Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[Gatsby]

The world exist as a symbol of Brahman/Creator in a sense that it is put forth from It and doesnt have any separate existence from It. The world could be quite different just like symbols can be very different and since there are probably many different universes thats actually true but non of these universes exist separate from their Source.

So do you have any evidence of this? Any telltale objectively verifiable evidence of this Source? What more can we say about this Source so that we can more reliably look for evidence of its existence?

You seem to know little about Aurobindos life (or death) but I suggest you take little more trouble in that regard before you label someone a hypocrat.

Aww, but I felt like I was getting to know him so well from all your posts!

Seriously though, I've been down the Indian mystic road before. They're all essentially the same in what they say, how they say it, and how they think.

Well may be Reality can be unchanging yet transcendent at the same time. What if illusion itself is illusion so what appears to be a change cant be essentialy different from the "changed".

What if it isn't. Evidence please.

True, however if you realise any object not only in its objective appearence and functonality but in its essential reality - consciousness - it may open totaly new vistas and unlimited potential.

Evidence please.

Objective things arent an illusion but rather their objectivity is. Subjective things are bound to be form of consciousness in this light as well. The wider and profounder "the form consciousness" the more real it is.

You'll have to explain the first sentence to me, I don't follow. What do you mean by "wider" and "profounder", and why should these be indicators of realness?

Words like "consciousness", "cosmic" are impressively sounding to you yet very abstract and somewhat reassuring in the same time.
And apparently to "your self-consciousness" whoever said "I and my Father are one" was nothing but a colossal egoist.
Aurobindo needs impressive methaphysical vocabulary to form a compelling worldview and you need quick glance and your own self-knowledge to make decent judgment...

No they don't impress me, in fact their frequent and associated use (e.g. in Sri Aurobindo's writings) sets my BS radar off. They are clearly impressive and reassuring to people like you though.

I have no idea what "I and my Father are one" was supposed to mean, but I think it was some esoteric idea which has little to do with colossal egotism.

People like Aurobindo use an impressive metaphysical vocabulary to win over followers and disguise the fact that they're talking a bunch of hot air. Where you see an impressive world view, I see a big bunch of word salad.

 

[Gatsby]

So since you lied, that makes me a liar?

Okay, you got me, I made that up

But what if I hadn't? There are plenty of people out there who experience things as weird as that, or even weirder. Are all their hallucinations and delusions valid simply because they seem to be very real to the person experiencing them?

Experienced craftsmen, still hit their thumbs with a hammer now and then. Science and religion are just tools. How they are used is determined by the human that uses them. They can be used to deceive or they can be used to benefit mankind.

The difference is that science has a whole bunch of in-built mechanisms, "checks and balances" if you will, to counter and minimise the risk of deception. It is usually the opposite with religion.

There is no way a tool used for examining the physical world will ever explain or discredit the spiritual world. Religion does that all on it's own.

You clearly don't know much at all about psychology or neurology then. I agree with you though that religion does a pretty good job of discrediting the spiritual world all on its own

I see nothing in the examples listed where any external help was enlisted.

Exactly, religion can perpetrate atrocities and injustice quite well all on its own.

Because humans are God's representatives on earth. They are the only external help that God uses to accomplish his will and still retain a choice in doing so. All the rest of nature declares God, having no choice to do otherwise.

A statement of pure belief and nothing more.

Science is the tool that is used to understand the physical and religion is the tool used to understand the spiritual world. The evidence is that science is just a tool. Religion is just a tool. As stated earlier, no one has control of their thoughts as in where they come from at any given moment. There is no explaining that from a physical point of view, unless they can be attributed to the spiritual, they are just relegated to magic and that seems a poor choice to me.

Ah, the old "separate domains" chestnut. This outdated idea only gained traction in the first place because 1) churches realized that science was eventually going to be able to completely demystify and debunk all of their beliefs and 2) scientists agreed to it out of fear because the church was still powerful enough back then to make life very short and miserable for them if they didn't.

There is actually plenty of explaining thoughts from a physical point of view, again I encourage you to read up on psychology and neurology.

 

[timtofly]

You clearly don't know much at all about psychology or neurology then. I agree with you though that religion does a pretty good job of discrediting the spiritual world all on its own

A statement of pure belief and nothing more.

