why post it?
None taken, of course... We don't have a problem understanding what you're saying - or what he's saying - it's just that we can see that what you're saying doesn't make sense.
On that we can agree - the concept of a 'god' seems near-universal, and certainly the idea of an unseen cause for inexplicable events is easy to picture; a picture that is then culturally shaded with time.
And that's where we part company - what 'real god'? What evidence do you have that 'god' is anything more than a human-created concept, in which case what sense is there in the idea of a 'real' god?
O.
I post for information of those who think the way I do. Are you too self centric to notice that?!!
About the real God....well.....just look inwards instead of outwards and you may know.
But...I told you we are programmed differently. So...why bother to try and change the programming. Not likely to happen. Maybe in your next birth you'll understand. ;) What's the big hurry? There is always a next time!
-
Dear Sriram,
Reincarnation, oh I hope that is wrong, I could come back as a Tory. >:( :(
Gonnagle.
-
Knowing my luck I'll come back as me.
-
I post for information of those who think the way I do. Are you too self centric to notice that?!!
"Sproing," went the irony-meter...
About the real God....well.....just look inwards instead of outwards and you may know.
I've looked inwards, I see no gods.
But...I told you we are programmed differently. So...why bother to try and change the programming.
Because living is changing the programme. Learning updates the algorithms, experience expands the bank of information the algorithm has to call upon.
Not likely to happen. Maybe in your next birth you'll understand. ;) What's the big hurry? There is always a next time!
He asserted...
O.
-
"Sproing," went the irony-meter...
I've looked inwards, I see no gods.
Because living is changing the programme. Learning updates the algorithms, experience expands the bank of information the algorithm has to call upon.
He asserted...
O.
Outrider,
Data can be added through experience and learning....but how the new data is analysed will again depend on the basic programming.
Changing the programming is not easy. It can be done of course, but will require a major life changing experience of some kind. Normally.... it is near impossible.
Why...many scientists and science students are unable to accept new ideas and radical theories in science itself even when presented by eminent scientists!!! That's how stubborn some ideas and beliefs are. Great survivors...these memes!!
-
Data can be added through experience and learning....but how the new data is analysed will again depend on the basic programming.
Yes, but in the process of that analysis it can - not necessarily will, depending on the state at the time, but can - update the programme itself as well.
Changing the programming is not easy. It can be done of course, but will require a major life changing experience of some kind. Normally.... it is near impossible.
I don't see that - it rather depends on how the programme has evolved in the first place. If you're open to ideas and have developed a mechanism for learning and developing, absorbing new ideas and updating your paradigm is relatively easy. Of course, it can go too far and you get people who jump on to every bandwagon going. I do think that it might well become more difficult with age - obviously children have comparatively little in the way of rigidly defined elements, whilst the older you get the more likely any given part is to have become 'sealed' from new information.
Why...many scientists and science students are unable to accept new ideas and radical theories in science itself even when presented by eminent scientists!!!
Ironically, I find that scientists are generally the most likely to accept new ideas, what they aren't likely to accept is entirely new formats of claim.
That's how stubborn some ideas and beliefs are. Great survivors...these memes!!
Except that scientific theories are not memes in that sense - they exist within a recognised framework that includes a mechanism for review and update.
Now, ideas like 'spirit', there's a meme with some staying power and little to nothing in the way of validation.
O.
-
Hillside is turning into Dawkins.
Has that got you worried Vlad?
Wouldn't you have to start stalking Blue if that happened?
;)