What is logic?

[Angrboda]

So you're an anti-intellectual in addition to all your other failings.  Sour grapes I'd say.


Well if it's so simple, then you should have no trouble explaining it to us.  Sarkar starts out by explaining that material things cannot deliver permanent satisfaction because they're finite, that you need the infinite, i.e. Brahma, to provide permanent satisfaction.  He then makes a lot of assertions about atman and the nature of mind, and concludes by saying that the foregoing proves the existence of Brahma, i.e. the infinite.  This is nothing less than a proof that permanent satisfaction is possible.

We're in luck, that's exactly what this thread is about! If you could prove that permanent satisfaction is possible, i.e. that Brahma exists, you'd be way ahead in proving the importance of all the rest of the stuff you talk about.   So I suggest you prove to us that it is possible, using Sarkar's essay as a guide.  If you can't do that, then you're full of shit and you know nothing about Brahma or permanent peace of mind.

So get to proving it!  Enough trash talk, let's see some action!

Correct.
Enough trash talk so now you start engaging in practice because the practice is the only way to experience the permanent peace of mind.

I can not pass to you the progress I did achieved so far so you can not know what it is all about but even if I could I would not.
Why?
Because you got to get up your shiny backside from the lazy chair and start doing your own hard work like everybody else.  

I do charity to those in need but I will not give anything to fools that  will waste what is given to them.

It took you a full day to think up that brilliant retort, eh?

Baha! You don't understand your own guru! Haha! Little Rik is Stoopid!

You can't explain his proof, can you? Well don't worry. It isn't you. It's your guru. His "proof" is full of shit.

But then, you're the idiot who follows him without understanding him. What a clueless dick you are.

[Little Rik]

Correct.
Enough trash talk so now you start engaging in practice because the practice is the only way to experience the permanent peace of mind.

I can not pass to you the progress I did achieved so far so you can not know what it is all about but even if I could I would not.
Why?
Because you got to get up your shiny backside from the lazy chair and start doing your own hard work like everybody else.  

I do charity to those in need but I will not give anything to fools that  will waste what is given to them.

It took you a full day to think up that brilliant retort, eh?

Baha!  You don't understand your own guru!  Haha!  Little Rik is Stoopid!

You can't explain his proof, can you?  Well don't worry.  It isn't you.  It's your guru.  His "proof" is full of shit.

But then, you're the idiot who follows him without understanding him.  What a clueless dick you are.

So you reckon that Sarkar said that you can experience the permanent bliss just by lie your shiny bottom
in the lazy chair while eating chips and while sending text messages to your demented friends?
When will you ever wake up and grow up Yog?  

[Angrboda]

It took you a full day to think up that brilliant retort, eh?

Baha!  You don't understand your own guru!  Haha!  Little Rik is Stoopid!

You can't explain his proof, can you?  Well don't worry.  It isn't you.  It's your guru.  His "proof" is full of shit.

But then, you're the idiot who follows him without understanding him.  What a clueless dick you are.

So you reckon that Sarkar said that you can experience the permanent bliss just by lie your shiny bottom
in the lazy chair while eating chips and while sending text messages to your demented friends?
When will you ever wake up and grow up Yog?  

No, I reckon Sarkar said, "In the preceding paragraphs it was established by logic and reasoning that it is only unit consciousness which, under the influence of the different principles of its Prakrti, gradually manifests itself as citta, and as a result of this, mind comes into being. ... This shows that Bhagaván does exist and that It exists as Paramátman or Universal Soul, Bhúmácaetanya or Cosmic Consciousness, or Brahma, the Eternal Blessedness."

He claimed that his essay demonstrated that Brahma exists, not that you can experience it by reading an essay. So your talk about what my shiny bottom can or cannot do is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether Sarkar's essay is a sound demonstration that Brahma exists and whether you yourself understand his demonstration. All you've succeeded in doing with your silly taunts is to show that you are as lost as ever. You know nothing and Brahma doesn't exist. So if your meditation is indeed taking you somewhere, it is to a place of no real value. Prove me wrong, Mr. Big Talk. Show that Sarkar's demonstration is sound. Or sit back down and shut up.

[Little Rik]

So you reckon that Sarkar said that you can experience the permanent bliss just by lie your shiny bottom
in the lazy chair while eating chips and while sending text messages to your demented friends?
When will you ever wake up and grow up Yog?  

No, I reckon Sarkar said, "In the preceding paragraphs it was established by logic and reasoning that it is only unit consciousness which, under the influence of the different principles of its Prakrti, gradually manifests itself as citta, and as a result of this, mind comes into being. ... This shows that Bhagaván does exist and that It exists as Paramátman or Universal Soul, Bhúmácaetanya or Cosmic Consciousness, or Brahma, the Eternal Blessedness."

