KARMA-The free will Vs VIDHI-The fate

[Rohit]

What is wrong in being materialistic? For all we know, a materialistic man might have enjoyed a full and satisfying life, while a religious man might have wasted the only life he had, preparing for something that would never happen. Morality is defined by us, for our convenience. Why tie afterlife with morality? We don't need to worry about afterlife to do good deeds. Those that follow a life of giving and helping others, in anticipation of a good afterlife are selfish.

Excellent points Kannannn.

In fact, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything is conditioned under the empirical environment. If anyone is holding the opposite view; is doing nothing but expressing his/her beliefs without any substance; and Ironically, that too through nothing but physical means and mediums.

Why should we even try to find an explanation for life after death, when there could be none. Our 'souls' are a product of our thoughts and observations through our lives. When our hearts fail, when our brains don't receive oxygen, we cease to exist. So do our 'souls'. There is only one death. Biological death.

Again, excellent assertion, Kannannn. We are in full agreement on the non-issue of the issue.

Inasmuch as the reality reaffirms itself that:

There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self/Atman/Soul, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

[SRS]

Very true. What is wrong in being materialistic? For all we know, a materialistic man might have enjoyed a full and satisfying life, while a religious man might have wasted the only life he had, preparing for something that would never happen. Morality is defined by us, for our convenience. Why tie afterlife with morality? We don't need to worry about afterlife to do good deeds. Those that follow a life of giving and helping others, in anticipation of a good afterlife are selfish.

There is nothing wrong with being materialistic. Unfortunately, the tendency to be over-materialistic leads to other excesses. It is much easier to be in full control of the senses if one is not materialistic. All problems essentially come from the senses. This is the motivation behind Buddhist philosophy. Suffering is the only reality. Not suffering in the literal sense necessarily, but decaying of the flesh and finally death. "Sense-pleasures" deny this reality. But of course even "sense-pleasures" are only illusions. Illusions that are easily created by an excess of materialism that can lead to other forms of suffering. That is why Siddharta The Prince chose the ascetic route. Perhaps if he had remained as "prince" the same objective - what he calls enlightment (which I assume is simply some advanced stage of yoga) - could have been achieved, but the actual path he chose is much more suitable for those whose only wish is to achieve the same enlightenment, within the framework of the most suitable environment. Which is why he created monasteries, and for similar reasons we have ashrams. Full mastery of the senses is not at all easy.

I don't think that's a correct observation. Why should we even try to find an explanation for life after death, when there could be none. Our 'souls' are a product of our thoughts and observations through our lives. When our hearts fail, when our brains don't receive oxygen, we cease to exist. So do our 'souls'. There is only one death. Biological death. That atleast is my point of view.

That is a mechanistic view. That in fact, all abilities of humans, all perceptions, etc. can be traced to an organic evolutionary process. I do not agree with this. Simply because I am aware of too many experiences that defy any explanation based on a simple organic evolutionary process. Perhaps you have come across those individuals possessing what is called a "sixth sense." In other words, they can percieve beyond what is perceptible to the normal five human senses. I do not think such a process as evolution is responsible for this "sixth sense"; simply because the "sixth sense" does not serve any evolutionary function. Nor is there a gene for the "sixth sense." On the larger scale, the human senses are very limited. So to say that the reality percieved by humans is the only reality - that is a very superflous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle." So the inevitable question this line of argument leads to is: are there yet more "realities" that the human mind is unaware of? Unless you can answer that concisely, you cannot deny there may be life after death.

[thamizhvaanan]

you cannot deny there may be life after death.

The keyword here is "may". Even you agree to the fact that, life after death is uncertain. Yet, most of the discussion in this thread is as if, life beyond death is certain. If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain .

If nothing is uncertain, why waste our time with this pointless discussion? If we are going to damn our senses, demean our perceptions, ignore all the scientific knowledge accumulated over centuries, all our experimental inferences and theoretical conclusions, putting us all into a bottomless pit of uncertainity, then there is no point in furthering our life, leave alone this discussion.

[Rohit]

If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain.

Excellent response, thamizhvaanan.

That is the precise conditioned state of consciousness under which such uncertain beliefs are expressed; and the stuff you have responded to, is nothing but a clear evidence of that conditioned state of consciousness in the empirical environment.

Like I have said, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything, and that means everything without exception, is conditioned under the empirical environment.

The opposite views you have responded to; evidently prove exactly that; and ironically, those views are expressed through nothing but physical means and mediums, which is the precise cause of suffering of an individual who, obviously, couldn't control his/her sense of expression.

[SRS]

you cannot deny there may be life after death.

The keyword here is "may". Even you agree to the fact that, life after death is uncertain. Yet, most of the discussion in this thread is as if, life beyond death is certain. If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain .

