Do you believe in God and why

[Tagged]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, I am surprised that both mauGR1 and Sunmaster agree with my post. Well done! ????

Well, Im sure there is more that we can aggree on than what seperates us. Just pure basic tings, but It is the small details that grow to big contreversions. As they say, there have never been any smoke without fire, but thats is not Always  true either. 

 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, I am surprised that both mauGR1 and Sunmaster agree with my post. Well done! ????

Why surprised, believers, agnostics and atheists can all agree that fire burns and water is wet, and few other things ????

[Tagged]

I really enjoyed the conversation between these two giants. Worth the time spent to see it all through

 

 

[Skeptic7]

On 10/30/2020 at 9:22 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems the atheists have given up. Hallelujah.

Hallelujah? Oh right...makes it easy without any critical thought, facts and reality getting in the way. ????

[mauGR1]

13 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Hallelujah? Oh right...makes it easy without any critical thought, facts and reality getting in the way. ????

Thanks for posting such pearls of wisdom, and showing us all the emojis available on TVF.

I thought that your post was irrelevant, but after a minute I realized that you've achieved the impossible... To be critical without any thinking involved.

Absolutely remarkable ????

[Sunmaster]

15 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Hallelujah? Oh right...makes it easy without any critical thought, facts and reality getting in the way. ????

 

Yeah..."reality"..."facts"...must be nice to have everything figured out, and when something doesn't fit in that scheme, simply ignore it. Right?

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

Yeah..."reality"..."facts"...must be nice to have everything figured out, and when something doesn't fit in that scheme, simply ignore it. Right?

Sunmaster,
I think you have that the wrong way round. The 'Methodology of Science' requires that one does not ignore things that do not fit into the 'figured-out-scheme', or theory. By considering such 'anomalies', it sometimes becomes clear that the Scientific Theory, or Religious Belief, which we thought was true, needs amending, or even scrapped.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Sunmaster,
I think you have that the wrong way round. The 'Methodology of Science' requires that one does not ignore things that do not fit into the 'figured-out-scheme', or theory. By considering such 'anomalies', it sometimes becomes clear that the Scientific Theory, or Religious Belief, which we thought was true, needs amending, or even scrapped.

By now, it should be clear to you that, just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean that that " something" doesn't exist.

But, if you think that to base your knowledge on 5 imperfect physical senses is enough, just carry on, the majority of people agree with that anyway ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Sunmaster,
I think you have that the wrong way round. The 'Methodology of Science' requires that one does not ignore things that do not fit into the 'figured-out-scheme', or theory. By considering such 'anomalies', it sometimes becomes clear that the Scientific Theory, or Religious Belief, which we thought was true, needs amending, or even scrapped.

Yeah well, you're right when it comes to certain beliefs like flat earth or 72 virgins waiting in heaven or such. They should be scrapped asap.

Problem is, the methodology of science as it is structured today, only considers that part of the human condition that is quantifiable through the instruments of said methodology. Those scientific researchers that are brave enough to explore other fields (research into consciousness for example), are marked as pseudo science and not taken seriously.

Ironically enough, I think it is right in that field of research that the greatest hope for humankind lies...There is no change in the exterior (society), without a change in the interior (consciousness) first. 
Now, imagine if we could better understand the mechanics of consciousness and the mind as an extension of it, take care of its growth and expansion just like we would take care of a growing plant....imagine the jump in human evolution! 
We said earlier that the greatest problem with humankind is ignorance. All human suffering comes from that. 
How can we stop that suffering? By finding out our true identity and self-realization. Greed, hate, violence etc are all products of the ego. If the ego is transcended, the ignorance dissolves automatically.
How to get there? There are many ways up the mountain, but they all end at the same mountaintop. 

But what does mainstream science do? It can't follow this path because it can't accept anything beyond the ego. The scientists themselves have never gone past the body/ego identification. How then could they possibly understand what is beyond? How are they expected to effectively research the interior if they only use tools that work on the exterior? 

The methodology of science is without doubt useful to explore the material world. It just so happens though, that there is another "world" on the inside. Psychology is a small step in that direction (but should not be confused with spiritual science), but even that is called "soft science" and becomes all fuzzy and confusing the closer it gets to the big mystery of consciousness. That's the one that mainstream science ignores.

