What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"? — Jake

Why is it good to recognize reality that which remains constant? Or the unchanging space of and for changing things? — sign

I don't know. These, I believe, are some of the great unanswered questions. If reality is in unity, harmony and ultimate freedom, why should there be a need for any transition from a state of relativity to absoluteness, or from any state to another? Can't everything be ok just the way it is?

As far as I can tell, the answer is humans. For whatever reason, humans want to change. We want more of somethings and less of somethings. We want inspirations such as enlightenment, heaven, peace, etc and we want to avoid deterrents such as ignorance, hell, death, etc.
Is all of it an illusion? Perhaps.
But, how would it be if we denied it? Suppose we chose not to change in any way, would that be possible?
The valid teachings on the path to enlightenment say that while at any part of the journey, it is impossible to see the whole path. The idea is that, as one moves forward, one becomes able to perceive the next few steps ahead. Thus gradually, one is able to see more of the path the further one progresses. And, as one becomes familiarised with the path, one is able to realise more choices and, consequently, greater freedom in one's actions.
Does this make sense? Possibly. Is it something one is willing to accept? Choices, it all depends on choice.

Another factor about eastern teachings on spirituality, unlike the western (modern), is their insistence on personal endeavour. The teachings on enlightenment (e.g. by Krishna or Buddha) are given by teachers who've attained it for themselves. And, they give the methodology by which anyone can attain the same degree as them, but only if one is willing to put in the necessary efforts. Western (modern) teachings allow people to wait for scholars to discover things for them. This has a tendency to make people lazy and complacent. It's why we find so many people who're willing to regard spiritual teachings as nonsense without having taken the time to venture into them for the sake of better understanding.

All I can say is, there is a natural tendency, a flow, in nature whereby it seeks to be better realised. This is understood predominantly as the impulse to evolution. The reason or purpose behind it, I'm afraid, still escapes my understanding. But, I recognise it as a part of nature, both internal and external, as a part of me and others, and choose to direct my efforts into venturing further into fields of knowledge in search of whatever truths that may lie within. And, as it turns out, in more ways than one, we're all doing the same, each to their own capability.

How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division? — Jake

I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. After that, one endeavours to remain or return to that state of absoluteness (unity) as much as possible because one is more inclined to better perform actions which one is more accustomed to. It's like practice makes perfect.

I think the difficult part of this is whether one understands the consciousness to be an aspect derived from reality (the absolute) or an aspect which has its rise in the mind (which is relative). If the latter, then I don't see how one can realise unity.

Instead of wanting humans to stop mistreating animals, you should want them to learn what mistreatment is and why it is. This means the information should be given in such a way that it is acceptable. In that way, they act out of knowledge not coercion.

Currently, it is too early for humans to cease mistreating animals completely. But, considerable efforts have been exerted to diminish the cruelty that has been realised as such. So, it stands to reason that there will come a time, in the future, when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being vegans while the rest persist with the carnivorism.

There's personal views and general views.

How I determine ethics/morality is a combination of:
1. Precedence.
2. Personal analysis.
3. Reciprocity.

This doesn't mean I follow any precedence, just that I take it into consideration.


Generally, slavery was ethical/moral in those communities which it was accepted. Homosexuality was unethical/immoral in those communities which outlawed it. Now, they are unethical/immoral and ethical/moral respectively. Nothing prevents conditions of ethics/morality from changing. We determine the laws of our society, they work for us not vice versa.

In general, humans (no matter their capacities) have been designated as superior to animals. Therefore, they are treated differently.
Humans treat animals according to their designated rules of conduct. For example, humans predominantly believe animals are supposed to serve them. This includes providing food for them. In view of that, humans consume animals for food and they see it as ok.
If, humans thought animals deserved better, then they would offer better treatment.

Those humans who you claim mistreat animals may not share the same views as you. To them, what they do is just the normal order of things. Those who disagree, e.g. you, act different.