If nothing is uncertain, why waste our time with this pointless discussion? If we are going to damn our senses, demean our perceptions, ignore all the scientific knowledge accumulated over centuries, all our experimental inferences and theoretical conclusions, putting us all into a bottomless pit of uncertainity, then there is no point in furthering our life, leave alone this discussion.

The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities. It is a good refutation of the atheist argument that human reason holds the answers to all questions in nature. Usually human reason will only see half of the coin. Of course, even on the macroscopic level, no scientific instrument can yield 100% accuracy and precision. Nowadays, error analysis is as important as the experiment itself.

Life after death is not uncertain. Many have seen into their past lives. However, I am of the opinion that one should not see life after death and life as two distinct entities. If one sees them as interrelated, then the "uncertainty" you speak about disappears.

[SRS]

The sixth sense I mentioned before has scientific validity; although perhaps the results are not widely popularized.

"To conclude I briefly sketch the large body of research work on psychic functioning sponsored by the U. S. government during 1973-1989 at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and during 1992-1994 at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). I draw my summary from the review article by Professor Jessica Utts,[21] at University of California, Davis, one of two experts hired by the CIA to evaluate this research and the other expert, Professor Ray Hyman, University of Oregon, a well-known parapsychology critic. ....As in the ganzfeld and psychokinesis experiments, and especially in the latest studies, the experiments adhered to the highest standards of data collection and outside expert monitoring. As Utts says:


"The Princeton experiments involve subjects willfully biasing the behavior of a variety of mechanical and electronic devices to conform to pre-stated intentions. ... The observed effects are small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand, but they are statistically repeatable and operator specific in their details. ... The results of given operators on widely different machines tend to be similar in character and scale. They can be demonstrated with the operators located thousands of miles from the laboratory, or exerting their efforts hours before or after the actual operation of the devices. These experiments and the handling of the data are subject to the same level of scrutiny by outside observers as the ganzfeld experiments. As in the ganzfeld experiments, sophisticated meta-analytic techniques accounting for methodological quality and overall effect size from a variety of studies at different labs show unequivocal non-chance effects. In short, under exacting laboratory conditions there is strong, repeatable evidence for psychokinesis."


"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that their results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.'

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mansfeld.html

[Rohit]

Inasmuch as the reality reaffirms itself that:

There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self/Atman/Soul, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

[Rohit]

If there is something in human ability to sense as remotely as Osama Billaden or terrorists planning to hit twin towers, planting multiple bombs in London, Madrid, Mumbai etc., killing thousands; all these could have been prevented by these remote sensing humanoids. Also such abilities could be used to the great benefits of all humanity in preventing wars, protecting millions from calamities resulting form natural disasters like tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods, epidemics, landslides and so on, very cheaply. And most of all, such abilities could have prevented waves after waves of foreign invasions and dismal destitute condition of India and hundreds of millions of Indians that lasted for 1000s of years. But nothing of this sort happened or is happening, while governments world over are reluctantly spending billions of dollars after high-tech, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, magnetic, electrostatic, pressure gauge etc. remote sensing/defence equipment, which are not even humans. If governments could ever successfully replace remote-sensing/artificial intelligence equipment by these so-called, remote-sensing humanoids and stop such astronomical spendings after artificial intelligence, yes there is something worth investigating scientifically, otherwise, all these are just allegories without substance. Such remote-sensing humanoids could cut the defence spending of all governments world around, to almost nothing.

[Rohit]

That is the precise conditioned state of consciousness under which such uncertain beliefs are expressed under the empirical environment and that too through nothing but physical means and mediums.

Like I have said, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything, and that means everything without exception, is conditioned under the empirical environment.

[Rohit]

In this very thread:

The reality is that there are only four fundamental forces holding the entire universe together. So really the Universe runs on mechanistic, not probabilistic, principles - I do not think gravity has ever altered itself. There is order at the subatomic scale

String theory also deals with subatomic particles. It is true that quantum theory relies on certain probabilistic descriptions to describe the behaviour of the electron, but string theory goes beyond this. String theory unifies the four fundamental forces that unify the universe, and bridges the gap between relativity and QM. I see no potential for randomness there. String theory is even more fundamental than QM.

So to say that the reality perceived by humans is the only reality - that is a very superfluous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."

The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities.

Which evidently proves that:

On one hand, when it suits his/her beliefs, a confused individual expresses 100% trust in scientific methodology, certainty and the validity of scientific experiments. On the other hand, when it threatens his/her beliefs, the same confused individual takes refuge in uncertainty and questions the validity of scientific methodology and measurements and immediately runs and seeks for fallacious assurance, which, unfortunately for the confused individual, approaches 'zero' when either certainty or uncertainty approaches 100%.