Reality, Theory, God

[PeterJ]

Try to convince, Karl Popper if you want to change the scientific attitude.

I'm a fan of Popper. Have I said something he would disagree with?

It is very much possible that the universe can be paradoxical and we might require different maps for different phenomena.

Yes. I've already mentioned a few of the theories for which the universe would be paradoxical. I prefer to believe it obeys the laws of reason such that metaphysics and physics would be non-paradoxical and mutually consistent, but there is no logical argument that can defeat your speculation. The theory that the universe is paradoxical would be unfalsifiable and untestable in physics, and logic can prove nothing about reality. Our opinions are not quite the point though. The point is that mystcism does not claim that the universe is paradoxical.

No, it doesn't provide any solutions to physics or its models, even if it does it will not be a knowledge which you can add to the current models of physics and claim progress of science, I think you're reading too many books which view science and religion under a holistic view. I retracted from that view long time ago just because it is not how science works and what ever those scholars(not all) say mixing science and religion is just bullshit.

I prefer to see them being complementary, and would agree that mixing them together would not really be possible. They are defined as different things. I also agree that nmany books on the relation between them are bullshit. Indeed, according to the literature of mysticism a great deal of religion is bullshit.

Your axiom of "Universe is an unity" is not self evident. An axiom should only be used when the thing we are stating is a common notion Euclid's Gift.

Didn't Popper say that the test of a good theory is that it is self-evident? The claim of Buddhism and similar traditions is that it is possible for you to explore your own consciousness to the point where the unity of the universe becomes self-evident to you. So self-evident, in fact, that it ceases to be a theory. This may not be true, of course, but I'm very sure that you have no idea whether it's true or not. Among physicists Davies speculates that it might be true, and Schroedinger is adamant that it is, but then they both consider religion and physics to be relevant to each other. Unfortunately, if we follow your research programme we'll never know. I'd say it is not important where an idea comes from, just whether it's any good.

Unity is not a common notion by any means that's why we don't understand what you are claiming because we don't know what you think that unity is.

Yes, it is certainly not common. That is why I suggested we examine its ramifications rather than get bogged down in the thing itself. It would be inconceivable, being prior to conception, so we cannot understand it in any real sense by the use of our intellect. Although I do not agree with all of Kant, he is good on this topic. He argues that the universe must be grounded in a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. It is therefore beyond thought. But we can still think about it.

Unity is not only beyond sense perception it is beyond logic and reason and its wrong to extract any implications from it, even logical implications, it doesn't make any sense. Its not a matter of time or of years we just can not comprehend it through logic.

You must speak for yourself here. Sure, a complete undersanding cannot come through logic alone, but most philosophers who try have no difficulty with deriving its implications,. Many are quite obvious. George Spencer Brown has even described the logic of this idea as a mathematical calculus. He might be worth googling. He developed his logic as part of his work designing switching circuits for a railway company. He used the idea that the universe is a unity to solve Russell's paradox. Russell praised his book 'Laws of Form', in whcih he describes the cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism, and you can't get any more anti-mystical than Russell.

Just having methods won't work, it is normally believed that true knowledge has to come all by itself, it may be 5 years, 10 years, 5 days or it may not come at all. It is irrespective of which ever method you adopt.

I'm sorry, but this is so obviously not true that I don't know what to say. If you are right then about fifty million or more people are wasting their time right now, and will do so again tomorrow, and over the centuries the number would be uncountable. Instead the bookshops are overflowing with books about the methodology in all languages and from all over the planet, and not one of them says that there is no method for acquiring knowledge. These people do not believe it is best to sit around waiting for lightening bolts. Many of the methods are easy to try and easy to explain.

Science normally requires an assertion which can be tested, Say I will do a sequence of body moves and claim that after doing repeatedly for 15 days, three times in a day and after the 16th day I'll get absolute knowledge.

The problem is that induction is not absolute knowledge. One apple may one day fall up. So, the method would be just the same for the Buddhist or for anyone else with the same goal. No assertion should be believed before it is tested, although we might take it on faith until we can test it, as long it makes sense. You may be surprised to learn that this instruction appears repeatedly in the Buddhist sutras and right across the literature. What can be tested in physics or logic is tested in physics or logic, what cannot be tested in the third-person can be tested in other ways. <BR><BR>But I must stop. I feel that I'm doing little more here than muddling the issues and creating opposition to things I'm not saying. The plan was to start a separate thread to discuss some of these things once I was properly prepared, but I fell into this discussion by accident. I'm not at all ready to attempt to get to the nitty-gritty of my questions and suggestions. So, I'll drop out here and come back with a more organised approach later, lists of propositions and blunt statements and stuff rather than all these words, just as soon as I have time. Thanks to everyone for not actually lynching me. It's been very helpful to see the various objections and criticisms my ideas are likely to meet. Btw, I mentioned a Book called 'Quantum Questions' by Ken Wilbur earlier. If anyone wants to read what the quantum pioneers has to say about the physcis/religion/mysticism issue it is a good collection of extracts. See you later. Edited December 14, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

I'm a fan of Popper. Have I said something he would disagree with?

 

 

I had expected that. I believe you're stretching this too far when you make claims like "The fundamental theory in physics can never be concieved unless there is an unity" and "It will solve many of the problems like Non-local effects, Observer Effects and QM is very consistent with the view I'm proposing". It is claims like this which bothers me and feels like you are crossing the lines here.

 

Popper drew a demarcation line and distinguished those theories which can be empirically verified from theories which can not be testified. Since then Science has been more rigid and the scientific thought process is kind of restricted and even some speculations of it.

So making claims like somehow your notion of Unity magically solves the problems in physics is an absurd claim because Science works under different principles and Unity is a metaphysical entity which is outside the boundary of science. Therefore even making logical claims or predicting the physical sciences is fundamentally flawed. You're enforcing a law such that there has to be a one-to-one mapping between the world of metaphysics which is beyond the sense organs and the world of physics which can be empirically verified.

 

Yes. I've already mentioned a few of the theories for which the universe would be paradoxical. I prefer to believe it obeys the laws of reason such that metaphysics and physics would be non-paradoxical and mutually consistent, but there is no logical argument that can defeat your speculation. The theory that the universe is paradoxical would be unfalsifiable and untestable in physics, and logic can prove nothing about reality. Our opinions are not quite the point though. The point is that mystcism does not claim that the universe is paradoxical.

 

Mysticism also claims that our daily human affairs are mediated by gods, controlled by gods. Now we have a world in which gods roam around us instead of particles or neutrinos of standard model. Do you really think now that both metaphysics and physics are logically consistent and quite reasonable to believe that it is?

 

Didn't Popper say that the test of a good theory is that it is self-evident? The claim of Buddhism and similar traditions is that it is possible for you to explore your own consciousness to the point where the unity of the universe becomes self-evident to you. So self-evident, in fact, that it ceases to be a theory. This may not be true, of course, but I'm very sure that you have no idea whether it's true or not. Among physicists Davies speculates that it might be true, and Schroedinger is adamant that it is, but then they both consider religion and physics to be relevant to each other. Unfortunately, if we follow your research programme we'll never know. I'd say it is not important where an idea comes from, just whether it's any good.

 

But how can you expect people to discuss on it, I'm really not going to discuss about the unity, because the point you start discussing about it we will be discussing something else and its not unity at all. So I'm not into a debate of its logical implications because its fundamentally wrong. I don't know what it is and I'll remain silent.

 

Yes, it is certainly not common. That is why I suggested we examine its ramifications rather than get bogged down in the thing itself. It would be inconceivable, being prior to conception, so we cannot understand it in any real sense by the use of our intellect. Although I do not agree with all of Kant, he is good on this topic. He argues that the universe must be grounded in a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. It is therefore beyond thought. But we can still think about it.

 

You're free to think about it or even build a set of prepositions on it but the unity which the Buddha is talking about is unthinkable, So your implications of unity is not the same as what the unity which Buddha is talking about, therefore it is inconsistent or logically flawed or either withdrew associating it with the Buddhistic view.

 

You must speak for yourself here. Sure, a complete undersanding cannot come through logic alone, but most philosophers who try have no difficulty with deriving its implications,. Many are quite obvious. George Spencer Brown has even described the logic of this idea as a mathematical calculus. He might be worth googling. He developed his logic as part of his work designing switching circuits for a railway company. He used the idea that the universe is a unity to solve Russell's paradox. Russell praised his book 'Laws of Form', in whcih he describes the cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism, and you can't get any more anti-mystical than Russell.