Should this kind of research be scrapped in your opinion? 

[mauGR1]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If the ego is transcended, the ignorance dissolves automatically.

All fine in your post, except that in this case i would say " false ego".

Ignorance is identifying just with the physical body, that is the false ego.

Ego, intended as consciousness of existing, is something we can, and we have to work on, before transcending it imho.

 

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

By now, it should be clear to you that, just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean that that " something" doesn't exist.

But, if you think that to base your knowledge on 5 imperfect physical senses is enough, just carry on, the majority of people agree with that anyway ????

I presume by 'see' you mean, hear, taste, smell, feel, think about, or detect in any way. What is clear to me is that whatever cannot be detected in any way cannot be claimed to exist, although sometimes we can endlessly speculate on its possible existence.

 

If we imagine that something exists, despite a lack of scientific confirmation, then that something actually does exist, but possibly only in our imagination.

 

I previously gave the example of a grieving woman who suddenly sees her deceased husband sitting opposite her at the dining table. The woman might be convinced that her husband has come back to life, but some very basic scientific experiments conducted by others sitting at the table, such as waving their hands through the supposed body that the woman claims is sitting on the chair, will confirm that there is no-one sitting on the chair.
 

[KhunFred]

I don't even ASSOCIATE with "God-botherers".  Believers use up precious oxygen that could be nourishing those with normal mental function. I am as atheist as the day I was born. You have to LEARN stupidity.????

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yeah well, you're right when it comes to certain beliefs like flat earth or 72 virgins waiting in heaven or such. They should be scrapped asap.

Problem is, the methodology of science as it is structured today, only considers that part of the human condition that is quantifiable through the instruments of said methodology. Those scientific researchers that are brave enough to explore other fields (research into consciousness for example), are marked as pseudo science and not taken seriously.

 

Science has a history of being influenced and distorted by religious beliefs, politics, and the desire for power, money and fame. The 'Methodology of Science', which requires repeated testing under controlled conditions, genuine attempts to falsify a particular theory, and a 'peer review' process that can hopefully detect any flaws in the research presented, is an attempt to reduce the 'pseudo' aspect of science.

 

Of course, this doesn't always work when the issue is complex and chaotic, such as Climate Change, or when the issue requires the expenditure of huge amounts of money and resources on research with no potential for a return on investment.

 

In the past, there were famous scientists, such as Charles Darwin, who did not engage in scientific enquiry as a 'job' in order to earn a living. They were relatively wealthy, and were able to engage in their scientific investigations in a manner of unbiased interest in the subject.

 

Nowadays, scientific investigation usually requires complex organizations employing lots 'unwealthy' scientists who rely upon their jobs to support themselves and their family. The desire to get a promotion and a higher salary can cause a bias, which is unscientific.

 

[quote]Ironically enough, I think it is right in that field of research that the greatest hope for humankind lies...There is no change in the exterior (society), without a change in the interior (consciousness) first. 
Now, imagine if we could better understand the mechanics of consciousness and the mind as an extension of it, take care of its growth and expansion just like we would take care of a growing plant....imagine the jump in human evolution! 
We said earlier that the greatest problem with humankind is ignorance. All human suffering comes from that. 
How can we stop that suffering? By finding out our true identity and self-realization. Greed, hate, violence etc are all products of the ego. If the ego is transcended, the ignorance dissolves automatically.
How to get there? There are many ways up the mountain, but they all end at the same mountaintop. 
But what does mainstream science do? It can't follow this path because it can't accept anything beyond the ego. The scientists themselves have never gone past the body/ego identification. How then could they possibly understand what is beyond? How are they expected to effectively research the interior if they only use tools that work on the exterior? 
The methodology of science is without doubt useful to explore the material world. It just so happens though, that there is another "world" on the inside. Psychology is a small step in that direction (but should not be confused with spiritual science), but even that is called "soft science" and becomes all fuzzy and confusing the closer it gets to the big mystery of consciousness. That's the one that mainstream science ignores.
Should this kind of research be scrapped in your opinion? [/quote]

 

Mainstream science requires funding, whether from government or private enterprise. If we want to verify, by applying the full rigor of the 'methodology of science', that, for example, certain young children have a genuine knowledge of a previous life, or that 'near death experiences' involve a consciousness that rises from the body and can see events that could not be observed from the perspective of the unconscious body, then significant resources need to be applied to that enquiry. Many would argue that such resources could be better applied to other health problems.