All I'm saying is, before you label people as ethical/moral or unethical/immoral, you might want to take a moment and understand them first. If not, you might find you're the immoral one for degrading humans to the level of animals and for denying them a source of nutrition which is rightfully theirs.

I understand meditation as something that isn't done, it just happens. — TWI

Allow me to share my two cents about meditation.

From my perspective meditation is the deliberate application of mind.* Instead of letting the mind wander, one directs it with a specific intent. In spirituality, meditation is used to 'quiet' or 'still' the mind. This means directing the focus of consciousness away from the objects/subjects of the mind and observing the mind as a whole as though from an external perspective, where one observes it as one 'thing' instead of the many objects/subjects within the mind.

From the point of view of spiritual teachings, consciousness is an aspect of 'self' (see explanation in previous post) and is derived from reality and, therefore, it can be integrated (inserted) or disintegrated (withdrawn) from the mind. But, if you hold to the idea that consciousness arises in the mind, then withdrawal means unconsciousness and it becomes impossible to deliberately 'still' the mind. Most conflict arises at this point because not much has been investigated about consciousness and, therefore, it is a matter of personal endeavour to determine which school of thought you align with.


* [A much, much later correction - It is more appropriate to suggest that meditation is the deliberate and focused application of awareness e.g., upon the mind.]

What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake

I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. When we think that all there is to us is the relative (or limited) life, we fail to recognise the fundamental on which everything is based - Reality. The absolute is that part of reality which remains constant, while the relative is that part which undergoes change or manifests as activity.
The relative is often regarded as the illusory part of life because it has no permanence due to its limitations and therefore it does not fully reflect the whole of reality. So, to find the absolute, we must first find the part of us which is tethered to reality. And because reality is absolute, it means everything is tethered to it. This tether must be constant for as long as we are a 'something' within reality. This means that, no matter our changing thoughts, emotions, physical body, etc, there is an unyielding connection to reality. This, I believe, is what is designated as 'self' (or atman in the Bhagavad Gita) and is the distinct connection with reality. Having realised this 'self' it becomes possible to know reality. Using the 'self' one learns about reality and, the greater the understanding of the absolute gained, the less the persistence in separation (relativity). Eventually, being fully in the state of realisation of absoluteness, one may be said to be enlightened in comparison to those in the relative state.

I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one.

Personally, to gain some understanding of the teachings on spirituality, I've had to filter out most of the relative conditioning accompanying the teachings. Sometimes it's culture, language or just plain personal preference. Often, I've found the core teachings to be exceedingly rational.

I don't think Yogananda lied to his followers, it's just that he did not account for the difference in culture. Back in his native India, if people left their homes and occupations and went to live a life of contemplation, nobody would think it strange. In the western world, it begs the question,

Why would meditation require me (or anyone else) to do that?

However, the answer was given a while back (ironically by his teacher in one of his previous incarnations - he thought he was Arjuna) by Krishna when he said,

The one who actively performs one’s own duty without desiring a profit is a true sannyasi.
Such one is a Yogi, rather than those living without a fire and duties.
(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6; 1)

The path to enlightenment doesn't need anyone to stand out from others or take any special considerations contrary to what many believe.

I have come to find that the biggest point of conflict between eastern teachings on spirituality and the western (now modern) understanding is, primarily, the difference in cultural practices. Even rational teachings seem weird because they're presented in the unaccustomed way. The way of eastern teachings was through symbolism while the western world prefers direct expression.

Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time. — Nils Loc

Another problem with eastern teachings is that of the corruption of the teachings by those who do not fully understand. Just as, currently, in the modern world, there are lots of wanna be celebrities who are inclined to 'fake it till they make it', so also the bane of the ancient eastern world of spirituality is that there were a lot of wanna be teachers of exemplary ineptitude whose effects on spiritual teachings have been worse for their meddling. However, if taught by a capable teacher, most of what seems outrageous becomes commonsense if not quite intelligent.