He claimed that his essay demonstrated that Brahma exists, not that you can experience it by reading an essay.  So your talk about what my shiny bottom can or cannot do is completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether Sarkar's essay is a sound demonstration that Brahma exists and whether you yourself understand his demonstration.  All you've succeeded in doing with your silly taunts is to show that you are as lost as ever.  You know nothing and Brahma doesn't exist.  So if your meditation is indeed taking you somewhere, it is to a place of no real value.  Prove me wrong, Mr. Big Talk.  Show that Sarkar's demonstration is sound.  Or sit back down and shut up.

Fool.  

To understand what Sarkar say you first have to understand the cycle of creation.
If you only would look carefully at your body-mind you automatically would understand that God exist.
The fundamental factors that make up the universe also make up your body.
As you have matter, water, energy, air and space you also have a mind.
Those factors always go hand in hand.
There can not be a universe without a controlling mind.
It would be to say that you have a body but not a mind (sometime I wonder about you Yog).
That is not possible.

All these unit mind are the direct reflection of the cosmic mind or God.
There is only one moon but if you look the reflection of the moon in a lake you may see a myriad of moon that are reflected in the water.
At the same time all unit minds that seem independent one another they are all part and parcel of the same supreme entity.
Divisions are not real but they appear real to the fools that don't yet understand that they are only
a creation of one own foolishness.

This I put in a very simple way but to understand in full you have to understand the extrovert and the introvert cycle of creation and of evolution which may be a little bit difficult to understand for a stubborn
dogmatic type like you.

[Angrboda]

No, I reckon Sarkar said, "In the preceding paragraphs it was established by logic and reasoning that it is only unit consciousness which, under the influence of the different principles of its Prakrti, gradually manifests itself as citta, and as a result of this, mind comes into being. ... This shows that Bhagaván does exist and that It exists as Paramátman or Universal Soul, Bhúmácaetanya or Cosmic Consciousness, or Brahma, the Eternal Blessedness."

He claimed that his essay demonstrated that Brahma exists, not that you can experience it by reading an essay.  So your talk about what my shiny bottom can or cannot do is completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether Sarkar's essay is a sound demonstration that Brahma exists and whether you yourself understand his demonstration.  All you've succeeded in doing with your silly taunts is to show that you are as lost as ever.  You know nothing and Brahma doesn't exist.  So if your meditation is indeed taking you somewhere, it is to a place of no real value.  Prove me wrong, Mr. Big Talk.  Show that Sarkar's demonstration is sound.  Or sit back down and shut up.

Fool.  

To understand what Sarkar say you first have to understand the cycle of creation.
If you only would look carefully at your body-mind you automatically would understand that God exist.
The fundamental factors that make up the universe also make up your body.
As you have matter, water, energy, air and space you also have a mind.
Those factors always go hand in hand.
There can not be a universe without a controlling mind.
It would be to say that you have a body but not a mind (sometime I wonder about you Yog).
That is not possible.

You fail in the same way that Sarkar fails, you assert what you should prove. You paint some fancy bullshit but it has nothing to do with what Sarkar wrote in his essay. I may have a limited understanding of the cycle of creation, and I might have a limited understanding of my own mind; but what I can do is read, and from reading I discover that your tale and Sarkar's are nothing but a bunch of fanciful assertions. You have failed to produce Brahma. All you've produced is the studied ignorance of a Hindu mind.

All these unit mind are the direct reflection of the cosmic mind or God.
There is only one moon but if you look the reflection of the moon in a lake you may see a myriad of moon that are reflected in the water.
At the same time all unit minds that seem independent one another they are all part and parcel of the same supreme entity.
Divisions are not real but they appear real to the fools that don't yet understand that they are only
a creation of one own foolishness.

[Lucanus]

So what is this "Intuitional Science"? Because to me it only sounds like a bunch of made up assertions. But bear with me for a second.
If something you say is true, you should be able to make predictions based on it, right?
Then, by testing these predictions, you would be able to ascertain the validity of your statement.

Didn't I already explained this point with the iceberg example?
We see the part above the water but we can not see the part below.
Intuitional science is about bringing the part of our consciousness that is below our awareness above.
Above where?
Within our perception so the unconscious mind become conscious mind.
It involve a lot of hard work by practicing yoga.
How do you give validity that this it is true and it works?
Simple. By practicing you get results and these results are the evidence but you can also see the evidence by comparing someone health and spiritual strength.

Still too vague!

What does "the unconscious mind become conscious mind" mean?

How do you define the "unconscious mind"?

How do you determine that only through yoga - that is, through subjective experience - you can understand these deeper, but still objective truths of reality?

So, returning to your argument, if you say that the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness, what should happen - according to your "Intuitional Science" - if the pineal gland were to be removed or damaged?