 

The fields of science that attempt to explain such phenomena, are Psychology, Psychiatry, Neuroscience, and related disciplines involved in the development of the sophisticated instruments and devices used, such as MRI and fMRI scanners.

 

As I understand, there have been experiments where Buddhist monks have been passed through an fMRI scanner, whilst meditating, and the results have shown a remarkable decrease in mental activity, suggestive of peace and calm.

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

All fine in your post, except that in this case i would say " false ego".

Ignorance is identifying just with the physical body, that is the false ego.

Ego, intended as consciousness of existing, is something we can, and we have to work on, before transcending it imho.

 

Wouldn't that be "awareness"?

[Sunmaster]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Mainstream science requires funding, whether from government or private enterprise. If we want to verify, by applying the full rigor of the 'methodology of science', that, for example, certain young children have a genuine knowledge of a previous life, or that 'near death experiences' involve a consciousness that rises from the body and can see events that could not be observed from the perspective of the unconscious body, then significant resources need to be applied to that enquiry. Many would argue that such resources could be better applied to other health problems.

 

I'm sure many would, but I'm more curious to know what you think. 
I would argue that ignorance of our true being is the root cause for a wide range of health problems, both psychological and physical. In fact, I just talked to a psychologist friend the other day. She does a lot of work with suicidal people and she confirmed that financial problems and family problems are the minority. Most often it is a deeply seated disconnection between the person and the world around him/her. In other words, more like a spiritual problem. Or, would that "peace and calm" not help with anxiety, phobias and depression? How many people could be helped that way naturally instead of feeding them SSRI's and Xanax?

Wouldn't it be a life-changing and profoundly defining moment in human history (as would for example first contact with an alien species) to answer the age-old question of what consciousness is, how it works and where it actually is located (and IF it's actually located in a certain place!). It's a matter that touches every single human being, so what is science waiting for??
Perhaps it's like you say...a matter of financing the research and with no clear ROI. 

 

24 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

As I understand, there have been experiments where Buddhist monks have been passed through an fMRI scanner, whilst meditating, and the results have shown a remarkable decrease in mental activity, suggestive of peace and calm.

 

Yes, there are people who can influence/change brain waves at will (reaching theta and delta waves while being awake). This is the external reaction to an inner process and can satisfy some curiosity. I think the more interesting part is happening on the inside. How does the monk bring down his brain waves? What happens inside him? What are the psychological effects of such a practice? Are there any benefits for his mind and for his body? How does this skill affect his interactions with others and with society as a whole? 

 

 

Can these things be measured by an MRI scanner? 
Should we stop exploring (more extensively) these things because of that? I think not.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I presume by 'see' you mean, hear, taste, smell, feel, think about, or detect in any way. What is clear to me is that whatever cannot be detected in any way cannot be claimed to exist, although sometimes we can endlessly speculate on its possible existence.

feel, think about, or detect in any way.

No way to prove scientifically what we feel or think about, IMO. Thinking is just electronic impulses in the brain.

 

What is clear to me is that whatever cannot be detected in any way cannot be claimed to exist, although sometimes we can endlessly speculate on its possible existence.

To use a favourite of mine, "love" ( as in romantic love ) can't be proven scientifically. Does that mean romantic love doesn't exist? We think we are in love because certain chemicals are released in the body in response to certain stimuli, but that is just a chemical reaction, and a genetic imperative to ensure survival of the species.

 

Of course I believe that romantic love exists, but then I think science knows very little about the human condition. It can't even cure cancer, or stop us killing each other.

Actually I think human science is too primitive to understand much about life, the universe and everything.

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually I think human science is too primitive to understand much about life, the universe and everything

Indeed. 

Which, of course, makes way to speculations of all kinds. 

These hypothesises may then be considered, in a different way, from one individual to another. 