To me, democracy is social interaction based on unity and harmony, and worked through intelligence. It is about knowing who and what we are and have, and acting appropriately.
Different societies may have realised the value of democracy at different times in their progression, often when faced with the threat of being denied certain rights and freedoms but, even then, at best, the realisation was just a first step.
For example, the democracy expressed in that report of 1939 had yet to recognise 'non-white' people as equal to 'white' people. The idea is expressed well enough but it may be said to be at the conception stage. Over the succeeding years, through many trials and errors, we learned to apply it in our day to day interactions with our fellow humans. And, even today, we're still learning of ways to advance our applications and experiences.

As to transmitting culture, I would say, we are at a point where we need to realise what it means to be human and what to propagate to future progeny as a collective human endeavour instead of the divergent societies of the past which, as we've come to realise, were greatly limited by their exclusion of others. The future of humanity would be served better by developing a collective culture than returning to the old ones.

The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. The only difference between now and when the art of meditation was introduced into those eastern cultures is that, now, the effects can be objectively observed. It's not about science vs culture, it's science in culture. And this is an increasingly growing trend in scientific observations.

The root of democracy is far beyond the limits of current humanity. For generations now we've declared ourselves to be thinking life-forms but, most of our past actions show we're at the foot of the mountain and just a few steps into the climb, far from the summit we hope to reach. Equality and, consequently, democracy would be better realised the higher up the mountain we climb. And, as with all beginners, the road underfoot is another battle to win. What I mean is that, there's more to democracy than defining it.

Whatever decisions were made back then concerning the way forward in education, was because they earnestly thought it was the better way forward. Technology, especially in the past, has had an enchanting effect over humans and, judging by modern trends (addiction to social media, video games, and other machines) we're still under its thrall. However, we're increasingly becoming aware of its role as a mere tool for human support instead of a substitute for humans in their life activities.
People don't suffer or die from lack of resources because nature can't provide, it's because we are yet to fully realise the value of our fellow humans and eventually all of life's resources (the biological and non-biological). The value of equality, decency, compassion is written in huge flaming letters in every page of nature and how it nurtures everything despite the favourable and unfavourable flavours of experience it offers.
We often claim that we know we're fallible. However, our response to our limitations usually suggests otherwise. If education systems are not perfect, it's because we cannot extract the appropriate utility from them. There's nothing wrong with education directed towards technology as long as people remember that technology is just a means to enrich our lives not a substitute for life-experiences or a shortcut to overcoming the consequences of human ignorance (primarily conflicts).

We may think ourselves the cream of the crop of this planet at the moment but, to put it analogically, what would the smartest toddler in kindergaten have to offer any field of knowledge other than being a test subject, at the least? It's the same with us humans, we have more to learn than teach. We need to realise that first before we pretend to save the world.

Fortunately, as nature would have it, we're learning and, to a large extent, without knowing why or how. Democracy, tailored on the idea of equality, is growing in us just as we grow as a society. I think it's partly our efforts and mostly nature. I think we've done a great job to realise that if we don't conform to nature's wisdom we might just be left behind and nothing is a greater motivation for living beings than the fear of death, in this case, collectively as human extinction, or worse becoming an inferior life-form.

We're still learning through trials and errors. However, there's a fundamental shift in mentality where more and more people, while still concerned for their own welfare, are increasingly showing concern for the immigrants too. By and by, we're becoming less of a dog eat dog society.

Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. :ok:

So now if God has a belief about your future, say the fact that you will eat carbs tomorrow, — Yajur

Is this a matter of belief? If God is omniscient then it means He is intelligent in the absolute sense. Doesn't that mean He knows how free-will works and wouldn't bother wasting energy on needless attention? God is omniscient, He knows you will choose what to eat tomorrow or you won't. Either way, there will be a tomorrow with or without you. That is basic God-wisdom. I call it the way things are.

