immortal

My view - I am able to understand the mystical claims because I have a model where Brain ! = (is not equal to) Mind. To me Brain and the Mind are two different things. That's how I see it. This is the central dogma of Mysctism. We misunderstand or do not understand Mysticism because we don't know its basic models and their claims obviously appears absurd, ridiculuous and silly to us because we don't view it through the eye of the mystic. There's nothing magical about them. So when I'm talking about the experiences of the mystics I'm not talking about the events happening between the synaptic junctions of the Brain and its not in any way related to the brain or the synaptic junctions. Its a completely different thing. Molecular Neurobiology has very well investigated on how the Brain processes information at the most fundamental level and very well explains on how it helps the humans to communicate and work as a machine and we know the process of how the brain fires a neuron generating an action pontential(Na+ and K+ ions) coupling itself with the ca2+ ions coupling it with the contraction and relaxation of the actin and myosin fibres in the muscles there by allowing me to type the words which I'm typing right now. The works of Kandel shows us the process of learning. This is the view of the Brain. This is reality. This is something which is common to all of us. Anti-mystics view - Their view is that even quantum mechanics makes absurd claims but QM also provides a way to say that a particle appears at some places with a high probability and it doesn't appear at all in some other places and the probability of finding the particle at these places is zero. So when we put a detector at places where there is a high probability of finding the particle and if we find it there quite often then the theorectical predictions are said to consistent with the observations made. The more the theory is tested and found consistent the more is our belief on it. If the particle appears often at places where the theory says that the probability of finding the particle is almost zero at those places then there is something wrong with the theory because the observations are inconsistent. So we look for a different model to represent that reality. So they view that this is the only way to acquire real knowledge there by rubbishing the claims which are by random speculation, metaphysical, mystical mumbo-jumbo and other pseudosciences. I'm saying that mysticism is not real science but its not garbage either, there is some knowledge in it which can be tested and accumulated by practising the techniques. If you're not willing to put a detector and measure the postion of the particle how will you know whether the theory correctly represents reality or not, in the same way if you're not willing to practice the techniques how will you know whether there is any truth behind them or not. PeterJ - He doesn't go by models, all he is saying that the claims of mysticism should not be dismissed off-hand since there are too many literatures and scholars and even scientists all talking about the same stuff making positive assertions in favour of mysticism. He has a gut feeling that there is something which needs to be investigated. An opinion based on reason. However there are differences in how he sees mysticism and the way I see it. Peter - [God of Schroedinger or the thing called 'Unity' or the emptiness or whatever] Immortal - [unity, gods and personal god (the reason for this is, the scriptures which speak about the Unity can not exist with out Gods according to Vedas and Upanishads which forms an important part of the literature of mysticism.] You - You think that we already know the truth, I don't know in what context you said that, assuming that I know about you, you seem to be talking about the "pure intuition" or the true insight which we all have in us which helps us to know the truth behind the Language. Let me put this way we already know the truth because the truths already exists and our minds have access to it. There are many mathematicians who think that integers and other numbers do exist in their own realm and its not something which mathematicians create on their own. They don't invent anything they just discover the hidden truths. This might be the ultimate truth to you but the scripture says there is something else more subtle than this which is the ultimate truth. As for the Real mystic or the super mystic is concerned I can define them and make an another set of mystical claims but I don't like to do it because it sounds like I'm preaching here with no knowledge in it and also not demonstrating it to everyone as to how it is achieved. I very well Know where I'm standing on this issue. Yes I do, that's why I requested some time, the burden of proof is on me, I'm not forcing anyone to change their view when there is a lack of evidence, you can continue bashing mysticism.