 

That is where it loses me, the word 'unity' has its own place in mathematics and we need mathematics and I'm not saying not to develop formal models, it is something which physicists might later find it helpful, but soon it represents something about the "cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism" is where I find some trouble. Those two are different things and this is what I'm pleading to stop thinking that it is the unity which Buddha is saying.

 

I'm sorry, but this is so obviously not true that I don't know what to say. If you are right then about fifty million or more people are wasting their time right now, and will do so again tomorrow, and over the centuries the number would be uncountable. Instead the bookshops are overflowing with books about the methodology in all languages and from all over the planet, and not one of them says that there is no method for acquiring knowledge. These people do not believe it is best to sit around waiting for lightening bolts. Many of the methods are easy to try and easy to explain. The problem is that induction is not absolute knowledge. One apple may one day fall up. So, the method would be just the same for the Buddhist or for anyone else with the same goal. No assertion should be believed before it is tested, although we might take it on faith until we can test it, as long it makes sense. You may be surprised to learn that this instruction appears repeatedly in the Buddhist sutras and right across the literature. What can be tested in physics or logic is tested in physics or logic, what cannot be tested in the third-person can be tested in other ways.

 

 

I said that absolute truth experiences can niether be predicted nor repeated, I didn't said it was impossible. If there are so many methods and if it was so easy then why I'm not seeing a Buddha each day, why I'm not seeing them roaming around the streets preaching. There are no reliable methods to have knowledge about the unity, all I'm saying that even if you had a method it is the nature which decides when to free you from her forces. So if she's is not willing then you might never know the unity no matter what methods you try for it.

 

Just to get back on topic, If I have the liberty..

 

A possible religious claim would be like "there is someone trying to send coded messages from outside of space and time."

 

Biblical Codes

 

Works of Chuck Missler

 

Chuck missler is a systems engineer btw and I don't know what to think of his works.

 

How a theist percieves God, Reality and Theory as Tar put it in his OP.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I forgot I was supposed to "not interfer" with the discussion. Looking back through the thread I see I have done nothing but. So I guess I lack self-control, and have gone back on my word...but darn it, people keep bringing up stuff I need to respond to.

 

Been thinking all day about "your" unity. And wanted to share a few questions and observations.

 

Is your "unity" also "my" unity, or not?

 

It seems to me that it should have only one characteristic, and that would be that it has no characteristics. That is, nothing can be said about it. If something could be said about it, then it would be an object we could judge in terms of its quantity,quality, relation and modality. If it CANNOT be an object of our understanding, then it best be left out, or remain out of our understanding. Even if we wanted it in our understanding we have no way to get it there, because it is not an object that we can judge...unless...it is "something" we just automatically know, a pure intuition, even purer than space or time. In which case we already know it. There is no "path" to it. It does not take years of study and practice and musing to "arrive" at. It cannot be "found" by a select few. Any "further" realization of it, would have to be a "part" of it, or incorrectly assign it as an object of our understanding.

 

It may however be important what each of us does with this "knowledge", or how each of us relates to this "knowledge", or the way we handle or refuse to handle this knowledge being in someone else's mind.

 

After all, you can't say anything about it. And if you try, you just look really goofy to everybody else. You are either making things up, or saying something untrue about something they already know everything there is to know about it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or we keep "looking" for it, as if it could be anything different than what we already know it is. Like it would be a "surprise" or a secret treasure, or that thing that "everybody else" has been missing all these years.

 

Seems like it might be the kind of knowledge that religions claim they have special rights to.

[mooeypoo]

tar, this is your thread. You're not interfering by trying to steer it to the discussion you meant it to take.

[PeterJ]

I had expected that. I believe you're stretching this too far when you make claims like "The fundamental theory in physics can never be concieved unless there is an unity" and "It will solve many of the problems like Non-local effects, Observer Effects and QM is very consistent with the view I'm proposing". It is claims like this which bothers me and feels like you are crossing the lines here.

 

Popper drew a demarcation line and distinguished those theories which can be empirically verified from theories which can not be testified. Since then Science has been more rigid and the scientific thought process is kind of restricted and even some speculations of it.

So making claims like somehow your notion of Unity magically solves the problems in physics is an absurd claim because Science works under different principles and Unity is a metaphysical entity which is outside the boundary of science. Therefore even making logical claims or predicting the physical sciences is fundamentally flawed. You're enforcing a law such that there has to be a one-to-one mapping between the world of metaphysics which is beyond the sense organs and the world of physics which can be empirically verified.

I see your objection. But I see no reason why there should not be a one to one mapping between physics and metaphysics. It would be weird if there wasn't, and there no evidence that it isn't. The Popper thing is debatable. Depends whether one includes mental phenomena as 'empirical'. To me I'm sticking to Popper's rules, to you I'm not.

 

Mysticism also claims that our daily human affairs are mediated by gods, controlled by gods. Now we have a world in which gods roam around us instead of particles or neutrinos of standard model. Do you really think now that both metaphysics and physics are logically consistent and quite reasonable to believe that it is?

This is not true. Mysticism is the death of gods. That';s why so many of its proponents have been executed by the intitutional Churches. Many have been crucified, which is a little ironic. Until recently it was very dangerous to speak about mysticism anywhere in Europe. This is why a lot of the European liteterure is written in code.

 

You're free to think about it or even build a set of prepositions on it but the unity which the Buddha is talking about is unthinkable, So your implications of unity is not the same as what the unity which Buddha is talking about, therefore it is inconsistent or logically flawed or either withdrew associating it with the Buddhistic view.

I'm afraid I cannot follow that.

 

That is where it loses me, the word 'unity' has its own place in mathematics and we need mathematics and I'm not saying not to develop formal models, it is something which physicists might later find it helpful, but soon it represents something about the "cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism" is where I find some trouble. Those two are different things and this is what I'm pleading to stop thinking that it is the unity which Buddha is saying.

Buddhism and Taoism share a common worldview. Thus Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', and Nagarjuna proves that this is true. Two different approaches, but the same underlying worldview. Brown is quite explicit, his 'calculus of indications' is intended as a representation of the cosmological scheme of Buddhism and Taoism, and of the universe as it actually is. I have this from the horse's mouth.

 

I said that absolute truth experiences can niether be predicted nor repeated, I didn't said it was impossible.

Hmm. The whole point of the practice is to repeat them. This is what it's all about.

 

If there are so many methods and if it was so easy then why I'm not seeing a Buddha each day, why I'm not seeing them roaming around the streets preaching. There are no reliable methods to have knowledge about the unity, all I'm saying that even if you had a method it is the nature which decides when to free you from her forces. So if she's is not willing then you might never know the unity no matter what methods you try for it.

I'm fine if you think mysticism is nonsense. But not on the basis of not understanding it. There are many Buddhas in the world, if Buddhists are to be believed. Spencer Brown claims to be one, and so does his friend Terence Grey.

 

Just to get back on topic, If I have the liberty.

Sure. I meant to stay away, but felt obliged to reply.

 

 

A possible religious claim would be like "there is someone trying to send coded messages from outside of space and time."

Utter lunacy. What would be the point of coding the messages? This is not a religious claim but something akin to abduction by aliens.

Edited December 16, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

I see your objection. But I see no reason why there should not be a one to one mapping between physics and metaphysics. It would be weird if there wasn't, and there no evidence that it isn't. The Popper thing is debatable. Depends whether one includes mental phenomena as 'empirical'. To me I'm sticking to Popper's rules, to you I'm not.

 

I never asked you to adhere to my rules, you should expect in a forum that people will object your claims, rebuttals will be made, different views will be held and I don't think I said something non-sensical here.

 

Thomas Jefferson said,

"Difference of opinion may be tolerated untill reason is set free to combat it"

 

My knowledge of metaphysics makes me believe that the physical world and the metaphysical world is paradoxical. The light that physics is talking about is very different from the light what religion is talking about. Do you get my point?

 

This is not true. Mysticism is the death of gods. That';s why so many of its proponents have been executed by the intitutional Churches. Many have been crucified, which is a little ironic. Until recently it was very dangerous to speak about mysticism anywhere in Europe. This is why a lot of the European liteterure is written in code.

