Jan thanks for acknowledging my post. I am cherry picking but in a reply above you said.... . "It means He works in mysterious ways." This would seem to add to the possibility than an author may have got things wrong. If what you say is correct then how would one view recorded personal opinions or to use the highly elevated term scriptures as offering say credible insight into how the cosmos may work via a God or anything else for that matter. And if today we are still in the dark which I suppose you won't agree there but given your statement I presume reasonably ee are still in the dark...why can we think an ancient author could be less so. Is my view they made up stuff with no idea of what reality held that unreasonable to accept. I have thought about this and would think my view would be wn intelligent way to access what is before us. Scriptures and the bible for me are attempts to offer guide lines as to how to live s better life and I think we moreover get a positive outcome but I think God was made up to make suspicious folk respectful of the rules. Like using Santa clause to get kids to behave..you know how that works. Alex
And here is the answer to your previous post to me, which I am not going to parse again. Science defines Potential as *That* which may become reality. If Brahman exists in reality, it was preceded by the potential to exist. At best it can be said that Brahman is *That* which may become reality. Now do you see the equivalence? The term Brahman is a metaphor for Potential, just as the term God is a metaphor for Potential and every other name of a divine spiritual Creator you want to throw into the mix are all metaphors for Potential. And Science can prove Potential is a factual and functional or latent condition, *necessary* as a pre-condition before anything can become expressed in reality, a term understood by scientists in every country and in all languages.
If they did, I suspect every scripture would differ in content. As it stands, the essential content is the same. A significance of ancient scriptures is that they are essentially relevant today. No author has been able to write anything that compares to depth of scriptures. And their has been some outstanding writers. Writers will use the style, depth, and knowledge/information, as subjects and plots. This occursi n all genres. Action, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Romance, and Drama. Whole systems of government, from the streets, to huge world governments, and systems of law, and societal formations, have their basis in scripture. There is nothing about the interactive world of human beings, from all places and times, that is not covered in scripture. I don't think that would be the case if scriptures were simply written by people who wrote what they felt. It may seem so to you, and it did to me. But I decided to see for myself. Now I know that the scriptures are essential. It is worth looking into them, without bias. You will definitely benefit. The ''knowledge" you speak of, is information, or intermediary knowledge. When you have real knowledge there is nothing more to know. Can we be that stage? If yes , how is could it be possible. There are two ways to acquire knowledge. By learning from the bottom up (science), and from the top down (learning from spiritual authorities. They both need each other. We can learn about the material world, and we can lean about the spiritual world simultaneously. They did know about cosmology, and they knew about surgery, and .medicine. At least to the degree they know it now. The basis of Darwinian evolution was known. Gradual change from one form to another takes place on the mental and spiritual platform, as opposed to the gross material one. It is a myth that human intelligence has developedf Tom simple to complex over time. Don't worry about it. What I am putting across to you is not based on my theism. And my theism is not fixed. If you can counter my points with something, I will have no choice but to accept it, even of I deny it. My denial would be based on keeping knowledge/information at bay. I could also not accept it due to ignorance. Jan.
From the definition Brahman is reality. Why do you find it necessary to change the definition. If something has potential, then it is possible it may become what it has the potential to be. That means it is preceded by events. Brahman is not preceded by anything, or one. Therefore like everything, including potential, comes from the perfect complete whole. Brahman. That is the definition. Work with it. Science can only prove what it has the potential to prove. It has no jurisdiction in Brahman realization by definition. Jan.
Yes I can see your point but it could be simply follow the leader. One human gets an original idea many others take it develope it and before long the one idea is shared by all who never seem to have an original thought. I am undecided but thanks for introducing some balance. Yes I can accept the important role they play and would even suggest they probably helped humans to form civilizations but still think they amount to recorded personal beliefs. It only takes one human to record his personal belief and if it is acceptable it can perpetuate for centuries. Others may contribute but they may be building on an idea that influences them today originating centuries earlier. The more I think about humans the more I believe one person could start a movement that could last for centuries. A custom for example started by someone can be taken on by generations of folk who faithfully observe that custom. I bet there are things we do today that could have started as an individual idea thousands of years ago. I suspect you could be right Jan. I acknowledge that for anything to stand the test of time one could find something useful. But it may be like reading bumper stickers... every now and then you read one and you think.. yes thats right I will use that one.. My problem as you no doubt have guessed is that I really think I have all the answers and if I turned my hand to it could probably say something that others may regard as profound... but I would not... mainly because I think gurus have a problem in overestimating their own importance. To be continued my battery is near flat. Thanks Jan I like you being direct I do appreciate it. Alex
Back again and I tend to agree in some degree. I respect our ancestors more than many other humans, hunting and fishing may seem primative but if you are to feed yourself via only those activities you really need to be clever. We are quick to look down on hunter gathers. Look at cave paintings. For many it is no big deal but think of what they had to do.. make crayons make a torch and draw from memory. Nevertheless it seems superstition played a role early in our time and that is easy to prove. And we have held many ideas as truth only to find later they were simy horribly wrong. We need to balance all these things when suggesting the scriptures are good authority. They could be horribly wrong on the most important point.. God. Jan I appreciate you dealing with me in a less playful manner and I think I understand why you deal with questions from others and me earlier the way you do, I think you realise I have stopped my sillyness so you respond thoughtfully. We have got somewhere I hope. I still have no God but would say that if I was in control of the world or even just a country I would not get rid of religion because I can see the advantages for the polulace but most of all how it would enable me to control things, that really appeals to me, and I doubt that I am the first human to have arrived at that conclusion. Alex
Another argument from personal incredulity, then. They knew about medicine to the degree they know it now? And on what do you base this claim? Define "mental" and "spiritual" in this regard and how they differ from what materialists might consider to simply be forms and interpretations of the material? By this are you meaning that it is a myth that since homo sapiens arrived their intelligence has not developed from simple to complex, or do you mean that it is a myth that intelligence did not evolve from, say, pre-homo ancestors to the intelligence found in homo-sapiens?