Yes we are not assuming or believing that the claims of Mysticism is true, I would like to test it and make some judgements which will not be conditioned on our pre-concieved belief systems. I'm not desperate to hold on to my beliefs just as creationists hold on and refuse to change even when the evidence is provided to them. Religious revealed truths have their own methodologies and I wouldn't test those religious claims by launching a space craft which will go to the far reaches of the universe and detect a radiation which will show us how the universe was at the inital stages of the Big Bang. This is not the way to test a religious claim, the words from the scriptures came from the angels and only through their knowledge we can understand those claims. So I would go and look out for angels to have the knowledge of the scriptures and depending on their existence I would decide the credibility of religious knowledge. Its better if we keep science and mysticism seperate. I'm not advocating that Mysticism is science. Creationists often attack science with absurd arguments because they don't understand how science operates. Mysticism doesn't claim that since "Science can not know what space-time is so by default mystics claim that they know what space-time is". Irrespective of what science claims and what it doesn't Mysticism stands on its own, it doesn't interfere with science, it lies outside of science. The whole thread in the philosophy forum "Is philosophy relevant to science?" is to show to Owl that the ontology of space and time is irrelevant to science. I mentioned this because you said Mysticism doesn't serve any purpose, it does serve some purpose like to know the ontology of space and time. What space is? What time is?. It doesn't arrive at this position by default just because science claims it can't. Mysticism doesn't build its models based on what science claims and what it doesn't. It has its own models and its own methodologies and it lies outside of science. The whole dogma of Mysticism lies in the following statement, it is the central dogma of mysticism. All their claims are based on this dogma. Human beings can observe the world and have cognition with out any sensory inputs, perception and the act of knowing about the physical world can be achieved with out any stimulation of the sense organs or in other words observing the world only through the eyes is not the only way that exists to measure the physical world. Disprove this statement i.e prove that observing the physical world through one's own eyes is the only way that is available to know about the physical world, then I'll take all this baggage of Mysticism from here and will go and hide somewhere. As you can see it lies outside of science and just because science has tested its models and more we test them the more they stand the test of the times and more belief we have on those models. This doesn't necessarily mean that it has tested the claims of mystics and doesn't mean that it can be dismissed at off-hand. For example:- Science says that the earth is not flat but it doesn't mean it will appear in the same way when we observe the physical world in a different way unless one proves that the way science sees it is the only way that is possible to observe the empirical world. It was just an anology, I'm not doubting the methods of science, all I'm saying is that there might be other ways to acquire knowledge. It is in this context I want to do some research on it and see whether there is any truth behind it irrespective of what science says about reality. I am not accepting those claims but I doesn't want to dismiss it either. I'm not claiming those claims are the absolute truth as though we should believe or accept it with out any proof of it. As to the level of proof mysticism can not stand along with science because as I have been repeatedly stated that their observations can not be predicted and repeated in a way we repeat the scientific measurements. But once the observations are recorded they are consistent with previous observations. Mysticism can not say that a person will acquire the knowledge of teleportation by performing a particular technique for this much amount of time, say 1 year or 2 year it can not say that, but when he acquires, that knowledge is certain and its demonstration is repeatable. I have been repeatedly saying that Mysticism is not science and it lies outside of science and I'm not advocating that it should be taught in schools as though it is true science as creationists demand. I used the term "intellectual community" and not "scientific community" because this is not science, even if I have evidence for all those mystical claims I will not be able to convince a scientist. Science works differently, it has its own methodologies. Mysticism is metaphysics, so it is best to keep it outside of science. I'm not desperate to prove that Mysticism is science, its not and it doesn't require science to get the respect that it deserves. It stands on its own. Yes, this shows that if there's any credence behind the claims of mystics then it does serve some purpose to humanity. It might change the way we think about this world completely. I'm a person who think that the universe is paradoxical, I'll be a completely different person when it comes to debating in hard science forums and my view and my thinking process will change when I'm in the religious forums and I'll be a different person in the philosophical forums. Therefore I would investigate a world in which the world is made of particles of the standard model in physics and I would also investigate the world made up of gods as said in religion. It seems contradictory and weird but humans have enough wisdom to seperate out the claims of science and religion and understand how they both work at the fundamental level in increasing our knowledge. Rationalism is one way, Empiricism is an another. Pure intuition is an another way. Knowing the noumenon of kant might be an another way. i.e to know the thing in itself which mysticism claims to know. There is nothing that will prevent the Mystic from showing you the truth, he will show us but only if we are prepared to see it. The problem is there are hardly a few of them who can do that for you, if I had that knowledge myself I could've easily shown you.

I doesn't want to defend mysticism since the burden of proof will be upon me and I can not give you any evidence for mysticism and I'm not a mystic either and its not wrong at all on you to take the default position at this time were there is a lack of evidence. On an another note I would really like to do more research on it and test their claims and would love to know whether there is any truth behind those claims. Mysticism claims many things and it server many purposes. Science can not claim to know "what space-time is?" and there is no experiment in the scientific methodology to test the assertions of "what space-time really is?" but its the kind of knowledge which mysticism claims to explain, it claims to explain "what space-time is" and gives a set of techniques to know it. Mysticism claims to have a technique which help the mystic to teleport from one place to another and we also know that there is no law in physics which would prevent teleporation from happening, it doesn't violate any laws of physics. We all know that all events are always happening and that the time can not be changed but it can be rewinded and forwarded to see the past and the future. Its an another claim by mystics which says that they can see events which have already happened, which is happening now and which has happened in the future. Its definitely not science but it does serve some purpose and if the knowledge is consistent then it does adds something to the knowledge book of the humanities. So I would really like to know the truth behind all those assertions and request some time from the intellectual community for the evidence to accumulated which might be in favour of mysticism or against it.

