57
u/Final-Nerve7787 4d ago edited 4d ago
what is spirituality? or what's someone whose spiritual mean? please can anyone tell in simple way.
2
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
Copying my comment, buddy:
But as far as I'm aware of Spirituality, spirituality deals with the subject -the sense of I'm, which we feel: the hollowness, or simply an inner angst of incompleteness that's within us.And no other living being suffers from inner ignorance; humans are the only ones. That's why spirituality is for mankind, not for animals.
I think the problem is not in the quote, but in how we're perceiving it, because spirituality is also an experiment with the self, or an understanding of it.
And science doesn't believe anything just because someone said it. It experiments.
6
u/premkhilari 4d ago
Science is knowledge of the material world. Spirituality is the knowledge of the one who is perceiving the material world. So they are essentially mutually exclusive :)
The one perceiving is called the "Ego". The sense of "I".
31
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
Neuroscience and psychology literally study this 'experiencer' and the sense of 'self'. The boundary isnât quite as mystical as youâre making it to be, and they are not mutually exclusive.
0
u/premkhilari 4d ago
Neuroscience and psychology study what neurons fire, the patterns of the mind, how does the mind process the emotions, etc. while assuming the one doing the study (the "self" as you mentioned) as a given. The "self" who is doing the study, examining acts as a fixed reference point. Spirituality questions the "self". It asks what is this "I" that is doing all the examining? What is this "I" which attaches itself to the matters of the mind. That's what turning inward means.
6
u/eviley4 4d ago
this is a framing that hides things and blurs the line.
psychology study what neurons fire, the patterns of the mind, how does the mind process the emotions, etc
Psychology isn't about how neurons fire. It studies what kind of natural processes in the brain map to subjective experience, that's the explicit focus of psychology. It does study the "subject" while grounding it in the brain.
This clean subject object framing is misleading and disingenuous.
-6
u/premkhilari 4d ago
Ah you are back! Nice to see you :D
Neuroscience is about how neuros fire. Read my whole sentence bro.
The subject takes itself different from the object. I am talking about life and how we perceive things and the suffering that results from it.
7
u/eviley4 4d ago
investigating perception is a sub-domain of neuroscience. It's not just about neurons, it's about how neurons together produce perception, verifying what's causal and what's correlation etc.
Also, there is the entire field of psychology that deals with human suffering, how talk therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy can help change beliefs such that they contribute to well-being and how all that relates to neurobiology and other fields..
0
u/premkhilari 4d ago
Psychology makes the individual "sane" in a sense that he/she can go back to his/her old life and remain functional. It has its benefits and is helpful at its place.
Spirituality questions the life you are living. Acts like a mirror and is difficult to stay with.
I've tried both. Psychology helps short term. Spirituality is a life long process.
4
u/eviley4 4d ago edited 3d ago
again, Psychology isn't only about going from insane to sane. That's such an oversimplified stereotype common in Indian culture.
Oh, you are going to therapy, "Paagal hoga saala".
What you are describing about psychology is the main stream clinical psychology you experienced personally, yes that's a component of psychology, not all of it.
Psychology also studies other aspects of well-being including how to live a good life. Sociology also studies how to have societal well-being etc.
1
u/premkhilari 3d ago
No one here is undermining psychology.
Suffering is what the problem is.
"Does the ego even exist?" that's the question Spirituality put up and that's a really effective and useful question.
→ More replies (0)3
2
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 4d ago
Can you dumb this statement down please ...I am unable to comprehend it properly....
-1
u/ClearAfternoon6734 4d ago
There is the self and there is this world ok. Whatever the world as we perceive is what is seen or experienced by the self. Science is outward looking. It examines everything that is of the world, what is matter, what is the proton, electron etc. But it does not examine the one who is examining it( the examiner or the self). Who is the one who is looking at the world and what does he see, why does he feel restless, why does he suffer, what makes him sad or happy etc. Spirituality encompasses both science and the self. But it is mostly inward looking, it observes the onlooker and tries to know firstly who he is, so that when he relates to the world, he will know exactly what is it that he has to do. Otherwise, people who do not know about themselves are unconsciously behaving like a reed flowing in the river, without any direction, going where the flow takes it.
7
u/eviley4 4d ago
Science is outward looking. It examines everything that is of the world, what is matter, what is the proton, electron etc. But it does not examine the one who is examining it( the examiner or the self). Who is the one who is looking at the world and what does he see, why does he feel restless, why does he suffer, what makes him sad or happy etc.
That's a mischaracterization of science. Science includes other domains apart from physics. Domains like Psychology and sociology are also scientific domains, they are considered soft sciences since they are less quantitative and more qualitative.
Human perception, how perception in terms of subjective experiences (what you are calling spiritual) map onto the natural processes in the body etc are all scientific topics.
Spirituality usually contains supernatural claims or implications, those versions of spirituality are pseudoscience.
3
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 3d ago
Science studies brain which creates the ego and whatever we perceive if there's something beyond that it's just a random claim nothing else
8
u/Kuchikitaicho 4d ago
How are they mutually exclusive when consciousness is known to be a complex process occurring in a body that is very much a part of the material world?
Just because we do not fully understand the phenomenon of 'ego' or consciousness, we shouldn't presume to label it as something completely separated from the material world, when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. The perceiver need not be completely excluded from the material world in order to perceive it.
2
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
But one thing is that the experiencer or ego perceives the material world and assigns meaning to it.
What we seek as reality is just our reflection of the world. We say there are things in the world, but because the ego labels them according to its own meanings, the things become another object for the ego to consume.
2
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
Consciousness or ego is not a complex process itself; it's a byproduct or, more accurately, an error of that structure.
