Forum Posts

stp6691
Jun 21, 2021
In compendium of truth
BACKGROUND: Satchitananda is a compounded Sanskrit word consisting of "sat", "chit" and "ananda", all three considered as inseparable from the nature of ultimate reality called Brahman in Hinduism. sat means "being, existence", "real, actual", "true, good, right", or "that which really is, existence, essence, true being, really existent, good, true". chit means "consciousness". ananda means "happiness, joy, bliss", Satchitananda is therefore translated as "Truth Consciousness Bliss", "Reality Consciousness Bliss", or "Existence Consciousness Bliss" From Upanishads: I am of the nature of consciousness. I am made of consciousness and bliss. I am nondual, pure in form, absolute knowledge, absolute love. I am changeless, devoid of desire or anger, I am detached. I am One Essence, unlimitedness, utter consciousness. I am boundless Bliss, existence and transcendent Bliss. I am the Atman, that revels in itself. I am the Sacchidananda that is eternal, enlightened and pure. QUESTION: Why is “Bliss” a part of the experience of ultimate reality?
0
1
10
stp6691
Jun 20, 2021
In compendium of truth
The question from goldstone was posted as a reply to a reply on the "name something you can be sure is true" thread, and is likely to be missed there. I have reposted it here to appear as a new thread. This next question is one I don't have an answer for; What can be known about the decision making, of one seeking truth? Id est, if an AI asks itself, what is true, is there any difference between its asking, and ours?(assuming 'we' are 'more real' than an AI, because the AI has been 'hard wired' to ask this question) Put another way, what can we know about the validity of they that decide that they exist by virtue of their questions? Do they simply exist(their existence proven by their subjectivity, in relation to a 'greater' objectiviy) or is there any consideration or qualification for its validity? Is wonder always wonder, or is a machine prohibited from wonder? -Goldstone
0
2
17
stp6691
Jun 20, 2021
In compendium of truth
From my proposition as a possible answer to that question, the final line reads: “Because I objectively know that I subjectively know something objective, I am sure it is true that I am.” Recall Descartes' "evil demon" argument, or "brain in a vat" query or the "dream within a dream" argument - all of which question the reliability of what we sense and thus know, and further try to complicate the question but proposing an imaginary "malicious deceiver" who deliberately alters your perception to make it deceiving - does this "proof" cut through the problem? It seems to me that the statement would be true in any state - be in actual consciousness, or in a dream, or in any altered state. It seems to me that if the reliability of our senses was in question, it would prevent us from reaching the conclusion accurately. However, once reached, it seems to me it would stand true in any state, thus invalidating the significance of "where our consciousness lives". Let me know what you think.
1
3
16
S
stp6691

stp6691

Admin
More actions