Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Date: October 12, 2021 01:58AM
> Never mind the fact that in healthy human
> relationships the goal is never to control the
> object of one's affection.
In fact, emphasizing the control aspect in a relationship seems unnatural. In practice, however, interpersonal relationships are influencing. Impact in the short term means that someone does what someone else wants, or at least reacts. It is some kind of short-term form of control. In the context of love, it seems genuinely unnatural. On the other hand what at all love is?..
> Ultimately all these ideas are based on a type of
> Romeo and Juliet fascination. They are trying to
> capitalize on the natural biological reality of
> humans always wanting to experience/relive these
> initial moments of new budding love. Definitely, a
> novel concept as far as theism and religions go.
Generally speaking, when it comes to love, parental love is considered purer, in the sense of selflessness. A loving mother devotes all resources to caring for the child. On the other hand, however, there is also the maternal instinct and an attraction to children's sweetness, etc. There is a benefit to the mother here. The topic is interesting because once, as a member of the SIF, I observed a mother taking care of a child at the sandbox during the break between classes at university, and I analyzed this topic.
On the other hand, looking at the so-called love between individuals of two sexes - at least in natural terms - is believed to be closely related to sexual attraction. In practice, there is intellectual fascination, pheromones, warmth and attraction to the opposite sex. On the other hand, something is omitted that, at least in Poland, was once present, i.e. the so-called "white marriages" and therefore sexually unconsumed. The spouses were simply satisfied with each other, etc. Doctors confirmed the lack of consumption. So in this sense, however, in the material realm, they were still dealing with something that they call love, and that was not desire.
In turn, one Zen Master was asked about his controversial contacts with women. and he replied that it was not love, and it was not lust.
> The thing is, the ancients toyed with these ideas
> and they are all valid spiritual realizations.
> Take achitya bedha bedha, which was not first
> posited by Chaitanya BTW. It spells out the notion
> that we are one/nondifferent from
> yet, we are also qualitatively different. So this
> becomes a shakti argument. And Shaktism is a valid
> school of Indian philosophy. Everything has an
> energy and potency of sorts. Advaita believes
> there is no distinction between it all and the
> perception of difference is an illusion and false.
> Dvaita believes there is a vivid distinction
> between us and the Source. This can be brahman or
> a made-up god that is a stand-in for Brahman or a
> universal reality/substrate/consciousness. These
> are all ideas and valid in assorted ways.
Regardless of Indology, the topic is important, momentous. Perception takes place and it seems, at least by looking around, that there is some form of duplication of it. Human and other beings have quite similar sense organs on this planet. Eyes, ears, nose. With some accuracy, because other wavelengths of light are perceived by, for example, bees or wasps, etc.
The aspect of information theory in the context of consciousness, and more precisely - intelligence, is also important. Considering the theory of information and entropy in its approach in the context of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that in closed systems entropy does not decrease, the principle of information growth regularly occurs when a conscious being perceiving dependencies makes a conclusion that creates this information, or by acting on the reality introduces this information into the structure, e.g. by building a car.
This in the context of transdendence is quite important, because upon death, theoretically the body disintegrates, but what happens to the information stored in the brain? The topic was so original that it prompted scientists to attack the theory of black holes and created such hypothetical creations as gravastars.
Thus the Vedanta cannot be denied that the subject is taken seriously.
> DeWatcher, you say tomato, I say tomato. You get
> the idea. I understand that there is nuanced
> specifics about the different radha-bhakti
> Sampradayas etc. Everyone claims their unique
> approach to one-up the last guy. It's a spiritual
> pissing contest to me. I'm not sure what you mean
> by "Nobody said that the spiritual body
> corresponds to the nature of the feelings
> manifested in the relationship with God.",
I mean "Nobody in SIF told that".
> NDE/OBE ad other disturbances of time perception
> have been shown to be directly related to brain
> and neural activity disturbances. There is nothing
> spiritual about it. During anesthetized surgery or
> comas, many people report seeing themselves or
> feeling people enter the room. These have been
> shown to be based on primitive centers of the
> brain that allow us to have a sense of location in
> relation to space, forms and sounds. It's how we
> perceive that there is someone looking at us or
> that we are being followed or that there is a
> presence in the room. It's an orientation
> mechanism of the brain that is part of how we
> evolved for protecting ourselves. When our
> consciousness is subdued do to coma or near death,
> these very primitive responses are the last to go.
> There are many studies on this. Not to mention
> your personal OBE and other consciousness
> disruptions are not proof of krishna, gopi bhava
> or anything really. They are simply highly
> subjective personal experiences that have possible
> merit and value only to you, and no one else. I'm
> not sure what you are mentioning them for.
These kinds of experiences are personal, subjective. Of course, the researcher tries to compare them with the available scientific material or the experiences of others. In the context of Vaishnava philosophy, I commented on it as a paradox that these experiences arose in the course of practice. For me, philosophy is lofty, interesting, it may have its drawbacks. The problem is for those who use it to steal from or destroy individuals.