Democracy isn't necessarily about voting or consensus via public agreement. Most of the agreement is usually abstract, sub-conscious and pre-determined instinctively. The noise made through public awareness or media does have influence but not more than the personal realisation of what equality and progress means. We are instinctively and gradually learning that the more freedom we allow others the more we are allowed by others.
At the moment, the practice of democracy in public forums such as voting is still exceedingly flawed, mostly because people react more to the competitiveness than the intelligent impetus. However, there's an increasing trend of people realising how such endeavours can be directed towards personal gain through intelligent choices or how unintelligent choices lead to personal losses.
A good example would be Trump's presidential regime where most of the affluent supporters have come to realise what a mistake he is. It is more likely in future that political (and even social) loyalty will depend on capacity for intelligent expression than raw materiality without intelligent backup.

I'm just saying, democracy is evolving and it's even affecting our instinctive choices. The more intelligence we apply to our interactions the more we realise, even instinctively, that two heads are better than one. Popularity can include intelligence and in more ways than one it is continually proving so.

Democracy is on the way out. I actually think that only a totalitarian world government can save our civilization. — Jamesk

That's an unexpected point of view. Why is that?

Factory farming industries harm animals. — chatterbears

In what way?

(I mean, is it clearly defined harmful activity or is it relative harm. Most of what I've seen is, to a large part, relative harm from the point of view of the difference between a human and an animal. This is because animals may not have the same rights, knowledge and awareness as humans. However, if one considered animals to be equal to humans, then, I agree that farming industries do harm animals.)

how do you differentiate a good action from a bad action?".

...I understand that you derive your moral stances on previous precedence and your own analysis, but I wanted specifics. — chatterbears

Also, there's the question of whether someone would be ok to suffer a particular influence. If not, then it would be immoral to cause others to suffer through such. Though, this depends on equality. For example, stealing. There's previous precedence that makes stealing a unanimous no no. Also, personally, I'm against it due to the negative effects it has. And, since I would not like to be stolen from, I think it would be wrong to steal from others.

You don't think one moral stance can be superior to another? — chatterbears

Only with respect to relative opinions. Rape is unanimously frowned upon, therefore, it's determined as unethical/immoral by everyone.

I'm inclined to agree with the general flow of what you're saying but I'm having trouble getting past this statement,

We do not have a pre-conceived “world of stuff” (which would fall into the realm of Idea). — Fobidium

I think part of our genetic coding is to ensure a set of pre-conceived 'world of stuff' is prescribed in us e.g. certain physical and mental details.

If we forget about other people for now, may I ask you this. What is your basis for ethical/moral decisions? Meaning, how do you differentiate a good action from a bad action? — chatterbears

My ethics/morality is derived partly from previous precedence and partly from my own analysis. The idea that killing animals for food is unethical has no long-standing precedence in most of the world. In fact, it's quite the opposite. And, where there's precedence, it is expressed primarily through religious/spiritual dictates instead of some kind of empiricism (like we now have knowing that animals express emotions and they can suffer).
On the flip-side, there are long-standing traditions based on ideas such as humans are decidedly superior to animals, or that animals exist to serve humans, etc. In terms of empiricism, the superiority of humans over animals is obvious. Also, concerning suffering from fear of death, a lot of progress has been made to alleviate that. As to suffering due to inhumane conditions, it has not yet been established whether animals have the capacity to realise an unexperienced alternate lifestyle over which they could yearn for. Once animals are fed regularly, are sheltered well enough and have the company, especially, of their kind, it is difficult to prove substantially that they are in any further need, the lack of which, results in suffering.
Therefore, I think it would be unfair to suppose an ethical/moral superiority over those who act different from me when it is not based on any absolute system of qualification.

For example, personally, I think all animals should be under partial or complete domestication. This means that, even wild animals should be regulated through family planning methods until their numbers are greatly reduced and manageable. Also, we should tag all animals (if possible) so that we know where and how they are at all times for the sake of regulating their activities, like in times of natural crises or to protect them from human activities that may harm them.
However, all that is my opinion. It can be compassionate, intelligent, or any other positive adjective but cannot be superior to others' opinions, unless relatively. And, I can't argue that relative ethics/morality must hold for others because that would be plain wrong.