No you have it exactly backwards / inverted. The "whole systems of government, from the streets, to huge world governments, and systems of law, and societal formations" were fromed in Babylon more than 2000 years before the Christian scriptures existed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Above left is map of ancient Babylon at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. At right is his palace. Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-usur II) was the real genius and builder of Babylon. Of its 70 years in existence he ruled 45 years. As the commander of Nabopalassar’s armies he was unstoppable. He broke the power of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish and proved to be one of the mightiest monarchs of all time. Among the cities he invaded and plundered were Tyre, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Jerusalem. Here are some interesting facts according to the historian Herodotus (Bk 1, 178-186) about Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon: In the form of a square, 14 miles on each side, and of enormous magnitude with brick wall was 56 miles long, 300 feet high, 25 feet thick with another wall 75 feet behind the first wall, and the wall extended 35 feet below the ground. It had -250 towers that were 450 feet high; A wide and deep moat that encircled the city. The Euphrates River also flowed through the middle of the city. Ferry boats and a 1/2 mi. long bridge with drawbridges closed at night. "Hanging Gardens"(one of the wonders of the ancient world) and water was raised from the river by hydraulic pumps. Eight massive gates that led to the inner city and 100 brass gates. Streets were paved with stone slabs 3 feet square. The great Tower (Ziggurat) and 53 temples including the "GreatTemple of Marduk." 180 altars to Ishtar. Golden image of Baal and the Golden Table (both weighing over 50,000 lbs of solid gold.) 2 golden lions, a solid gold human figure (18 feet high) Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was considered to be the most magnificent building ever erected on earth. Above from: http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaNebuchadnezzars_Babylon.htm but here is a full history: http://www.livius.org/articles/place/babylonian-empire/ and a less detailed version here: http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaHistory_of_Babylonia.htm - - - - - - - - - The Christian scriptures, were derived from / written by men who knew some of this earlier culture and religions. They did copy from the Jews, the idea that one God was enough. The scriptures are full of the common false beliefs of the era. Most notable is that the sun stood still in the heavens for a day: King James Bible: "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." All but a few Greeks believed that the sun and moon went round the Earth. So they did not realize that the angular momentum in the oceans would sweep over all the earth's land, killing everyone, if the earth did cease rotation for about 24 hours, as scriptures claim. Jan will not admit it, but God did not create life on earth. Evolution developed it, from the earlier simple anerobic forms that persisted for about 2 million years while there was no oxygen in the air. SUMMARY: For Jan, Faith over rules facts.
Here is some good evidence that you are seriously lying to yourself, if not just to us. There is incredible differences in scriptures. Sure there is: computer science, the ethics of cloning, quantum mechanics, derivatives... That's a nice sentiment, but not really a good argument. This is clearly wrong. There a huge things that we know know that are absent from every scripture. Where is dark energy in scripture? Where are there even other galaxies in any scripture? Do you have any real evidence of this aside from your wishful thinking?
Then Brahman was preceded by the potential to become reality. I am not changing any definition. Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential? I am, Potential is an abstraction and by definition must come before reality of Anything. That is the argument of Bohm's "Implicate". Of course it does, by definition, everything that has ever existed was preceded by the potential to exist. There is no difference in function, only in the semantic interpretation. God, Allah, Brahman, Potential, are all the same thing and you cannot ask, "will the real causality stand up". The Theist insistence that Causality must be intelligent and favors humans is self-serving "hubris". This is why I subscribe to an *implacable" mathematical function, which does not make choices other than that expression in reality must follow mathematical rules, which are "implicated", by prior existing Potential. Their are no miracles caused by an emotional sentience. Reality is a mathematical construct, a product of mathematical probability (potential), not the product of Intention.
I agree that as per definition Brahman IS reality. Firstly,'reality becoming reality' is a nonsense. Secondly if reality is a product of potential, then ''potential'' is not a reality. You're basically talking nonsense. To what? I'm not concerned what it's an argument of, it makes no practical sense. Brahman, by definition, doesn't come under things ''that has ever existed''. There is no BEFORE, and there is no AFTER. ‘The invisible (Brahman) is the Full;... Full - not lacking or omitting anything; complete. Complete - to the greatest extent or degree; total. ...the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come. The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’ I think you're quite correct when you say ''potential'' has no consciousness, Unfortunately you cannot steal the definition of ''Brahman'' to account for your worldview, because Brahman is self-existence, unchanging, and complete to the greatest extent. Not lacking, or omitting anything, which includes consciousness. Fraid you'll have to find a new bag. jan.