Yes there is more than one way to listen to the story but that won't help you to understand what the story is unless you go and experience it for yourself. It requires one to take the place of a king who has seen the elephant and stops the quarrel among the blind men saying that what they're all saying is the one entity itself or say that they're wrong. The right perspective can be known only when you experience it for yourself untill then you would just pondering that this might be true or that might be true. Yes there are many ways to test those experiences and all the answers must tally with the experiences of the master which he had previously at some other time. It is validated by a common understanding of the experiences they each had. Making random claims or claiming fake experiences will not help you to pass through the review community of the mystics and somehow make you as a genuine mystic just as a fraud scientist's research paper will not pass through a scientific based peer-reviewed journal. Yes there are only a few sages who have done it and there are hardly a few genuine mystics in the world who might have transcended. Ah, good joke, that's what the literature says too(they get hungry for supper), Yes I agree that they will feel hungry after they come back to the world of the empirical since they would have sat for weeks and months in only one position with out having anything to eat or drink but have you ever wondered why they don't feel hungry for all those days it is because they won't be here, their self will be in the divine world and they will not be aware of their own body and hence they won't feel hungry. So obviously when you come back from the divine world to the empirical world, you'll feel your body, you become aware of your body and feel hungry. The body still has to be subjected to the laws of the physics, therefore its entropy increases and you need to feed some food to your body to make it work properly. What is transcended is your "self" not your "body", your self is now free from the constraints and forces of space and time. Your body is still alive its not dead and your self has not left your body therefore you're still aware of your body but one important difference before the experience and after the experience of the truth is that now you're free and can make your own choice whether to experience the pain of your body or not to experience your body itself.