 

Mysticism is a world wide phenomena, not confined only to europe or confined only to a specific culture of people. You are seeing only half of the story and claiming that mysticism claims that the physical world and the metaphysical world are not in conflict. When studying a particular field it is important to take opinions from various different persons who have mastered in it. You're seeing things what you want to see and completely ignoring the other views of mysticism. If you want to argue that claims made my only a few people determines what is true and what is not, then I doesn't want to argue anymore. I'm not here to please anyone. I'm here to acknowledge the opinions and views of different people from the same field and not just project only those views which are consistent with our beliefs while completely ignoring the rest of the claims and suppressing the views what has been explored by mystics over the years.

 

Here is a Mystic who claims to say that gods exists through his experiences and he is regarded with high respect by scholars opposing to his views will be the consequent to opposing three fourth of the vedas and Upanishads which you often quote from them.

 

His name is Devudu Narasimha Shastry, he has written many books on mysticism, but most of the books is not translated into the english version, I have a book which is indeed translated to the english version and I have uploaded it to the google docs. Here is the introduction part of it Introduction and also its Appendix.

 

Read the 17th page of the Authors forward,

 

"The personal appearance of Rudra and the dialogue which the devathas participate are what I actually saw and heard."

 

- Devudu Narsimha Shastry.

 

 

The word 'devathas' means Gods.

 

I'm not arguing from Ignorance and the fact that you're continuously claiming that I think that Mysticism is nonsense says that you doesn't want to have a healthy debate. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm a fan of mysticism and my interests in the field above proves it.

 

I'm afraid I cannot follow that.

 

The Isha Upanishad says,

 

 

It is not outer awareness,

 

It is not inner awareness,

 

Nor is it a suspension of awareness.

 

It is not knowing,

 

It is not unknowing,

 

Nor is it knowingness itself.

 

It can neither be seen nor understood,

 

It cannot be given boundaries,

 

It is ineffable and beyond thought.

 

It is indefinable.

 

It is known only through becoming it.

 

 

My wisdom says it is wrong to think about it or make logical implications about it, if you still want to go ahead and do it, you can, no one's stopping you, I'm not here to convince you, but you keep insisting that "we can still think about it", I don't know what to say really.

 

Buddhism and Taoism share a common worldview. Thus Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', and Nagarjuna proves that this is true. Two different approaches, but the same underlying worldview. Brown is quite explicit, his 'calculus of indications' is intended as a representation of the cosmological scheme of Buddhism and Taoism, and of the universe as it actually is. I have this from the horse's mouth.

 

There are no models to understand the unity, irrespective of whether it is logical or empirical, it is beyond logic and any claims which says it explains Unity is wrong, because it can not.

 

Hmm. The whole point of the practice is to repeat them. This is what it's all about.

 

The methods won't guarantee you that if you follow them you will get absolute knowledge, it is in this context I said that it is not repeatable, repeatability means I have to get the same outcome irrespective of which ever place, time or observer performing the method. You're still missing my point. That knowledge has to come all by itself.

 

I'm fine if you think mysticism is nonsense. But not on the basis of not understanding it. There are many Buddhas in the world, if Buddhists are to be believed. Spencer Brown claims to be one, and so does his friend Terence Grey.

 

I have shown you how interested I'm in mysticism and it seems you are so involved in proving me wrong that you've missed some of the valid points I've made and have given ridiculuous responses.

 

Anyone can claim that they are Buddha, but I'm not going to accept them without testing them, Mysticism is not blind faith.

 

Sure. I meant to stay away, but felt obliged to reply.

 

This part of the post was not meant to you, it was a seperate post but got merged into it.

 

Utter lunacy. What would be the point of coding the messages? This is not a religious claim but something akin to abduction by aliens.

 

Its not my claim and I'm not compelled to defend it, It was the claim of Chuck Missler who is a theist and a systems engineer and his claims were based on studying the bible from information science perspective.

[PeterJ]

I never asked you to adhere to my rules, you should expect in a forum that people will object your claims, rebuttals will be made, different views will be held and I don't think I said something non-sensical here.

That's fine. I wasn't suggesting you were saying anything daft.

 

My knowledge of metaphysics makes me believe that the physical world and the metaphysical world is paradoxical. The light that physics is talking about is very different from the light what religion is talking about. Do you get my point?

Not sure about the light, but your interpretation of physics and metaphysics is clearly the most common one. I hold a different view, since I believe few people really study Aristotle's 'laws of thought', and therefore see parodoxes where there are none. Big topic though and probably not one for here. I supect you'd see Kant antinomies as dilemmas, where I would see them as trilemmas. Both views are common. I'd agree with Kant that the solution is compatibilism, but not of the kind he recommends. I feel that this question, of whether metaphysical questions are dilemmas or trilemmas, is one of the most important in philosophy and possibly also theoretical physics. But that's just me.

 

Mysticism is a world wide phenomena, not confined only to europe or confined only to a specific culture of people. You are seeing only half of the story and claiming that mysticism claims that the physical world and the metaphysical world are not in conflict.

No I did not say that. I mentioned European mystcism. I didn't mean to suggest that it's the only kind. That would be obviously daft. All mysticism has the same doctrine. It would utterly implausible if this were not the case. There is only one mysticism according to those who pursue it.

 

When studying a particular field it is important to take opinions from various different persons who have mastered in it. You're seeing things what you want to see and completely ignoring the other views of mysticism. If you want to argue that claims made my only a few people determines what is true and what is not, then I doesn't want to argue anymore. I'm not here to please anyone. I'm here to acknowledge the opinions and views of different people from the same field and not just project only those views which are consistent with our beliefs while completely ignoring the rest of the claims and suppressing the views what has been explored by mystics over the years.

I think you could read my posts more carefully. I'm not making the arguments you seem to be reading into them. Do you think I just toss a coin for my views? I think the 'Principle of Charity' is a useful method for avoiding unnecessary arguments.

 

Here is a Mystic who claims to say that gods exists through his experiences and he is regarded with high respect by scholars opposing to his views will be the consequent to opposing three fourth of the vedas and Upanishads which you often quote from them.

 

His name is Devudu Narasimha Shastry, he has written many books on mysticism, but most of the books is not translated into the english version, I have a book which is indeed translated to the english version and I have uploaded it to the google docs. Here is the introduction part of it Introduction and also its Appendix.

 

Read the 17th page of the Authors forward,

Okay. I'll check him out. I suspect you may be interpreting the term 'God' to mean what Dawkins means.

 

I'm not arguing from Ignorance and the fact that you're continuously claiming that I think that Mysticism is nonsense says that you doesn't want to have a healthy debate. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm a fan of mysticism and my interests in the field above proves it.

Yes, I appreciate that. But if you think mysticism is theism then this is a misunderstanding. Honest. Sure there is talk of God, but it's the sort of talk that gets one into trouble with theists. How many dogmatic Christians admire 'The Mystical Theology' of the pseudo-Dionysius, or even know of it? How well is it promoted within the Church? I think they'd rather bury it, even though it's full of the G-word.

 

The Isha Upanishad says,

 

My wisdom says it is wrong to think about it or make logical implications about it, if you still want to go ahead and do it, you can, no one's stopping you, I'm not here to convince you, but you keep insisting that "we can still think about it", I don't know what to say really.

Yes, This is why I suggested we concentrate on the implications of this phenomenon, and do not try to understand it directly. It would be impossible except in direct experience. You'll know that Lao tsu says that we cannot speak about the 'Tao that is eternal', but also says that we must speak about it. That is, we must do the best we can. If I ever say something that is inconsistent with the Upanishads I'll retract it immediately.

 

There are no models to understand the unity, irrespective of whether it is logical or empirical, it is beyond logic and any claims which says it explains Unity is wrong, because it can not.

Yes. I agree that it is beyond logic. In fact logic can prove that it is beyond logic, as Kant, Hegel, Nagajuna and Bradley demonstrate. It is also beyond explanation. But this would not change anything I've said here. My view is strictly orthodox, and I have gone to great lengths to ensure that it is.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the reason why you find the world paradoxical is because you rule out one possible solution. Once it is ruled out everyone finds the world paradoxical. Thus the two millenia of mayhem in metaphysics. It is true that many writers on mysticism find the logic of their own view paradoxical once translated into classical logic, and by our usual application of the laws for the dialectic it is. But I believe we misuse those laws, (and have made the case successfully enough for one academic panel).

