Does Ahriman even stand a chance?

[Aupmanyav]

Well, if you say so (in brief). My body is made up of molecules. Do molecules suffer? 'Me' and 'mine' are illusions.

 

[MD]

Well, if you say so (in brief). My body is made up of molecules. Do molecules suffer? 'Me' and 'mine' are illusions.

Suffering is emotional pain. If it is an illusion, what is it's true nature? You cannot explain pain or emotions fully through molecular or physical interactions either, adding more weight to the very real nature of suffering.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But that is what emotions, pain and suffering are. Chemical and electrical reactions.

 

[MD]

But that is what emotions, pain and suffering are. Chemical and electrical reactions.

That's not fully true it is a mystery, and a big problem in neuroscience. There are some neuroscientists who believe that subjectivity itself is an inherent property of the universe.

 

[MD]

Respectfully disagree. We may not know the finer details - which enzyme, which cluster of neurons, but broadly we understand it quite well. Subjectivity is inherent but there are ways to get across it, meditation (analysis) and science.

Not at all, the Hard Problem itself is a huge a dilemma facing neuroscience. We don't understand how it is caused at all. If subjectivity is inherent, then how can it be studied empirically through science?

 

[atanu]

But that is what emotions, pain and suffering are. Chemical and electrical reactions.

As if chemical and electrical reactions are conscious.

You have got it reverse of what Shankara teaches.

mAyA -- illusion, is mistaking the body-mind to be conscious on their own, similar to mistaking heat to be property of iron, and hardness to be the property of heat in a heated iron ball. This explanation of double superposition (adhyasa) is fundamental teaching of Shankara.

 

[atanu]

Respectfully disagree. We may not know the finer details - which enzyme, which cluster of neurons, but broadly we understand it quite well. Subjectivity is inherent but there are ways to get across it, meditation (analysis) and science.

Analysis is not meditation. And science and all thoughts being the product of the consciousness, do not get accros it. There is very specific sruti "mind and word return from it".

 

[atanu]

Something I've come across while reading about this religion is the consistent notion that Ahura Mazda is far and away more powerful than his rival Ahriman.

With that in mind, in what sense is there a conflict any more than there's a conflict between men and maggots? Could Ahura Mazda not simply wish Ahriman out of existence with a thought, ending his influence over our universe forever; and if so, why doesn't he?

If the battle between good & evil is ultimately predestined to end with all of us being reunited with the Wise Lord after Judgement Day then what is the point of allowing Ahriman to continue a futile struggle?

Any Zoroastrians want to give answering this a shot?

I am not a Zoroastrian but a Hindu. I understand from similar strife between Indra and Vrittra, that Ahura and Ahirman are not two different individuals. A single being can acquire characteristics (personality) of Ahura or of Ahirman ... And this transformation is apparent transformation and is an eternal process.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As if chemical and electrical reactions are conscious.

I said chemicals and electrical reactions are the root/cause of consciousness. If it was not so, we would not have been conscious. Not to realize this truth and take it to be something else is 'maya'. See through it.

Analysis is not meditation. There is very specific sruti "mind and word return from it".

For me it is. My reading from Wikipedia - Yoga.

Pranayama ("Suspending Breath"): Prāna, breath, "āyāma", to restrain or stop (Aup. adds: or control);
Pratyahara ("Abstraction"): Withdrawal of the sense organs from external objects (Aup. adds: or extraneous thoughts);
Dharana ("Concentration"): Fixing the attention on a single object (Aup. adds: or thought);
Dhyana ("Meditation"): Intense contemplation of the nature of the object of meditation (Aup. adds: or thought);
Samadhi ("Liberation"): merging consciousness with the object of meditation (Aup. adds: to dwell in truth).

@Mazdaian: Since what we are talking about now is not directly connected with Zoroastrianism, I suggest requesting the Mods to transfer posts from #22 or so (other than Atanu's post at #29) to Dharmic Religions forum or Hinduism forum with some title like "Suffering and Maya". Hindus generally have a tendency to discuss this topic Ad infinitum.

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay but you still haven't addressed the problem of evil from an Abrahamic perspective.

Zoroaster worshipped Ahura Mazda and prayed to him. Did Zoroaster ever worship ahriman or prayed to him? Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why would Zoroaster pray to evil?

 

[atanu]

I said chemicals and electrical reactions are the root/cause of consciousness. If it was not so, we would not have been conscious.

That is charvak view and not advaita view. I have asked you several times to show from any valid hindu source that consciousness was a product of activity.

And if 'i-me-mine' are illusions, what is the status of so-called 'analysis' and its 'result' in the mind of an illusive 'I'? In other words, when you are an illusion what is the truth value of your opinions?

Moreover, dhyana and dharana have nothing to do with analysis but these entail pin pointed attention on a single object that leads to eventual cessation of movement of mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atanu, I will reply to you in Hinduism forum.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, I will reply to you in Hinduism forum.

I am not interested. Wrong ideas on advaita in this non Hindu Dir impelled me to post.

I request to be forgiven by members of this Dir.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why would Zoroaster pray to evil?

Please read it in line with my post #15 .
Regards

 

[MD]

@Mazdaian: Since what we are talking about now is not directly connected with Zoroastrianism, I suggest requesting the Mods to transfer posts from #22 or so (other than Atanu's post at #29) to Dharmic Religions forum or Hinduism forum with some title like "Suffering and Maya". Hindus generally have a tendency to discuss this topic Ad infinitum.

Since Zoroaster himself suggested that there is a physical and mental world, I think it's quite relevant to the faith.

 

[MD]

Please read it in line with my post #15 .
Regards

It makes no sense. You create evil so that people recognize good, but in the process you also have created evil. Why not create people to just recognize good? Why create a universe with pain and suffering so that people worship you and become better, when you can just create people good from the get go. Also to create evil, you must be part evil and thus you cannot be fully benevolent.

Is Allah so bored that he wants to create this game?

 

[paarsurrey]

It makes no sense. You create evil so that people recognize good, but in the process you also have created evil. Why not create people to just recognize good? Why create a universe with pain and suffering so that people worship you and become better, when you can just create people good from the get go. Also to create evil, you must be part evil and thus you cannot be fully benevolent.

Is Allah so bored that he wants to create this game?

I don't agree with you.
Regards

 

[MD]

I don't agree with you.
Regards

It's not me, this is the Problem of evil. It's a deep philosophical problem which poses a big challenge to the Abrahamic concept of God. I choose to believe evil is separate from God, not a part.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am starting a thread in General Religious Debates forum on problem of evil. Let us discuss it there.