Ah, the old "separate domains" chestnut. This outdated idea only gained traction in the first place because 1) churches realized that science was eventually going to be able to completely demystify and debunk all of their beliefs and 2) scientists agreed to it out of fear because the church was still powerful enough back then to make life very short and miserable for them if they didn't.

There is actually plenty of explaining thoughts from a physical point of view, again I encourage you to read up on psychology and neurology.

See, you keep using that term belief. Would you agree that science and religion are just tools? If they are not tools then they are just belief systems. I am not sure how you can conclude one and not the other. They are both methods of attempting to understand the unknown in their respective "fields". If they are tools, then it would seem to me, they could only be used as the tool they were designed as, and neither tool will get far in the other one's field.

That they happen to overlap in the human brain, does not mean they can answer the questions outside of each others design.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So..you're saying that they were psychics rather than time travellers?

They were instrument and channels of different forces. We all are. No one is independent and original in the sense that he is separete from the Source.

"Nothing" in the absolute sense of the word is merely a construct of the human imagination. We ask "how did something come from nothing" but completely ignore the unproven assumption underlying this question, i.e. that something originally came from nothing. Not only that, but we completely ignore the fact that no one has ever encountered this alleged absolute primal nothingness, so how can we possibly know that there even is such a thing as nothing? We think this way because it has been drummed into us our whole lives by a culture which has inherited the Christian article of faith that the world was created ex nihilio ("out of nothing"). I myself laboured under this faulty thinking until very recently.

Nothing means simply undefinable. Beyond human understanding and experience.

So do you have any evidence of this? Any telltale objectively verifiable evidence of this Source? What more can we say about this Source so that we can more reliably look for evidence of its existence?.

I will take time to answer this.

Seriously though, I've been down the Indian mystic road before. They're all essentially the same in what they say, how they say it, and how they think.

You have looked down that road but didnt walk it. There are many different roads depending on ones temperament and pursued goal.

What if it isn't. Evidence please.

Evidence please.

If your gf ask for evidence that you love her you may just need to buy her a present. If you want evidence for immortality of consciousness you need more than that or thermometer or telescope. I think you will need to expand your consciousness.

You'll have to explain the first sentence to me, I don't follow. What do you mean by "wider" and "profounder", and why should these be indicators of realness?

What you see as an object has reality in the sense that you can sit on the chair no matter how it is represented in your coonsciousness. Its objectivity is only apparent and superficial though once you can see it as a form and expression of singular indivisible consciousness.

I mean the less limitation the greater reality it is.

No they don't impress me, in fact their frequent and associated use (e.g. in Sri Aurobindo's writings) sets my BS radar off. They are clearly impressive and reassuring to people like you though.

I have no idea what "I and my Father are one" was supposed to mean, but I think it was some esoteric idea which has little to do with colossal egotism.

People like Aurobindo use an impressive metaphysical vocabulary to win over followers and disguise the fact that they're talking a bunch of hot air. Where you see an impressive world view, I see a big bunch of word salad.

So Aurobindo has left his political and academic careers to live in half poverty with head in clouds while talking buch of hot air to get followers? For what may I ask? He already had all that! My BS radar is in use and pretty well maintained too you know. Maybe I am bit luckier though in the respect that where you see big bunch of word salad disguising bunch of hot air I see an interesting and profound revelations. However as long as you are satisfied with your understading I have no ambition to take an atom if it away.

 

[Gatsby]

They were instrument and channels of different forces. We all are. No one is independent and original in the sense that he is separete from the Source.

They were intelligent motivated people, surrounded and supported by other intelligent motivated people, working on the cutting edge of human thought at the time. There is no need to invoke mysterious “forces” or a “Source” to explain their accomplishments.

Nothing means simply undefinable. Beyond human understanding and experience.

Not sure I agree with that definition. At any rate, if it is undefinable and beyond human understanding and experience, they how can you or anyone else possibly say anything about it?

You have looked down that road but didnt walk it. There are many different roads depending on ones temperament and pursued goal.

I have walked down similar roads, and was able to see where that road was heading without having to walk it. There may be different roads but a lot of them turn out to be dead ends.

If your gf ask for evidence that you love her you may just need to buy her a present. If you want evidence for immortality of consciousness you need more than that or thermometer or telescope. I think you will need to expand your consciousness.

So you’re saying you don’t have evidence then? What do you mean by “expand” consciousness? This sounds very vague.

What you see as an object has reality in the sense that you can sit on the chair no matter how it is represented in your consciousness. Its objectivity is only apparent and superficial though once you can see it as a form and expression of singular indivisible consciousness.

