Is there an end to the suffering?Please share your experiences.
Izen

Hello Izen, let me answer you question head-on.
As atheists like to assert, there is some grain of truth to the belief that life ends when one dies. Afterlife, resurrection, hell, heaven and other unprovable concepts are human creations that serve to alleviate the fear that humans have of death. There is no human on earth who does not fear his demise, no matter what religion he belongs to. So in order to reduce the anxiety we have of death, humans have to settle on supernatural phenomena, none of which can be proven by the scientific method. All religions tend to stress that it's their religion that will let you have an afterlife with less suffering. The scientific method is based on the following:
1. A hypothesis: Say for example, God exists. The idea that God exists can be taken as a hypothesis. So religion passes this test.
2. An observation: Here is where the idea that God exists fails. There has been no scientific evidence of the existence of God.
3. Test the hypothesis based on observation: Now the idea that God exists goes downhill. You cannot test what cannot be observed.
4. Theory after innumerable data have been collected: One cannot come up with a theory on something that has no scientific data.

So in essence, God fails the Science test.

As to the original question, suffering ends when one dies. Our duty on earth is to procreate and pass our genes to our posterity. That is the ultimate biological goal of every organism on the planet. So let me focus on life itself,as we atheists like to do.
Suffering is therefore dependent on factors like:

1. One's health: A depressed individual will of course suffer more than a person who has a healthy mind. Depression can be psychological, and it could be one's own doing. A physically weak individual suffers more than an individual who is physically stronger. So exercising can lead to a less stressful life. Yoga, for example is a psychological exercise, while exercises in a gym is more physical. Both physical and psychological well-being need to be in sync for a stree-free life.

2. Sexual life: Sex has numerous effects to one's well-being. A good sexual life can effect one's physical and mental health as well. The idea that humans live to survive and pass on their genes ultimately means that a person who has failed to procreate is not fit to survive, as a result of which his life ends with no offsprings. He will of course suffer.

3. The type of life you lead: An individual who leads a violent life will of course suffer more than another who leads a comparatively serene and peaceful lifestyle. One who indulges in gang-related activities will probably suffer physical harm as well. Furthermore, somebody who commits murder, robbery, and incites people to kill each other will not only have to deal with physical threat, but will also have to live with guilt.

4. Your environment: If your parents are affluent, chances are that all your material needs might be met. On the flip side, your mental life *can* suffer. On the other hand, poor people will not have all the materials they desire, and they might have poor health. Statistics, however, seems to suggest that the indigent seem to be happier.

So one should focus on the quality of life you lead rather than ponder on question that will always remain unanswered. One should strive to reduce one's suffering. The idea that God exists is a human creation, and fails the scientific test. So what purpose does it serve to delve on unprovable subjects?

ok izen we are getting no where now..

say a mother loses her only son

a child who goes to the church gets raped by the priest

a maoist has to kill his own father inthe army..

Dependra kills his own family

aren't these the suffering questions??? well what do you tekll the mom...keep on crying for the rest of her life..what do you tell the child...hate yourself for being raped..and don't believe in GOD??? what do you tell the maoist..that his PRINCIPLES are wrong since his dad was in the way??? what could you tell the Royal family, your blood is bad since one member went out of the way??/


I dunno dude...i'd say to that mom hey you can have more kids..and hey just hope that is is the end of the trauma..hope your daughter who is still living does not die too..

I'd say to the boy who got raped..believe that there is GOD and he could himself be the parish of the same church and not let that incident occcur to any other kids..but don't feel sorry..cause that was a physical incident

I'd say to the Maoist..you made that choice the day you chose to be Maoist.,.just hope that you won't have to kill rest of your brothers and sisters too..

I'd say to the members of royal family...that incident was a blurr..GODS demanded it..you never know whats gonna happen so just prepare for the worst and hope for the best..

man i cud go on and on...what is really making you suffer...a bad job a bad relatrionship..tghe whole world, is it?? you don't have to if you don't wanna..and if you still want to...BOY GOD BLESS YOU>>>and enjoy the suffering its good for the mankind..be Jesus..BUDDHHA or RAM...I solute you!!

Ok izen we are getting no where now<---Hush said:

We are honey towards end of the suffering.Only through trial and error though which leads to the right answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---say a mother loses her only son

a child who goes to the church gets raped by the priest

a maoist has to kill his own father inthe army..