As a result, one specific thinking, may as well be catalogued as lunatic, by one party, as judicious, by another. 

This, sadly (in my opinion) also include, that some will pretend that their interpretation is the only right one. 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Wouldn't that be "awareness"?

Awareness is ok, perhaps it's a better choice of a word, but it doesn't change my point. 

My point was that "transcending the ego" might not be the ultimate goal.

Buddha, or other enlightened human beings are said to have achieved freedom from the samsara, yet they choose to come back here to help other human beings.

Their choices are also products of some ego, but it's not the kind of ego limited to a physical body.

 

[mauGR1]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I presume by 'see' you mean, hear, taste, smell, feel, think about, or detect in any way. What is clear to me is that whatever cannot be detected in any way cannot be claimed to exist, although sometimes we can endlessly speculate on its possible existence.

 

If we imagine that something exists, despite a lack of scientific confirmation, then that something actually does exist, but possibly only in our imagination.

 

I previously gave the example of a grieving woman who suddenly sees her deceased husband sitting opposite her at the dining table. The woman might be convinced that her husband has come back to life, but some very basic scientific experiments conducted by others sitting at the table, such as waving their hands through the supposed body that the woman claims is sitting on the chair, will confirm that there is no-one sitting on the chair.
 

Well, my point is that something in one's imagination exists, although it may not visible by the physical eyes.

Take a clock, an airplane, or a pile of garbage, they are all physical products of human imagination.

Take the trees, the oceans and the stars or the galaxies and the humans, why couldn't be all that the physical product of some imagination ?

Consciousness doesn't exist because of science, on the contrary, science, intended as research of the truth, exists because of consciousness.

[Sunmaster]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What is clear to me is that whatever cannot be detected in any way cannot be claimed to exist, although sometimes we can endlessly speculate on its possible existence.

I almost missed this bit...

So...gamma rays did not exist before 1900? Black holes did not exist before 1916? DNA did not exist before the 1860s?
In all those cases, they couldn't be detected in any way before the scientist stumbled upon them, yet they did exist since time immemorial.

Now, imagine how many more things exist right now that can't be detected by our current technology and level of understanding.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about when referring to "ignoring things that don't fit the current paradigm". Science is ignoring its highest ideals (the search for truth, from wherever it may come) and is shooting itself in the foot, to the detriment of us all. I would go as far as saying that rather than promoting our evolution as a species, science (as it's structured today), is a big obstacle.

And besides, the statement "cannot be detected in any way" is misleading here. You probably mean "cannot be detected by conventional scientific means".

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Awareness is ok, perhaps it's a better choice of a word, but it doesn't change my point. 

My point was that "transcending the ego" might not be the ultimate goal.

Buddha, or other enlightened human beings are said to have achieved freedom from the samsara, yet they choose to come back here to help other human beings.

Their choices are also products of some ego, but it's not the kind of ego limited to a physical body.

 

This might be a matter of semantics, but from what I've learned so far, all ego is illusion. Ego is the emergence of the "I" thought, that there is something ("you") that is separate from All-There-Is. This "I" identifies with the body/mind, splitting the undifferentiated reality into subject and object. The ego then covers the Source like clouds cover the sun. We forget our true nature and become slaves to our ignorance. 

To see reality as it is, the ego has to be recognized for what it really is....illusion. Once a person can peel off all the layers of ignorance/illusion, the true SELF is revealed. Subject and objects cease to exist because they are all the Self, always have been and always will be. 
If one is able to transcend the ego, there simply is no other ego. There is only the Self.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[from https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/ramana_maharshi-trace-ego-source/]

Sri Ramana Maharshi explains how the ego rises from its source (our real self), how it remains away from its source, and how it will eventually subside back into its source:

Grasping form [that is, attaching itself to a body] it comes into existence; grasping form [that is, attending to thoughts or perceptions of a seemingly external world] it stands [or endures]; grasping form it feeds and grows [flourishes or expands]; leaving [one] form it grasps [another] form. If [we] seek [search, investigate, examine or scrutinise it], it will take flight. Know [that this is the nature of this] formless ghost-ego.