 

A phenomenon beyond all distinction cannot give rise to contradictions by definition and ex hypothesis. It is noteworthy that Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', not that they are.

 

The methods won't guarantee you that if you follow them you will get absolute knowledge, it is in this context I said that it is not repeatable, repeatability means I have to get the same outcome irrespective of which ever place, time or observer performing the method. You're still missing my point. That knowledge has to come all by itself.

This is your view. Fair enough. It is not my view, my experience or my view of mysticism. It is not just that it would be repeatable, it would be livable on a moment to moment basis 24/7. You're free to be scepetical, but not to characterise mysticism as sharing your view. If it shared your view it wouldn't exist.

 

I have shown you how interested I'm in mysticism and it seems you are so involved in proving me wrong that you've missed some of the valid points I've made and have given ridiculuous responses.

Well, okay, but I could have said the same. I'd like to just chat, but I'm gong to argue if you claim things for mysticism which are demonstrably not true. This is not fair. It means you think I'm defending a view of the issues which you know is absurd. Actually I'm not defending that view at all.

 

Anyone can claim that they are Buddha, but I'm not going to accept them without testing them, Mysticism is not blind faith.

My view also. Except that there is no way to test their claim. Not that there's no evidence at all, but in the end we cannot know about other people's knowledge. Anway, it makes no difference to me whether they are or are not what they claim, or even whether I believe then or not. I feel no need to believe or disbelieve them. Still, the claimant was a famous genius, and his friend is Wei Wu Wei the famous writer on advaita vedanta, so I wouldn't dismiss their claims out of hand. They do at least demonstrate their supposed knowledge in their writings, and we are free to judge. C.S Peirce was good on these topics and it's a shame he isn't better known.

 

I'll go check out that link.

 

Immortal - My google reader struggles with that text and I cannot find page 17. Could you summarise it, or clarify which bit I should be reading? It doesn't seem likely I'm going to disagree with anything he says but you never know.

 

But I did spot this...

 

"The three works which compliment one another ..... prove how an individual can rise from the lower to the higher and even to the highest by sadhana, by sheer will and by solemn detirmination."

 

This seems very clear.

Edited December 16, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Oh sorry, it was uploaded by me, a photocopy took by webcam, you don't find that information anywhere else, a google search will not reveal much info about him. If you're reading with google reader then at the left hand column the individual pages will appear with a smaller view and those smaller page views will be numbered and it is the page on the 17th number. I hope it works.

[PeterJ]

Thanks.

 

By the way, just spotted what you said about the Isha Upanishad (missed it when I 'quoted' your post.)

 

It is not outer awareness,

 

It is not inner awareness,

 

Nor is it a suspension of awareness.

 

It is not knowing,

 

It is not unknowing,

 

Nor is it knowingness itself.

 

It can neither be seen nor understood,

 

It cannot be given boundaries,

 

It is ineffable and beyond thought.

 

It is indefinable.

 

It is known only through becoming it.

 

 

Just so you know, if anything I say contradicts this then I have made an accidental mistake. I have no intention of defending the naive views of Chuck Meisner.

 

Just read that page. Seemed okay to me. I'll read some more since I don't know him.

Edited December 16, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Not sure about the light, but your interpretation of physics and metaphysics is clearly the most common one. I hold a different view, since I believe few people really study Aristotle's 'laws of thought', and therefore see parodoxes where there are none. Big topic though and probably not one for here. I supect you'd see Kant antinomies as dilemmas, where I would see them as trilemmas. Both views are common. I'd agree with Kant that the solution is compatibilism, but not of the kind he recommends. I feel that this question, of whether metaphysical questions are dilemmas or trilemmas, is one of the most important in philosophy and possibly also theoretical physics. But that's just me.

 

Yes, I think this discussion was worth having and we have shared our views and let the people with their revealations decide which view is true and which is not.

 

 

Okay. I'll check him out. I suspect you may be interpreting the term 'God' to mean what Dawkins means.

 

I don't know how Dawkins sees God. All I know that he is a reductionist and a Atheist and a great evolutionary biologist.

 

Yes, I appreciate that. But if you think mysticism is theism then this is a misunderstanding. Honest. Sure there is talk of God, but it's the sort of talk that gets one into trouble with theists. How many dogmatic Christians admire 'The Mystical Theology' of the pseudo-Dionysius, or even know of it? How well is it promoted within the Church? I think they'd rather bury it, even though it's full of the G-word.

 

I see that you're a bit hesitant to accept the view of gods and yes many mystics have found the real truth without mentioning about them but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also I like to note that theology or some of the fundamental constructs of religion are important for mysticism, it is religion which forms the theoretical construct for mysticism and revealations are like practical science for mysticism what experimental science is to for theoretical physics. You just can not completely deny religion and hold a mystical view we need both the practice of mysticism as well as the words from the scriptures and that would mean that you have to accept that Gods exist too, you can not have double standards here. I know their existence is hard to swallow.

 

Yes, This is why I suggested we concentrate on the implications of this phenomenon, and do not try to understand it directly. It would be impossible except in direct experience. You'll know that Lao tsu says that we cannot speak about the 'Tao that is eternal', but also says that we must speak about it. That is, we must do the best we can. If I ever say something that is inconsistent with the Upanishads I'll retract it immediately.

 

Okay, that's fair enough.

 

Yes. I agree that it is beyond logic. In fact logic can prove that it is beyond logic, as Kant, Hegel, Nagajuna and Bradley demonstrate. It is also beyond explanation. But this would not change anything I've said here. My view is strictly orthodox, and I have gone to great lengths to ensure that it is.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the reason why you find the world paradoxical is because you rule out one possible solution. Once it is ruled out everyone finds the world paradoxical. Thus the two millenia of mayhem in metaphysics. It is true that many writers on mysticism find the logic of their own view paradoxical once translated into classical logic, and by our usual application of the laws for the dialectic it is. But I believe we misuse those laws, (and have made the case successfully enough for one academic panel).

 

A phenomenon beyond all distinction cannot give rise to contradictions by definition and ex hypothesis. It is noteworthy that Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', not that they are.

 

I'm not completely suppressing your views, I see the importance of it, but the definitons of religion and science constricts us to think and work differently. That's the point I'm making.

 

 

This is your view. Fair enough. It is not my view, my experience or my view of mysticism. It is not just that it would be repeatable, it would be livable on a moment to moment basis 24/7. You're free to be scepetical, but not to characterise mysticism as sharing your view. If it shared your view it wouldn't exist.

 

Fair enough, I will not be compelled to change your view. Yes being sceptic is very important, if tommorrow if someone makes a simulation of consciousness using artificial intelligence then it would mean that Science has won on reducing consciouness to the empirical phenomena. Disproving solipsism, Then we should change one's held beliefs.

 

Well, okay, but I could have said the same. I'd like to just chat, but I'm gong to argue if you claim things for mysticism which are demonstrably not true. This is not fair. It means you think I'm defending a view of the issues which you know is absurd. Actually I'm not defending that view at all.

 

You can ofcourse disagree with me. I'm also not saying it by just random speculation with out having knowledge of it, I have given you sources and references, you're free to refute it, reason will decide what is ture and what is not. Not you or me.

 

My view also. Except that there is no way to test their claim. Not that there's no evidence at all, but in the end we cannot know about other people's knowledge. Anway, it makes no difference to me whether they are or are not what they claim, or even whether I believe then or not. I feel no need to believe or disbelieve them. Still, the claimant was a famous genius, and his friend is Wei Wu Wei the famous writer on advaita vedanta, so I wouldn't dismiss their claims out of hand. They do at least demonstrate their supposed knowledge in their writings, and we are free to judge. C.S Peirce was good on these topics and it's a shame he isn't better known.

 

One can test their experience but first it requires that you have the true experience and you can ask specific questions based on your experiences, if their answers satisfy you then they have gone through all the process of self realization as you had gone through, if they're any discrepancy in their sayings and if doesn't tally with your experience then they're definitely faking it.

 

 

 

 

But I did spot this...

 

"The three works which compliment one another ..... prove how an individual can rise from the lower to the higher and even to the highest by sadhana, by sheer will and by solemn detirmination."

 

This seems very clear.