On the bright side, through persistence and insistence, it is possible to turn around the current status quo and possibly have a future where humans are more caring of animals. Current trends already show an increase in plant-based diets, which I fully support.

I've reviewed my arguments and I think I will stick to my personal opinion rather than attempt to include perspectives I don't fully understand.
Personally, I agree that it's cruel to kill animals for food. As to whether it's ethical or not, I don't know. I think it depends on one's basis for ethics and whether it applies to animals as well. However, as far as I know, there is no such world-wide ethical acceptance.
Now, please allow me to bow out of this discussion, thanks.

If your original statement stands of, "Why is natural law unethical?", you would understand why natural law is not something you want to base your moral actions on. — chatterbears

My original query is,

Is natural law unethical?

I'm investigating, not assuming that it already is. I'm trying to understand it from as comprehensive a perspective as I can.

What about the wild animals? How do we deal with them?

Do animals have the right to free-will?

And is nature is a good indicator of how we should live our lives? Animals rape in nature. Should we then start raping each other since it is 'natural'? — chatterbears

Do the animals know what rape is or an alternative to rape? Humans decide that rape is wrong, therefore, humans determine alternative actions.
Animals have their own moral codes. They commit acts that we would not and they're no less for it because of what and how they are.

The current ones that already exist, we can let them die off naturally, while keeping a small percentage in animal sanctuaries. — chatterbears

If we let them die off, isn't that lack of compassion? Is the compassion for animals born out of a sense of equality or out of self-gratification. If animals are equal to us, shouldn't we treat all of them alike. Would you suggest letting humans die out for the sake of achieving a more pleasing equilibrium?
And, if it's a matter of perspective, then consider animals bred for food only know the life they've been given. In such instances most suffering occurs in fear of impending death which humans are increasingly alleviating by diminishing such awareness.

This argument is largely dependent on human acceptance of the idea of indisputable equality between humans and animals. However, if such a perspective were forced, it would defeat the case for compassion. Are humans and animals equal? For most people, they are not. Why should such people conform to your perspective?

Factory farming isn't a product of nature. It is a product of humans who abuse their power in immoral ways. — chatterbears

Factory farming is human activity. Humans (including their activities) are a part of nature.

This is the same question, because an unethical dominion over animals would imply the lack of compassion. It is unethical, since we lack the compassion to alleviate the suffering these animals endure. — chatterbears

Do we lack the compassion or the capacity? Should we and can we domesticate all animals? If we leave others to the wild, then don't we allow them to suffer from conditions which we would otherwise protect ourselves from?

Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. But, it would be more unfair to constrain others by our own restrictions. Is it wrong for the lion to kill the gazelle? If so, how would you inform it?

From the POV of the western person seeking some spiritual dogma to follow because they cannot think for themselves, and must therefore borrow from others to lend their own personality a little depth - your dogma is entirely interchangeable with any religious dogma, and the claim it's not a religion - it's a philosophy, is a distinction without a difference. It's slightly different in its native context. There, it's an inter-generational religious practice - ideas ingrained into children before the age at which they're capable of rational judgement. — karl stone

Yeah, it's the POV of someone ignorant. My point exactly.

I can think for myself, and think reality quite astonishing enough without needing to gussy it up with tawdry decoration. If you have anything as ineffable in your philosophy as wondering what the universe is expanding into, for example - then sign me up! If you have built any glittery thing to your god that's as magnificent as the starry sky, anything as beautiful as the sunrise, anything as profoundly excruciating as individual mortality against hope for the future of our children - then sign me up. Otherwise, I'll simply look reality in the eye and be humbled by its fearful majesty. — karl stone

Does this mean you don't acquaint with information from others because you can think for yourself? Don't you also depend on what others have thought prior to you? Don't you depend on other's knowledge acquired prior to you?
I can think for myself too, yet, I supplement it with more knowledge and wisdom from other valid sources.