This is a very interesting question but the answer is very very simple.
If the pineal gland is removed the person may or may not survive.
These days in most cases people survive thanks to clever surgeries.
Consciousness will be affected badly however but she will not go away.
Consciousness only go away or separate from the body when the person die physically speaking.
It will still stay in that part of the brain where the pineal gland was but because the support of the pineal gland is gone the consciousness will not be able to perform like before.

How exactly should consciousness be affected?
From what we see though, it just isn't. People whose pineal gland was removed keep on living a normal life, they just need to take melatonin to compensate the insomnia that derives from the removal of the pineal gland.

Also, how does consciousness interact with the brain if the pineal gland is removed?
It doesn't make a lot of sense - what is the function of the pineal gland if consciousness isn't really affected by its removal? You say that consciousness "stays where the pineal gland was". But if the biological structures that allowed for this supposed brain-consciousness interface aren't there anymore, how does it happen?

First of all, about 50% of the subjects who report NDEs are not clinically dead - in fact, they aren't even close to dying.

That is not true.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will find that people really die physically speaking.

And if you see the actual biological parameters of most of these people you'll see that about 50% of them are suffering only from a minor trauma or shock (such as hypoglycemia) and they are quite far from dying, as reported in the papers that I cited in my last post.

And this still doesn't take out the possibility of the NDE occurring while the patient recovers!

Second of all, it is not at all clear *when* an NDE actually happens! And you cannot rule out the (very mundane, and boring, I get it) possibility that it happens right before the "flat EEG" (if that even happens) or during the patient's recovery from it.

Wrong again Luc.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will see that most people die all of a sudden many times due to serious accidents.
In these cases the EEG get flat immediately and before that these people where fully conscious.

Again, you demonstrate a superficial view of the problem.

If someone has an NDE because of an accident, they clearly are not hooked up to an EEG machine when the injuries occur. So you just cannot know whether their EEG goes flat immediately.

There are no data to point in any direction. Be humble and say you don't know, because in this case, nobody can.

And again, as a side note, you still haven't taken into account the possibility of the NDE occurring during the recovery phase, when the brain "reboots".

Besides, many typical features of NDEs (such as seeing light, being at peace and feeling clear of mind) can actually be attributed to malfunctions in specific areas of the brain such as the locus coeruleus or more generally to hypoxia. And all of this is the results of validated observations and studies, not just guesswork and pats on the back (as this is how you seem to think the scientific community works.)

So... No. NDEs do not prove that consciousness exists independently from the brain. Try again.

Wrong again Luc.
When you have a malfunction in the brain you can not build up a clear, sharp and vivid experience.

This statement is demonstrably false. People who take hallucinogenic drugs (such as LSD or Ketamin) very often report clear sharp and vivid experiences... But those are the experiences of a malfunctioning brain!

And since you seem to imply that the NDEs do not occur in the brain (I assume your explanation is that "consciousness" is out of the body by that time), how does consciousness work without the biological scaffold of the brain?
How does it get "back in" when the patient recovers?
Why is a brain - heck why are living organisms even necessary when consciousness is so clear and self-aware on its own?

NOTA BENE: I'm not saying that it's impossible for consciousness to exist separately from the brain! All I'm saying is that the evidence you are bringing up is not valid and can be explained by a simpler (in the sense that it does not require to define a whole separate new section of reality) materialistic model! Again, if you don't understand something I've said here, PM me and I'll try to be clearer.

Bring it on Luc.
Bring on your evidence if you can.  

But I am not arguing for any specific position! I'm just telling you how your model of reality doesn't work and how there is no good evidence to corroborate it.

I personally am of the opinion that materialistic explanations of the phenomena we see in our daily lives are to be preferred - and should therefore be the default position to take in absence of any evidence for anything.

Why do I think this? Because when we get to a sufficient level of scientific insight on the subject matter, our models work and allow us to progress further in our understanding of reality AND in our quality of life.

And as you can see, it's not like neuroscientists are puzzled and stuck in a problem they can't solve - they are working all these issues out! There are problems, sure, but after all it can be said that they are really doing great considering the complexity of the issues at stake!

Good on them Luc.
Neuroscience is quite good but not good enough to understand how the consciousness works.  

And that is because neuroscientists, unlike gurus or priests or what have you, are not satisfied by superficial, "just-so" explanations to such a complicated phenomenon.

As you can see, your point of view on these things is full of holes and creates a lot more questions than it answers - but you seem to not even be aware of what these questions would be. You seem satisfied by the "just-so" story of consciousness being separated from the brain.

And I'll just say, I'm not sold so easily.

[Little Rik]

[Angrboda]

[Little Rik]

[LastPoet]

Note to self: yoga bullshit makes you go dunning kruger all over.