 

No, Peter, don't be in such a hurry, just by having self determination and sheer will, will not do, you should also need divine grace, first you need to surrender yourself with the gods only then you can gain that highest knowledge, as to others who have reached the highest knowledge with out mentioning about the gods after their realizations, one can obviously discard them and gain such knowledge, but they will be their working behind every inch of their life, but they will not appear to him because he wants to know the truth and its not his aim to just see an angel, its not the highest knowledge. The whole work of that Author is to show just exactly that.

 

Thanks.

 

By the way, just spotted what you said about the Isha Upanishad (missed it when I 'quoted' your post.)

 

It is not outer awareness,

 

It is not inner awareness,

 

Nor is it a suspension of awareness.

 

It is not knowing,

 

It is not unknowing,

 

Nor is it knowingness itself.

 

It can neither be seen nor understood,

 

It cannot be given boundaries,

 

It is ineffable and beyond thought.

 

It is indefinable.

 

It is known only through becoming it.

 

 

Just read that page. Seemed okay to me. I'll read some more since I don't know him.

 

Yeah fair enough, I have his whole book but it would be really hard to read from that copy, if you can buy it or else if you're really interested in it, I can send you a PM of chapterwise links to it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by immortal

[Moontanman]

I think it's quite apparent from this thread that religion=mysticism=supernatural=superstition, you can add as many zeros as you want but you will still get zero. Anything that occurs only in your mind and is not demonstrable to anyone else in any way is not knowledge. My little dinosaur story shows this quite well, no matter how real we think something is, no matter how smart we are or think we are knowledge requires evidence, I would think that absolute knowledge requires absolute evidence, appeals to someone who is famous for coughing up horse feathers does not make your argument any more believable. Mysticism can be dressed up in any way you want but it is still the dinosaur only you can see feel and touch, no one else can experience your dinosaur.

 

All through this thread I see positive assertions of rmss but nothing to back up those assertions other than more horse feathers coughed up by rmss. At some point evidence is going to be needed to back up these positive assertions.

 

I think it's also pertinent to point out the lack of knowledge produced by rmss, never has rmss produced tangible results, no cures, no technology, nothing but unsupportable claims about that which we do not know. If I get sick I'm going to a doctor, not a mystic, if I want to build a house I'll go to an architect not a mystic, if I want to build a space ship I'll go to scientists and engineers not a mystic in fact I do not know of any circumstance that would lead me to go to a mystic... well maybe for entertainment, Penn and Teller are fun to watch....

 

More to the point of this OT, I believe empirical evidence, i can only know what you tell me about what you believe and I have no idea what they believe....

[PeterJ]

Yes, I think this discussion was worth having and we have shared our views and let the people with their revealations decide which view is true and which is not.

Really? I'd rather decide for myself.

 

I see that you're a bit hesitant to accept the view of gods and yes many mystics have found the real truth without mentioning about them but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also I like to note that theology or some of the fundamental constructs of religion are important for mysticism, it is religion which forms the theoretical construct for mysticism and revealations are like practical science for mysticism what experimental science is to for theoretical physics. You just can not completely deny religion and hold a mystical view we need both the practice of mysticism as well as the words from the scriptures and that would mean that you have to accept that Gods exist too, you can not have double standards here. I know their existence is hard to swallow.

 

Buddhism is clear. Nothing really exists. This is a doctrinal statement and is supposed to be statement of fact. Gods are not excepted. I suspect that we are disagreeing only because are not distinguishing between a conventional and an ultimate viewpoint. From an ultimate viewpoint Gods do not exist. Mysticism might be correctly seen as the search for God, clearly for many people it is, but according to the sages what we find is ourself. This is all there is. If we want to call ourself 'God' that is fine. It is a perennial claim of those who go far enough, almost a defining one, but we might as well call ourself 'Tao'. This would be the classical God of Christianity, as described in Keith Ward's 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed'. This God would not exist or not-exist. He would be beyond all that. He would lie 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', as one Christian mystics whose name I forget right now famously puts it.

Would you agree with this?

 

I'm not completely suppressing your views, I see the importance of it, but the definitons of religion and science constricts us to think and work differently. That's the point I'm making.

We agree.

 

Fair enough, I will not be compelled to change your view. Yes being sceptic is very important, if tommorrow if someone makes a simulation of consciousness using artificial intelligence then it would mean that Science has won on reducing consciouness to the empirical phenomena. Disproving solipsism, Then we should change one's held beliefs.

Hmm. Solipsism is unfalsifiable. We wouldn't even be able to test whether the machine is conscious, never mind whether we're dreaming it.

 

One can test their experience but first it requires that you have the true experience and you can ask specific questions based on your experiences, if their answers satisfy you then they have gone through all the process of self realization as you had gone through, if they're any discrepancy in their sayings and if doesn't tally with your experience then they're definitely faking it.

Well, I'd rather say that if there's a discrepancy it must be me whose faking it, but no matter. I do not second guess the scriptures. Luckily I have never discovered such a discrepancy. The Dalai Lama is clear, 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. For Buddhism the two would go hand in hand.

 

No, Peter, don't be in such a hurry, just by having self determination and sheer will, will not do, you should also need divine grace...

Ah. My apologies. I misjudged where you are coming from.

 

It may surprise you to learn that I also believe this. We might disagree about the meaning of the word 'divine', but would probably agree on 'grace'. Maybe we disagree about whether we can earn it or have to sit around hoping. But as Nicklaus said, 'the more I practice the luckier I get'

 

Yeah fair enough, I have his whole book but it would be really hard to read from that copy, if you can buy it or else if you're really interested in it, I can send you a PM of chapterwise links to it.

Thanks but it's okay. I read a bit more and it's not quite my thing. Nothing wrong with it but not quite aimed at me.

 

I suppose I have been keen to say that I am an atheist here because I assumed it needed saying without any ambiguity for any credibility. For many people God is a person who created the universe intentionally, interferes in the laws of nature, lives somewhere 'out there' or 'over there' and must be worshipped blindly as opposed to admired and aspired to. I would not want to be associated with that idea. But there is a more subtle idea of God that makes sense to me. This would be the God of Schroedinger, Schopenhauer and the Upanishads. I have no problem with this God and won't argue with you about His importance. But I will not mention him on a science forum any more than I have to.

 

I now don't think we disagree all that much, and I'd like to try to persuade you that we needn't disagree at all. But I need to do other things and if you reply there might be a delay of a day or two before I get back to you. But I will when I can. Cheers.

Edited December 16, 2011 by PeterJ

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Thank you for answering my question directly.

 

PeterJ and Immortal,

 

Thank you for your discussion, you are answering my question by demonstration.

 

I do not wish to sound "removed" or clinical here, but I am on an "investigation" of the meaning behind language. And I inspect myself as I am "inspecting" you guys.

And my particular "reason" to ask the question, is because English has these three persons. I(we), you(you), he-she-it(they). And I don't think it is by accident. There is a difference between these ideas. And the ideas mean something. And it appears to me, to be bound up in "identity". That is, "who one identifies with".

 

It is an "associating factor", when someone else knows what you mean. That the two of you, see the same truth.

 

As in "we all know the moon appears in the sky". Everybody (sighted) on the planet knows this.

Science goes after these kind of truths. The ones we can all agree on, that can be demonstrated. This associates everybody to everybody. We are all in the same "we" camp when we talk about things which have empirical, sensible existence. We can point to what we mean and say "there, that is what I mean". Pretty safe bet we are talking about the same thing. The "meaning" of our reference is clear.

 

And of particular interest to me, in PeterJ's and Immortal's recent exchange is the authorities they quote and reference. And the references to "knowing when someone "else" was "faking" knowledge of the truth".

 

Not unlike believers and nonbelievers as described in the Koran.

 

And the similarity that

 

"It is not outer awareness,

 

It is not inner awareness,

 

Nor is it a suspension of awareness.

 

It is not knowing,

 

It is not unknowing,

 

Nor is it knowingness itself.

 

It can neither be seen nor understood,

 

It cannot be given boundaries,

 

It is ineffable and beyond thought.

 

It is indefinable.

 

It is known only through becoming it."

 

has to my description of "Unity" earlier, as a "pure" intuition, which nothing can be said about. Except for the last line, where I would say that the "becoming" is not required, if you already know.