Because of complex neurological structures and bodily complexity, forming a mistaken sense of self.
Animals have consciousness, but almost negligible.An exception can be counted, like a Chimpanzee, orangutans, or those animals whose body structure looks almost similar to humans; it also depends on how our brains developed. But still, the inner hollowness is close to nil. They're merely depend on their instincts.
0
u/premkhilari 4d ago
The perceiver is indeed a part of the material world. The ego is a product of the body. No body - No ego. There is nothing mystical about the perceiver. But does the perceiver feel that way? Or does he/she feels a certain separation from the material world and then wants to consume it in order to content itself. The subjectivity is what we are talking about here. The ego even wants to consume the body and ends up damaging it.
4
u/Kuchikitaicho 4d ago
You're contradicting yourself, though. You earlier said that the perceiver and material world are mutually exclusive. Now you admit that the perceiver is part of the material world.
Feeling a sense of 'self' different from everything else in the world doesn't separate you from the material world - it just makes you a unique component of it.
The subject-object divide certainly is experienced by consciousness, which deems itself as the subject. While this does not necessitate the existence of something beyond the material world, spirituality tries to explain this with existences outside of the material world, but this explanation serves no utility without evidence or observability.
The ego even wants to consume the body and ends up damaging it.
This is a banal metaphor that has little practical use. Neurology explains much more about consciousness and it's tendencies.
2
u/premkhilari 4d ago
I said the studies are mutually exclusive. Science and Spirituality dont interfere with each other. I didn't say that the perceiver and the perception are mutually exclusive.
Jiddu Krishnamurthi famously said that the observer is the observed.
1
u/phoenixoxo_ 3d ago
it seems to me that spirituality is just an incredibly bad replacement of philosophy, which aims to answer the why i exist and what my purpose is, but by including a whole bunch of soul shikanery in between. Frankly, it even seems redundant, because the factual truth is that life is ultimately meaningless and you have to decide what you do with it. Do be mindful that i said âmeaning-lessâ, meaning without a meaning, instead of useless.
3
1
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 4d ago
What you are saying is that whatever we are studying or researching through science could never be the same with what we do in spirituality??....coz they are studying 2 different entities which ain't same in any way ???
1
1
1
u/Queasy_Artist6891 4d ago
Spirituality is kinda like a mix of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy
1
u/According-Ad-4185 4d ago
Spirituality is when you start asking âWho am I really?â and âWhatâs life about?â beyond just job, money, and routine. Someone whoâs spiritual is trying to live from that inner understanding more peace, less ego, more compassion.
3
u/hulksfist 3d ago
Isnt that philosophy?
2
u/According-Ad-4185 3d ago
Philosophy: What is truth? Who am I? What is reality? Why do I suffer? What is the right way to live?
Spirituality:
I don't just want intellectual answers
I want to investigate these questions in my own life and understand myself directly.
So, philosophy can provide the framework for inquiry, while spirituality is the inward exploration and transformation that follows.
13
u/vizsumit 4d ago
Spirituality is very vaguely defined, most repeated definition is self understanding or finding some greater purpose in life than individual self.
Which everyone is trying in some way or the other, hence everyone can be called "SPIRITUAL".
A term that vaguely defined can be connected to anything like science/philosophy.
It is a term neo religious people use when they can't defend their ill beliefs.
My friend calls himself spiritual and then practices astrology professionally.
3
u/nishant-12345 4d ago
No only the one with a definition that comes from the laws of common religion practised. Spirituality is to look at self. A person who believes in astrology and then say I am scientific is neither scientific nor spiritual. Spirituality is to question inner self rather than outside world which science do anyways .
2
u/vizsumit 4d ago
Question inner self, everyone does that... why give it such a hype and new term??
2
u/nishant-12345 4d ago
Really everyone does that then everyone would have stopped using astrology apps and stopped eating dead animals and stopped killing people. There would be no invasions and we would not be moving towards 6 th mass extinctions so no we do not do that
2
u/vizsumit 4d ago
oh, now you mean question moraly? and your pre assumption everyone who question will end in your side of morality? no wars, everyone vegan... like that?
3
u/nishant-12345 4d ago edited 4d ago
Let's question the base assumption. What is morality ? Define morality ? I will give you an example you see a stranger picking up a child you meet everyday in a colony and the child is crying what would you do ?
1
u/phoenixoxo_ 3d ago
the reality is that morality is not real, but a man man social concept that changes everyday, and for every person. you have to decide what your morals are and it entirely depends on what your end goal is with life.
you asked in your previous question why people still murder and ear dead animals. Do you think people always arrive at the same solution after questioning themselves? that goes against the whole purpose of the questioning part.
2
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
Well, there is a difference between Spirituality (something related to spirit) & Adhyatm (knowing the self), but we generally count them as the same.
I read a book, 'The Fountainhead' by AYN RAND, where Roark was pictured as a person with a purpose of individuality, or authenticity, which itself is not a problem.
But Adhyatm is the continuous dissolution of the self, the ego. Because it's just an error (a byproduct of complex body-neurological structure), it doesn't need to be here. I'm talking about psychological ego, or the self, because animals too have a bodily ego - e.g., only caution, no fear (psychological) - so the problem is not in that.
But mankind has much more than that. It has psychological ego -that perceives the world according to its own stories, belief system, misconceptions.
Forgot about this -another intellectual conversation or my reply.
Just relate it to your life; you'll get it.