Thank you Tar and I appreciate for your interests to know what "they" mean and to give a benefit of the doubt. I hope I have responded to many of your questions in the on going discussion between me and Peter rather than addressing your questions directly. That's the whole point of this discussion hoping that something good might come out of it. I will address your questions now. "Is my unity different from your unity?" No, the "Unity" is one, one can not have their own reality, reality is not something which is unique to every individual nor it is something which a person will make it up. The Unity that I'm saying, what he or she is saying and what they are saying are all same and it should be same. The observations have to be consistent, that's the whole point of mysticism. Its not a hallucination which will appear differently for different people. If it is different then they're either wrong or faking it because absolute knowledge is certain knowledge and if you have one then you certain beyond any doubt that everyone should also have the same knowledge as yours. All people in this world are accesible to this truth and reality, mysticism has no religion, its not a religious doctrine. Therefore you, me or anyone can access this truth. The problem of blind men and the elephants is a perfect analogy which will explain our case here. The problem with mysticism here is that each one who had gone through all the stages of 'Nirvana' will come back and try to say or express it differently but we know that it can not be expressed in words, its beyond thought and language. Each blind men will explain the same elephant differently, therefore the truth is the same, its the one entity(elephant) which they are expressing it with different words. What mystics are trying to explain is like "you eat sugar and experience that it is sweet but now if what they are experiencing is "sweetness" itself how would anyone will be able to express it. What is sweetness? Can we express it? No we can't, it can not be expressed nor it can be understood it can only be known through experiencing it i.e by becoming it. Therefore you can not resolve the conflict of different perspectives or interpretations of Unity just by listening to the story what someone else says. We have to listen to it and also test their claims i.e possible by only experiencing it for yourself. In ancient times they wouldn't just debate about it. It was a test in which a person will claim that he knows the absolute truth and other fellow sages or rishis will ask a few questions from their own expereinces of reality. Like what were the color of the gems which the gods were wearing when they appeared to you, if he answers it correctly and and if he explains about the sequence of events that happened during his experiences and if the experiences tally then he is considered to have some credibility and declared that he has gained that knowledge and his position in the community will be raised and he will be given a higher position. The experiences have to be consistent. That's the point. That is what I'm shouting from that time in this thread that Unity can not be understood or expressed using a language because in "Unity" the object and its attribute are one and the same. Its like asking what is sweetness?. No Mystic will ever talk about the Unity in his or her literature. If anyone are talking about it then its just bullshit!. That knowledge can not come out with a dialect. Its annoying that Peter still think that we can think about it. What they say is just to prepare your mind in such a way that you are not this body but you're that "Unity" that's all they advice us and that's what mystics want from us i.e to retract our identity with the outside world, you don't have a name, you're not something which are confined to your body, you're something more than that. They'll not ask you to keep thinking about what "Unity" is like. Is it like this or is it like that. You can never understand or gain such knowledge by thinking about it. As I have said in my previous posts, the experiences or observations of the mystics can neither be predicted nor it can be repeated in a way we would repeat a scientific experiment anywhere in the world irrespective of time, place and the observer performing the measurement. There is no mathematical set of equations which would predict that God will appear here at this particular time and if we peek through our eyes and make a measurement nothing will appear to us nor there is an apparatus which will show it. Similarly a mystic himself will not know when god would appear to him, he may appear once in a blue moon or may not appear at all. Therefore it is not repeatable in a way we repeat our scientific experiments, it works differently but the important point is that the observations or experiences should be consistent there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the experiences. If the God appear to a sage thousands years back in time wearing blue gems and red pearls he has to appear in the same way even today and he will appear in the same way in the future. Therefore the observations should be consistent and helps us to testify it and falsify those claims and helps in the increase of knowledge. As there is a scientific community holding responsibility for accumulating scientific empirically verifiable genuine knowledge there is also a mystical community or a group of people. Both the community are good at kicking out frauds from there group. The problem here is that the scientific community is universal and there is no doubt in its credibility. But the mystical community is not universal because their claims can not be predicted and repeated anywhere or at any time and its a knowledge which only exists in a small group of people who call themselves mystics, what is the credibility of such a group?, well it can only be known by testing their assertions and claims but the problem is it can not be tested in a way scientists would test the empirical hypothesis. It requires you to go beyond the senses. So the only credibility of such a knowledge is that it is consistent that is there is no variation in the observations. Its definitely not a hallucination and the knowledge can be accumulated and the techniques can be passed on from generation to generation. I don't know where to put such a kind of science, its not pseudoscience, its not metaphysics, its not hard type 1 science. Mysticism makes a lot of assertions but it can not give you an evidence in a sheet of paper, the evidence lies inside your mind, you know it, a group of people know it, but any other person in the universe will not know about it and it doesn't guarantee that the person performing a technique of the mystical group will experience that knowledge. There is no time frame, the experience might happen with in a few days or it may take years or it may not happen at all but if it happens and if it is real then it is consistent with earlier experiences of the people. A master can only guide you, he can help you to do the technique correctly but he will not say you'll experience it after 5 days or after 1 year there is no time frame but when it happens it should be the same experience which the master had previously. The experiences are consistent. In this way the knowledge is accumulated and passed on. So I would say it is still knowledge. Mysticism is not religion though its roots lies in religion, it is basically dealt with the revealation part of religion. Religion is blind faith, its a belief system but mysticism will go on and test those belief system it provides a way to test the system and their claims. Gnostics are mystics they don't believe anything by faith or what their bible says instead they will go and hear it directly from the god itself. Aryas are mystics they rely on both the scriptures as well as experiences, they are philosophers who just don't interpret the scriptures and believe it blindly but they will go on to develop a method and to know how the thing in itself can be observed and experienced. Their knowledge is certain. They won't say it is like this or it is like that. They say this is the way it is, a positive assertion which can be tested. These are the true philosophers who think that both rationalism and empiricism is required to know and gain knowledge. Therefore its not blind faith that's why much credibility is given to Mysticism.

Really? You've made many assertions and none have been empirically verified, atleast allow your assertions to be tested. As for the claims on Unity, those claims aren't us, its from the literature and I have no problem with it. This philosophical debate is something which is going on from centuries and will continue to go on, its quite open to debate. Buddhism doesn't hold on anything, they choose a middle way approach. This was the view of Gaudapada which later Sankara went on to develop advaita vedanta from this view, he took an extreme view that "Unity" is the only absolute existent and there is not a second entity apart from that "Unity". Sankara, the founder of advaita vedanta didn't discarded the physical world as non-existent instead he said that this physical world has only empirical or relative existent and doesn't have absolute existence and its not eternal. If you claim that nothing exists then you should answer this question of me "Where did the mind came from", so even the mind doesn't exist? No matter whatever creation myth you take no one will give a satisfactory affirmative explanation of how the one thing called the "Unity" went on to create the world as we know it, whether there is something other than the unity or whether unity itself transfromed or differentiated is not something which we know. Turing and church have developed ways to test whether a machine is consious or not and newer tests are being developed with the increase in the knowledge of our world. How so? If you think that absolute knowledge is certain knowledge and if you have that knowledge then how can you doubt your own experiences or knowledge, it would mean that you don't believe in your own states of consciousness. Absolute knowledge =>(implies) certain knowledge =>(implies) its certain that even other should also have the same knowledge and experience as yours, if not its 100% sure that they're faking it. His other book is the story of Yajnavalkya but unfortunately its not translated into the english version yet, it holds many secrets from the Upanishads. The Vedas are called the Purva Mimamsa, it basically deals with rituals and sacrifices to gods and the Upanishads is the end of the Vedas and it is called as the Uttara Mimamsa, it is in the Upansihads they talk about the "Unity". The whole message of the vedas is to show that there is a Personal God existing in each one of us guiding our intellect and the whole message of the Upanishads is to show the other side of the God, your God of Schroedinger and of many other mystics. You can discard him(personal god) and go on to have the ultimate truth but that doesn't mean that he doesn't exists or he is being neglected or rejected. Where do you think the scriptures came from? why do you think the Upanishads have no authors? Why do you think the writers of the Upanishads don't claim authority of it? Take your own time. From what we have seen from this thread is that there is no common consenus on the epistemology of knowledge. Scientists think that only empirically verifiable knowledge is knowledge, some claim that absolute knowledge is the only true knowledge and others claim that we can know both the absolute knowledge as well as the knowledge of the emipirical world with certainity. I really doesn't want to be part of any group or belief. I would like to explore each one of these amazing sciences with out having any pre-concieved beliefs which would force us to adhere to our judgements even when the truth or the evidence has been given to us.