Here's a real thing most people don't see. Ask yourself - do you know more today than yesterday? Do you know more, and better today than when you were five years old? Clearly, knowledge has a direction - from less and worse knowledge, to more and better knowledge over time - and yet you parade the ancientness of your philosophy as a claim to superiority. — karl stone

No matter how much knowledge we add, there will be principles that remain constant. That is the value of understanding the laws/principles in operation through nature and in reality. For example, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. No matter how much knowledge we acquire, that principle remains the same. The same with the principles taught in the Bhagavad Gita.

I'm sure you think so. But how could you say otherwise? To my mind, your philosophy is quite easily categorized alongside religious dogma - and it's a pretense you don't have have gods when you revere as gods claimants of a psychological state described as: "state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality." If this isn't a religion - but a philosophy, if it isn't incompatible with science, presumably you can explain in terms of cause and effect how... rain arises from sacrifice. What this seems like to me, is a primitive terror that the crops will fail because the rains did not come - written into religious practice. What does this sacrifice entail? I imagine goods deeds and giving money to the church. It's no different to Catholicism - behavioral control by the clergy. i.e. the antithesis of Enlightenment. — karl stone

Simple. Selfishness is not sustainable. Or, how can individuals build a collective without unified or harmonious activity? If nature is unified and harmonious in its working through the many aspects of reality, why can't humans learn from that?
The flowery language is called symbolism and was the primary mode of expression in those ancient times. There's a difference between literal and practical, to understand there's need to be practical. Also, symbolism allows a larger content of applicable information to be coded in simpler form.

The rain arises from Sacrifice. Sacrifice is performance of right action.

Here, sacrifice refers to nature. Nature is a prescribed system of activity which, as far as is known, unfolds ultimate utility for reality.

I'm not saying scientific efforts are not admirable. But, contrary to your belief, Krishna's yoga teachings about enlightenment are not antagonistic to science or any other field of knowledge or occupation. In fact, they complement them.

What Krishna taught, the teachings of yoga, had nothing to do with religion. They were based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations.

Similar teachings were given by Buddha as dharma and had nothing to do with religion. They were just as much based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations.

I don't know the religious system from which you derive enlightment but, it is obvious you do not know the Bhagavad Gita or even the teachings of Buddha. None of those teachings have anything to do with mysticism. Their teachings were and have been practised by many including those whose occupations are in the fields of science, politics, religion, philosophy, etc.
Also, the numerous machines and tools invented long before the 'science' revolution or 'the age of enlightenment' is a testament to the fact that analytical methods of investigation and the empirical value derived therefrom have been in existence for a very long time. Rationale was a part of humans long before the term science was coined.

I don't know whether your scientific inclination allows you to use unfounded premises in your accusations but, I can assure you the valid teachings on enlightenment, eastern or otherwise, are not based on superstition. They are products of well reasoned out practices.

Would you judge a reasonable person by the actions of the insane? I hope not. I don't know why you would judge the teachings on enlightenment given by such distinguished minds as Krishna's by the actions of those who clearly do not adhere to his teachings. Those actions of the religious nuts which necessitated a social revolution through a 'scientific' mode of progress cannot define the refined teachings given by people such as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, etc, just as the misguided actions of political leaders like Hitler do not define the entire field of politics.

This is beyond cultural appropriation - it's cultural vandalism to claim Enlightenment can be achieved by sitting cross legged in one's pajamas, eyes closed and believing really, really hard! The Enlightenment is the very antithesis of that kind of nonsense. — karl stone

This is not taught in the Bhagavad Gita. Actually, it states quite the contrary.

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 5; 2

Both sannyasa and Karma Yoga will bring you to the highest good. But, verily, Karma Yoga
is preferable!

(Sannyasi refers to the way of life which implies renouncing the earthly and living solely meditatively.)

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6; 1

The one who actively performs one’s own duty without desiring a profit is a true sannyasi.
Such one is a Yogi, rather than those living without a fire and duties.

(Krishna teaches that we have duties to ourselves and the communities of our fellow men and, therefore, it is against true yoga teachings to abandon such.)

