What motivates atheists (and/or materialists) to deny the will?

[Aupmanyav]

The advantage of the conscious mind is that it can be rational and logical. We can use this to govern the subconscious mind.

This is nice. Did not know about your encounter with Hinduism. Which guru was that, Nakosis, if you would not mind?

In your last sentence you seem to have denied that ‘jivatma’ is superior to intellect.

I think someone has pointed out in the topic that 'jivatma' (a person) is not superior to intellect, because the intellect also belongs to that person, both are same.

In fact most of our lust stories are hidden in the subconscious that propel our intellect and actions.
The call here is to employ the superior power of jivatma (soul) to rein in the lust etc.

That is exactly what Nakosis said. If such thoughts are in the subconscious, then suppress them by the conscious thought and effort. Train the subconscious. That is known as 'Yama' (abstention) in yoga.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does Hinduism provide any concept of conscious/subconscious mind?

I think so - the five sheaths. Manomaya kosha and Vijnanamaya kosha (the knowing/aware mind which understands).

Neither has your Holy Book provided any convincing explanation for it's ontological categories of gross bodies, senses, mind, intellect and soul nor has it explained their supposed hierarchy. The premise of your question assumes the veracity of your Holy Book making answering your question either impossible or a fruitless effort.

The holy books have provided the answers and because of that I am an atheist. Now, do not expect a billion Hindus to have the same belief. Even Abrahamic religions have differences of belief. So, Hinduism, the free form religion, will certainly have more differences. We are satisfied with that. Our friend talks here about God and soul, I differ with him. I am comfortable with his views. The problem is that he is not comfortable with my views.

 

[Nakosis]

This is nice. Did not know about your encounter with Hinduism. Which guru was that, Nakosis, if you would not mind?I think someone has pointed out in the topic that 'jivatma' (a person) is not superior to intellect, because the intellect also belongs to that person, both are same.
That is exactly what Nakosis said. If such thoughts are in the subconscious, then suppress them by the conscious thought and effort. Train the subconscious. That is known as 'Yama' (abstention) in yoga.

Back in the 70's, he came to the US and had a fairly large following. Guru Maharaj Ji.
Hinduism Today Magazine

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, are you talking about the fraud, Bal Yogeshwar? I think he has gone completely off the radar. His elder brother is the chief of their mission in India and a minister in the Himalayan state of Uttarkhand (wanted to be the Chief Minister), Satpalji Maharaj. A prosperous family enterprise.

 

[halbhh]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

Ok. It's merely a short account one can read in about 10 or 15 minutes, that tells the results of his experiments with trying out those difference forces -- things like sensual indulgences vs. willpower vs. seeking wisdom vs etc. -- difference inclinations inside the human mind one can follow as way to choose what to do.

He tried these extensively, and reports he found about them in a big picture way.

 

[Jedster]

@Aupmanyav
Guru MaharajJi, now presents himself as a peace ambassador using his born name Prem Rawat.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't deny free will and really have no problem with Jesus. It's mainly Christianity and Paul I don't see a lot of benefit in.

Jesus isn't a part-savior or part-teacher in my opinion. There is much to be gained from all the Bible books.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheism is not about JC but about god or gods. Of course some people believe JC was a fragment of the abrahamic god but even in that case there is no evidence of god or evidence that JC was the illigitimate son of a god.

Anyway lack of evidence is not force, provide falsifiable evidence of god then there will be a lot of ex atheists

So you DO affirm free will "Give us atheists falsifiable evidence and we will CHOOSE to be atheists no longer."

Thanks! Hope you're well. Stay safe.

 

[stvdv]

The senses are superior to the gross body, and superior to the senses is the mind. Beyond the mind is the intellect, and even beyond the intellect is the soul.

Thus knowing the soul to be superior to the material intellect, O mighty armed Arjun, subdue the self (senses, mind, and intellect) by the self (strength of the soul), and kill this formidable enemy called lust.

I have a question. What may be the motivation of Chaarvaaks and materialist-atheists to assertively deny their own will?

Not sure if I understand exactly what you meant with the question, as many have different definition of "will" and "will power"

Google: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions

Gita teaches that the soul is beyond "matter"

My Master never let us get away fooling ourselves saying "you have no will power" ... "your desires drain your (will)power"

IMO:
If we see matter as the highest then we deny our own strength and power called "Atma/soul"
If we see matter as the highest then we empower our senses/mind and thereby drain our "will power"

 

[ChristineM]

So you DO affirm free will "Give us atheists falsifiable evidence and we will CHOOSE to be atheists no longer."

Thanks! Hope you're well. Stay safe.

