Truth-Knowledge-Infinity

[atanu]

This thread is an offshoot of a discussion with @Left Coast in the thread ‘Proof of God’.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any version of God. If you'd like to present some evidence for your version, I'm happy to hear it. Define God, and then present the evidence, and we can discuss.

Indian philosophy is about reality-truth, called Brahman, which some equate with the ultimate God. The executive roles of creator-maintainer-destroyer flow naturally from the Brahman, but these do not constitute the ultimate truth.

Let me introduce the definition and then take help of a video of Vedanta society to unpack the definition. (I once subjected @blü 2 to the same torture). I request a patient seeing-hearing of the video, since each word in the definition carries significance that may not be apparent without introspection.

To us, God is truth/existence-knowledge-infinity. I will use the definition of Brahman from Taittriya Upanishad.

om brahmavidāpnoti param, tadeṣā’bhyuktā,
satyaṁ jñānamanantaṁ brahma,
yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ parame vyoman,
so‘śnute sarvān kamān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti.

Om, the knower of Brahman attains the Supreme. With reference to that, the following is said: Brahman is the Truth, Knowledge and Infinity. He who knows It in the supreme space hidden deeply in recess of own being, realises all his desires along with omniscient Brahman.
...

I am not adding any commentary at the moment, expecting that readers may see the video posted next. Video is detailed and some may like it. Those who find it boring may skip it altogether.

 

[atanu]

Here is the video.

 

[dybmh]

Truth, Knowledge, Infinity...

Fascinating concepts... Can any of these be proven to exist? I propose no. And yet, virtually no one challenges their existence in a practical manner. I personally agree that God exists, but I never attempt to prove it. In fact, I find the pursuit lacks practical purpose. But I think there is a practical purpose to belief in (a) spiritual / supernatural world(s). Conversely I think it is impractical to deny it. If a person finds value in believing in spiritual supernatural phenomenon, then that person may find value in believing in a God concept. But the value of proving it is, IMHO, nul.

From my perspective, there are 2 practical problems in the pursuit of proving or disproving the existence of God and/or supernatural phenomena . Both problems develop when the individual is 100% certain of either position, and when the person lacks empathy for others.

When a person is 100% certain that God and/or supernatural phenomena exists and insists on proving it; it can be horribly destructive depending on what that individual's God or spiritual beliefs prescribe for non-believers. This is common in world history and current events. It may also nurture psychotic episodes among the mentally ill, but I think the scope of this problem is much less compared to the scope of the problem of violence resulting from the previous example.

The problem with attempting to prove that God and/or supernatural phenomena does not exist is much less common. Taken to its extreme the result is nihilism and behavior lacking empathy ( aka sociopathy ).

What is common among both practical problems is that attempting to prove the acceptance or denial of the existence of God and/or supernatural phenomena is **only** a problem when taken to its extreme and applied in the real world. Otherwise, it's just a philosophical exercise and there is no harm denying or trying to prove the existence of God or spiritual/supernatural phenomena, IMHO.

That said:

If it can be shown that there is a rational reason to believe in (a) spiritual / supernatural world(s); then it can be shown that there is a rational reason to believe in a God concept? And this is useful and practical in the rare circumstances where someone has developed into a nihilist or is behaving as a sociopath?

But otherwise I propose that proving God's existence is not a fruitful endeavor.

 

[osgart]

Truth: i have found moral truth. Physical truth appears to be elusive. I do not think the senses are lying about reality. There is a universe out there and it is real.

Knowledge: without knowledge logic seems useless.

Reasoning from experience will bring you to conscience, conscience will bring you to peace. Knowledge is for enabling life to survive, and thrive. To know things as they truly are may be too much to ask. Is the universe intelligible, or do we make intelligence out of something unintelligible. Knowledge is for benefit of being.

Infinity: since absolute nothing is impossible inside of existence then existence itself must be infinite in all directions. The universe itself may be finite but outside of it is, currently, things beyond knowing.

Its an interesting exercise to try to stretch logic to see if there are knowable realities that can be uncovered by logic. Can logic bring knowledge that is beyond empirical evidence? For every bit of logic you are trying to uncover from the known, the unknown.

Religion employs logic and proof, and self reasoning to come up with truthes that are beyond the senses. Religion relies heavily on causality, the law of identity, and the law of non contradiction.

I am quite sure one can parsimoniously be logically consistent and still be entertaining fantasy instead of reality. Or is logical consistency a sure fire way to uncover truth? What logically follows for one person does not logically follow for another person.