 

So either "I" have a different idea of "the truth" than the actual correct one, or "they" are wrong, or we all have a perfectly sound grasp of it, and fail miserably at giving the "other guy" the benefit of the doubt. That is, given the all encompassing nature of "unity", and the fact that it therefore can be nothing but obvious, it has to "mean" the same thing, to anybody and everybody, whether they start with it, or end up with it, are born with it as a pure intuition, or "become it" after years of instruction, or are "graced it" by the gods. There is no "other" "only thing" to be had.

 

How could anyone be the only one to know the only thing there is to know?

 

Reminds me of my concern that somebody "reaching" nirvana is doing it quite by themselves. They have not really reached very far, having never left themselves to get there. Of course they will say they left themselves behind on the trip...but I will not know what they "mean" by that. Seems undoable, according to my understanding.

 

I have a problem also with those who describe "it" as "listening to the silence", once you remove all "thoughts" from your head. Describes perfectly what I was saying about a "pure intuition", but I doubt that is what they "mean". I think they are "faking it", fooling themselves into thinking they can think without thinking. Exist without existing. Or have a soul, without a body...but that is just me and "my" beliefs talking. Where I draw the line between literal and figurative.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Really? I'd rather decide for myself.

 

Really? You've made many assertions and none have been empirically verified, atleast allow your assertions to be tested. As for the claims on Unity, those claims aren't us, its from the literature and I have no problem with it. This philosophical debate is something which is going on from centuries and will continue to go on, its quite open to debate.

 

 

Buddhism is clear. Nothing really exists. This is a doctrinal statement and is supposed to be statement of fact. Gods are not excepted. I suspect that we are disagreeing only because are not distinguishing between a conventional and an ultimate viewpoint. From an ultimate viewpoint Gods do not exist. Mysticism might be correctly seen as the search for God, clearly for many people it is, but according to the sages what we find is ourself. This is all there is. If we want to call ourself 'God' that is fine. It is a perennial claim of those who go far enough, almost a defining one, but we might as well call ourself 'Tao'. This would be the classical God of Christianity, as described in Keith Ward's 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed'. This God would not exist or not-exist. He would be beyond all that. He would lie 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', as one Christian mystics whose name I forget right now famously puts it.

Would you agree with this?

 

Buddhism doesn't hold on anything, they choose a middle way approach.

 

The two (dvaya) or the two extreme views are as follows: The Buddha does not hold that anything exists, nor does he hold that it does not exist. He rejects both of these two extreme views and propounds his view taking a middle path (majjhima patipada or madhyama pratipad). So according to him nothing is existent, nor is anything non-existent; nothing comes into being (anutpada), nor does anything disappear (anirodha); nothing is eternal (ashashvata), nor has anything an end (anuccheda); nothing is identical (eka), nor anything differentiated (aneka); nothing moves hither (anagama), and nothing moves thither (anirgama).

 

 

This was the view of Gaudapada which later Sankara went on to develop advaita vedanta from this view, he took an extreme view that "Unity" is the only absolute existent and there is not a second entity apart from that "Unity". Sankara, the founder of advaita vedanta didn't discarded the physical world as non-existent instead he said that this physical world has only empirical or relative existent and doesn't have absolute existence and its not eternal.

 

If you claim that nothing exists then you should answer this question of me "Where did the mind came from", so even the mind doesn't exist? No matter whatever creation myth you take no one will give a satisfactory affirmative explanation of how the one thing called the "Unity" went on to create the world as we know it, whether there is something other than the unity or whether unity itself transfromed or differentiated is not something which we know.

 

Hmm. Solipsism is unfalsifiable. We wouldn't even be able to test whether the machine is conscious, never mind whether we're dreaming it.

 

Turing and church have developed ways to test whether a machine is consious or not and newer tests are being developed with the increase in the knowledge of our world.

 

Well, I'd rather say that if there's a discrepancy it must be me whose faking it, but no matter. I do not second guess the scriptures. Luckily I have never discovered such a discrepancy. The Dalai Lama is clear, 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. For Buddhism the two would go hand in hand.

 

How so? If you think that absolute knowledge is certain knowledge and if you have that knowledge then how can you doubt your own experiences or knowledge, it would mean that you don't believe in your own states of consciousness. Absolute knowledge =>(implies) certain knowledge =>(implies) its certain that even other should also have the same knowledge and experience as yours, if not its 100% sure that they're faking it.

 

 

Thanks but it's okay. I read a bit more and it's not quite my thing. Nothing wrong with it but not quite aimed at me.

 

His other book is the story of Yajnavalkya but unfortunately its not translated into the english version yet, it holds many secrets from the Upanishads.

 

I suppose I have been keen to say that I am an atheist here because I assumed it needed saying without any ambiguity for any credibility. For many people God is a person who created the universe intentionally, interferes in the laws of nature, lives somewhere 'out there' or 'over there' and must be worshipped blindly as opposed to admired and aspired to. I would not want to be associated with that idea. But there is a more subtle idea of God that makes sense to me. This would be the God of Schroedinger, Schopenhauer and the Upanishads. I have no problem with this God and won't argue with you about His importance. But I will not mention him on a science forum any more than I have to.

 

The Vedas are called the Purva Mimamsa, it basically deals with rituals and sacrifices to gods and the Upanishads is the end of the Vedas and it is called as the Uttara Mimamsa, it is in the Upansihads they talk about the "Unity". The whole message of the vedas is to show that there is a Personal God existing in each one of us guiding our intellect and the whole message of the Upanishads is to show the other side of the God, your God of Schroedinger and of many other mystics.

 

You can discard him(personal god) and go on to have the ultimate truth but that doesn't mean that he doesn't exists or he is being neglected or rejected. Where do you think the scriptures came from? why do you think the Upanishads have no authors? Why do you think the writers of the Upanishads don't claim authority of it?

 

I now don't think we disagree all that much, and I'd like to try to persuade you that we needn't disagree at all. But I need to do other things and if you reply there might be a delay of a day or two before I get back to you. But I will when I can. Cheers.

 

Take your own time. From what we have seen from this thread is that there is no common consenus on the epistemology of knowledge. Scientists think that only empirically verifiable knowledge is knowledge, some claim that absolute knowledge is the only true knowledge and others claim that we can know both the absolute knowledge as well as the knowledge of the emipirical world with certainity. I really doesn't want to be part of any group or belief. I would like to explore each one of these amazing sciences with out having any pre-concieved beliefs which would force us to adhere to our judgements even when the truth or the evidence has been given to us.

Edited December 17, 2011 by immortal

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I would like to explore each one of these amazing sciences with out having any pre-concieved beliefs which would force us to adhere to our judgements even when the truth or the evidence has been given to us.

 

I do not mind putting you in my "we" group. I have read your posts, and "know" you a little bit. I would guess that you would agree that when it comes to blind men and elephants, it is "better" to be the one "listening" to the story.

And that we "truely are" on many levels and in many literal ways both the characters in the story and the person that can listen to it and understand.

 

and in this way, for this purpose, our own blindness is removed and the elephant appears

 

and neither you nor I are suggesting that we can actually "see" it ourselves, but that we can know of it, by listening to our(the) story

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

I would genuinely like to know why anyone would give more credence to mysticism than religion or superstition or the supernatural? I'll leave it that simple, why?

[tar]

I would genuinely like to know why anyone would give more credence to mysticism than religion or superstition or the supernatural? I'll leave it that simple, why?

 

Moontanman,

 

In the last several months in some of the philosophy threads, like this, and science vs. religion, many good minds have said their piece. There is disagreement and argument, not usually on the facts...those are accepted...but on the interpretation of the facts. "But what do you mean by that?" is not an unusual concern.

 

In the exchange between Immortal and PeterJ, two "philosophers and mystics", who have "understood" the teachings of the sages, there is STILL disagreement on the fine points.

 

You think its a bunch of hooey. I think its partial hooey...but can "imagine" that perhaps what I consider the truth of the situation, is the same "truth" that they are talking about. (bear in mind, I am refering to that which can not actually be described as an object...but which is reality itself)

 

Where you might not see the value of the mystical interpretations is where you have just assumed their conclusions, as indeed, the way it is...so...what do we do next? What's for dinner? How do we get a better handle on the things that threaten our existence and the existence of our fellows, and children? What of overpopulation, and pollution, and radioactive accidents? These are more important concerns. The things that are bad for our survival must be handled, removed, fought or worked around. And the world around us is complicated and huge, and we have to work together to make it work for us. With evil at bay, we can explore and enjoy, and extend our reach, and prepare a "better" place for our children to exist in. The mystics have "always" known the truth. The preists have "always" known the truth. Even if the truth is EXACTLY what they say it is. It still leaves the question of what we are going to have for dinner.

