But

I don't say that "individuality is false". I think individuality exists, but not totally and not necessarily so. I rather think that it's a bit like water. It can exist as separate drops, but also as a greater whole.

But

I think that physical existence is just an aspect of reality which is in essence a mathematical structure. I believe that it makes no difference to a consciousness if it is implemented in matter or just a part of an identical, abstract mathematical structure or state space, if you so will. I think some (limited) form of reincarnation exists, but I don't believe in the "supernatural" per se, which is supposed to be separate from the natural world.

Paraprakrti

Okay, but the greater whole does not diminish the indivuality of the droplets. We may only think that it does because we lack the capacity to perceive those droplets, in the same way a man from a distance might think a green bird loses his individuality when he flies into a green tree. In other words, this concept of pure homogenousness is materialistic.

Paraprakrti

There is no such evidence because the way by which we gather evidence is not independent of the physical realm. We are fundamentally flawed because we are covered by this material energy. We base reality subject to the interaction of the senses and the objects experienced by the senses. So positive information of the soul is found in the Sastra. For example...

Bhagavad-Gita 8.20:
Yet there is another nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is.

premjan

This just sounds like a configurational property of "mind" -- the capability of maintaining a thought despite material ups and downs.

But

I would say it's different and your analogy doesn't hold.

The green bird is still a discrete entity when it flies into the tree and we just can't discern the difference because of visual impairment by the similar colors. The droplets completely merge and mix into the rest of the water. When it has completely mixed with the rest of the water, there is no meaningful way to define the old drop of water. It has completely blended with the rest and given up its individuality.

Paraprakrti

I gave the bird and tree analogy because in that example one can actually see the individuality of the bird if one is to look upclose. The water analogy is a bit more difficult to discern. Nevertheless, each particle of water is still the same. It is also a matter of visual impairment.
The idea that liberation means merging homogenously with the whole is out of mental speculation. It is just as if we can only view the bird entering the tree from a far off distance. Actually, there is nothing in our experience that even suggests this homogenous merging. In the Bhagavad-Gita it explains that this material realm is a distorted reflection of the spiritual realm. Variegatedness is a spiritual fact. The distorted part that we know in this material world is in the fact that all material forms are fleeting manifestations. Just like a tree on the river bank. We can see the tree's reflection in the water, but then sometimes the river dries up and that reflection is gone. It is also like a desert mirage. In the desert we see what appears to be water. When we find out that it is not water do we then conclude that water does not exist at all, or that it just doesn't exist there in the desert? Similarly, because these material forms are fleeting does not mean we should conclude that the spiritual world has no forms. Actually, there is a type of so-called liberation in the Vedas that pertains to this homogenous merging. The only catch is that this type of liberation does not last. One actually merges with the Brahmajyoti. That is the impersonal effulgence of the Supreme Personality. Because the soul is constitutionally an individual, it eventually falls back down into material life.

crocodile deathroll

MO your "soul" was not all initially a discrete entity but an homogenous emergent pattern that emerged as soon as the universe acquired a critical level of complexity. As soon as you acquired an ensemble of memories you felt this property of "soul" or "sense of self" was unique to you. After you die, this feeling that you are a unique entity would be totally dissolved into that pattern that made it possible to be born into this world in the first place. So at death I am more of the view that your sense of self would not be totally obliterated after your death, but would instead be just reduced to that initial emergent pattern.

Just think this emergent pattern would be the only means by which this universe can be aware of its own existence, and feels you are central player to this property at the moment. So with this self aware universe be so necessary I find it quite plausible that when you die it will just automatically reorientate itself around another observer in a Gestalt switching mechanism.

CDR

Yeshi

yes, and its technical name is Dharmakaya (body of truth?) in buddhism.

Before Premjan says - of course it is so in Advaita Vedanta, 'cos they took over from Buddhism and added 'ghod creator' concept to it to make it more palatable for the masses and so the modern Hinduism was constituted.
[see the whole thread on that by Harishsubramanian]

There is a huge thread in philosophy section that touched on Quantum Consciousness theories and its quite interesting a read (tho bit tedious :P )

ok around page 25sh

Paraprakrti

What I don't understand, Mr. Deathroll, is why you proceed to tediously explain a position that, when it boils down, is really the position of the materialists/atheists. So all these talks about "emergent patterns" and "critical complexity" seem superfluous.