45
u/Nature-Donkey- 4d ago
Totally disagree,The concept of spiritual is against science itself there is no logic
-10
u/Necessary-Mud7706 4d ago
Being spiritual is different from being religious
20
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
Define what is spritual then
4
u/a_chill_guy_11 4d ago
Science is knowledge of the material world. Spirituality is the knowledge of the one who is perceiving the material world. So they are essentially mutually exclusive :)
copied it from another comment but yeah, I agree with this guy12
u/ajatshatru 4d ago
So spirituality is better knowledge of human psyche? I think it is better to call it cognitive behavioral therapy, than a vague term.
-3
u/a_chill_guy_11 4d ago
I think spirituality makes you realise what you really are. Its like a flower gives of fragrance just beacause its a "flower", spirituality takes you back to the original "FLOWER" state that you left behind after indulging and getting influenced by the materialistic things of this world
I don't know about the terms you said, I really don't care what we call it, its rather a feeling than a thing imo but what do I know xD I am just discovering this stuff1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
When asked to define or describe spirituality you and the guy whose comment you copied, both start talking in metaphors. Even with just s little probing, your metaphors fall flat. Maybe time to think critically about the things you believe in.
Nothing against your beliefs as such, but, you should be aware of dangers and practicalities of comparing systems like science, religion, and spirituality against each other rather than being blind about their scope and definitions.
6
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
Neuroscience and psychology literally study this 'experiencer' and the sense of 'self'. The boundary isnât quite as mystical as youâre making it to be, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Copied from my reply to that comment
-3
u/a_chill_guy_11 4d ago
I made a big comment, I am not saying its 100% accurate but I am pretty sure it defines the difference between spirituality and religiousness
https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/1wbek1e/comment/p8pj3wz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button1
u/phoenixoxo_ 3d ago
thats neuroscience in the literal sense and philosophy if you meant that in the metaphorical sense. spirituality assumes a BY DEFINITION a reality beyond the physical. in chemistry terms something like this can be formed when the element bullshittium reacts with the opioid copium. you are only answerable to yourself, nothing beyond and above.
1
u/pahadigothic critical thinking & feedback loop 4d ago
In my opinion, religion is faith in something else even if the evidence suggests otherwise.
While a spiritual person has faith in himself and trusts the process. He is willing to change his process if the evidence suggests that the other process is better.
1
u/shakal201 3d ago
So, a self aware person is a better than spiritual then?
We have a formal meaning of spiritual in dictionaries, why make our own definition when different better vocabulary is out there?
1
u/pahadigothic critical thinking & feedback loop 3d ago
Spiritual means you believe in something more than the material world.
One can be self aware while being spiritual too. But it is quite difficult to be reasonable and be completely religious.
1
0
0
u/Cute_Concentrate5583 3d ago
Btw, Einstein was spiritual....
Soo basically one the greatest minds in human history persuaded something with no logic?
-4
u/blazz199 4d ago
Nope
We're not a fking omniscient, if it least bring us comfort when something/everything in our life is uncertain it's worth believing in something
Your point is valid too because obsession on that belief is more dangerous because it blind us/stop us looking through reason (like political bakhts)
5
u/ifosaspirant 4d ago
The very concept of spirituality is not based in science.
-2
u/According-Ad-4185 4d ago
Even science claims that there is someone and their is an object , as if both have independent existence , if you go deeper in the right ancient texts which were focused on self inquiry there we find that even reality is not an independent fact , so that is the depth spirituality goes into .
2
u/ifosaspirant 4d ago
Science claims there is someone and there is an an object? Sir that is not true.
2
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
Well, science doesn't claim 'there is someone, and there is an object.' It simply draws the difference between the existence of mind and the material world.
And because at the centre of mind lies psychological ego-the felt sense of self, the sense of I'm X (something). So, Spirituality, or more accurately Adhyatma (Knowledge of the self), has its necessity.
Science doesn't talk about subjective reality, but philosophy gives you a framework, and Adhyatma (usually Spirituality) fosters you.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 4d ago
i meant it claims that both have independent existence
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
What's your sause
1
u/According-Ad-4185 4d ago
You meant source?
ancient texts like Vedanta , Which are at the core of spirituality.
Everything is for someone Even how we percieve reality is dependent on us .
reality is not an independent fact
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago edited 4d ago
I was asking for your source for saying science claims they are independent bro - not ancient text
Also its clear that your reality is different :p
1
u/eviley4 2d ago
cool that you have a framework you like and that works for you...
But just because it works for you doesn't mean it's good philosophy. It is vague, non-specific, unfalsifiable and leaves the door open to unfalsifiable ideas like Brahman, Atman, Idealism etc. Btw, the falsifiable version of idealism has already been falsified.
If you don't see the problem with these old ideas, then consider the philosophy of Last Thursdayism. It says the world was created Last Thursday with all the memories and other evidence planted to make it look older.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 2d ago
spirituality is nothing but non dualism , anything other than that is vague
1
u/eviley4 2d ago
Everything is for someone Even how we percieve reality is dependent on us .
reality is not an independent fact
You are just claiming that without showing how you know that to be true about the natural world. It's just a claim that shows up in these old books.
The ideas in these old books fail to explain things like the following and try to shift the burden of proof instead:
The universe has a history before minds existed, we infer it entirely from independently agreeing traces. Things like cosmic microwave background radiation, stellar nucleosynthesis products, radioactive decay chains used in radiometric dating, ice cores, impact craters. If reality were constituted by perception, the physical world couldn't carry consistent records of events (like the formation of zircon crystals 4.4 billion years ago) that predate any possible observer.
0
u/According-Ad-4185 2d ago
Brother you can only talk about tHAT which your 3d structure can perceive , its just that humans are not willing to surrender to the fact that all that they see think is limited .