The first sentence is reasonable. The second sentence is nothing more than a flight of fancy, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

I mean the less limitation the greater reality it is.

The less limitation something has, the less we can meaningfully say about it. If anything less limitation makes something less real, not more.

So Aurobindo has left his political and academic careers to live in half poverty with head in clouds while talking buch of hot air to get followers? For what may I ask? He already had all that! My BS radar is in use and pretty well maintained too you know. Maybe I am bit luckier though in the respect that where you see big bunch of word salad disguising bunch of hot air I see an interesting and profound revelations. However as long as you are satisfied with your understading I have no ambition to take an atom if it away.

I can’t pretend to get inside the labyrinthine environment that is Aurobindo’s or anyone else’s head and divine their innermost thoughts. I could speculate about it, but frankly I don’t really care what motivated him. It’s interesting that you use the word “revelations” though. What are revelations? How are they superior to other forms of knowledge? And when you say Aurobindo’s revelations are “interesting and profound”, is that because they are genuinely and demonstrably so or because they make you feel good?

 

[Gatsby]

See, you keep using that term belief. Would you agree that science and religion are just tools? If they are not tools then they are just belief systems. I am not sure how you can conclude one and not the other. They are both methods of attempting to understand the unknown in their respective "fields". If they are tools, then it would seem to me, they could only be used as the tool they were designed as, and neither tool will get far in the other one's field.

That they happen to overlap in the human brain, does not mean they can answer the questions outside of each others design.

Yes they are both tools, but they are very different tools which are ultimately designed to achieve different goals. Science aims for a practical, verifiable, fact-based understanding of reality which is free from moral, cultural, and emotional prejudice. Religion aims to both anaesthetize people to the existential terrors of the human condition, and to establish social order. Science relies on facts and impartial analysis, religion relies on beliefs and the power of suggestion. Whereas science actually IS interested in understanding the unknown, religion is content to settle for whatever “truths” satisfy its aforementioned goals - irrespective of how factually correct those “truths” might actually be.

So I agree with you that both science and religion can only be effectively used according to their respective designs. But such is the nature of their respective designs that science is both naturally better suited to all fields of human enquiry, and much better able to scrutinise the “truths” of religion than vice-versa. At best, religion is only competitive with science when it comes to answering made-up questions which have been fabricated from theological speculation.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

They were intelligent motivated people, surrounded and supported by other intelligent motivated people, working on the cutting edge of human thought at the time. There is no need to invoke mysterious “forces” or a “Source” to explain their accomplishments.

Is vital force such as sex impulse a mystery? Maybe. One thing we can say safely its something universal and greater in a sense then will power of most human beings which It uses as an instruments. There are many kind of universal forces of vital, mental, psychic and other types. How come Buddha achieved spiritualy something which most human being thousand of years later cant even dream about? Aurobindo had a teacher at the beginnig of his yoga but his teacher admited "you have achieved in three days what took me 6 years!"
How come civilased nation with numerous top level musicians, poets, philosophers has become an instrument of Nazi regime? There are many questions like that which one cannot explain away so easily. I think one needs to look little deeper...

Not sure I agree with that definition. At any rate, if it is undefinable and beyond human understanding and experience, they how can you or anyone else possibly say anything about it?

Thats the thing you cant thats why its Nothing. From Nothing Being came into existence.... However there are ranges of consciousness beyond human intelect through which you can ascend and identify with this Indefinable. The higher knowledge you get there isnt something deductive but rather direct perception through identification.

I have walked down similar roads, and was able to see where that road was heading without having to walk it. There may be different roads but a lot of them turn out to be dead ends.

May be may be not. I cant take what you say at much value since like you say you judge it superficially.

So you’re saying you don’t have evidence then? What do you mean by “expand” consciousness? This sounds very vague.

No I dont have an evidence. Only thing at my disposal are certain "clues and hints"(most valuable I find experience of altered state of consciousness) which are sufficient for me to take seriously things which others perhaps ignore.
I basicaly mean expand/transcend your present capacities. Any field you choose you can transcend your present day achievement. Since you are conscious being you are bound to do it at least in part consciously which in turn means it will become expanded part of your conscious being.[/QUOTE]

The first sentence is reasonable. The second sentence is nothing more than a flight of fancy, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

True, I am talking hyphotheticaly and challenging your imagination.