These are just a few of the teachings in the Bhagavad Gita. As you can see, they harbour no delusions about what entails the path to enlightenment. Krishna himself was a king and taught the value of appropriate real life living.
Also, the term 'enlightenment' from the 'age of enlightenment' is borrowed from the spiritual teachings found in the ancient scriptures. Back then, they thought that a scientific revolution would bring about that beatific society often alluded to in scriptures. Compared to now, obviously they were wrong, or it is yet to happen.

This is often a weird discussion. Personally, I don't feed on carcasses but I drink milk and very rarely eat eggs. I don't know what that makes me but, I feed my cats meat and meat products.

My answer for this discussion is that our dominion (or any dominion for that matter) is a product of nature. Is natural law unethical?

I think, in the same way nature regulates mating in animals, if it determined to assign a different hierarchy or mode of interaction, it would have. That said, the fact that human beings have the capacity to determine most of their actions does raise the question of whether they should persist with carnivorism. So far, it's a matter of personal choice.

A better question would be whether it is more compassionate (or humane) to alleviate suffering in animals, as much as we can, considering we now know that animals experience emotions and, consequently, not only pain but also suffering.

Through this argument, I am not saying that numbers do not exist, but am merely illustrating the idea that it is possible that numbers do not necessarily exist. — Abecedarian

Sometimes I want to share this sentiment but, when I look at how symmetrical nature is or has been even long before humans came into being, I'm not so sure anymore. From what I can tell, numerical relations are like logic or laws of nature, they've existed since the beginning.

Since joining this forum, my ineptitude to understanding mathematics has been overwhelmingly clear. Before, I would have said that 'mathematics is the science of numbers'. I used to think that numbers were invented components of the numerical language which mathematics used to express logic or principles of nature. Now, I think part of it is true. But, I still can't figure out what abstract mathematics is all about.

As to the level of cognition by beings, I think logic dictates that the little we know may still be correct even if it's partial. Perhaps, it like a driver who knows how to move a car but doesn't understand the inner mechanics of what makes the car move. I think, while partial knowledge is necessarily incomplete, it is not always wrong/in error.

Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science. — Dan84

Yeah. And what would it mean for logic or analytical thinking if it began with the advent of modern science? Because last I checked science was initially called natural philosophy. It's weird when people speak as if logical thinking didn't exist before science.

Clearly, you use the term enlightenment to refer to something else entirely, something inconsistent with a scientific rationale that demands empirical proof of reliably reproducible phenomena. — karl stone

Not quite so.

Enlightenment, from the Bhagavad Gita, refers to a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality. I have utmost confidence that every part of its teachings are consistent with rationale, scientific or otherwise. Also, every principle or law stated in the teachings are observable in their action through phenomena thus making empiricism evident.

What enlightenment did you have in mind?

To me, you're describing something wholly non-conscious here, whose results eventually emerged into conscious awareness. — Pattern-chaser

I don't know what non-conscious means but if its results can emerge into conscious awareness, then I suppose it implies a sort of consciousness possibly passive in comparison to the normal conscious awareness. Anyway, that is what I'm trying to explain in my own deficient words.

The whole realm of knowledge of what consciousness is and how or why it is, becomes very abstract to the extent that sometimes it eludes our expression of it in analytical terms.
We probably experience dreams, and when we remember them we know it's because they're impressed in our memories, but it's still difficult to express the how and why of it. Even the various explanations usually aren't as divergent as we expect. So, most of us could be right because we seem to converge towards a particular principle where consciousness manifests states that are more and less pronounced than others but which interact to various degrees. The problem, as I see it, is realising the underlying principle which enacts these mechanisms which we seem to experience subjectively even when there's a sort of objective agreement in our understanding.

I think the whole consciousness issue is based on the question,

Can we have objective principles for subjective phenomena?

All actions have rewards or consequences. An action designed to benefit the collective whole also awards benefits to oneself as part of that collective. Therefore, the nobility of an action is in the awarding of benefits to oneself and others simultaneously while the taint is from excluding any others from the benefits of actions.
The idea of Karma Yoga is to act for the sake of everyone and everything (our selves included).