Dependra kills his own family

aren't these the suffering questions??? well what do you tekll the mom...keep on crying for the rest of her life..what do you tell the child...hate yourself for being raped..and don't believe in GOD??? what do you tell the maoist..that his PRINCIPLES are wrong since his dad was in the way??? what could you tell the Royal family, your blood is bad since one member went out of the way??/


I dunno dude...i'd say to that mom hey you can have more kids..and hey just hope that is is the end of the trauma..hope your daughter who is still living does not die too..

I'd say to the boy who got raped..believe that there is GOD and he could himself be the parish of the same church and not let that incident occcur to any other kids..but don't feel sorry..cause that was a physical incident

I'd say to the Maoist..you made that choice the day you chose to be Maoist.,.just hope that you won't have to kill rest of your brothers and sisters too..

I'd say to the members of royal family...that incident was a blurr..GODS demanded it..you never know whats gonna happen so just prepare for the worst and hope for the best..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they be content with you answers?Absolutely not.They are suffering not you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not suffering hush I think I was one of the luckiest one and I still am and I mean it.
Jesus,Buddha or Ram..they did come up with some answers didn't they?
But like Buddha said what is truth to you is truth to all and like Jesus said only truth will make you free.And Ram.
He is my HOMEBOY :)

Riddle: "Is there an end to the suffering?Please share your experiences.
- Izen"


Pooh:
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Ask me a riddle and I reply:
"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
A fish can't whistle and neither can I.
Ask me a riddle and I reply:
"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
Why does a chicken, I don't know why.
Ask me a riddle and I reply:
"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."


-BenjaminHoff

Are you TIRED?

pooh isn't.

Or, rather

Pooh is.

IS THERE A POINT TO SUFFER anymore than they already did??

I am not going to tell the whole world what i've been through to call myself a martyr..so don't tryy to press my buttons cuz you might hear what i've been through and belive me you will mentally suffer after hearing that ans ..my point here is i'm not new to suffering and if i can do it and get over it and so can they and you too..


why don't you follow Budha's path you will totally be enchanted..right now i know i am enchanted by myself..so i don't care ...for more discussion can you be more specific???

Who defines suffering as a suffering ? :-O

Its up to individual how he/she perceives and handles it. [shat-kat mareko ;)]

IS THERE A POINT TO SUFFER anymore than they already did?? -Hush
Do I know?No I don't.Do they know?No they don't.And do you know?No you don't.

I am not going to tell the whole world what i've been through to call myself a martyr..so don't tryy to press my buttons cuz you might hear what i've been through and belive me you will mentally suffer after hearing that ans ..my point here is i'm not new to suffering and if i can do it and get over it and so can they and you too..
<-----Hush
I am ready to hear and no matter how traumatic they are I am well equiped with the weapons that assist my emotions remain unmoved.
There is no specification than these simple sentences.
Is there an end to the suffering?

Hi Knt,

" There is no human on earth who does not fear his demise, no matter what religion he belongs to."

Not only is that not true, but Shastra specifically gives methods of removing abhinivesha. One only need follow it.

Regarding the scientific method, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in that brand of empriricism. The problem with that brand of empricism is that even if something beyond the senses existed, it would have to be automatically rejected. This is just silly narrow-mindedness. Furthermore, it doesn't stand to logic.

"2. An observation: Here is where the idea that God exists fails. There has been no scientific evidence of the existence of God."

So scientific evidence is the second stage of the scientific method? Thats a bit circular because something is only scientific if it follows the scientific method, then how can something be scientific prior to the completion of the scientific method? I would suggest that what you mean is that there is no experience of God. This is an unfounded claim.

In fact the very meaning of the word "Veda" is experience of God. The proof for God is one's own experience of God. However, before one gets that experience, one should trust someone reliable who has stated that s/he has experienced God. This is the secondary meaning of Veda.

If someone shows you something very complicated about nuclear science, you will not understand it unless you are trained. So in order to understand it, you have to learn about nuclear science. Similarly, you have not been trained to understand and see the truth of God for yourself. Once you train and practice correctly, you will be able to see God. Until then, tradition has given a lot of logical reasons why our position is extremely reasonable. You only need look in the right texts.