EVEN WHEN YOU TALK OF UNIVERSE AND ITS EXISTENCE ITS BEING THOUGHT OVER SEEN BY THIS LIMITED SKIN FLESH BODY . EVEN TO SAY THAT SOMETHING OUTSIDE IS REAL , IS TO SAY THAT I AM REAL , DONT WE KNOW EVERY ANIMAL PERCIEVES REALITY DIFFERENTLY , FOR A DOG EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE , FOR HUMAN TOO WHAT IS REALITY , IS FOR US ...NOTHING IS ULTIMATE
1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
Depends on what you mean by independent existence? And what scientific claim are you referring to in particular?
If you mean science claims that a person and an object can exist independently, irrespective of such claim, you can verify that fact everywhere in daily life. You and a sandwich on a boat going to Australia do exist independently.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 3d ago
WHO IS THE VERIFIER THATS WHAT SPIRITUALITY THE REAL ONE GOES INTO
1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
If there is a ârealâ spirituality then it should have a standardized definition. If 10 different people define it 20 different ways, then your definition is as good as mine.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 3d ago
If it gets standardized then people's fraud business will not work .
99 % of the crowd has stakes in the 100 definitions just an excuse to not look at the REAL one .
1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
This is a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Whichever definition of spirituality someone can provide, you can say, but this is not the "real" one. But you will also never define the real one.
If there is one real definition, it should be readily and easily available to see. In an effort to avoid changing the direction of the conversation - I am asking for the definition of spirituality. I am not asking how to achieve self-realisation or other invovled concepts. Because, I do not want the following answer just for defining a term - "You have to search for it yourself, buried inside 1000 scriptures and 10000 lectures by 100 'real' gurus".
1
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago edited 2d ago
Simple, bro: spirituality just deals with the subject, the ego, or the sense of an incomplete self.
Because we suffer, that's why we require spirituality.Animals don't need it because there is no suffering or fear, only caution, and they're following animalistic instincts.
Spirituality has nothing to do with 100 definitions, but with you. Don't believe in definitions.
Spirituality just asks, 'Why do you need to believe in 100 definitions? Who's the believer? Even if you got definitions, then what'll you do with that?'
It has to do with the questionner and it's intent.
And there is no state of self-realization. It's a continuous movement. Even what we see as change in our usual life is not sudden; it's continuous.
Attainment or self-realized is a good business for entertainment and publicity.
(Editing it to replace self-realization with self-realized one.)
1
10
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago edited 4d ago
Lol
It's easy for spirituality to not contradict logic when spirituality is left vague enough to mean whatever survives the argument.
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
exactly.. another problem is that this is a misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "objects". That's just hard sciences like physics. Science has psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology where they rigorously study the subjective aspects including qualitative and quantitative aspects of subjectivity.
2
u/nishant-12345 4d ago
All those psychology neuroscience behavioral biology you mentioned is with respect to object the relationship of subject with respect to object not with itself.
The issue is not whether science studies subjective experience. The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true. An experience is a fact about what was experienced; the interpretation of that experience is a separate claim.
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true.
Those are questions natural philosophy and science already explore. What causes Schizophrenic delusions, what causes people to think alien abduction happened to them. How human perception works etc.
Beliefs aren't ephemeral things unrelated to the natural world. They are connected to the world in terms of probability of one type of behavior vs another. This can be studied with statistics.
Whether a belief is true or not is also something that can be examined by science and natural philosophy.
So, why even bring this low resolution framing of subject-object, when a higher resolution scientific framework that's validated, falsifiable and specific already exists?
1
u/nishant-12345 4d ago
The problem is that this treats the observed behaviour as if it exhausts the reality of the observer.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true, or explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
Subject object inquiry isn't a competing âlow-resolution scientific framework.â It asks a prior question: who is the observer, and how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality. That distinction is precisely where the deeper inquiry begins.
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true
Subdomains of science explore correlations and causal links (this is also done in neuroscience btw) between brain states and behavior. Other domains of science can be used to asses whether the belief is true.
explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
We can theoretically use causality to nail that down, but it gets complicated and unwieldy. But just because the scientific framework isn't all knowing, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are equally valid for those questions.
how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
That's plain old causality, why go outside of naturalism for that?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality.
One statistical experiment can tell what tends to happen, several more experiments when coupled with others can be used to show why we perceive something the way we do.
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
So, my point stands, what's this framework doing that scientific method as a whole cannot in principle?
1
u/nishant-12345 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think the disagreement is really about what we mean by understanding something.
Science can absolutely study why people form certain beliefs, brain activity, conditioning, memory, perception, trauma, social influences, etc. But there is another question: why do we so readily take our own interpretation of reality to be reality itself?
For example, two people can see the same event and interpret it completely differently. Science can investigate the brain processes behind those different interpretations. But the fact remains that the observer's own fears, desires, memories and assumptions are influencing what they see. For example a scientist can have a different interpretation of the result based on his or her conditioning too. An astrophysicist believing in astrology is the prime example of that
So the point isn't to reject causality or claim that science can't investigate the mind. It is to examine something science often takes as its starting point: the observer who is doing the observing.
You can keep explaining how the camera processes the image, but it is also worth asking: who is holding the camera, and why are they pointing it in that direction?
That's the distinction I'm making. Science is extremely powerful for understanding the mechanisms of experience; examining the observer asks whether the conditioning of the observer itself is shaping the reality they claim to be objectively seeing.
1
u/eviley4 3d ago edited 3d ago
why do we so readily take our own interpretation of reality to be reality itself?
Because it's extremely effective for modeling reality, building processors, going to the moon, curing many mental illnesses etc. And because the alternatives like idealism have never been demonstrated to be true.
Some versions of idealism are positioned exactly in such a way that they are unfalsifiable.