When I read "enlightenment" - I didn't think yoga. I thought political system based on science and rationality. — karl stone

When Krishna expounds on yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings are based on the principles of absolute unity. Yoga means absolute unity in spiritual teachings. Absolute unity means unity with everything or with the whole of reality. The different types of yoga are different paths to attaining such unity. Karma Yoga are teachings on how to attain unity through appropriate activity whether political, scientific, rational, social, etc, etc. Because those teachings are based on principles, they apply to all the various channels of our life-interactions.

The enlightenment taught in the Bhagavad Gita is a comprehensive enlightenment, the only problem for most people is the spiritual language used. However, I think it is possible to translate it into political, scientific, rational, social, etc, fields of association.

I still have a problem with what people think freedom means when they refer to free-will. If it's given by another (even if it's God) and can be taken by Him or comes with certain conditions, then it's not really free, is it?

I prefer those who explain that, instead of being given free-will by God, rather, we've always had it since we're beings in God and we partake of His Beingness. This means that we chose to express ourselves as relative existences besides and within God's Absoluteness. So, instead of God commanding us what to or not to do, He (God) gives us directions on how best to express ourselves. However, we can choose to act differently but must face the consequences of our actions. In this way, we have free-will even though we're terrible at using it.

Karma yoga is defined as “the path of selfless, God-dedicated action” (45) in the Bhagavad Gita. — gnat

Man does not attain liberation from the chains of destiny by refusing action. By renunciation alone, one does not ascend to Perfection.
No one can stay truly action-less even for a moment, for the properties of prakriti (matter) compel all to act!

- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 4-5.

Therefore, perform righteous actions, for action is better than inaction. Being idle, one cannot support even one’s own body!
Secular people are enslaved by action if it is not performed as sacrifice. Perform your action as offering to God, staying free from the attachment to the earthly, O Kaunteya! (I.e., deeds have to be performed not for the sake of oneself but for the sake of God (absolute unity and harmony of everything) — as acts of participation in His Evolution.)

- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 8-9.

Satisfy the Divine with your sacrificial deeds — and It will satisfy you! By acting for Its sake, you will achieve the highest good.
For the Divine satisfied with your sacrificial deeds will grant you whatever you need in life. The one who receives gifts and gives no gifts in return, is verily a thief!
The righteous who live on the remains of their sacrificial gifts to God are liberated from sins. But those who are anxious only about their own food — they feed on sin!
Thanks to the food, the bodies of creatures grow. The food arises from rain. The rain arises from Sacrifice. (I.e., as a result of right behavior of people.) Sacrifice is performance of right action.

- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 11-14.


As you can see God-dedicated action means acting for the sake of the collective whole. It means understanding yourself as an individual (a self or atman) who is part of a collective of individuals (other selves or atma) and, therefore, realising that what is good for everyone is the utmost good for the individual as well because every part of life is connected and dependent on the rest.

Selfishness means acting for oneself against others. In the Bhagavad Gita, Karma Yoga teaches against that. It teaches us to act for ourselves and for others as part of a unified and harmonic collective in God. Hence Karma Yoga requires one to possess the appropriate discernment and, consequently, the next chapter after that on Karma Yoga is called 'The Yoga of Wisdom'.

I think for most people the turn of this millennium was supposed to mark the end of the old world order in more than one way. And even those who didn't believe in a religious doomsday, still harboured thoughts of a kind of social revolution from the old ways of pain and suffering brought on by our ignorant ways. Unfortunately, as it turned out, not much changed. Hence, from dreams of heaven, we were roused by a new wake up call of this reality we wish to call hell.
Frankly, I think we're overreacting considering everything is a consequence of our collective actions. I think we let our hopes fall into naivety when we expected a magical turn around from the old ways. Though, in most ways, this is still a relative heaven compared with the past. So I'm kinda pretty ok with where we're at.