Yes, I think this discussion was worth having and we have shared our views and let the people with their revealations decide which view is true and which is not. I don't know how Dawkins sees God. All I know that he is a reductionist and a Atheist and a great evolutionary biologist. I see that you're a bit hesitant to accept the view of gods and yes many mystics have found the real truth without mentioning about them but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also I like to note that theology or some of the fundamental constructs of religion are important for mysticism, it is religion which forms the theoretical construct for mysticism and revealations are like practical science for mysticism what experimental science is to for theoretical physics. You just can not completely deny religion and hold a mystical view we need both the practice of mysticism as well as the words from the scriptures and that would mean that you have to accept that Gods exist too, you can not have double standards here. I know their existence is hard to swallow. Okay, that's fair enough. I'm not completely suppressing your views, I see the importance of it, but the definitons of religion and science constricts us to think and work differently. That's the point I'm making. Fair enough, I will not be compelled to change your view. Yes being sceptic is very important, if tommorrow if someone makes a simulation of consciousness using artificial intelligence then it would mean that Science has won on reducing consciouness to the empirical phenomena. Disproving solipsism, Then we should change one's held beliefs. You can ofcourse disagree with me. I'm also not saying it by just random speculation with out having knowledge of it, I have given you sources and references, you're free to refute it, reason will decide what is ture and what is not. Not you or me. One can test their experience but first it requires that you have the true experience and you can ask specific questions based on your experiences, if their answers satisfy you then they have gone through all the process of self realization as you had gone through, if they're any discrepancy in their sayings and if doesn't tally with your experience then they're definitely faking it. No, Peter, don't be in such a hurry, just by having self determination and sheer will, will not do, you should also need divine grace, first you need to surrender yourself with the gods only then you can gain that highest knowledge, as to others who have reached the highest knowledge with out mentioning about the gods after their realizations, one can obviously discard them and gain such knowledge, but they will be their working behind every inch of their life, but they will not appear to him because he wants to know the truth and its not his aim to just see an angel, its not the highest knowledge. The whole work of that Author is to show just exactly that. Yeah fair enough, I have his whole book but it would be really hard to read from that copy, if you can buy it or else if you're really interested in it, I can send you a PM of chapterwise links to it.

Oh sorry, it was uploaded by me, a photocopy took by webcam, you don't find that information anywhere else, a google search will not reveal much info about him. If you're reading with google reader then at the left hand column the individual pages will appear with a smaller view and those smaller page views will be numbered and it is the page on the 17th number. I hope it works.

Thanks for removing most of the misconceptions that I had in the field of Psychology, I did learned something, just didn't had any idea as to how psychologists would do their field work.

Oh I see, then it is the view of a reductionist, reducing all phenomena to the empirical and to the areas of the brain. I think its important to point out for this thread that what I have explained from the beginning is the view of the old eastern psychology, I thought atleast there was some kind of a theoretical construct to it if not an empirical based one. Then according to the current empirical psychology "Pride" is something which originated from evolutionary psychology and we are hard-wired to think that way.

Curious to know how current empirical psychology views the ego, I'm not an expert here and hence I tried my best.

I'm Glad that helped .