 

You and I would rather see a well designed transit system, than a circular argument. BUT, one of the "dangers" in this world is having other people who are your enemy, that want to kill you, so that "their" truth can survive. Religion, and mystical "agreements" bind people together, into the same "we" group, who protect each other from all that would hurt them. As you see, this gets complicated, because the same mystical agreements that bind people together on the one hand, put them at odds with those who hold "different' mystical agreements. Religions are built and civilizations and nations...but there are "other" religions, and "other" civilizations, and other nations. And there are wars between them. Sometime fought with "gentleman's rules". Sometime fought with the gloves off. And sometimes fought to the death.

 

So consider this. If we could ALL agree on the same "binding" mystical argument, under whose authority we each would police ourselves, and do only good, for ourselves, for our families, for our neighborhoods, for our states and countries, for our hemispheres and for our Earth...that would be good. But how are we to agree on that mystical thing? We have been trying. And its been working. And we have work to do. But how are we to get this agreement, without using the "truths" that mystics and religions have provided us?

 

We have to, by my current take, see the meaning behind EVERYONES truth, that is look for the "oh THAT'S what they mean", rather than assume the worst. But that would be using philosophy or mysticism. What posssible credence could that have?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 18, 2011 by tar

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I do not mind putting you in my "we" group. I have read your posts, and "know" you a little bit. I would guess that you would agree that when it comes to blind men and elephants, it is "better" to be the one "listening" to the story.

 

And that we "truely are" on many levels and in many literal ways both the characters in the story and the person that can listen to it and understand.

 

and in this way, for this purpose, our own blindness is removed and the elephant appears

 

and neither you nor I are suggesting that we can actually "see" it ourselves, but that we can know of it, by listening to our(the) story

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Thank you Tar and I appreciate for your interests to know what "they" mean and to give a benefit of the doubt. I hope I have responded to many of your questions in the on going discussion between me and Peter rather than addressing your questions directly. That's the whole point of this discussion hoping that something good might come out of it.

 

I will address your questions now.

 

"Is my unity different from your unity?"

 

No, the "Unity" is one, one can not have their own reality, reality is not something which is unique to every individual nor it is something which a person will make it up. The Unity that I'm saying, what he or she is saying and what they are saying are all same and it should be same. The observations have to be consistent, that's the whole point of mysticism. Its not a hallucination which will appear differently for different people. If it is different then they're either wrong or faking it because absolute knowledge is certain knowledge and if you have one then you certain beyond any doubt that everyone should also have the same knowledge as yours.

 

All people in this world are accesible to this truth and reality, mysticism has no religion, its not a religious doctrine. Therefore you, me or anyone can access this truth.

 

The problem of blind men and the elephants is a perfect analogy which will explain our case here. The problem with mysticism here is that each one who had gone through all the stages of 'Nirvana' will come back and try to say or express it differently but we know that it can not be expressed in words, its beyond thought and language.

 

Each blind men will explain the same elephant differently, therefore the truth is the same, its the one entity(elephant) which they are expressing it with different words. What mystics are trying to explain is like "you eat sugar and experience that it is sweet but now if what they are experiencing is "sweetness" itself how would anyone will be able to express it. What is sweetness? Can we express it? No we can't, it can not be expressed nor it can be understood it can only be known through experiencing it i.e by becoming it.

 

Therefore you can not resolve the conflict of different perspectives or interpretations of Unity just by listening to the story what someone else says. We have to listen to it and also test their claims i.e possible by only experiencing it for yourself.

 

In ancient times they wouldn't just debate about it. It was a test in which a person will claim that he knows the absolute truth and other fellow sages or rishis will ask a few questions from their own expereinces of reality. Like what were the color of the gems which the gods were wearing when they appeared to you, if he answers it correctly and and if he explains about the sequence of events that happened during his experiences and if the experiences tally then he is considered to have some credibility and declared that he has gained that knowledge and his position in the community will be raised and he will be given a higher position. The experiences have to be consistent. That's the point.

 

That is what I'm shouting from that time in this thread that Unity can not be understood or expressed using a language because in "Unity" the object and its attribute are one and the same. Its like asking what is sweetness?. No Mystic will ever talk about the Unity in his or her literature. If anyone are talking about it then its just bullshit!. That knowledge can not come out with a dialect. Its annoying that Peter still think that we can think about it. What they say is just to prepare your mind in such a way that you are not this body but you're that "Unity" that's all they advice us and that's what mystics want from us i.e to retract our identity with the outside world, you don't have a name, you're not something which are confined to your body, you're something more than that. They'll not ask you to keep thinking about what "Unity" is like. Is it like this or is it like that. You can never understand or gain such knowledge by thinking about it.

 

I would genuinely like to know why anyone would give more credence to mysticism than religion or superstition or the supernatural? I'll leave it that simple, why?

 

 

As I have said in my previous posts, the experiences or observations of the mystics can neither be predicted nor it can be repeated in a way we would repeat a scientific experiment anywhere in the world irrespective of time, place and the observer performing the measurement.

 

There is no mathematical set of equations which would predict that God will appear here at this particular time and if we peek through our eyes and make a measurement nothing will appear to us nor there is an apparatus which will show it. Similarly a mystic himself will not know when god would appear to him, he may appear once in a blue moon or may not appear at all.

 

Therefore it is not repeatable in a way we repeat our scientific experiments, it works differently but the important point is that the observations or experiences should be consistent there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the experiences. If the God appear to a sage thousands years back in time wearing blue gems and red pearls he has to appear in the same way even today and he will appear in the same way in the future. Therefore the observations should be consistent and helps us to testify it and falsify those claims and helps in the increase of knowledge.

 

As there is a scientific community holding responsibility for accumulating scientific empirically verifiable genuine knowledge there is also a mystical community or a group of people. Both the community are good at kicking out frauds from there group. The problem here is that the scientific community is universal and there is no doubt in its credibility. But the mystical community is not universal because their claims can not be predicted and repeated anywhere or at any time and its a knowledge which only exists in a small group of people who call themselves mystics, what is the credibility of such a group?, well it can only be known by testing their assertions and claims but the problem is it can not be tested in a way scientists would test the empirical hypothesis. It requires you to go beyond the senses.

 

So the only credibility of such a knowledge is that it is consistent that is there is no variation in the observations. Its definitely not a hallucination and the knowledge can be accumulated and the techniques can be passed on from generation to generation.

 

I don't know where to put such a kind of science, its not pseudoscience, its not metaphysics, its not hard type 1 science. Mysticism makes a lot of assertions but it can not give you an evidence in a sheet of paper, the evidence lies inside your mind, you know it, a group of people know it, but any other person in the universe will not know about it and it doesn't guarantee that the person performing a technique of the mystical group will experience that knowledge. There is no time frame, the experience might happen with in a few days or it may take years or it may not happen at all but if it happens and if it is real then it is consistent with earlier experiences of the people.

 

A master can only guide you, he can help you to do the technique correctly but he will not say you'll experience it after 5 days or after 1 year there is no time frame but when it happens it should be the same experience which the master had previously. The experiences are consistent. In this way the knowledge is accumulated and passed on. So I would say it is still knowledge.

 

Mysticism is not religion though its roots lies in religion, it is basically dealt with the revealation part of religion. Religion is blind faith, its a belief system but mysticism will go on and test those belief system it provides a way to test the system and their claims.

 

Gnostics are mystics they don't believe anything by faith or what their bible says instead they will go and hear it directly from the god itself. Aryas are mystics they rely on both the scriptures as well as experiences, they are philosophers who just don't interpret the scriptures and believe it blindly but they will go on to develop a method and to know how the thing in itself can be observed and experienced. Their knowledge is certain. They won't say it is like this or it is like that. They say this is the way it is, a positive assertion which can be tested. These are the true philosophers who think that both rationalism and empiricism is required to know and gain knowledge. Therefore its not blind faith that's why much credibility is given to Mysticism.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

But you say an important thing about the elephant story when you draw a different lesson from it than I do.

 

That there is indeed more than one way to "listen to the story". That there is not only one way.