From the knowns how far can we reason the unknowns?

 

[Left Coast]

Here is the video.

I'll respond when I have time to watch the entire thing, about halfway through. I didnt know I was going to have to watch a two hour lecture....

 

[atanu]

@osgart and @dybmh

Thank you for your observations. But I could not judge whether your comments are based on the explanation of the term Truth-Intelligence-Infinity in the linked video or not.

I can only say that many questions of @dybmh are answered in the video.

 

[atanu]

I'll respond when I have time to watch the entire thing, about halfway through. I didnt know I was going to have to watch a two hour lecture....

Take your time. Or if it is too boring just leave it.

 

[dybmh]

@osgart and @dybmh

Thank you for your observations. But I could not judge whether your comments are based on the explanation of the term Truth-Intelligence-Infinity in the linked video or not.

I can only say that many questions of @dybmh are answered in the video.

I did not watch the video yet. But I will.

Thank you, friend-Atanu.

 

[Left Coast]

Take your time. Or if it is too boring just leave it.

It's not too boring at all, I find it fascinating. Reminds me of the work of David Bentley Hart. He wrote a book about it called Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

Without having finished the whole thing, my initial thoughts are:

Are the concepts of "pure being" and "pure consciousness" even meaningful/coherent? For example, to be conscious means by definition to be conscious of something. What does it mean to be conscious, but not conscious of anything?

 

[atanu]

It's not too boring at all, I find it fascinating. Reminds me of the work of David Bentley Hart. He wrote a book about it called Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

Without having finished the whole thing, my initial thoughts are:

Are the concepts of "pure being" and "pure consciousness" even meaningful/coherent? For example, to be conscious means by definition to be conscious of something. What does it mean to be conscious, but not conscious of anything?

Vedanta reminds us of our deep sleep and transition to dream and to waking.

Deep sleep is called dense consciousness, unpartitioned. There is no subject and object division and no second color or sound or taste. Due to lack of contrast, the deep sleep appears a state of unknowing.

The same consciousness sprouts a subject and a world in dream and lo, it seems that we are conscious.

It is somewhat like, a car light going to empty space is not known until the light is reflected by some object.

So, as per Vedanta, we are pure consciousness only. Objectification is mAyA - magic.

 

[dybmh]

Vedanta reminds us of our deep sleep and transition to dream and to waking.

Deep sleep is called dense consciousness, unpartitioned. There is no subject and object division and no second color or sound or taste. Due to lack of contrast, the deep sleep appears a state of unknowing.

The same consciousness sprouts a subject and a world in dream and lo, it seems that we are conscious.

It is somewhat like, a car light going to empty space is not known until the light is reflected by some object.

So, as per Vedanta, we are pure consciousness only. Objectification is mAyA - magic.

This is beautiful.

Respectful Question: Is it practical? What can I do with this idea?

 

[atanu]

This is beautiful.

Respectful Question: Is it practical? What can I do with this idea?

Imagine an individual wave. It is fearful that it has a short life and it will break. It is fearful of other waves.

But this wave realises I am essentially water, same as the ocean.

Is there a practical benefit to such a realisation?

 

[Left Coast]

Vedanta reminds us of our deep sleep and transition to dream and to waking.

Deep sleep is called dense consciousness, unpartitioned. There is no subject and object division and no second color or sound or taste. Due to lack of contrast, the deep sleep appears a state of unknowing.

The same consciousness sprouts a subject and a world in dream and lo, it seems that we are conscious.

It is somewhat like, a car light going to empty space is not known until the light is reflected by some object.

So, as per Vedanta, we are pure consciousness only. Objectification is mAyA - magic.

Finally finished the lecture - I didn't know he was going to mention David Bentley Hart! Haha. See? I know some things, sometimes.

To be honest, I have much more respect for this understanding of God than the typical fundamentalist creationist stuff, which at this point in my life I find so ridiculous it's hard not to roll my eyes. So thank you for representing it.

Like I said earlier, the thing that I find most difficult about this is that even at a conceptual level I'm not sure it works. How can consciousness exist apart from consciousness of something?

Similarly, the idea is that pure being and pure consciousness exist beyond space and time - what does that mean? To exist or to be is a verb, it's an action. And actions require time. How can something exist/be for no time? I don't think we have any examples to draw from, which is why it's so hard to conceptualize, and why I'm skeptical it is true. But perhaps you'll convince me otherwise.

 

[atanu]

Finally finished the lecture - I didn't know he was going to mention David Bentley Hart! Haha. See? I know some things, sometimes.