What i said was
"Anyway lack of evidence is not force, provide falsifiable evidence of god then there will be a lot of ex atheists"

The choice will be made on the evidence which each person will evaluate and act on as they choose

So do you have falsifiable evidence for your or any gods existence?

Cheers and stay well yourself

 

[BilliardsBall]

What i said was
"Anyway lack of evidence is not force, provide falsifiable evidence of god then there will be a lot of ex atheists"

The choice will be made on the evidence which each person will evaluate and act on as they choose

So do you have falsifiable evidence for your or any gods existence?

Cheers and stay well yourself

No, I have no such evidence. I'm the same as you, simply spinning just-so stories without any evidence to be found.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I have no such evidence. I'm the same as you, simply spinning just-so stories without any evidence to be found.

Though not.

 

[atanu]

• PARAMĀTMĀ is the Supreme Principle, whatever we call it: God, Supreme Self, Divine Self, Love, Truth or Reality.
• ĀTMĀ may be described as God’s ray of light, which exists as the “light of life” in every living being. It is part of PARAMĀTMĀ and is therefore identical in nature with it. Just as the seed of a tree contains all the qualities of the tree, the Ātmā also carries the qualities of the Supreme Self.
• JĪVĀTMĀ, the individual soul, is the reflection of the Ātmā within an individual; a “wave” that emerges from the ocean of existence and wanders from embodiment to embodiment, and after a long process of development and experience again returns to the unity of the Ātmā. The soul that has manifested itself in a form, however, does not identify with its divine essence but rather with its attributes, the physical body, the mind, the thoughts, etc. The aim of the path of Yoga is to dispel this illusion.

Jivatma, Atma, Paramatma

What do you feel about the above? Seems to say that Jivatma identifies with the body-mind. So mind equals conscious/subconscious together...

Does Hinduism provide any concept of conscious/subconscious mind?

Thank you Nakosis. I will try to provide a short summary. To your question above, the answer is a conditional yes. Hinduism (and Buddhism) can account well for the unconscious. But let me take that up later after I clarify a few points about the OP.

In the OP, I tried to contrast two world-views and raised a question that was intentionally paradoxical. (Some folks have noted that motivation and the will are basically the same).

As an example of the first worldview, I will outline briefly the Vedanta idea. In Vedanta, the Truth is immutable Brahman of the nature of infinite existence-consciousness that illumines (space-time-objects) and knows them (it also knows itself reflexively). But as the infinite-homogeneous-consciousness, it has no means to know itself reflexively until a conditioned-formed mind comes up illuminating self and space-time-objects. This way one immutable truth can mirror itself in infinite number ways.

We are all ‘image alters’ of the Brahman in the mind. But, associated with mind-life, we appear as separated jivatma-s (the living souls). The Truth of our essential nature is hidden due to ‘Ego’ — which is an erroneous appropriation of the doer-ship by body-mind as the individual doer. But, because our essential nature is of Brahman - the Truth, we have the competence to see through the illusion of the ego, by introversion of attention and vision of the infinite mind, stripped of all mental and physical objects. This is a very generalised explanation.

Contrast this with the materialistic worldview, wherein the concept is that we are individual living beings, born of inert materials and governed by electrochemical signalling in the brain. In this view, we are aware of a representation of the so-called external world, data of which gets reprocessed and compiled in the brain. So, we never actually know the reality. We also do not know how the fundamental matter, characterised by angular momentum, charge, and mass, give rise to conscious “I” and the phenomenal consciousness.

So, my question in the OP is regarding the mechanism of development of the ego selves. “Whence the ego ‘I’?” How and why the inert-inanimate material constituents give rise to ‘ego’ that claim ownership, possession of knowledge and accuracy of ego decisions? I also wish to know “Who is in charge?”
...

 

[atanu]

Neither has your Holy Book provided any convincing explanation for it's ontological categories of gross bodies, senses, mind, intellect and soul nor has it explained their supposed hierarchy. The premise of your question assumes the veracity of your Holy Book making answering your question either impossible or a fruitless effort.

I will try to explain my point of view like thus: Does it make sense to say my right arm is superior to my left leg (or even the other way around)? Even if I happen to use my arms more than my legs, don't I still need them to move around so my arms can be used? Why the need to label one thing as superior to the other?

But do you never direct your body parts as per your wish? Some of your body parts may get controlled by senses and some by the intellect. But do you have the overall power and wisdom?

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure why you think that atheists deny their own will. They just don't characterize its properties in the same way you do.

I don't believe in a 'soul' in any usual sense. Instead, the drives and will are internally generated states. And yes, we can use them to 'program' ourselves in many ways. But I see that as a product of the intellect and using feedback to get to a desired (willed) result

Yeah. My regards. It seems that you alone have asked the right questions. Please see post 53.