OK, if your definition of "Brahman" is "reality", then you don't get to smuggle in all the religious content of "Brahman". So Brahman cannot be an explanation for reality or anything in it. Nor does the existence of reality, of some sort, give us reason to believe in a god of some sort. So you have reduces "Brahman" to absolutely no content. This is exactly what I meant when I wrote of religious people retreating to no content in an attempt to win an argument and then smuggle religious content in later.
Then, per definition it was preceded by Potential. Those are YOUR words, not mine. My words are Potential is "that which may become reality" It is truly amazing that you can be so dense about the abstract, but the one time I did not preface the term reality, with the qualifier "OUR" reality", you pounce and believe you are making an important point. You display Trumpian thinking. Throw something out and see if it sticks. If it doesn't you then attribute that false statement to your opponent. A very clever ruse, but that misdirection won't work with me. You're fighting a battle you cannot win. That's correct. My use of "Potential" in this discussion is in the abstract and the Implicate is the result of several potentials creating a condition which then becomes expressed (explicated) in OUR reality. Your scriptural quotes are basically nonsense, if you attach an intelligent emotional mind to the abstraction named Brahman, or God, or Allah or FSM. Take your pick from that *grab bag* Obviously you have no clue as to the fundamental concept that Potential is "That which may become reality", and Potential in various forms has real application in every phase of life and the sciences. Look it up! And you want to change the definition of potential? Let me complete that sentence. "there is no BEFORE, and there is no AFTER, Brahman has always EXISTED. Do you disagree with that? Yep, from Universal Potential the (to us) visible universe has come So, you admit that our reality "has come out of the Full Brahman", IOW Our Reality was preceded by Brahman, just like Potential? There would be no change of function if you replaced the spiritual word Brahman with the scientific word Potential. They are equal in the abstract and their mathematical functions must be exactly the same. The Universe is FULL with Potential in various states of becoming explicated (become visible) in OUR reality. I am stealing from the definition of Brahman? Another Trumpian misdirection. You really need to stop that cheap sales trick. As sales and contract manager for a multi million retail chain, I studied *sales techniques*. I wouldn't have hired you. It would have been unethical. Your sales pitch would be, " This is an intelligent machine and will automatically brew your coffee, just by reciting the Veda. Potential (which is not conscious itself), includes the latent ability for consciousness, which is expressed in our reality in many species. BUT NOT ALL SPECIES or THINGS have the potential for consciousness or intelligence. Which negates your definition and application of Brahman as an all pervasive universal consciousness. If everything is FULL of Brahman, why are not all expressions of Brahman sentient or conscious? Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential? Try to use Brahman to create an electrical charge. I have no need for your bag, but I wish you good luck with your bag.[/quote] btw, If the abstraction Brahman is so real, why don't you introduce us. I have introduced you to Potential as an abstraction of "That which may become (our) reality".
That would mean there is a reality beyond Brahman. The definition clearly states that Brahman remains the same, meaning it is unchanging. ''Potential'' means having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future. ...the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come. The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’ The potential is within the visible world, which has a finite time. Brahman, according to this definition, is complete, and unchanging. IOW there is no need of potential. jan.
It explains that the visible worlds are FULL. So it's reasonable to conclude that the materials that go to building these words, are arranged the way the are because of Brahman. We, being sentient, and conscious, are essentially brahman. I don't think you comprehend the gravity of the definition, and what it's implications mean. Whatever way you may think of Brahman, you are both a part of it, and and expression of it. So there is no question of Brahman being real. The task is to know what it is. jan.
Okay. The definition is not an explanation of reality, it the meaning of reality. It is what reality, is. Reality is real, and it exists. So whether you want to call it God, FSM, potential, etc... It exists. The problem is knowing what it is. No. Brahman is one, as opposed to zero. jan.
And we have a word for it already: "reality". If you want to call reality "God" then feel free, and if worshipping reality is your thing then good for you. Now you're starting to sound like Spellbound. No sh1t, Sherlock... reality exists? Whodathunk it! Mine eyes have been opened to the glory of reality! There I was, thinking reality was nothing but the non-existent, and your unique insight into its nature has now awoken me from that slumber. So your entire proof of God's existence is now: God is defined as reality; reality exists; therefore God exists? Seriously? I think what he means is that it has no explanatory power - you have simply exchanged a word ("reality") for another ("Brahman") but in doing so you have not actually added anything - so the content of that label over any previously existing one is zero. Anyhoo - there you have it, peeps, after only several years of trying: Jan has finally concluded that God is nothing but reality itself. All this time, all this evasion and obfuscation and circular discussion has been resolved in three little words: "God", "is" and "reality". Voila. So anticlimactic. I want my money back!!
Yep. This is my conclusion too. "the Full", "one as opposed to zero". These are fluffy terms that avoid description.