I never asked you to adhere to my rules, you should expect in a forum that people will object your claims, rebuttals will be made, different views will be held and I don't think I said something non-sensical here. Thomas Jefferson said, "Difference of opinion may be tolerated untill reason is set free to combat it" My knowledge of metaphysics makes me believe that the physical world and the metaphysical world is paradoxical. The light that physics is talking about is very different from the light what religion is talking about. Do you get my point? Mysticism is a world wide phenomena, not confined only to europe or confined only to a specific culture of people. You are seeing only half of the story and claiming that mysticism claims that the physical world and the metaphysical world are not in conflict. When studying a particular field it is important to take opinions from various different persons who have mastered in it. You're seeing things what you want to see and completely ignoring the other views of mysticism. If you want to argue that claims made my only a few people determines what is true and what is not, then I doesn't want to argue anymore. I'm not here to please anyone. I'm here to acknowledge the opinions and views of different people from the same field and not just project only those views which are consistent with our beliefs while completely ignoring the rest of the claims and suppressing the views what has been explored by mystics over the years. Here is a Mystic who claims to say that gods exists through his experiences and he is regarded with high respect by scholars opposing to his views will be the consequent to opposing three fourth of the vedas and Upanishads which you often quote from them. His name is Devudu Narasimha Shastry, he has written many books on mysticism, but most of the books is not translated into the english version, I have a book which is indeed translated to the english version and I have uploaded it to the google docs. Here is the introduction part of it Introduction and also its Appendix. Read the 17th page of the Authors forward, The word 'devathas' means Gods. I'm not arguing from Ignorance and the fact that you're continuously claiming that I think that Mysticism is nonsense says that you doesn't want to have a healthy debate. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm a fan of mysticism and my interests in the field above proves it. The Isha Upanishad says, My wisdom says it is wrong to think about it or make logical implications about it, if you still want to go ahead and do it, you can, no one's stopping you, I'm not here to convince you, but you keep insisting that "we can still think about it", I don't know what to say really. There are no models to understand the unity, irrespective of whether it is logical or empirical, it is beyond logic and any claims which says it explains Unity is wrong, because it can not. The methods won't guarantee you that if you follow them you will get absolute knowledge, it is in this context I said that it is not repeatable, repeatability means I have to get the same outcome irrespective of which ever place, time or observer performing the method. You're still missing my point. That knowledge has to come all by itself. I have shown you how interested I'm in mysticism and it seems you are so involved in proving me wrong that you've missed some of the valid points I've made and have given ridiculuous responses. Anyone can claim that they are Buddha, but I'm not going to accept them without testing them, Mysticism is not blind faith. This part of the post was not meant to you, it was a seperate post but got merged into it. Its not my claim and I'm not compelled to defend it, It was the claim of Chuck Missler who is a theist and a systems engineer and his claims were based on studying the bible from information science perspective.

My thought, Free Will is not an Illusion, it is the failure of the Self to recognize that it is the doer of all events happening in the universe rather than just the doer of the actions of its own body.

It should be there, we all know that we think and we also know that our thoughts are pretty organized mots of the times unless if you're suffering from schizophrenia. The ego is assigned some specific functions Ego psychology. Sigmund Freud in his structural model distinguished three mental elements that were necessary for normal functioning of a personality, its the Id, ego and the super-ego. Id, ego and super-ego Id - it is the internal animal instincts, or desires and actions that are inherent in us right from when we were born and it can be easily explained by neuronal development of the brain, its something which we have got from the evolutionary process. ego - it is the entity which organizes everything, resolving conflicts between the Id, external world and the super-ego, it resloves conflict between our internal instincts and the true reality present in the external world. For example - it is a natural instinct for babies to tickle the womens breasts but this behaviour will start to reduce as the child grows old and realizes the external world and the reality, therefore the ego removes the conflict between the Id and the external world. It is something associated with the mind more than the brain. super-ego - it is the entity which unconsiously works to have a social behaviour and it suppresses the desires of the Id which are unsocial or behaviours which are dangerous to society. How the ego co-ordinates all this functions and conflicts is yet to be demonstrated since we still don't know how the brain organizes and categorizes its information and we don't know whether the ego can be simulated as functioning of the brain, an emergent property of the brain or it is something completely associated with the mind, very different from the brain. According to the eastern psychology, your 'thinking ego' is none other than the 'personal god' itself who resides in you, it is he who stimulate and control our thoughts. So it is the god which makes the mind 'think', the mind can not think just all by itself. Thinking that it thinks on its own, there by thinking that "I'm the doership of all actions" leads to the origin of Pride.