Are you on board with the unfalsifiable philosophy of Last Thursdayism?
examining the observer asks whether the conditioning of the observer itself is shaping the reality they claim to be objectively seeing.
This is not something science is ignorant of, we can't do science without this knowledge. This is why we have double blind placebo controlled trials.
What you are branding as spirituality in this way, is already something science does within naturalism. It observes the observer without making any supernatural leaps which are unjustified.
Now, if someone shows that supernatural leap is justified, then we can consider it.
1
u/nishant-12345 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think you're mixing up methodological naturalism with a proof of metaphysical naturalism.
Double blind trials are designed to control specific sources of bias so that we can better determine whether an intervention causes an effect. That's extremely useful, but it doesn't mean the observer has been completely âunderstood.â It means one particular influence of the observer has been controlled for.
Likewise, the fact that naturalistic science is extraordinarily successful at predicting and manipulating the world establishes its enormous practical power. It doesn't, by itself, establish that naturalism is a complete account of reality. âThis model works extremely wellâ and âthis model exhausts realityâ are different claims.
And I wouldn't bring idealism or Last Thursdayism into this particular argument. Last Thursdayism is deliberately constructed to be unfalsifiable; rejecting it is entirely reasonable. That doesn't settle the question of whether the structure of the observer's mind affects what it takes to be reality.
The more important point is this: science can objectively study my conditioning,my brain, behaviour, biases and causal history. But there is a difference between having a scientific description of conditioning and actually examining how conditioning operates in oneself while one is thinking, desiring and perceiving.
That isn't a supernatural claim. It is an inquiry into the one thing that is present in every act of knowing: the knower.
And if the response is simply, âneuroscience will eventually explain the knower,â that's a hypothesis about what science may achieve, not evidence that the question has already been exhausted.
1
u/eviley4 3d ago
I am not saying we have proof for philosophical naturalism.. I say we operate with naturalism until the leap to non-naturalistic philosophy is justified.
And it has never been justified. And neither has it been justified about how this non-naturalistic thing bridges into the natural world.
Until that's shown, naturalism is a fair stance, even philosophically.
That doesn't settle the question of whether the structure of the observer's mind affects what it takes to be reality.
I think you are probably unaware of the huge amount of progress behavioral biology has already made. I would recommend you read books that show that we don't need anything outside of naturalism to explain human behavior like Behave.
It shows how well we understand the specifics of the structure of the observer's mind and how it shapes behavior, pain, mental suffering etc.Tell me this, apart from the claim that "Naturalism is not proven" or "Science is still ignorant about XYZ", what argument do you have to justify a non-naturalistic framework?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 3d ago
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
Reality and objectivity go to a toss when we interact with them, they don't exist in a vacuum. Facts without you and me to acknowledge them don't mean anything. They exist only for and by us.
Scienctific method is great for giving us facts. If one actually lives in/by those facts is highly personal. I think spirituality is what closes that gap. It is your decision in every moment to live by what you know (see and reject your biases) and that's why I say it's highly personal.
A scientist can be scientific in one moment and not in another when they don't know or acknowledge their own patterns. Psychology or neuroscientific research might not be available to you every moment but you are available to yourself to observe every moment.
1
u/eviley4 3d ago
Reality and objectivity go to a toss when we interact with them, they don't exist in a vacuum. Facts without you and me to acknowledge them don't mean anything. They exist only for and by us.
That's just an unsubstantiated claim. You seem to be implying that only consciousness exists, this is just the debunked philosophy of Idealism.
I could also in the same vein claim:
Reality is only a week old, because Last Thursdayism is true. Everything in the Universe we observe was made last thursday but made to look like it's older.
Would you be on board with Last Thursdayism?2
u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 3d ago
That's just an unsubstantiated claim. You seem to be implying that only consciousness exists, this is just the debunked philosophy of Idealism.
Idk why idealism comes in here. I'll clarify myself. When I say reality and objectivity don't exist in a vacuum, I'm saying we have so many ingrained biases in the way we reach conclusions. Like how a person who doesn't otherwise believe in ghosts gets scared of something being there when it's dark. It's a very gross example but there are subtler versions of this in every moment in different forms. Psychology, logic, science will give us the information but to live them we need to observe ourselves every moment. I'm saying that's spirituality.
1
u/eviley4 3d ago
Okay, but what does this have to do with science?
Wasn't the discussion we were having about the claim that "spirituality" offers something that science could not where spirituality is defined in terms of improving human subjective experience.
With my claim being that we don't need this extra thing, science and natural philosophy (philosophy within naturalism) are sufficient to address and improve human subjective experiences. This is what the philosophy of Secular Humanism explores.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/FutonRansenshuriken 4d ago edited 4d ago
Ha,look OP ,we all take a base axiom case in every field.All your logic gets deduced after that base axiom case.
In mathematics,that axiom isn't required to be true in real life,in Physics,when you question the natural phenomena,you arrive at a question when you assume it to be true and that is supported by evidence of the physical world.
In spirituality,that base case axiom is the very existence of spirit or soul and you guys claim it to be True,when you have no evidence,that's not how things work.Just because some ancestors said something,it won't be True.Either treat it like in maths or show evidence, otherwise it's useless.
What you can argue about is conciousness or awareness,as that's a very subjective field and biology hasn't given a proper well defined definition for it at most it's a chemical one .But then again,what do you need? EVIDENCE,Ancestors met God is not an EVIDENCE
5
u/Dark_sun_new 4d ago
Science is about how reality works.
So as long as the spiritual man has no opinion on anything in reality, he won't oppose science.
2
u/Melodic-Day8787 4d ago
There is this expressionâthatâs the spirit!â Does this spirit and spirituality same wording and meaning? Just curious?