"3. Test the hypothesis based on observation: Now the idea that God exists goes downhill. You cannot test what cannot be observed."

Wrong, you only need to follow the correct procedure as taught by an authentic teacher while taking interest in the subject. Just like with everything else.

"As to the original question, suffering ends when one dies. Our duty on earth is to procreate and pass our genes to our posterity. That is the ultimate biological goal of every organism on the planet."

If your form of atheism is materialism/naturalism in the sense that our minds are merely our brains (ie: Carvaka darshana), then the rest of your post is useless. Since according to your position our minds are merely our brains, our mental processes are merely collisions of particles. All this works in predetermined (or if accepting copanhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, predtermined + random) fashion. The conclusion of your position neccesarily (though you may not know this) is that there is no free will. In light of this, whatever you say has no value because no one has any control whatsoever over the future.

Also keep in mind (excuse the pun) that no set of brain activity that is phenomenal consciousness has yet been found. There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the seat of consciousness. Eliminativism has its own set of problems if you for some reason subscribe to that.

So unless one really does not believe in free will for some silly ideological reason, one has to believe that at least in relative terms the mind and the brain are different entities. So what is this mind? Since the mind is intuitively kind of movement, or vibration, we should say that the mind is energy (as scripture does). Let us not forget that Sruti said that everything in the world is energy about 3,000 years before the clever little scientists did. This was very strongly elaborated in Tantra Shastra about a 1,000 years ago.

There are two things in the choice the mind will make upon dissolution of the physical body. One is the strength of the energy. So different brain structures and so on require different mental energy to sustain them. The second factor is that the mind will choose the vehicle which allows it to fullfill whatever is one's strongest desire most fully,

As Sruti says, sarvam khalvidam brahma: "All this is verily is the Supreme Reality",

R.

I would like to correct that to: All this is verily the Supreme Reality",

R.

riralajee,

You have interesting arguments. I would certainly like to benefit from a satsang with you.

We do have occasinal discussion here in Sajha on the mystery of God and related subjects.

Here are some excerpts from my postings, just to let you know my limited thoughts.

Nepe
_______________
There ain't divine purpose of life

http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=15437&dsn=sajhaarchive#21599

If we want to talk about the meaning of life, we first need to determine the meaning of 'meaning'. Until then, it is meaningless to try to look for meaning of life.

Now, let's go to the purpose of life. We should separate purpose of individual lives from the one of universal life or rather collective purpose of life. Purpose of individual lives is probably not the topic of this discussion. So let's skip it. Now, about the collective purpose of life- if this is what Gokul ji is talking about- I think the problem with it is its anthropocentric approach and not taking the natural history of creation and life into account.

Let's put the life in the timeline of natural history (we can trust this with fair confidence, right ?)

15 billion years ago- Big Bang
4.6 billion years ago- Formation of the earth
3.5 billion years ago- first life form appeared
6 million years ago- first huminid
130000 years ago - first modern human
6000 years ago - Writing developed in Sumeria

It took more than 14 billion years for nature (okay, creator) to give us human brain (ignore the possibility of life in other part of the universe) which can think about the question we are asking. Does this not put a big question mark on the idea of collective purpose of life ?

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

The purpose of life to an atheist


http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=13146&dsn=sajhaarchive2003#117040

I think we do not have any disagreement regarding, let's say, the scope and possibility of human life to experience the supreme beauty, grandeur and richness of life and universe. If life has this potential, then it will be a great waste not to have a purpose. That is how, at least to me, life gets a purpose.

As life evolved either spontaneously or accidentally on earth (Life as a designer's creation does not make sense to me, because, among other things, looking at the evolutionary time scale for the time it took to reach to human brain, the designer appears quite inefficient, lazy and an average Joe, which is hard to believe if there should be one) it is not responsible to any designer or master, so to speak. So we do not come with someone else's purpose on our shoulder. We invent our purpose. And because of the nature of the purpose (referring to beauty, grandeur and richness !), it is okay to say that we discover our purpose.

Once we make the purpose of life free of someone else's game plan, we can safely say each individual should invent/discover his/her own purpose of life.

Aren't there any condition/limitation for that ?