That is, since this ego has no form (no finite or separate existence) of its own, it can seemingly come into existence and endure only when we imagine ourself to be a form (a physical body), and it flourishes when we attend to any form (anything that appears to be separate from ourself). In other words, since this ego is thus just a ‘formless ghost’, it can rise, endure and flourish only by ‘grasping form’, and hence when it tries to ‘grasp’ (or attend to) itself, which is not a form, it will subside and disappear.

The truth that Sri Ramana teaches us here can therefore be rephrased thus: our mind or ego is nourished and sustained by attending to anything other than itself, and hence it will be dissolved and destroyed only by attending to itself. This is a fundamental and extremely important truth, which I have described elsewhere as the ‘first law of consciousness’ or ‘first law of the science of self-knowledge’.

In order to trace our ego back to its source, therefore, all that we need do is to scrutinize it keenly and closely, because as soon as we begin to attend to it, it will begin to subside and sink back into the source from which it originated. Thus we can ‘go back the way we came’ only by being vigilantly self-attentive.

 

[mauGR1]

47 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

This might be a matter of semantics, but from what I've learned so far, all ego is illusion. Ego is the emergence of the "I" thought, that there is something ("you") that is separate from All-There-Is. This "I" identifies with the body/mind, splitting the undifferentiated reality into subject and object. The ego then covers the Source like clouds cover the sun. We forget our true nature and become slaves to our ignorance. 

To see reality as it is, the ego has to be recognized for what it really is....illusion. Once a person can peel off all the layers of ignorance/illusion, the true SELF is revealed. Subject and objects cease to exist because they are all the Self, always have been and always will be. 
If one is able to transcend the ego, there simply is no other ego. There is only the Self.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[from https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/ramana_maharshi-trace-ego-source/]

Sri Ramana Maharshi explains how the ego rises from its source (our real self), how it remains away from its source, and how it will eventually subside back into its source:

Grasping form [that is, attaching itself to a body] it comes into existence; grasping form [that is, attending to thoughts or perceptions of a seemingly external world] it stands [or endures]; grasping form it feeds and grows [flourishes or expands]; leaving [one] form it grasps [another] form. If [we] seek [search, investigate, examine or scrutinise it], it will take flight. Know [that this is the nature of this] formless ghost-ego.

That is, since this ego has no form (no finite or separate existence) of its own, it can seemingly come into existence and endure only when we imagine ourself to be a form (a physical body), and it flourishes when we attend to any form (anything that appears to be separate from ourself). In other words, since this ego is thus just a ‘formless ghost’, it can rise, endure and flourish only by ‘grasping form’, and hence when it tries to ‘grasp’ (or attend to) itself, which is not a form, it will subside and disappear.

The truth that Sri Ramana teaches us here can therefore be rephrased thus: our mind or ego is nourished and sustained by attending to anything other than itself, and hence it will be dissolved and destroyed only by attending to itself. This is a fundamental and extremely important truth, which I have described elsewhere as the ‘first law of consciousness’ or ‘first law of the science of self-knowledge’.

In order to trace our ego back to its source, therefore, all that we need do is to scrutinize it keenly and closely, because as soon as we begin to attend to it, it will begin to subside and sink back into the source from which it originated. Thus we can ‘go back the way we came’ only by being vigilantly self-attentive.

 

Well, Ramana Maharshi was considered one of the greatest masters even by Swami Yogananda, I can only accept his truth with reverence.

Yet, personally I have to admit that I'm still at the stage of re- shaping my various egos, and it will take a lot of work before i can finally transcend what is perhaps the last illusion which exists after all other illusions have been transcended.

Thanks by the way for the good effort you put in stimulating the discussion, i could say more, and the same is for you, i guess, but meditating and visualising the shape and the various aspects of our own ego is already some achievement !

[OmegaRacer]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, Ramana Maharshi was considered one of the greatest masters even by Swami Yogananda, I can only accept his truth with reverence.

Yet, personally I have to admit that I'm still at the stage of re- shaping my various egos, and it will take a lot of work before i can finally transcend what is perhaps the last illusion which exists after all other illusions have been transcended.

Thanks by the way for the good effort you put in stimulating the discussion, i could say more, and the same is for you, i guess, but meditating and visualising the shape and the various aspects of our own ego is already some achievement !