Religion is an evolving thing, it requires not only words from scriptures but also Revealations. There is a lot of confusion as to what to take literally and what to take symbolically. For example, the Gog-Magog invasion given in Ezekiel was an old battle using old weaponry but many interpret and prophesize that it is a battle which will be happening in the future with modern weaponry (normally attributed to accumulation of arms race by the Russians) leading to confusion and heresy. We need Wisdom and Revealation (War) to understand God's words and You can not prove the existence of God just by interpreting the scripture in which ever way you want to such that it correlates with the events happening in the world. We need new words from God not new interpretations. The events happening in the middle-east, especially in the region of Babylon, The origin of European union, the efforts made for collaboration between USA and Mexico, proposal for a common currency, with many entrepreuners openly making claims that their main goal in life is to create a Global one world Government increasing the economic strength, all leading to the transformation of a Global one world Government and also with RFID chips implanted on our clothes to track how we do shopping there by leading to the implantation of the mark of the beast on our bodies in the future and also new human made religions claiming to give happiness and freeing them from bondage and sins are some of the Signs of the Times as prophesized by the Bible.

This will do Paltak, Tiny.

I had expected that. I believe you're stretching this too far when you make claims like "The fundamental theory in physics can never be concieved unless there is an unity" and "It will solve many of the problems like Non-local effects, Observer Effects and QM is very consistent with the view I'm proposing". It is claims like this which bothers me and feels like you are crossing the lines here. Popper drew a demarcation line and distinguished those theories which can be empirically verified from theories which can not be testified. Since then Science has been more rigid and the scientific thought process is kind of restricted and even some speculations of it. So making claims like somehow your notion of Unity magically solves the problems in physics is an absurd claim because Science works under different principles and Unity is a metaphysical entity which is outside the boundary of science. Therefore even making logical claims or predicting the physical sciences is fundamentally flawed. You're enforcing a law such that there has to be a one-to-one mapping between the world of metaphysics which is beyond the sense organs and the world of physics which can be empirically verified. Mysticism also claims that our daily human affairs are mediated by gods, controlled by gods. Now we have a world in which gods roam around us instead of particles or neutrinos of standard model. Do you really think now that both metaphysics and physics are logically consistent and quite reasonable to believe that it is? But how can you expect people to discuss on it, I'm really not going to discuss about the unity, because the point you start discussing about it we will be discussing something else and its not unity at all. So I'm not into a debate of its logical implications because its fundamentally wrong. I don't know what it is and I'll remain silent. You're free to think about it or even build a set of prepositions on it but the unity which the Buddha is talking about is unthinkable, So your implications of unity is not the same as what the unity which Buddha is talking about, therefore it is inconsistent or logically flawed or either withdrew associating it with the Buddhistic view. That is where it loses me, the word 'unity' has its own place in mathematics and we need mathematics and I'm not saying not to develop formal models, it is something which physicists might later find it helpful, but soon it represents something about the "cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism" is where I find some trouble. Those two are different things and this is what I'm pleading to stop thinking that it is the unity which Buddha is saying. I said that absolute truth experiences can niether be predicted nor repeated, I didn't said it was impossible. If there are so many methods and if it was so easy then why I'm not seeing a Buddha each day, why I'm not seeing them roaming around the streets preaching. There are no reliable methods to have knowledge about the unity, all I'm saying that even if you had a method it is the nature which decides when to free you from her forces. So if she's is not willing then you might never know the unity no matter what methods you try for it. Just to get back on topic, If I have the liberty.. A possible religious claim would be like "there is someone trying to send coded messages from outside of space and time." Biblical Codes Works of Chuck Missler Chuck missler is a systems engineer btw and I don't know what to think of his works. How a theist percieves God, Reality and Theory as Tar put it in his OP.

I think game theory predicts behavioural patterns and also uses probability and finds an optimal solution, it might be really helpful.

As I said in my first post, pride is a product of the 'thinking ego' and you can't do much with out that 'ego', it is this which plays with us, I think this 'thinking ego' is present in everyone so it must be common to all cultures and societies. Our Social Interaction and internal desires are like raw materials for the thinking ego it can go on and turn you into something ugly or suppress the feeling of pride completely.

I was talking about the type 1 science, real hard science. Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Try to convince, Karl Popper if you want to change the scientific attitude. It is very much possible that the universe can be paradoxical and we might require different maps for different phenomena. No, it doesn't provide any solutions to physics or its models, even if it does it will not be a knowledge which you can add to the current models of physics and claim progress of science, I think you're reading too many books which view science and religion under a holistic view. I retracted from that view long time ago just because it is not how science works and what ever those scholars(not all) say mixing science and religion is just bullshit. Your axiom of "Universe is an unity" is not self evident. An axiom should only be used when the thing we are stating is a common notion Euclid's Gift. Unity is not a common notion by any means that's why we don't understand what you are claiming because we don't know what you think that unity is. Unity is not only beyond sense perception it is beyond logic and reason and its wrong to extract any implications from it, even logical implications, it doesn't make any sense. Its not a matter of time or of years we just can not comprehend it through logic. Just having methods won't work, it is normally believed that true knowledge has to come all by itself, it may be 5 years, 10 years, 5 days or it may not come at all. It is irrespective of which ever method you adopt. Science normally requires an assertion which can be tested, Say I will do a sequence of body moves and claim that after doing repeatedly for 15 days, three times in a day and after the 16th day I'll get absolute knowledge. As you can see it can neither be predicted nor repeated.