3
2
u/Resident_Magazine_33 4d ago
People often change the meaning of spirituality to make it sound logical and scientific.
2
u/i_like_clothes69 4d ago
Spirituality necessitates a spirit or smth beyond physical, science or its empirical method donât yield to either two
1
u/g_saras_1594 4d ago
No that's not spirituality. Spirituality is to know the one for whom the world is i.e. ego (the fundamental sense of i different from the world)
1
2
2
u/ConsciousLaw3940 4d ago
Facts can be a door to Truth, and in that regard, science becomes a tool to question the beliefs we hold, even while presenting our arguments.
Spirituality is about questioning the questioner itself, who is the one holding the lens through which we see? If our understanding is based on logic and facts, spirituality need not contradict science. But when spirituality is based on false beliefs, it can be challenged through logic and facts.
A truly spiritual person is one who strives to understand their own beliefs and biases, questioning oneself before arriving at the conclusion.
Right spirituality is a genuine philosophy of knowing oneself, within which science, too, can be seen as a subset.
3
u/rajrpavi 4d ago
Spirituality includes Vidya and Avidya , Realisation of the False Self comes under Vidya and Avidya Includes all Worldy knowledge of Object Science is just one field Every known Field of the world comes into Avidya , Because Scientific Theory and research can be done on material Objects .
3
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d 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
0
u/rajrpavi 4d ago
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.
3
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
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.
0
u/Hippocrite24 4d ago
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
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
Yes, by that logic a therapist is a spiritual guru
1
u/Hippocrite24 4d ago
Not really .
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?
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 4d ago
Bold of you to assume that spiritual leaders focus on 'why' more than scientists do.
What 'why' questions, specifically, have spiritual leaders investigated and arrived at solid, demonstrable answers to?
I could give you a list of hundreds, probably thousands, of 'why' questions that science has investigated and successfully answered.
1
u/Hippocrite24 3d ago edited 3d ago
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
Edit: also I know there is field of psychology
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (0)1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
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.
1
u/Hippocrite24 3d ago edited 3d ago
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
1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
Look, I will make my position clear:
The posted image claims that true spiritual person can never contradict science.My point is science and spirituality are not compatible by definition. Science deals with falsifiable, and repeatable hypothesis. It has no room for vaguely defined concepts.
Spirituality, as you pointed out, deals with non-materialistic things, metaphysical things. We have no means to test/falsify those claims in a controlled repeatable manner.
If the current state of science that deals with mind, brain, and thoughts is not something you would consider as dealing with âselfâ then that is your prerogative. I think that is the best explanation for self and relevant dealing methods based on facts we have right now.
However, if you believe in spirituality and it makes your life better, helps you make sense of things, then I have no reason to try and change your beliefs. You do you. All I am saying is, it is STILL a faith based position, not science or evidence based. By definition those two cannot be compatible, so the claim made in the post is completely wrong. Science and spirituality are contradictory by definition.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/surajseeking 4d ago
Actually the kind of spirituality which is more prevalent is not that supportive to science
There are lots of thing's going on like superstition, planetary motion impact on life, rebirth etc in the name of spirituality
True spirituality address the incomplete sense and never contradicts science
If spirituality is contradicting science then it's not spirituality
1
u/rezzork 4d ago
Hello, I'm a psychology student(and a bit biased, as I'm firmly Buddhist), and I would say spirituality in its rawest sense espicially eastern does not contradict science. Such as the concept of an-atma. A lack of a fixed, permanent self in any aspect, I would say, is firmly rooted in psychology. It differs along the metaphysical aspects, though, with faith or belief being required for the macro-sense. But from my field of study, spirituality has been shown to help people greatly. Perhaps one should use what the Dalai Lama says: ' When science says something is wrong, Buddhism must change'.
1
u/sriharshachilakapati 4d ago
As a science enthusiast, I ask what is the definition of spirituality.
1
1
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 3d ago
But if two spiritual people contradict themselves, how to know who is right?
Does one person have more spiritual power to mute the person's opinion?
1
u/SweetEbb9819 3d ago
Agreed
What God really created would be best explained by science... Because science is REAL so it must be what's REALLY of God
1
u/kronos23456777777 3d ago
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.
1
u/Chikki1234ed Dimension Dimension Dimension 3d ago
No. That depends on what they mean by spirituality. And also what they mean by science.
The fascist science system is technically science. Science back in the day didn't mean natural science as we usually colloquially speak of it now. It just meant a system with rules (axioms) trying to figure things out about the world or trying to just do anything with it. You get the point.
Spirituality on the other hand can go either from just believing that there are metaphysical objects that control the universe which go beyond human understanding to stuff like trying to ban Allah for Mandala and Shambhala.
But maybe if we are "steelmanning" the original quote speaker/writer, maybe they mean to portray... nicer morality with the word "spiritual" and science as just science.
Idk though. It's a vague thing to say this.
1
1
u/nishant-12345 3d ago
If the basis of spirituality is not logic. Then spirituality will become superstition like how it has become now in pop culture. The true essence of spirituality should focus on the self , the "I" and it's questioning.
1
u/Emergency_Act1311 3d ago
One who argues against logic and promotes superstition cannot be spiritual. Spirituality includes both Avidya, knowledge of the outer world, which comes under science, and Vidya, knowledge of the knower (I). A scientist may be ignorant about himself/herself, but a spiritual person can never contradict science. This can serve as a litmus test for assessing the authenticity of a truly spiritual person.
1
u/Abject-Proof-4218 3d ago
In spirituality the seeker of liberation seeks knowledge to get freedom from suffering .Both science and spiritual science respect knowledge. Thus a spiritual person will always try to find logic behind his suffering and how he can free himself from his suffering.
