Mind and Consciousness

[Maeght]

Not convinced.

[Nearly Sane]

The word God is borrowed from the west. In the West the word God means Jehovah or a similar person or being. In India it does not mean that. 'God' is a very loose term that is used to mean anything from a personal deity to a celestial being to the Universal Spirit or Universal consciousness. There are many different words in Hinduism such as Brahman, Paramatman, prabhu, Ishwar, Bhagvan, deva etc. to refer to God, which refer to its different attributes.

In the second video he talks of the different deities that we worship or imagine. These are human creations based on cultural compulsions. This is well accepted in Hinduism. Devotion is a natural emotional impulse that we have and we need deities that we can identify with. People worship different deities in the form of a father, mother, protector, friend, child and even lover as per their needs. This is the devotional path (bhakti marga). This is one of the means to spiritual development.

The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).

Once a person follows this path the person realizes that not only the body but the mind with all its instincts, emotions, intellect and ego are just objects and different from the subject (first video). This is when the person merges or dissolves into the supreme consciousness (second video)....like a river flowing into the ocean. 

This Universal Consciousness obviously cannot be understood intellectually. It is he ultimate subject and is beyond our human capabilities.

This is what both the above videos are talking about.





 

In putting it that way, you've called the bloke in the first video a liar, since he says he's not doing what you"ve just said he is.

[Sriram]

Can you tell me which part of his video you are referring to?!

[Sriram]

Not convinced.

As expected...! 

[Nearly Sane]

Can you tell me which part of his video you are referring to?!

Presuming you are asking me? He states the purpose of the talk at 1.23. It's a definition bound by the idea of science which is based around intellectual understanding. Of his aim is not within that definition, then he would be lying. 

[Maeght]

As expected...! 

Didn't think it would come as a surprise. 

[Sriram]

Presuming you are asking me? He states the purpise of the talk at 1.23. It's a definition bound by the idea of science which is based around intellectual understanding. Of his aim is not within that definition, then he would be lying.

He never claims that the supreme consciousness will be scientifically understood. He is clear that the subject cannot be understood. Only objects can be understood which includes the mind and intellect.

[Nearly Sane]

He never claims that the supreme consciousness will be scientifically understood. He is clear that the subject cannot be understood. Only objects can be understood which includes the mind and intellect.

He outlines a purpose which is at odds with what you claimed his purpose was. Either you are wrong, or you are saying he didn't know what his purpose was, or you are saying he is lying about his purpose.

[Sriram]

He outlines a purpose which is at odds with what you claimed his purpose was. Either you are wrong, or you are saying he didn't know what his purpose was, or you are saying he is lying about his purpose.

At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.

He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect  (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.

[Nearly Sane]

At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.

He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect  (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.

He's talking about offering insights to science which is an intellectual exercise if his insights can't be understood intellectually he is either wrong to offer them, or is lying about thrm. The problem you have is words matter, and you're trying a bait and switch here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes. So he talks at 4.30 about not being able to define the self, and he then talks about that being a 'small piece of creation'. He doesn't say that there is a creator god, or that the thing you are dissolving into is a 'god'.

4.40 – 4.60: “And this (?) piece of creation is like this. The source of creation. How are you going to put a definition on it? You cannot define it. You cannot understand it. You can only dissolve into it.”

What “source of creation” or indeed “creation” at all to you think he’s assuming as his premise here?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

4.40 – 4.60: “And this (?) piece of creation is like this. The source of creation. How are you going to put a definition on it? You cannot define it. You cannot understand it. You can only dissolve into it.”

What “source of creation” or indeed “creation” at all to you think he’s assuming as his premise here?

Consciousness, ehich I don't think is a claim to a creator god, or indeed a god. See my ongoing discussions with Sriram as regards this. I think both talks have issues woth either using analogies badly - in this case borrowing the terms god and creation, and not making clear that they are not being used in the 'western' sense, or using analogies wrongly i.e. this is like something that you think exists so it exists.

[Nearly Sane]

At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.