I think the only condition is that it should be compatible with the sustenance and continuity of life on earth and wherever we can take it to. And it is always preferable to have a purpose that enriches life. However, the later, being highly subjective and desirable but not compulsory, should be left to each individual to decide.

So, it is not easy to determine/define/decide the purpose of life. 'To be happy' sounds a reasonable purpose, because it fulfils both the obligatory and desirable criteria outlined above. The alternatives of it- to remain unhappy (makes no sense but suppressive regimes of the world is what makes it a reality) or feel nothing (Buddhist purpose) can not contest with the promise of the purpose of being happy.

In any case, it is important to note that it is not necessary to assume that happiness is the ABSOLUTE purpose of life. Just to make a point, you may still have less desirable alternatives if you want.

What is happiness ?

Happiness is something that happens in our brain. It's basis is pleasure which in turn has a biochemical basis. Depending upon the level at which we observe, we can call it Physiological or biophysical bases too. We know very little about it. But with continued scientific research, we will know more and more about it as time goes by.

Mediation, sex, food, reward, beauty and mood elevating drugs look so different on the surface, but they become the same at biochemical or rather biophysical level.

Pleasure is the central motivation of our voluntary decisions. So it makes sense to say that happiness is the purpose of life. But it is obvious that the sources of pleasure are diverse. Which is nobler/superior is an artificial distinction.

I am not qualified to discuss about the meditation because except for the Bhavatit Dhyan in my high school and some my own brand of meditation which is rather some moments of reflection mostly when things I have done go wrong, I have not practiced meditation.

However, I believe that, similar to how physical work-out strengthens our body, meditation, which is a mental work-out should strengthen our mind. And similar to how over work-out damages our body, over meditation damages our mind too. It may be a temporary damage, it may be a permanent damage. Hallucination like effect of intense meditation, in my humble view, are malfunctioning of mind rather than something mystic.

It is in no way to trash the power of mind. Mind is definitely very powerful, not only in metaphoric sense, but in proper physical sense.

What is mind ?

It is simply a very complex biophysical activity of our brain. Although it sounds futuristic, I think as we understand more about our brain, we will discover or, if you like, rediscover the power of mind. However, there will always be physical explanation for that power. Because mind is a physics at the end of the day.

Mind is not abstract. It is abstract to our mind only. In the brain, it is a mere matter and energy.

There is no subjectivity as such. Subjectivity is a set of complex objectivities that we have no tool, knowledge and time to determine individually.

The fluidity, beauty and magic of poetry is nothing but biophysics at the end of the day. Some day in future when we will have sophisticated brain scanner, we will able to watch a movie of Nepe's (or Nepe's grand grandson's) brain writing a ghazal and next day one critique analyzing the influence of another poets in his works by using digital fingerprints of poetrying of the other poet !

I know this version of life sounds boring as compared to the one of who believes in the existence of a higher consciousness independent of life and our potential to communicate with that power. But until the day I find reason to step in that version of the world, I will have to keep on living in my boring world and keep wondering what the purpose of my life should be or should have been.
_____________

View/Share this post only

oops... didn't mean to bold everything. Let me correct that...

There ain't divine purpose of life

- http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=15437&dsn=sajhaarchive#21599

If we want to talk about the meaning of life, we first need to determine the meaning of 'meaning'. Until then, it is meaningless to try to look for meaning of life.

Now, let's go to the purpose of life. We should separate purpose of individual lives from the one of universal life or rather collective purpose of life. Purpose of individual lives is probably not the topic of this discussion. So let's skip it. Now, about the collective purpose of life- if this is what Gokul ji is talking about- I think the problem with it is its anthropocentric approach and not taking the natural history of creation and life into account.

Let's put the life in the timeline of natural history (we can trust this with fair confidence, right ?)

15 billion years ago- Big Bang
4.6 billion years ago- Formation of the earth
3.5 billion years ago- first life form appeared
6 million years ago- first huminid
130000 years ago - first modern human
6000 years ago - Writing developed in Sumeria

It took more than 14 billion years for nature (okay, creator) to give us human brain (ignore the possibility of life in other part of the universe) which can think about the question we are asking. Does this not put a big question mark on the idea of collective purpose of life ?

