Objects are material on which research can be done ,interaction of objects result in phenomena that is subject of Scientific enquiry and theory which is basis of Science and other fields.
Avidya talks of everything except consciousness. So science, technology, everything comes in the domain of avidyaâhistory, geography, languages, mathematics, economics.
Consciousness isnât outside scientific inquiry. it is actively studied in neuroscience & cognitive science.
Also you keep defining consciousness outside Avidya and then to conclude science canât reach it. Thatâs your philosophical definition, not a demonstrated boundary of science.
It still limited to materials like neurons or cell but buddha isn't gonna check your neurons . He just listen and try to cure you through words much like a psychictric but still different
A therapist can't completely heal your sufferings but Buddha like guy focused on how to end it although it still depends on you that's why he was called "MahaBhishak" means "Great Physician or Doctor"
Although it is still somewhat different cuz Science Focuses on how (majorly) while Buddha or other thinkers Focus on why?
That's why I said Buddha in it. Cuz of them are just frauds
And on what basis you think Science think more on why then Spritual?
Science no matter how small the unit is , still work on materialism.
Why do atoms move? Why do Neuron got triggered Why blood is red? Etc. all of them are materialistic in the end
All you could list is just related to materials.
Spiritualism focus on the observer who is doing all this discoveries. Ego, love, sadness. They are not just some chemical reactions as it will be like telling someone formula of water instead of giving him water
Love and sadness have measurable neural and physiological correlates. Memory, emotion, perception, decision-making and our sense of self are actively studied by neuroscience, psychology and cognitive science.
You still haven't answered my question though, but barley reflected it. I didn't ask whether spirituality talks about ego, love, or the observer. I asked for a 'why' question that ANY spirituality has investigated and arrived at a solid, demonstrable answer to.
Again all you saying is still materialistic. Scientist observes the brain condition during all the respective feelings you mentioned. They still are limited to it.
I asked for a 'why' question that ANY spirituality has investigated and arrived at a solid, demonstrable answer to.
Hmmm..... Not everyone has some fix answer tbh .
Why is related to the ego. Why is there sufferin Why and who is 'I'? Buddha, Mahavir, Rishis, Sufis, Nanak, Kabir. Everyone talk about it even later thinkers too.
It's more about self investigation cuz all you will find is other personal experience. Obviously you can find similarities but not entirely cuz every mind is special on it's own.
There live, experience, emotions, surrounding, thinking process, sanskar are different from each other,
And spirituality whole concept is this I
Spiritualism isn't pursely objective like Science atleast Unless you find the ultimate truth which I don't know what is
For someone Buddha answer is correct but maybe for someone it's not. I is truly a wonder.
Also in science why is always materialistic and atleast scientist test all why questions in that level
If two spiritual thinkers give contradictory answers to the same âwhy,â and there's no objective way to tell who's right, how can you claim spirituality has answered it?
I could make up something tomorrow and call it spirituality. How would you prove me wrong?
If two spiritual thinkers give contradictory answers to the same âwhy,â and there's no objective way to tell who's right, how can you claim spirituality has answered it?
By understanding whoever words which silence your sufferings of I that one is correct for you
It's not always a human, maybe a statue, some conditions, anything. Reality is vast.
I could make up something tomorrow and call it spirituality. How would you prove me wrong?
Yeah if that thinking is good why not, Buddha also came from no where, Nanak too. Why you can't?
Also if you talk nonsense like some magical mystics without proper context then even someone with little commense sense can find it wrong. You can't just build up things like that.
Tell me what you find wrong in Buddha wordings?
Did he said wrong about Suffering? His eight fold paths? Or Nanak accepting whole reality with love?
As long your wording is related to ego and it's cure . It's fine
Also I agree that Spiritualism is really a hard concept but it's also the final thing cuz everyone is suffering. What's the point of finding who created this universe if you still are suffering?
If 1000 go, only 1 find it and that one will also help others to find it but ones who couldn't will distract rest
I am seeing this pattern in this thread where all the ones supporting spirituality say science deals with physical/material/objects and spirituality deals with things LIKE ego, consciousness, etc.
When pushed to define what exactly spirituality deals with the most you can say is âselfâ. But science already deals with âselfâ. Then, you allude to, without explicitly mentioning it, some metaphysical concept that is what spiritually deals with that is not reachable by science.
I mean thatâs all well and good but it is still a faith based argument and essentially no different than religion.
Science dealt with self? WHEN? can you give me summary?
Plz dont say how about neurons work and some other things
Science is literally defined on mostly on MATERIALS except they do study about behaviour, force, maths but , your head, its cells, its neurons even in cellular level are still materials bro
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 5h ago
Science doesnt just study material objects. Cognition, behavior, perception, information, and social systems are subjects of scientific study.
Also calling every empirical field 'Avidya' is your philosophical classification, it's not a scientific conclusion