 

[atanu]

materialists = matter over mind?

Yeah. So. I ask "When the ego?" and "Who is in charge?"

 

[atanu]

Well, if In Bhagavata Gita (whatever that is), Shri Krishna (whoever that is) teaches as above, then I am sure we should take it seriously

Haha viole. The OP has nothing much to do about "Who is Shri Krishna?", other than merely providing a contrasting worldview.

From your posts, I see that you have a lively ego-self that appears always to be sanguine that it knows everything and better than other fools. So, my question was "Whence your ego-self?"

...

 

[Polymath257]

So, my question in the OP is regarding the mechanism of development of the ego selves. “Whence the ego ‘I’?” How and why the inert-inanimate material constituents give rise to ‘ego’ that claim ownership, possession of knowledge and accuracy of ego decisions? I also wish to know “Who is in charge?”
...

I think it is a mistake to identify matter as being 'inert'. In fact, matter is very reactive and interactive. Put some vinegar over some baking soda and you will see a dramatic reaction (although safe to do). Light a match around gasoline ad you will have a much more dramatic (and less safe) reaction.

In particular, the oxygen in the air is a *very* reactive chemical. And it is that reactivity that drives the chemistry of our lives. When we are deprived of oxygen, those reactions cease and we die.

Far from being 'inert' and 'inanimate', matter is actually incredibly reactive and directed in those reactions.

As for ego, I would look to the animal kingdom to see the different possibilities how brains collect and process information from the senses in order to navigate their surroundings. And, again, this is all based on how matter interacts and reacts with other matter. The 'who' is simply a way of putting ourselves into our simulation.

 

[Koldo]

But do you never direct your body parts as per your wish? Some of your body parts may get controlled by senses and some by the intellect. But do you have the overall power and wisdom?

Is having control superior to actually being able to do something? If so, why?

 

[Nakosis]

Thank you Nakosis. I will try to provide a short summary. To your question above, the answer is a conditional yes. Hinduism (and Buddhism) can account well for the unconscious. But let me take that up later after I clarify a few points about the OP.

In the OP, I tried to contrast two world-views and raised a question that was intentionally paradoxical. (Some folks have noted that motivation and the will are basically the same).

As an example of the first worldview, I will outline briefly the Vedanta idea. In Vedanta, the Truth is immutable Brahman of the nature of infinite existence-consciousness that illumines (space-time-objects) and knows them (it also knows itself reflexively). But as the infinite-homogeneous-consciousness, it has no means to know itself reflexively until a conditioned-formed mind comes up illuminating self and space-time-objects. This way one immutable truth can mirror itself in infinite number ways.

We are all ‘image alters’ of the Brahman in the mind. But, associated with mind-life, we appear as separated jivatma-s (the living souls). The Truth of our essential nature is hidden due to ‘Ego’ — which is an erroneous appropriation of the doer-ship by body-mind as the individual doer. But, because our essential nature is of Brahman - the Truth, we have the competence to see through the illusion of the ego, by introversion of attention and vision of the infinite mind, stripped of all mental and physical objects. This is a very generalised explanation.

Contrast this with the materialistic worldview, wherein the concept is that we are individual living beings, born of inert materials and governed by electrochemical signalling in the brain. In this view, we are aware of a representation of the so-called external world, data of which gets reprocessed and compiled in the brain. So, we never actually know the reality. We also do not know how the fundamental matter, characterised by angular momentum, charge, and mass, give rise to conscious “I” and the phenomenal consciousness.

So, my question in the OP is regarding the mechanism of development of the ego selves. “Whence the ego ‘I’?” How and why the inert-inanimate material constituents give rise to ‘ego’ that claim ownership, possession of knowledge and accuracy of ego decisions? I also wish to know “Who is in charge?”
...

My view, where you see Brahman, I see brain. The brain has no means to know itself reflexively. The brain creates the conscious ego. I also see the conscious ego self as an illusion. The ego self believes it is in control but it is not really. We are the brain but not conscious of being so. When we let go of ego, it is simply the brain becoming aware of it's own consciousness. The brain create a virtual reality for the ego to exist in. The brain then identifies with that ego. It believes itself to be the ego that it created. However it is not the true self. We are a central nervous system wearing a meat suit. When we look in the mirror we see the outside flesh which becomes part of our identity.

Will comes from the brain, not the conscious self. Though we identify with it, the ego/conscious self, we realize the conscious ego is not the source of will. Some go on a journey trying to find it. Instead of finding it, I think sometimes we end simply up creating another ego, God.