I rather prefer to remain sceptical about it than making any claims about what we can acheive from Yoga, I didn't do it for the purpose of achieving some ability or to become a super human or to achieve the ability to teleport, I'm quite happy to spend a few cents to take a boat and go to the other bank side of the river rather than do a stretching exercise for years and just achieve to teleport from one side of the river to the other. I am one of them from that Culture and we have only theoretical knowledge in the form of ancient texts, we don't have much knowledge about its techniques or the nack of doing it, most of the technical knowledge has been lost over time and there are only hardly few people who have some good knowledge in those areas. So I really did wanted to know what it is, I wanted to experience it on myself, I didn't had any expectations what so ever, I just thought of practicing it and this is what has led to this mess that I have created by doing it with no guidance and stimulating things in the wrong way. Nope! I read it after you linked it, Yes I was surprised at first seeing the document of information that was compiled for that article, I knew it wasn't mainstream science but I also couldn't discard it easily, it seems the editors there have come to conclusions on their own and it may not be a syndrome at all, the last few posts by the editor atleast shows that there were a few cases that are researched and clinically tested. I think its just more of a problem or an obstacle in the path of the awakening. Its pretty normal and has no side effects if it is being done under the guidance of a master. I think we can put this as said here, Yes, I think I should atleast I can get some help from the physiological side of it.

It is because our society is constructed that way, everyone tries to develop a status or image or identity of their own, it our wants and desires which defines our identity and high status mean other people will treat you well, you have more luxury, you'll get what ever you want but you're not the only one competing for the resources there are other individuals too and they see that you're a hinderance in the path to achieve their glory and your mind keeps bringing his picture infront of you everytime you think of your goals and projects him as your enemy and you'll think if I eliminate him or derail him then your path becomes easier and this is when people take revenge on others even if they had done no harm to you. So it is a subjective thing, you can let go and find peace, some fight for their country and some fight for glory. I think sexual selection is one of the major reasons for wide span of revenge mechanisms in our cultures where organisms compete to become Alpha males to breed with the best in the gene pool and revenge mechanisms start to work and decide who gets what.

doG, I would have acknowledged and applauded that it is a great article if it had only addressed the evil consequences of religion, where it loses me is when they go on to make claims like "man created God", ofcourse it fits with evolutionary psychology but it contradicts my views on religion and I quoted a few statements from that article where it contradicts my views, You're free to take it in which ever way you want to. It is logically consistent with their definition of religion but I have my own views and saying that you are allowed to think freely and believe in what ever you want is again a contradiction to my views. Right conduct is something which is given by the gods and not by making our own decisions.

PeterJ, You just can not walk away like that in the middle of a debate by making a few claims, its quite common while debating that the other person can not easily percieve your views, misunderstandings do creep out, it can be easily cleared out by simply asking "I didn't got you there would you mind explaining it". The problem here is many of us have firm belief in science, Science considers something has metaphysics when the theory can neither be proved nor disproved, i.e when it can not be falsified through predictions and observations. I think your definition of Metaphysics is different, you are defining it differently and that is where most of the confusion is creeping in. It is better to define our terminology first and then start a sound debate, otherwise as you said its all pointless. If this is the case why physics which works on predictions and on observations to prove a theory has to compile evidences to prove a metaphysical claim (universe is an uinty), I just don't see it why. It is just irrelevant to the integrity of physics. It doesn't change anything of what we know. But it is not the only possible knowledge that can be known by humans, there are other ways too, but no one here is convinced about it and they are not interested in it. They are not quite open to it and why would they believe in it if all the phenomena in the universe can be clearly explained by consistent theories and models why do we need an unity of the universe. Scientists are reductionists, they reduce every phenomena into the empirical world and provide a consistent explanation to it based on the observations. So all they are asking is why do we need a thing called unity, what purpose is it serve in our model of the world. A possible view to hold would be, "is the universe an unity", well I really don't know. Moontanman, Even a Mystic will not be able to show or give evidence for that, its not something which you'll find it in a pdf document peer-reviewed by a journal. If you ask a Mystic you would probably say you are subjected to the constraints of space and time, just live your life, if you're lucky then nature itself will allow you to be free from the forces of space and time then you'll know what unity is. There is no particular method or a technique adopted to observe the unity of the universe. That knowledge has to come all by itself.