He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect  (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.

Aside from the disagreement about his purpose, as I mentioned in Reply 2, I think the mind/consciousness distinction isn't made successfully, and is merely word wanking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).

Bullshit. History is full of delusionals who’ve decided that they have magic antennae that enable them to perceive special types of reality that are denied to “normal people”. And yet these same people – you included – are unable to justify their claims with logically cogent arguments. We just have to take their word for it it seems.

Well, OK then – if these are the rules, we can all play by them. You now have to take my word for it that I experience leprechauns on a deeply “spiritual”/”leprechaunal” level that’s denied to poor saps like you. You could of course embark on the long journey of internal contemplation and navel gazing that’s elevated me to my enhanced state of awareness, but frankly I doubt you have the special properties that I alone am blessed with that have brought me to this verdant plain of bliss and rainbows.

What’s that you say? “Why should I take your claims seriously?” Simple you silly goose you – I’m certain that my special spiritual/leprechaunal awareness justifies my beliefs, so it’s job done!

You’ll believe me I presume, what with my relying on the same (non-)method you claim for your magic beliefs too?         

[jeremyp]

He doesn't argue that.

I've watched the first 20 minutes now and I'm not impressed so far. He seems to be arguing that consciousness can't be explained in terms of processes that go on inside the brain because he arbitrarily labels them as "objects" and then claims that consciousness is not an object. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Consciousness, ehich I don't think is a claim to a creator god, or indeed a god. See my ongoing discussions with Sriram as regards this. I think both talks have issues woth either using analogies badly - in this case borrowing the terms god and creation, and not making clear that they are not being used in the 'western' sense, or using analogies wrongly i.e. this is like something that you think exists so it exists.

You keep eliding the creator/creation part. I don’t think there’s a “Western” definition of that that’s non-applicable here. If the speaker wants to use the term “consciousness” as a passive claim that’s one thing, but when he extends the claim into a consciousness that “creates” (let alone uses the claim of creation as a justification for the claim of necessary consciousness) then he has a big job to justify his a priori premise.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You keep eliding the creator/creation part. I don’t think there’s a “Western” definition of that that’s non-applicable here. If the speaker wants to use the term “consciousness” as a passive claim that’s one thing, but when he extends the claim into a consciousness that “creates” (let alone uses the claim of creation as a justification for the claim of necessary consciousness) then he has a big job to justify his a priori premise.   

I'm not eliding anything. You are adding in 'creatir god'. It doesn't really matter since it's essentially verbal bollocks from the speaker for reasons explained.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not eliding anything. You are adding in 'creatir god'. It doesn't really matter since it's essentially verbal bollocks from the speaker for reasons explained.

Actually "creator consciousness" (or "creation, therefore a creating consciousness") but ok. Let's just agree that it's verbal bollocks then and leave it at that. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Actually "creator consciousness" (or "creation, therefore a creating consciousness") but ok. Let's just agree that it's verbal bollocks then and leave it at that.

Creator makes it personal, and effectively a god.  He doesn't say that 

[Nearly Sane]

I've watched the first 20 minutes now and I'm not impressed so far. He seems to be arguing that consciousness can't be explained in terms of processes that go on inside the brain because he arbitrarily labels them as "objects" and then claims that consciousness is not an object.

Pretty much, but in terms of the 'hard problem of consciousness' that's simply a way of phrasing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Creator makes it personal, and effectively a god.  He doesn't say that

"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

How did you get from that to "Creator makes it personal"?

As I understand it the schtick is that everything – including rocks for example - is somehow conscious. What's "personal" about that claim? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How did you get from that to "Creator makes it personal"?

As I understand it the schtick is that everything – including rocks for example - is somehow conscious. What's "personal" about that claim?

You were the one talking about a 'creator god'. That's a personal god. I've been saying that isn't what he says. You now seem to be agreeing with my point.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Notice

A number of posts that were discussing specifically the actions of a 'god' have been put into a seperate thread, and moved to Theism and Atheism board.