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

The purpose of life to an atheist


- http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=13146&dsn=sajhaarchive2003#117040

I think we do not have any disagreement regarding, let's say, the scope and possibility of human life to experience the supreme beauty, grandeur and richness of life and universe. If life has this potential, then it will be a great waste not to have a purpose. That is how, at least to me, life gets a purpose.

As life evolved either spontaneously or accidentally on earth (Life as a designer's creation does not make sense to me, because, among other things, looking at the evolutionary time scale for the time it took to reach to human brain, the designer appears quite inefficient, lazy and an average Joe, which is hard to believe if there should be one) it is not responsible to any designer or master, so to speak. So we do not come with someone else's purpose on our shoulder. We invent our purpose. And because of the nature of the purpose (referring to beauty, grandeur and richness !), it is okay to say that we discover our purpose.

Once we make the purpose of life free of someone else's game plan, we can safely say each individual should invent/discover his/her own purpose of life.

Aren't there any condition/limitation for that ?

I think the only condition is that it should be compatible with the sustenance and continuity of life on earth and wherever we can take it to. And it is always preferable to have a purpose that enriches life. However, the later, being highly subjective and desirable but not compulsory, should be left to each individual to decide.

So, it is not easy to determine/define/decide the purpose of life. 'To be happy' sounds a reasonable purpose, because it fulfils both the obligatory and desirable criteria outlined above. The alternatives of it- to remain unhappy (makes no sense but suppressive regimes of the world is what makes it a reality) or feel nothing (Buddhist purpose) can not contest with the promise of the purpose of being happy.

In any case, it is important to note that it is not necessary to assume that happiness is the ABSOLUTE purpose of life. Just to make a point, you may still have less desirable alternatives if you want.

What is happiness ?

Happiness is something that happens in our brain. It's basis is pleasure which in turn has a biochemical basis. Depending upon the level at which we observe, we can call it Physiological or biophysical bases too. We know very little about it. But with continued scientific research, we will know more and more about it as time goes by.

Mediation, sex, food, reward, beauty and mood elevating drugs look so different on the surface, but they become the same at biochemical or rather biophysical level.

Pleasure is the central motivation of our voluntary decisions. So it makes sense to say that happiness is the purpose of life. But it is obvious that the sources of pleasure are diverse. Which is nobler/superior is an artificial distinction.

I am not qualified to discuss about the meditation because except for the Bhavatit Dhyan in my high school and some my own brand of meditation which is rather some moments of reflection mostly when things I have done go wrong, I have not practiced meditation.

However, I believe that, similar to how physical work-out strengthens our body, meditation, which is a mental work-out should strengthen our mind. And similar to how over work-out damages our body, over meditation damages our mind too. It may be a temporary damage, it may be a permanent damage. Hallucination like effect of intense meditation, in my humble view, are malfunctioning of mind rather than something mystic.

It is in no way to trash the power of mind. Mind is definitely very powerful, not only in metaphoric sense, but in proper physical sense.

What is mind ?

It is simply a very complex biophysical activity of our brain. Although it sounds futuristic, I think as we understand more about our brain, we will discover or, if you like, rediscover the power of mind. However, there will always be physical explanation for that power. Because mind is a physics at the end of the day.

Mind is not abstract. It is abstract to our mind only. In the brain, it is a mere matter and energy.

There is no subjectivity as such. Subjectivity is a set of complex objectivities that we have no tool, knowledge and time to determine individually.

The fluidity, beauty and magic of poetry is nothing but biophysics at the end of the day. Some day in future when we will have sophisticated brain scanner, we will able to watch a movie of Nepe's (or Nepe's grand grandson's) brain writing a ghazal and next day one critique analyzing the influence of another poets in his works by using digital fingerprints of poetrying of the other poet !

I know this version of life sounds boring as compared to the one of who believes in the existence of a higher consciousness independent of life and our potential to communicate with that power. But until the day I find reason to step in that version of the world, I will have to keep on living in my boring world and keep wondering what the purpose of my life should be or should have been.
_______________________

Yes there is. But it can come anytime and in any shape. Some call it divorce, some call it death, while others call it drugs. Different stroke for different folks. What do you call it?

If you are suffering from anger, take a chilpill, if you are suffering from cold, take a cup of coffee or tea and if you are suffering from heat grab a cold drink? ( I ain't advertising for coke in sajha!)