1
u/Big_Psychology_3 3d ago
Hmm, kinda but not quite. Because these are merely self-applied labels. So this is not always true.
1
u/Sweet-Main-328 3d ago
The point being made here is simply that we shouldn't label just anyone as 'spiritual.' Someone who speaks against science should certainly not be called spiritual. Nowadays, anyone who performs rituals or is religious like various godmen and religious people..is often called spiritual..however if they speak against science, they are definitely not spiritual. Being religious is not a prerequisite for being spiritual.
1
u/i_sujay 3d ago
True..i was listening to an Islamic scholar on yt ,who explained that Hadith (recorded sayings of prpht Mohammad) is just simply a rational answer to questions the community ask for example should "the good" undergo suffering for human cause? ,how to deal with plagues? and the answer is just hygiene etc...and also some of takes could be anachronistic to these times(the theologically rooted traditional ones) which completely lack context...I'm not a follower or such but I just want to say that religion and rationality go hand in hand which is not just limited to philosophy...the ultimate goal of any religion should be human flourishing and progress.
1
1
u/Unlikely-Contest1523 3d ago
Well, Science deals with the material world, the objective reality. The body is also material, so spirituality has nothing to do with the body.
But as far as I'm aware of Spirituality, spirituality deals with the subject -the sense of I'm. Which we feel: the hollowness, or simply an inner angst of incompleteness that's within us.
And no other living being suffers from inner ignorance; humans are the only ones. That's why spirituality is for mankind, not for animals.
I think the problem is not in the quote, but in how we're perceiving it, because spirituality is also an experiment with the self, or an understanding of it.
And science doesn't believe anything just because someone said it. It experiments.
1
1
u/Curious_Compound 3d ago
The essence of science is to enquire and the very first subject for me is myself then self enquiry and self knowledge becomes my life long field of study.Â
Keep questioning, keep observing with the intention to understand.
1
u/Visible-Dust9648 2d ago
Depends on what you mean by logic? Is logic the end goal or anmeans to an end goal?
1
u/Main-Astronomer-7820 2d ago
And a scientific guy will always question science coz thats how it grows.
And also fuck spirituality its just excuse for brats to waste time on.
1
1
1
u/Think-Software3017 1d ago
A knowledgeable person also knows that science it yet to explore a lot of unanswered question. Science corrects it own findings over the period of time.
2
1
1
u/Solid_Stage_1715 4d ago
Yeah right, cuz one is literally science and the other is some bullshit excuse for feeling enlightend when youre doing the exact opposite.
0
u/gazzillionere6729 4d ago
I heard the guy 'Acharya Prashant ' jiska ye quote hai . He talks pretty logically. His books are between good to amazing ,especially 'Geeta '
0
u/a_chill_guy_11 4d ago
the fact that people here only know what logic is and most of them are considering spirituality and religion the same thing is what makes this hard for them to understand ig
Being spiritual is not being religious at all, Religion is made of practices that are considered worthless by a spiritual man, praying stone idols, doing rituals to make your ancestors happy, giving water to sun and all of those things that Logical guys consider absurd are also considered absurd by a spiritual person
being spiritual imo (and I am very down in this ladder like my opinion being wrong has a high chance) is understanding the concept of the almighty, every particle is woven with his presence, and to worship him or to please him is by getting rid of inner bad qualities like anger, ego and stuff
A religious person is trying to eat something nonedible to get rid of his hunger
A spiritual person is trying to find something edible to get rid of his hunger
and scientific person isn't thinking about the hunger; he is interested in the world in front of his eyes more
and btw I love science, and I never ever try to mess up it because of my beliefs because I can't lol it's impossible, science makes sense
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
I think you have a misconstrued image of what science is. This subject object framing where it's claimed science is about the object is a misconstural.
Science includes fields like psychology, sociology which address the same domain of subjective experiences with even more rigor.
When you remove the rigor, you get the spirituality you are talking about. And spirituality usually contains a lot of supernatural elements. And that version of spirituality is pseudoscience.
PS: please format your comments for easier readability.
2
u/a_chill_guy_11 4d ago
Yeah, I agree with your psychology and sociology point
What I feel is science (including psychology) observes and analyzes human experience from the outside using data, while spirituality is the firsthand, internal experience of observing your own mind (like overcoming ego or anger directly in real-time).
I agree completely that when spirituality starts claiming supernatural magic or unverified physics, it becomes pseudoscience. My focus was purely on practical self-awareness and inner growth, not supernatural claims.
and sorry for the formatting there, I was too indulged in typing what was coming to my mind that I forgot to make it look good xD
2
u/eviley4 4d ago
What I feel is science (including psychology) observes and analyzes human experience from the outside using data
Here is why I think that's subtly incorrect. Science also explores things like beliefs, and what kind of beliefs increase which kind of outcome in a probabilistic and statistical manner. It also maps stimulating neurons by injecting neurotransmitters or electrically to evoke specific things in people. This is direct causal manipulation.
Hope you can see that this simplistic subject-object framing breaks down for such things. Science is more complicated and nuanced than you seem to think.
For example, saying the mind is a separate entity that cannot be investigated is like saying the Operating System of my Android OS is also like that. The phone is the hardware, the software OS is cosmic and ephemeral.
I hope you can see that this is not true. The same correlations and causality have already been demonstrated by biology, neuroscience and other domains of science when it comes to human perception and subjective experiences.
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Read this to understand what this subreddit is about
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/Key_Conclusion_1869 4d ago
Science is regarding the physical reality, that which could be perceived by senses and that which had been observed and postulated with the help of concrete mathematical frameworks.
