Some Useful Articles

  Bhagavad Gita, Brahmsutras, Isha Upanishad, Kena  Upanishad ,  Katha Upanishad,  Prashan Upanishad,  Mundaka Upanishad,  Mandukya Upanishad,  Tattiriya Upanishad,  Aitareya Upanishad,  Chhandogya Upanishad   Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Tripitakas (Triple Baskets, one of them is Abhidhamma-pitaka- which includes Philosophical teachings)., Diamond sutra, Lotus Sutra, Heart Sutra, The Jewel Heap Sutra, The Lankavatara Sutra, The Heroic Gate (Shurangama) Sutra, The Brahma Net (Brahmajala) Sutra, Flower Garland Sutra (The Avatamsaka) Sutra, The Great Perfection of Wisdom (Maha Prajnaparamita) Sutra, The Pure Land Sutras, The Vimalakirti Sutra, Sandhinimocana Sutra, Amitabha Sutra, Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Abhidharmakosa Karika (highest Knowledge)

That solves the fermi paradox and has in its back the general relativity and the double slit providing the influence of observation on our reality Plato is correct about abstract forms beyond our existential experience like infinity Relativity goes deeper than we can imagine it gets into our subjective experience with the universe making it our mere creation theory of "relative observetism" There is the "unknown" realm this thing if it's a thing is no matter it's beyond the observer notation or even comprehension it cannot be observed thus described in detail yet it's possible to comprehend on abstract level as it is in its "normal" state and will change or form based on an observer ! When observed it's subjective form holds an experience for the observer a universe is shaped based on this type of observation in the realm of the unknown there is no such thing as a "verse" or gravity these all results of observational typology real

  So long as the dream is on, the dreamer is involved and therefore everything looks real. This is natural and the experience of all. If one is hungry in the dream, the hunger must be attended to. If one is hungry in the waking state, then also the hunger must be attended to. To this end, all strive to earn, borrow or beg to assuage the desire for food. If one sleeps on a full stomach and dreams that he is hungry, he will make efforts to eat food. But, if at that moment, before taking the food in the dream, he wakes up. Then, will he still be hungry or desire food? No, he will not. Since his stomach is full. Similarly, those who wake up have no desires as then existence is found to be pure, that is, without any entity needing or demanding fulfillment. Awakening leads to fulfilment itself. On waking up from the dream of Samsara, the individual entity gets merged with what IS. Sri Adi Shankaracharya has this to say: "A liberated one, endowed with Self-knowledge, gives up the traits

Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible – that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) – is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of various mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Impersonal Absolute NOTHINGNESS (otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera). In other words, rather than the Supreme

  well, I actually don't see any evidence about anything after death, our body dies, our brain along with it, but our mind is not the same as our brain, our mind shapes our brain, thoughts shape the neural structures of the brain, think a certain way long enough or act a certain way long enough your brain changes according to the minds input. We have no evidence wether the mind disperses or not, only the person who has died actually does and can ever know that, through sense. No one else would be privy to the same sense experience. But what about my hallucination comment, how do you explain that away?

  what are thoughts? Electrical processes that set of neural processes which I believe are also powered by a kind of electricity, and what is electricity other than energy? And energy can not he created or destroyed only transferred. If thoughts are energy, then the brain or mind is a harnesser of energy and as such must mean thoughts are eternal. Wouldn't that make our minds similarly eternal? Brain is like an electrical station, obviously I am being metaphorical, but hopefully you see my point

  Philosophy is Fundamental, Science is Secondary (A Short Essay) Nature has kept us at a great distance from all of her deepest and most precious secrets, and has afforded us only the immediate knowledge of a few superficial qualities of objects while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence of those objects entirely depends. From the perspective of the naked eye the table looks smooth and even, but if we look at it through a microscope, we see roughnesses and hills and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to the naked eye. Empirical facts are but half-truths because our perception of the world is limited by our finite senses. We measure the world in accordance with horizons that confine us within prison walls. The eye can only see a certain distance, we see less than one-percent of the light spectrum, we can only hear a limited portion of the decibel range, and objects are composed of more than ninety-nine percent empty space.

  Sorry to say but the brain is not just the senses and memory. There is no consciousness without brains. At least so far as we can demonstrate. I have to discount the assumption we would know or feel all of what we are if we are what we think. I see no reason we would, nor evidence to suggest we should. Why would I need to feel my ulna and the individual fibres of the muscles around it, or the individual hairs upon my arm? Consciousness is debated as to precisely what it is, one simplistic view is awareness, self awareness at that and yet that is not quite enough, it can be removed by sleep, by drugs, by being another species, and yet why would species exist as a form in this consciousness if they have none. For the idea you suggest to be real, the brain would be more of a conduit to access this thing. It would make this thing the god that you seem to allude to, a "mind" if you will that then becomes an "i" and a "you" for what reason is not really explic

  Kinaesthesia – sense of movement. Thermoception – we know whether our environment is too cold or too hot. Being able to sense the temperature around us helps keep us alive and well. Nociception – the ability to feel pain. Chronoception – how we sense the passing of tim

  The presence of illusions means that we need to be cautious of our senses it doesn't mean you cannot trust them at all. Computer AI is modeled after the human brain. There are interconnections between neurons done in either software or hardware. No individual node is the AI, but together it is. If the mind was separate from the brain and you got brain damage, then you would expect that your personality would not change only some perceptions to your senses. Your memories would still be intact but that is not what we see. Nor would consciousness necessarily understand how it worked. The mind body problem has not been fully resolved but I don't think that substance dualism (which is what you are suggesting is winning at this point. Here is a short video discussing both sides. Where Does Your Mind Reside?: Crash Course Philosophy #22 Damage to your brain can cause changes in personality. This may lead to Reductive Physicalism. This is the view that the world is only made of physi

  I think therefore i am ( Cogito, ergo sum) -  René Descartes...  This statement is an empirical and momentary truth... The absolute truth should remain the same irrespective of any time. Rene Descartes defined the existence of self relative to the thinking process. In deep sleep we don't think, so according to Rene's point of view, we become non-existent in deep sleep, and our "self" is switching from existence and non-existence alternatively for our entire lifespan. As Rene has defined existence relative to the thinking process, we can arrive at two conclusions. The first one is all the rocks and planets are thinking because they exist... The space also exists, so it can be said that space is able to think. In short, Rene can be said to imply that space is an omnipresent, eternal and all-knowing thinking entity, and the second one is, space does not exist because it is not able to think... The second conclusion is incorrect as we know space is the foundation of exi

Your answers are contradictory.  Dictionary definitions are flawed. //reality -the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.// see in this definition of reality, illusions are also real because they are not outside of the world.... Reality should be not be consisting of illusions... If it is full of illusions, then it can not be called as Reality... i want to see your point of view on Reality that really makes sense. ........................................................................................................----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.///Things that can deceive the senses are real phenomena. Are you suggesting that God is just an illusion ? // ----->>>> Wtf... you are calling deception as real phenomena...i want clear difference between reality and illusion. Dictionary definition are flawed. and difference should