It all depends on what you are suffering from.

>> I died like 3 times laready and came back...
- hushpuppy


have you considered changing your name from hushpuppu to hushkitty? seems like you have 9 lives.

" The problem with that brand of empricism is that even if something beyond the senses existed, it would have to be automatically rejected. "

The primary flaw with a priori reasoning that rationalists tend to put their faith in is that not everything can be reduced to innate ideas or absolutes. There are certain logical statements that rationalism cannot really explain. Absolute truths do exist, but getting to these truths require empiricistic line of reasoning. There are innumerable facts about which scientists have no idea, but the primary reason behind this is that science and technology will hardly ever be so advanced as to allow us to become cognizant of all these facts. So what I am saying is that if God does exist, Science will, in the future, shed light on His existence. I, however, am quite skeptical. The electron microscope, for example, is an example of technology that has managed to enhance our senses. I therefore believe that we will have further made technological strides in the future, which will abet in bridging the gap between these truths and our knowledge of these truths.

"Thats a bit circular because something is only scientific if it follows the scientific method, then how can something be scientific prior to the completion of the scientific method?"

That's just semantics. If you prefer, I don't mind restating my statement as follows:"There has been no evidence of the existence of God." However, keep in mind that the Scientific Method itself is not circular, even though it seemed so in some of the statements I made in my previous post. So basically, you first observe(I misstated in my previous post), then hypothesize, make predictions, test your hypotheses, rinse and repeat. But the glaring errors in my previous post do not have any bearing on the assertions I am making.

"I would suggest that what you mean is that there is no experience of God"

What I mean is that nobody has observed Him. With no observation, the Scientific method fails. As I stated above, observation is the first step of the Scientific method, without which there can be no hypothesis. I misstated in my previous post. "Experience" of God is highly subjective, and the problem here is not not everybody has experienced him.

"However, before one gets that experience, one should trust someone reliable who has stated that s/he has experienced God. "

That's the exact problem I have with God. Some people believe that they have experienced him, but even if I follow the exact same procedure that somebody who has experienced God utilizes, I will not experience him. Science does not rely on personal experiences and anecdotes. It follows a set of procedure to know more about God.

"Wrong, you only need to follow the correct procedure as taught by an authentic teacher while taking interest in the subject"

If this were correct, then it follows that anybody who follows the procedure should experience him. This is, however, not the case. Some believers point to their dreams as experience of God, while others point to incidents they go through, but there is no exact procedure to experience God. That's the problem with trying to test the existence of God. In Science, a protocol needs to be repeatable. If the protocol cannot be repeated, then it is probably wrong.

"If your form of atheism is materialism/naturalism in the sense that our minds are merely our brains "

Well, mind is a very complicated concept. I do believe that brains play a big role in creating our minds, but mind is an abstract term, while brain is concrete. I, for one, do not believe that mind and brain are interchangeable. Now, the type of brain one has does in fact correlate with the type of mind one has. For instance, somebody with a defective brain clearly cannot think properly. People suffering from Alzheimer's disease tend to have anomalies in the brain.

"The conclusion of your position neccesarily (though you may not know this) is that there is no free will"

If indeed scientists used mind and brain interchangeably, what you asserted would in fact be true, but mind is a product of the firing of neurons and various other biological functions. Nobody knows what makes a mind tick. We do not understand all biological processes. However, there are certain instincts for which I would say we are preprogrammed. Sex is but one example. We are all programmed to copulate and produce babies. Animals do it, and so do we. Keep in mind, though, that the function of the brain is not just to make us think. The brain also controls our heartbeat, respiration, sex drive, etc. You don't need to think in order to make your heart beat. Your body does it automatically for you.

"Let us not forget that Sruti said that everything in the world is energy about 3,000 years before the clever little scientists did"

Maybe it did, but Sruti does not really go through a set of procedures to show that everything has energy. Secondly, which religion is correct? The Bible enunciates that the earth is merely 6000 years old. This is presented as the truth in the Bible. Science clearly contradicts this "truth".

An end to suffering? Not likely. That would mean end to life itself.In life there will be beautiful times and the not so beautiful times. An appreciatoon of light when we get a taste of the dark.

tired... i love Pooh and eyeore.

Nepe, am going to read your lesson in leisure.Looks like good stuff.