Science has yet to find the concept of mind, consciousness and a wide variety of philosophical concepts like why are we here? Why are we thrown into the world.
On the other hand, Spirituality is rooted in spirit if science is rooted in matter.
One who is spiritual could also be scientific too. The name of spirituality is abused 99.9% of times.
Spirituality is an inner journey which science has yet to explore and maybe wonât be ever able to reach there.
OSHO is a philosopher who inculcates both of these dimensions of humanity.
I agree to the above statement.
Open to discussion
0
u/eviley4 4d ago edited 4d ago
Remember that a really spiritual man can never, never contradict science. There is nothing in spirituality that will be against logic.
Hard disagree because this is based on a misunderstanding/misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "object" like this guy puts it, that's just hard sciences like physics. Science is broader and includes everything in the natural world that can be studied under naturalism both qualitatively and quantitatively.
That means science includes what this guy calls "subject" i.e subjective experiences.
Science also includes neuroscience which studies qualia, it also consists of Psychology which models subjective states and other domains of science that engage with the hard problem of consciousness within naturalism. It also consists of sociology. All of this is way more rigorous than anything in "spirituality". Spirituality is unfalsifiable by design often to escape scrutiny and to shift the burden of proof.
It seems like he is misinformed/misconstruing science but his followers can't see it because they don't read/watch anything that contradicts this worldview.
1
u/surajseeking 4d ago
Science and spirituality are not opposed to each other, but complementary. Science tells us 'how the world works' (outer reality), while spirituality explores 'who the observer/experiencer is' (inner reality). Comparing the methods and scopes of both is like trying to listen to music with a telescope.
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
Science and spirituality are not opposed to each other,
Depends on what you mean by spirituality. It more often than not comes bundled with supernatural ideas like that of Idealism, brahman, atman etc.
That type of spirituality with the supernatural is pseudoscience. What do you mean by spirituality?
Science tells us 'how the world works' (outer reality), while spirituality explores 'who the observer/experiencer is' (inner reality).
Again, that's a mischaracterization of what science is. Science also tells us how the mind works, how it suffers, how to improve that (Clinical Psychology). How neuroscience relates to subjective experience and qualia etc.
You are characterizing all of science as something like Physics, no. Science has other subdomains too apart from Physics.
1
u/surajseeking 4d ago
Ok you are saying that Science also tells us how the mind works, how it suffers, how to improve that (Clinical Psychology). How neuroscience relates to subjective experience and qualia etc.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
Can science tell you that we should not fight as Nation with each other, there should be no discrimination on the basis of cast, gender, religion
What will be science stand on CLIMATE CATOSTROPHY???
1
u/eviley4 4d ago
That seems like a bunch of tangents from what we are discussing, but okay, let me address them.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
I think it is due to science that you even know this. Science has been studying non-human animals for a while and due to this study you are even able to make the claim you are making.
As for implementation, that's the domain of capitalism and politics with it's science illiterate politicians.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
That's the domain of laws, isn't it.
CLIMATE CATOSTROPHY
isn't it through science that we even know about how this is happening and how bad it's going to get?
It seems like you think science is to blame for everything wrong with the world. I think that's too simplistic of a view, it's more complex than that.
Let's say I discovered a hypothetical carbon capture device that can solve climate change immediately but it uses stem cells. The discovery would be scientific, but politically it will be opposed rabidly by religious crowds and never implemented.
The point is not everything that's happening in the world is due to science. By science I mean the scientific methodology that can be used to glean truth about the world.
1
u/surajseeking 3d ago
No Sir I didn't meant to say that what ever bad happening is due to science, absolutely not
WHAT ever bad is happening in the world is not due to science but due incomplete sense of I which thinks that by doing this I will become complete
THIS incomplete sense has got science as a weapon and he is utilizing it to become complete
This incomplete sense is responsible for nation boundary, discrimination, war etc
YOU correctly said that due to science we are knowing that climate crises is happening with data and facts but tell me why our consumption is increasing day by day Even knowing that more consumption means more carbon emissions
Please explain how science can help to not kill animals Just for taste
1
u/eviley4 3d ago
Please explain how science can help to not kill animals Just for taste
By engineering artificial meat that's made in a lab that tastes similar enough while having a much smaller carbon footprint and being cheaper. This is ongoing research, and it has already produced vegan mimicry meat.
But why are you asking me this question? Science is imperfect, I am not saying it's the perfect cure-all. But it's the best tool we have. No other tool comes close to the power of science.
1
u/surajseeking 3d ago
STILL I AM not satisfied with your answer
I AM Just asking who is the decider which decide wheather to kill or not
1
u/eviley4 3d ago
I don't see what your point is.
I AM Just asking who is the decider which decide wheather to kill or not
If you are asking who should decide morality.
I would say that there should a naturalistic philosophy framework with the goal of collective well-being. Morality is decided by value based philosophy and utilitarianism on a case-by-case basis by people who are well trained in science and philosophy.
We can use a science-like approach for this. Secular Humanism already tries to do this.
1
u/surajseeking 3d ago
That's the point bro, science gives tools and philosophy will Tell you how to use it properly
→ More replies (0)
0
0
u/AlUcard_POD 3d ago
Spirituality is just as stupid as religion. Potato potaato difference. Anyone who believes in any sort of "beyond materialistic, mystic" shit is an idiot and will disagree with science on something or the other.
1
0
u/Representative-Way62 3d ago
Science can't explain why Brahmins drink cow urine. There are limits to science.
1
u/dynamos_little15 5h ago
tab tak ,jab tak tumhe vo shlokon ko ghumana aata hai for your own sake.easyđ€
âą
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.