Bloody hell, how many egos do you have??

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, OmegaRacer said:

Bloody hell, how many egos do you have??

I'm lazy to count them, so let's say countless ????

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I almost missed this bit...

So...gamma rays did not exist before 1900? Black holes did not exist before 1916? DNA did not exist before the 1860s?
In all those cases, they couldn't be detected in any way before the scientist stumbled upon them, yet they did exist since time immemorial.

Now, imagine how many more things exist right now that can't be detected by our current technology and level of understanding.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about when referring to "ignoring things that don't fit the current paradigm". Science is ignoring its highest ideals (the search for truth, from wherever it may come) and is shooting itself in the foot, to the detriment of us all. I would go as far as saying that rather than promoting our evolution as a species, science (as it's structured today), is a big obstacle.

And besides, the statement "cannot be detected in any way" is misleading here. You probably mean "cannot be detected by conventional scientific means".

 

A simple example of what I mean involves that often-quoted, philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

The correct answer, in my opinion, is that it doesn't make a sound, because a 'sound' is an impression in the human brain. If there is no-one present to create and receive that impression, then there is no impression, and therefore, no sound.

 

If one rephrases the question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and only a completely deaf person is around, does it make a sound?", the answer is the same.

 

Expanding upon this basic example, is it not logical to deduce that everything we perceive or detect in any way, is an impression or experience in our mind?

 

In other words, reality consists of the object observed, or detected in whatever way, plus the process of detection within the mind. If one removes the object, as in the example of the woman's deceased husband, it's still possible for the woman to imagine she is observing her deceased husband sitting at the table, but that is not reality.

 

If one removes all types of human detection of an object, whether detection of DNA, Gamma Rays, or Black Holes, it might seem reasonable to assume that such 'things' continue to exist. However, the problem here is the assumption that the reality we perceive is independent of our perception, which is nonsense. 

 

Logically, there is 'stuff' that continues to exist, even if the human race becomes extinct, but our impression, experiences and descriptions of that 'stuff', whether scientific or not, is dependent upon human characteristics. DNA, Black Holes, and so on, are partly human perceptions. The history of science reveals that everything in the past we thought was true, has later been shown to be 'not true', or only partially true. It's a never-ending process.

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

A simple example of what I mean involves that often-quoted, philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

The correct answer, in my opinion, is that it doesn't make a sound, because a 'sound' is an impression in the human brain. If there is no-one present to create and receive that impression, then there is no impression, and therefore, no sound.

 

If one rephrases the question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and only a completely deaf person is around, does it make a sound?", the answer is the same.

 

Expanding upon this basic example, is it not logical to deduce that everything we perceive or detect in any way, is an impression or experience in our mind?

 

In other words, reality consists of the object observed, or detected in whatever way, plus the process of detection within the mind. If one removes the object, as in the example of the woman's deceased husband, it's still possible for the woman to imagine she is observing her deceased husband sitting at the table, but that is not reality.

 

If one removes all types of human detection of an object, whether detection of DNA, Gamma Rays, or Black Holes, it might seem reasonable to assume that such 'things' continue to exist. However, the problem here is the assumption that the reality we perceive is independent of our perception, which is nonsense. 

 

Logically, there is 'stuff' that continues to exist, even if the human race becomes extinct, but our impression, experiences and descriptions of that 'stuff', whether scientific or not, is dependent upon human characteristics. DNA, Black Holes, and so on, are partly human perceptions. The history of science reveals that everything in the past we thought was true, has later been shown to be 'not true', or only partially true. It's a never-ending process.

Ok, if you put it like this I must agree. I find it interesting how we are getting into a grey area intersecting science, philosophy and spirituality here and your examples nicely match those I made earlier regarding the ego. 

 

The ego divides everything into a subject (the observer) and objects (the observed). "I am looking at those trees". If you remove the ego (the observing subject), all objects cease to exist ("no sound" in your example). That's why Ramana Maharshi denies the existence of the world that we deem so real and calls it mere illusion. Having transcended the ego and become the Self (beyond subject-object), nothing can exist outside the Self, because the Self is all there is.