Gone with the wind..

Tired, got more stuff on pooh?

Scarlett,

Thanks. Don't skip Knt's discussion too. He has elaborated some of my points better and more beautifully. Besides, he has meticulously replied to rrirala's major points.

*** *** *** ***

Knt,

I am enjoying the discussion. I hope rrirala comes back to resume the discussion.

Needless to say, we both share the same scientific view, approach and temperament on the topics being discussed.

There is one particular statement in posting that I would like to talk about more.

>There are innumerable facts about which scientists have
>no idea, but the primary reason behind this is that science
>and technology will hardly ever be so advanced as to
>allow us to become cognizant of all these facts.

Clearly, you are talking about technological limit here. There is one gentleman who has talked about very different kind of limit, I would call it a logicological limit for being cognizant about 'God', which he defines as something of an 'unknowable' nature. Here is a relevant excerpt from an exchange between Gokuljee and I on this theme.

- http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=13146&dsn=sajhaarchive2003#117155

There is no doubt that an atheist's world is cold, lonely and scary as compared to a believer's world. Perhaps for this reason, human sought mysticism very early in his civilization. Deepak Chopra says human mind is hard-wired to believe in God. I think there is some truth in it. I think it derives from our fear, our need to feel safe and secure. And with this understanding, I am totally in peace with believer's God. As for myself, I am still in search for a good or rather a noble or at least an unselfish reason to surrender to God. I know surrendering is giving your 'self'. So, isn't it an unselfish act by definition ? No, it is not. The expectation or at least the anticipation of something good happening to myself when I do so makes it a selfish act.

But before all that nitty-gritty I must know more about Him. And Gokul ji, you have been scaring me by using this word 'unknowability' whenever you talk about Divinity or it's manifestations, supposing human mind is one of them.

I have some questions, doubt and curiosity about this notion of 'unknowability'. Let me try to put them here briefly.

My first question is, is there any basis, apart from a hypothetical possibility, for the existence of the unknowables ? I know it is paradoxical question because if we *know* it exists or may exist, then it is already not any more unknowable. So, it appears to me that we will never ever know anything about the unknowables. I also speculate that among the unknowables, those who have consciousness, will never *know* about us too.

As you should have noticed, I am using 'unknowable' not to mean 'undetectable' and certainly not 'unpredictable'. Undetectability would be tool-dependent whereas 'unknowability' is tool-independent. And 'unpredictable' goes to the realm of statistics.

You had used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in similar context somewhere. But I suppose Heisenberg's uncertaninty which is about the precision does not lead to any notion of Unknowability. Or does it ?

******

>If human mind is so simple, then can it understand itself?
>If human mind is so complex, then can it understand itself?

You have asked a brain-teasing question, Gokul ji. My answer is Yes and No. No is straight forward. Because mind is not an independent entity, it is simply a data processing activity of an active brain. Yes in the sense of understanding about it by simulation, education etc., which I suppose you did not mean.

Although you did not mean it, let me share an ordinary but interesting enough experience of mine about what I meant by understanding about one's mind by simulation of your own mind.

Until I entered into the world of politics and got corrupted, I was the least aggressive boy among my friends. My maternal grandmother even called me a Buddha once ! Anyway, I never initiated fight with anybody. When I had to fight, argue or show my anger, my person used to get split into two- one used to be a mere observer while the other used to engage in the business at hand. So I used to see myself live doing things, my face, it's reaction, it's intensity etc. This often used to moderate my reaction, which was good, if I was doing less desirable things. However, this strange self-consciousness used to occur even when I was doing nicer things. I suppose this is more or less normal to everybody. Anyway, I learned a great deal about myself by this way.

Back to mind, you mentioned Artificial Neural Network. I did not know much about it before, except that the little bioinformatics I use sometimes to analyze my DNA sequence employs this method among others. Now I am curious to learn more about it. Of course the researchers of the seventies that you mentioned hoped too much too soon. But wouldn't you agree, in every new decade we will be learning more and more about functioning of our brain and building smarter and smarter machines ? Never mind if we never ever be able to build a machine with a feeling and intellect of a human mind.

In any case, nobody except we human being ourselves has told us what we can or can not do. Therefore, there is no reason to set a limit before knowing there is one.
____