To be honest, I have much more respect for this understanding of God than the typical fundamentalist creationist stuff, which at this point in my life I find so ridiculous it's hard not to roll my eyes. So thank you for representing it.

Like I said earlier, the thing that I find most difficult about this is that even at a conceptual level I'm not sure it works. How can consciousness exist apart from consciousness of something?

Similarly, the idea is that pure being and pure consciousness exist beyond space and time - what does that mean? To exist or to be is a verb, it's an action. And actions require time. How can something exist/be for no time? I don't think we have any examples to draw from, which is why it's so hard to conceptualize, and why I'm skeptical it is true. But perhaps you'll convince me otherwise.

You have valid questions based on most common intuitive feelings. I can only needle you so that you question your own intuitive assumptions. I will do that two three days later.

I am in the midst of a forced city change on account of a grave illness of a dear one.

 

[dybmh]

I am in the midst of a forced city change on account of a grave illness of a dear one.

Warm wishes, my friend.

Similarly, the idea is that pure being and pure consciousness exist beyond space and time - what does that mean?

An author writing a story does not exist in the space-time construct of the story. When the author composes the story-line in their mind, it could be that only a few moments pass; however, the story-line may include many many years and generations.

 

[Left Coast]

You have valid questions based on most common intuitive feelings. I can only needle you so that you question your own intuitive assumptions. I will do that two three days later.

I am in the midst of a forced city change on account of a grave illness of a dear one.

I'm so sorry! I hope they recover, or pass peacefully if it's that far gone. I completely understand, come back when you have time.

 

[atanu]

Warm wishes, my friend.

Thank you.

An author writing a story does not exist in the space-time construct of the story. When the author composes the story-line in their mind, it could be that only a few moments pass; however, the story-line may include many many years and generations.

Eloquent. Nicely said.

 

[atanu]

Like I said earlier, the thing that I find most difficult about this is that even at a conceptual level I'm not sure it works. How can consciousness exist apart from consciousness of something?

As I said earlier, I can provide some pointers only to prod you/readers if any, to contemplate. The nearest experience that we have to understand these concepts is the existential states of sleep, dream, waking and a fourth aspect of 'knowing' that connects all these three states. We all commonly have the experience of these states and Vedanta uses this common experience of all to exemplify "Truth-Intelligence-Infinty' -- Atman/Brahman.

Actually, nothing exists apart from consciousness. If an object was apart from consciousness then such an object would not be known. Consider the state of deep sleep wherein the being is whole. Within that comes up a subject and a world. The waking world is also another form of the same subject-object division.

So, nothing is apart from consciousness. The deep sleep state is unparsed dense consciousness, which the mind does not apprehend because of absence of any kind of contrast in it. The consciousness is the ability to know/discern. Whereas the apprehension of objects in dream and sleep are discerning of 'xyz'. Now the 'xyz' and the self that cognises 'xyz' are both not separate from consciousness.

Similarly, the idea is that pure being and pure consciousness exist beyond space and time - what does that mean? To exist or to be is a verb, it's an action. And actions require time. How can something exist/be for no time? I don't think we have any examples to draw from, which is why it's so hard to conceptualize, and why I'm skeptical it is true. But perhaps you'll convince me otherwise.

Again I will seek help from the experience of deep sleep. Subjectively, it is a not a space-time state. Yet actually the being, the self, obviously exists. So, it is not that something needs to exist only in space-time.

Space-time is an epiphenomenon of subject-object division arising in non dual consciousness in dream state and then in waking state.

...

I know that you and many others will not accept the explanations provided by me. But that is a good thing. In this regard I will like to link a very short video explaining what consciousness actually is. We intuitively think 'consciousness of' as consciousness. But actually something that you can point as 'this' cannot be the consciousness. The video is in the next post.

 

[atanu]

 

[usfan]

But otherwise I propose that proving God's existence is not a fruitful endeavor.

I tend to agree. But why is almost EVERY philosophical thread, pondering the abstracts of the universe, flooded with hordes of angry atheists, demanding 'proof!'? I started the 'proof of God!', thread with tongue in cheek irony.. i even stated it in the OP.

But no matter what thread you go to, the same belligerant, hostile, dogmatic posters are there, with their juvenile demands, as though the mysteries of the universe can be answered with bumper sticker slogans..

So, accommodating as i am, i provided a thread with that very topic, so perhaps we don't have to see the same demands in every philosophical thread that comes up. Delusional, or what?