As I understand it, there are 2 ways to remove the ego: you either bite the dust or you make some effort while living. I'm too curious to just wait for the grim reaper. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The history of science reveals that everything in the past we thought was true, has later been shown to be 'not true', or only partially true. It's a never-ending process.

Is it not also true that what present day primitive science decides is not true ( ie God ) may be later shown to be true, when the tools to detect such are developed?

To decide that God does not exist just because God can't be proven is a nonsense, IMO. In cosmic terms humans only just emerged from the cave, IMO, and we have no idea of what may be discovered in the future. Science is not settled.

[mauGR1]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

A simple example of what I mean involves that often-quoted, philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

The correct answer, in my opinion, is that it doesn't make a sound, because a 'sound' is an impression in the human brain. If there is no-one present to create and receive that impression, then there is no impression, and therefore, no sound.

 

If one rephrases the question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and only a completely deaf person is around, does it make a sound?", the answer is the same.

 

Expanding upon this basic example, is it not logical to deduce that everything we perceive or detect in any way, is an impression or experience in our mind?

 

In other words, reality consists of the object observed, or detected in whatever way, plus the process of detection within the mind. If one removes the object, as in the example of the woman's deceased husband, it's still possible for the woman to imagine she is observing her deceased husband sitting at the table, but that is not reality.

 

If one removes all types of human detection of an object, whether detection of DNA, Gamma Rays, or Black Holes, it might seem reasonable to assume that such 'things' continue to exist. However, the problem here is the assumption that the reality we perceive is independent of our perception, which is nonsense. 

 

Logically, there is 'stuff' that continues to exist, even if the human race becomes extinct, but our impression, experiences and descriptions of that 'stuff', whether scientific or not, is dependent upon human characteristics. DNA, Black Holes, and so on, are partly human perceptions. The history of science reveals that everything in the past we thought was true, has later been shown to be 'not true', or only partially true. It's a never-ending process.

There are truths and truths, and unless you insist in believing that humans are the result of random evolution of cells, you should consider the fact that some truth may exist independently from the presence and the perception of humans.

I also find the "often quoted" philosophical riddle to be flawed, because one could say that there is no forest at all, as you are not there. No forest, no falling tree, and obviously no sound.

[Sunmaster]

20 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, Ramana Maharshi was considered one of the greatest masters even by Swami Yogananda, I can only accept his truth with reverence.

Yet, personally I have to admit that I'm still at the stage of re- shaping my various egos, and it will take a lot of work before i can finally transcend what is perhaps the last illusion which exists after all other illusions have been transcended.

Thanks by the way for the good effort you put in stimulating the discussion, i could say more, and the same is for you, i guess, but meditating and visualising the shape and the various aspects of our own ego is already some achievement !

I knew about Ramana Maharshi, but it is only very recently that I started to read more and actually understand more of what he was saying. I find his teachings very refreshing, simple and right to the point. No religion, no spiritual mumbo jumbo, no unnecessary intellectual somersaults, just pure and simple self enquiry by relentlessly asking yourself the question "WHO AM I?" until you can reveal the Self.

 

Simple but not easy, of course.

And because I'm a visual learner, I made this sketch to better understand the whole thing...

 

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I knew about Ramana Maharshi, but it is only very recently that I started to read more and actually understand more of what he was saying. I find his teachings very refreshing, simple and right to the point. No religion, no spiritual mumbo jumbo, no unnecessary intellectual somersaults, just pure and simple self enquiry by relentlessly asking yourself the question "WHO AM I?" until you can reveal the Self.

 

Simple but not easy, of course.

And because I'm a visual learner, I made this sketch to better understand the whole thing...

 

I also love the simplicity of R.Maharshi teachings, it's not by chance that he was, and still is so much revered in India and elsewhere.

Actually, I am constantly asking myself "who i am".

Yet, after many years of looking for similarities among various philosophies, religions, spiritual paths and popular wisdom, i decided to commit a bit more to the vision of R. Steiner, for no other reason that his language resonates well within my soul.

Investigating spiritual realities with a scientific methodology may sound as an absurd task to most, and surely that path is not without danger of misconceptions, yet there are so many wonders to be discovered at any corner.