The less limitation something has, the less we can meaningfully say about it. If anything less limitation makes something less real, not more..

Take example with drop of water and an ocean. Both are essentialy just a bodies of water. One is extremely limited while the other has comparably an infinite potential.

I can’t pretend to get inside the labyrinthine environment that is Aurobindo’s or anyone else’s head and divine their innermost thoughts. I could speculate about it, but frankly I don’t really care what motivated him. It’s interesting that you use the word “revelations” though. What are revelations? How are they superior to other forms of knowledge? And when you say Aurobindo’s revelations are “interesting and profound”, is that because they are genuinely and demonstrably so or because they make you feel good?

"Feeling" isnt something genuine? You cant make demonstrations with/through feelings? Thats said since reading is firstly and mainly an intelectual activity first requirement I have is to be able to make sense out of what I read then only some emotional assessment can follow. Feeling good or not really proves nothing.

 

[Gatsby]

Is vital force such as sex impulse a mystery? Maybe. One thing we can say safely its something universal and greater in a sense then will power of most human beings which It uses as an instruments. There are many kind of universal forces of vital, mental, psychic and other types. How come Buddha achieved spiritualy something which most human being thousand of years later cant even dream about? Aurobindo had a teacher at the beginnig of his yoga but his teacher admited "you have achieved in three days what took me 6 years!"

No the sex impulse is not a mystery; it has been thoroughly explained by science. Nor is it universal, even amongst organisms on Earth.

Buddha achieved what he did because the conditions of his life allowed him to. These conditions are extremely hard to come by today, and they would not be desirable to most people anyway. I have no idea why Aurobindo was allegedly really good at yoga, but I’m not just going to leap to some fantastical “explanation” involving him tapping into mysterious universal forces or whatever.

How come civilased nation with numerous top level musicians, poets, philosophers has become an instrument of Nazi regime? There are many questions like that which one cannot explain away so easily. I think one needs to look little deeper...

Yes you should look a little deeper. Perhaps you should start by reading some books about German culture and early 20th century European history.

Thats the thing you cant thats why its Nothing. From Nothing Being came into existence.... However there are ranges of consciousness beyond human intelect through which you can ascend and identify with this Indefinable. The higher knowledge you get there isnt something deductive but rather direct perception through identification.

Well in that case I dispute you: I say that Being came into existence from the Grand High Gostak. I can’t/won’t define this Grand High Gostak because it’s undefinable (so say I), but I assure you that it, and not “Nothing”, is the origin of all things. Prove me wrong.

Those ranges of consciousness you talk about are elaborate tricks that the mind plays with itself; they are purely subjective and in your head. The only “Nothing” we can experience is an entirely subjective Nothing which results from inhibiting the conditions which produce our consciousness.

May be may be not. I cant take what you say at much value since like you say you judge it superficially.

I’ve spent years extensively studying and practicing these sorts of things, so I would hardly say that I have judged them superficially.

No I dont have an evidence. Only thing at my disposal are certain "clues and hints"(most valuable I find experience of altered state of consciousness) which are sufficient for me to take seriously things which others perhaps ignore.

That’s what I thought. Your clues and hints are therefore no more credible than those obtained by someone who has taken a hallucinogen.

I basicaly mean expand/transcend your present capacities. Any field you choose you can transcend your present day achievement. Since you are conscious being you are bound to do it at least in part consciously which in turn means it will become expanded part of your conscious being.

That answer is vague to the point of uselessness.

True, I am talking hyphotheticaly and challenging your imagination.

And I’m challenging your inclination to make baseless fantasies the foundation for your entire understanding of reality.

Take example with drop of water and an ocean. Both are essentialy just a bodies of water. One is extremely limited while the other has comparably an infinite potential.

Although the ocean might have a much larger volume than the water drop, they are both still very limited in many other non-volume respects. Additionally, both the water drop and the ocean are still extremely small in the context of the wider universe.

"Feeling" isnt something genuine? You cant make demonstrations with/through feelings? Thats said since reading is firstly and mainly an intelectual activity first requirement I have is to be able to make sense out of what I read then only some emotional assessment can follow. Feeling good or not really proves nothing.

Feeling is genuine, but I am interested in what’s going on ‘under the hood’ to generate feeling. The feeling of sadness one might get from watching a performance of Romeo and Juliet might be very genuine, but it doesn’t mean that the events which inspire that sadness are themselves real.