I agree. The point was that the one in here-now is Brahman - one without a second, with self as Lord and no other Lord.
Mere understanding however may not lead to this situation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'
- Thread starter outhouse
- Start date
I agree. The point was that the one in here-now is Brahman - one without a second, with self as Lord and no other Lord.
Mere understanding however may not lead to this situation.
Dear friend
As if here-now is without a connotation of past and future and transcendental to mind.:no:
Here-Now is also mere label and useless for all practical purposes, if the meaning and implications are not understood and realised. You always seem to me to impose some other ideas on Brahman -- probably from Buddhistic background.
The being must know its nature and be established in it before it can claim anything. There is the revealer of consciousness, called atman (pure consciousness) and there is the revealed consciousness called prajna (as in deep sleep) - an observed aspect in which we all exist.
What I mean is that atman-brahman is one without a second, fearless, taintless and deathless. It has no Lord. There might have been hardly 100-200 such beings in body.
Mere verbalisation of "I am here-now" is intellectual. Reality is always reality. But mind's verbalisation "I am reality" may be far away from reality.
(I am not saying that you are not in reality and not same as brahman).
In essence, the here-now is meaningless without a Self, which brings the awareness.
(Note: I will be away and will reply after about 20 days).
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend atanu,
Yes both speak of the same thing but manner of speech are and understanding may differ.
When the pure consciousness remains there is no speech and no speech means no names and so nameless. The word Brahman has been given by some human for understanding that nameless is all that was pointing at and yes, surely HERE-NOW is also an indication to the state of consciousness which is neither in the past nor in the future and any indication requires someone to do so.
Love & rgds
nb.
Yes both speak of the same thing but manner of speech are and understanding may differ.
When the pure consciousness remains there is no speech and no speech means no names and so nameless. The word Brahman has been given by some human for understanding that nameless is all that was pointing at and yes, surely HERE-NOW is also an indication to the state of consciousness which is neither in the past nor in the future and any indication requires someone to do so.
Love & rgds
nb.
Consciousness has neither *I* nor *YOU* nor any path!
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
Some people find Christianity and Islam appealing because they believe in heaven or paradise.
Others (such as I do) find atheism and pantheism more appealing because they do not believe in hell.
Others (such as I do) find atheism and pantheism more appealing because they do not believe in hell.
outhouse
Atheistically
I find heaven and hell to be equally unbelievable, man made fiction to add to the myth
(Emphasis added)Penumbra
All your arguments stem from the premise that intelligence emerges from the physical brain. Which means that we are intelligent/conscious material product. OK?
Now, tell us, whether you, with your rational senses have seen any conscious physical product or not? ( Kindly leave aside speculations of AI). Life is not just the measurable material -- it is unique and there is no evidence of any 'conscious material product'. Yet you insist that we are 'conscious physical products' and so attempt to apply the concepts of 'material sciences' to that which is evidently not similar to other materials. How rational is that? What rational evidence you can provide for your own premise?
You insist that intelligence with which you measure everything should itself be measurable/visible/graspable. How rational is that? To me it is the height of irrationality. Have you seen any product to unravel its own cause?
You equate correlation between brain structure (physical) to events (physically measured or observed) and translate the corelation as the cause of consciousness, which is evidently non-material. How rational is that? Both the observations of the brain structures and the phenomena are representational and subjective. You are linking two representations as cause and effects without considering the conscious subject. How rational is that?
FURTHER, Just a moment's contemplation on one's "I" reveals that the awareness is not graspable object.:yes: Moreover, that the intelligence is given and that it never ceases to be the underlying factor for the universe to be known is not even acknowledged by so called rationalists.
(If you care to consider this post and reply, I may be able to answer only after 20 days). Best Wishes.
To the red part in particular, the core of this debate has been about causation not just correlation. Correlation itself is a weak argument, causation is a much stronger argument. With this considered, the rest of the statements in the above post either weaken, or were already addressed in the debate.
Alceste
Vagabond
That's a pretty good point, but I think "the afterlife", positive or negative, is the most pointless, destructive red herring of a philosophical concept humans have ever come up with. We should be attracted (or repulsed) by a world view because of what it inspires us to become in this life - this is the only life we can bet on actually existing.
Well, thats exactly how the concept of afterlife works with me, amongst other things.
earlwooters
Active Member
The concept of the afterlife is the hope for imortality. Without it, people are forced to face their own mortality head-on. With his severe limitations, Mr. Hawking has been unable to experience life as most people would. Due to this, he may be a great mind but his conclusions are derived from a differend standard than most people. His is simply another opinion. It has, about this subject, no more credence than a homeless person. Neither one can prove by any means that heaven does or does not exist, and never will.
I certainly agree with him, the concepts of heavens and hells are man made and have been imposed on man. We believe what we are asked to believe. If, anybody would have born in a different religion then his or her beliefs would shift there. Please people open your eyes and have your own thinking at least.
Agreed. The 'wishful thinking" argument can be addressed to both. Unfortunately, an appealing faith isn't indicative of truth.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, but it's very attractive to give up on this one when it becomes too messy, when you can look forward to another one afterward.
I cannot see any proof of causation.
Last edited: