Spritual Terms defined?

KUMAR5 said:
Hello,
Greetings!!

Can we logically and somewhat scientifically define some Spritual terms as under:

1. Prime Goddess: Anticipated Prime Force(Unified Forces) i.e. basis of all 4 fundamental forces.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Shakti. Putting a Hindu spin on things will go over the heads of 90% of this board's participants, for whom religion = fundamentalist Biblical Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti

2. Prime God:
Click to expand...
Anticipated prime particle of all 4 elementary particles. If manifested by Prime Force?
Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of problem with hypothesizing some kind of primeval reality out of which the rest of the universe supposedly manifests. Theoretical physicists do exactly the same thing. See this paper that's been posted on this board over and over and over and over and over and...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

I personally think that your version is superior in one respect, because you don't dishonestly call your hypothetical source "nothing". But using the words "God" and "Goddess" will just make atheist knees jerk. The board's dimmer atheists will reject anything you say if you use theistic vocabulary, but if you call your source the "Wheeler-DeWitt equation" and "vacuum energy", they will eagerly lap it up.

But if I was going to divide the original source up into two different principles, I'd be more inclined to do it hylomorphically, dividing it into matter and form, instead of matter and energy. Physics (as I believe it is currently conceived) imagines quanta of forces and particles equivalently in terms of virtual gauge bosons. That would seem to me to collapse your two ultimate divine principles together.

And I most definitely wouldn't try to personalize ultimate metaphysical principles in a theistic way. That just adds additional unnecessary levels of confusion. Frankly, I don't think that the whole project of trying to restate traditional Hindu religious categories in quasi-"scientific" language derived from physics is very helpful. (Not to me at least.) It might be personally valuable to you though, in your attempts to better conceive of things and to perhaps reduce some cognitive dissonance. So I don't want to dismiss it.

3. Secondary Goddess:
Click to expand...
4 fundamental forces or other changes & modifications of Prime Force & Energy, still keeping properties of Prime force in full or in part. Mediated by Prime & secondary god/particles.

4. Secondary God: God son, incarnation, godlike etc. 4 elementary particles and modifications thereafter, still keeping full or part properties of Prime God.

5. God state: True balance state of all things and beings, somewhat like center line on a wave.

6. Angels: Positive side/state of nature. Eg. Upper/Creast side of a wave.

7. Devils: Negative side/state of nature. Eg. Lower/Tough side of a Wave.

8. Humans: Neutral side/state of nature. ?
Click to expand...

All of that seems confusing and unnecessary.

9. Virtues:
Click to expand...
Opposite of sin. Moving toward balance state of nature either from positive or from negative side/state.

10. Sins: Deviating from balance state of nature either from positive or from negative side/state.

11. True/Universal religion: True nature of a substance or its instincts. Fulfilling its natural duties. Eg. nature of fire is to burn/heat and of water to cool, human's true nature/religion may be to attain liberation by spiritual elevations.
Click to expand...

Dharma, right? I'm not sure that one can derive ethics from metaphysics quite so easily. (The is-ought problem -- how does one derive 'ought' from 'is'?) In other words, why is accordance with the "state of nature" and fulfilling one's natural duties (whatever they are) morally or spiritually good?

12. Effect from religion: 1. Faith effect as reward expectation- motivational placebo/self healing by Dopamine release in brain. 2. By physical, mental and spiritual practices--diet control, meditation, fear of god, vibrational & environmental good affects, physical exercises, nature's & social morality & harmony etc.
Click to expand...

I think that's certainly part of it, but I suspect that there's more to it than that. Some yogins seem to achieve extraordinary levels of self-control. Many would argue that yogins achieve extraordinary states of consciousness as well. Perhaps they learn something in those states.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Sounds like Shakti. Putting a Hindu spin on things will go over the heads of 90% of this board's participants, for whom religion = fundamentalist Biblical Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti



I don't have a lot of problem with hypothesizing some kind of primeval reality out of which the rest of the universe supposedly manifests. Theoretical physicists do exactly the same thing. See this paper that's been posted on this board over and over and over and over and over and...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

I personally think that your version is superior in one respect, because you don't dishonestly call your hypothetical source "nothing". But using the words "God" and "Goddess" will just make atheist knees jerk. The board's dimmer atheists will reject anything you say if you use theistic vocabulary, but if you call your source the "Wheeler-DeWitt equation" and "vacuum energy", they will eagerly lap it up.

But if I was going to divide the original source up into two different principles, I'd be more inclined to do it hylomorphically, dividing it into matter and form, instead of matter and energy. Physics (as I believe it is currently conceived) imagines quanta of forces and particles equivalently in terms of virtual gauge bosons. That would seem to me to collapse your two ultimate divine principles together.

And I most definitely wouldn't try to personalize ultimate metaphysical principles in a theistic way. That just adds additional unnecessary levels of confusion. Frankly, I don't think that the whole project of trying to restate traditional Hindu religious categories in quasi-"scientific" language derived from physics is very helpful. (Not to me at least.) It might be personally valuable to you though, in your attempts to better conceive of things and to perhaps reduce some cognitive dissonance. So I don't want to dismiss it.



All of that seems confusing and unnecessary.



Dharma, right? I'm not sure that one can derive ethics from metaphysics quite so easily. (The is-ought problem -- how does one derive 'ought' from 'is'?) In other words, why is accordance with the "state of nature" and fulfilling one's natural duties (whatever they are) morally or spiritually good?



I think that's certainly part of it, but I suspect that there's more to it than that. Some yogins seem to achieve extraordinary levels of self-control. Many would argue that yogins achieve extraordinary states of consciousness as well. Perhaps they learn something in those states.
Click to expand...

Yes. Technically both force/energy & matter exist. Unless we can know about supernaturals, these can be the basis. Prime force & particle under active research.

Let us not base specific definitions of dharma/religion. We mus check its universally applicable definition. I feel, my definitions suggest accordingly. Thanks.
 
KUMAR5 said:
That does not nagate e natural right to live.. We have right to live.. If someone kill us, it does not mean we didn't had right to live..
Click to expand...
Actually it does.
Predators MUST kill to survive.
Contrariwise: if the prey lives then the predator dies.
One must die in order for the other to live - thus there is no "right to live" for both.

Please learn to think.
 
I can accept KUMAR5's definitions for the purpose of discussions with KUMAR5, but they are not universal or scientific. They are rather arbitrary definitions which are probably derived from popular religious culture.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Actually it does.
Predators MUST kill to survive.
Contrariwise: if the prey lives then the predator dies.
One must die in order for the other to live - thus there is no "right to live" for both.

Please learn to think.
Click to expand...
That is natural practice not nstural act.
 
spidergoat said:
I can accept KUMAR5's definitions for the purpose of discussions with KUMAR5, but they are not universal or scientific. They are rather arbitrary definitions which are probably derived from popular religious culture.
Click to expand...
Not derived from any religious culture but just thought logically.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Not derived from any religious culture but just thought logically.
Click to expand...
Asking for the third time:

By what scientific logic do you posit a 'prime goddess' and how it might relate to forces?
By what scientific logic do you posit a 'prime god' and how it might relate to particles?
 
Force/energy and particle/matter can only be two scientific basic possibility. Otherwise, we may need to accept supernatural.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Not derived from any religious culture but just thought logically.
Click to expand...
You just arbitrarily applied religious terms to vaguely scientific concepts. There is no reliable evidence of anything supernatural. That would be true whether or not there is a scientific explanation.
 
spidergoat said:
You just arbitrarily applied religious terms to vaguely scientific concepts. There is no reliable evidence of anything supernatural. That would be true whether or not there is a scientific explanation.
Click to expand...
It is religion discussions. Just base logic & sense.
 
Dywyddyr said:
No.


Apart from prey animals or predators that don't prey.


Meaningless supposition.
Everything dies.
Click to expand...
Why don't you agree that prey animals have been created by nature for sole purpose to serve food for predators? No other purpose.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Why don't you agree that prey animals have been created by nature for sole purpose to serve food for predators? No other purpose.
Click to expand...
How about when predators serve as prey?
Have they been created by nature to serve as examples of animals with duel purpose use?

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
How about when predators serve as prey?
Have they been created by nature to serve as examples of animals with duel purpose use?

:)
Click to expand...
Nature should have created all live beings (other than fully ripened fruits)for sole purpose of to live & sustain. Rest all happenings should be live being's created for need, greed or luxury somewhat by free will.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Nature should have created all live beings (other than fully ripened fruits)for sole purpose of to live & sustain.
Click to expand...
Just as I thought - wishful thinking. No logic or science here.
Why "should" it have done so?
 
KUMAR5 said:
Nature should have created all live beings (other than fully ripened fruits)for sole purpose of to live & sustain. Rest all happenings should be live being's created for need, greed or luxury somewhat by free will.
Click to expand...

"Nature should......"

Now your arrogant enough to proclaim what Nature should.....?????

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top