 

Now my answer to this, if it is to be "correct" must satisfy the critera of being able to have both of us "meaning" the same thing. That is, neither of us, can be faking.

 

But somewhere, on some level, we must be looking at it from a "different" perspective, or the lessons we take, would not be contingent on our view of it. Both of us must be faking. We are either lying to the other, or lying to ourselves.

 

The mystics, as they ask the color of the jewels, are choosing a "particular" way, a "particular" lesson, that divides the "ways" into "various" ones. Only when this particular lie is understood as the truth, only when the true meaning of this particular truth is commonly understood, can the teacher and the student know they mean the same thing.

 

But what of my contention that there is not a wrong, faked way to arrive at this truth? What if we "start" with the truth AND end up with it, and can do nothing but become it, willingly or unwillingly?

 

Then "the will" becomes important. Our "knowledge" of good and evil becomes apparent. We know the "ways" to approach or avoid the truth, and we choose "our" way.

 

You say that there are only a select few sages who have done it right?

 

Would this not mean that they are fakers by default? That "the individual", located at his/her/its particular place and time, has "already" divided himself/herself/itself from the unity?

 

That their "lie" to themselves is that they have done no such thing?

 

My proof that they are liars, would be that if "after" they have seen the truth, in the only true manner, they get hungry for supper.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

So in other words mysticism has no added no more or less than religion or any other supernatural superstition to our first world civilization. Mysticism is just a way to pretend to know something important and use that pretense to demand respect it does not deserve. I prefer to live in our science based first world civilization, if you want to go back to the times of charlatans and fakers getting adulation for nothing be my guest but think of how low our level of civilization was when we allowed such people real power and respect. They contribute nothing to humanities store house of knowledge, they contribute no technology, no medicine, no wisdom, nothing but baseless claims about things that cannot be tested and serve no purpose, no better than or different from snake oil salesmen, multi-level marketing, preachers, pastors, or ju ju men. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mystics have the claims but no evidence, nothing positive at all. Mystics are no better than any other witch doctor, in fact that is exactly what they are, ju ju men desperately trying to remain relevant in a modern world by false promises, mysterious claims, and out right fabrications. Skeptic? One of you claimed I was not a skeptic because I could not allow for the absolute truth of the mystic, much like the revealed truth of religion, their horse feathers are still difficult to choke down with out a huge chaser of blind faith. Really really really believing something is not knowledge and neither is endless open ended speculations.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

But you say an important thing about the elephant story when you draw a different lesson from it than I do.

 

That there is indeed more than one way to "listen to the story". That there is not only one way.

 

Yes there is more than one way to listen to the story but that won't help you to understand what the story is unless you go and experience it for yourself. It requires one to take the place of a king who has seen the elephant and stops the quarrel among the blind men saying that what they're all saying is the one entity itself or say that they're wrong.

 

 

Now my answer to this, if it is to be "correct" must satisfy the critera of being able to have both of us "meaning" the same thing. That is, neither of us, can be faking.

 

But somewhere, on some level, we must be looking at it from a "different" perspective, or the lessons we take, would not be contingent on our view of it. Both of us must be faking. We are either lying to the other, or lying to ourselves.

 

The right perspective can be known only when you experience it for yourself untill then you would just pondering that this might be true or that might be true.

 

The mystics, as they ask the color of the jewels, are choosing a "particular" way, a "particular" lesson, that divides the "ways" into "various" ones. Only when this particular lie is understood as the truth, only when the true meaning of this particular truth is commonly understood, can the teacher and the student know they mean the same thing.

 

Yes there are many ways to test those experiences and all the answers must tally with the experiences of the master which he had previously at some other time. It is validated by a common understanding of the experiences they each had.

 

But what of my contention that there is not a wrong, faked way to arrive at this truth? What if we "start" with the truth AND end up with it, and can do nothing but become it, willingly or unwillingly?

 

Making random claims or claiming fake experiences will not help you to pass through the review community of the mystics and somehow make you as a genuine mystic just as a fraud scientist's research paper will not pass through a scientific based peer-reviewed journal.

 

You say that there are only a select few sages who have done it right?

 

Yes there are only a few sages who have done it and there are hardly a few genuine mystics in the world who might have transcended.

 

Would this not mean that they are fakers by default? That "the individual", located at his/her/its particular place and time, has "already" divided himself/herself/itself from the unity?

 

That their "lie" to themselves is that they have done no such thing?

 

My proof that they are liars, would be that if "after" they have seen the truth, in the only true manner, they get hungry for supper.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Ah, good joke, that's what the literature says too(they get hungry for supper), Yes I agree that they will feel hungry after they come back to the world of the empirical since they would have sat for weeks and months in only one position with out having anything to eat or drink but have you ever wondered why they don't feel hungry for all those days it is because they won't be here, their self will be in the divine world and they will not be aware of their own body and hence they won't feel hungry.

 

So obviously when you come back from the divine world to the empirical world, you'll feel your body, you become aware of your body and feel hungry. The body still has to be subjected to the laws of the physics, therefore its entropy increases and you need to feed some food to your body to make it work properly. What is transcended is your "self" not your "body", your self is now free from the constraints and forces of space and time. Your body is still alive its not dead and your self has not left your body therefore you're still aware of your body but one important difference before the experience and after the experience of the truth is that now you're free and can make your own choice whether to experience the pain of your body or not to experience your body itself.

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Yes, I suppose that is what I am saying, and it is what I mean. Only suggesting that that is "our" way. Or one of "our" ways. From the perspective of an outsider to any particular "way", the way choosen is false. To the "insiders" the way is true.

 

That is what we are talking about here, in the general sense of Reality, Theory, God.

 

My truth is the one they do not see. You see it in a similar fashion. They do not.

 

Suppose we would achieve John Lennon's "imagine" situation, and then all the world would be as one. And there was "one" person in Podunk Mississippi, and he did not want to go along.

 

We would have to start all over again. The whole dream would be dashed. How are we to get him to agree with us?

 

Or if all the world was for Allah, except "him", or if everybody except "him" believed in the scientific method, as the "only" way to get to the truth. What if this guy in Podunk thinks there is another way?

 

We would have to rethink the situation, or kill him, or just continue on, without him.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The LAST thing in the world we would want to do is consider that the guy in Podunk is RIGHT.

Edited December 18, 2011 by tar

[immortal]

So in other words mysticism has no added no more or less than religion or any other supernatural superstition to our first world civilization. Mysticism is just a way to pretend to know something important and use that pretense to demand respect it does not deserve. I prefer to live in our science based first world civilization, if you want to go back to the times of charlatans and fakers getting adulation for nothing be my guest but think of how low our level of civilization was when we allowed such people real power and respect. They contribute nothing to humanities store house of knowledge, they contribute no technology, no medicine, no wisdom, nothing but baseless claims about things that cannot be tested and serve no purpose, no better than or different from snake oil salesmen, multi-level marketing, preachers, pastors, or ju ju men. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mystics have the claims but no evidence, nothing positive at all. Mystics are no better than any other witch doctor, in fact that is exactly what they are, ju ju men desperately trying to remain relevant in a modern world by false promises, mysterious claims, and out right fabrications. Skeptic? One of you claimed I was not a skeptic because I could not allow for the absolute truth of the mystic, much like the revealed truth of religion, their horse feathers are still difficult to choke down with out a huge chaser of blind faith. Really really really believing something is not knowledge and neither is endless open ended speculations.

 

 

I doesn't want to defend mysticism since the burden of proof will be upon me and I can not give you any evidence for mysticism and I'm not a mystic either and its not wrong at all on you to take the default position at this time were there is a lack of evidence.

 

On an another note I would really like to do more research on it and test their claims and would love to know whether there is any truth behind those claims.

 

Mysticism claims many things and it server many purposes. Science can not claim to know "what space-time is?" and there is no experiment in the scientific methodology to test the assertions of "what space-time really is?" but its the kind of knowledge which mysticism claims to explain, it claims to explain "what space-time is" and gives a set of techniques to know it.

 

Mysticism claims to have a technique which help the mystic to teleport from one place to another and we also know that there is no law in physics which would prevent teleporation from happening, it doesn't violate any laws of physics.

 

We all know that all events are always happening and that the time can not be changed but it can be rewinded and forwarded to see the past and the future. Its an another claim by mystics which says that they can see events which have already happened, which is happening now and which has happened in the future.

 

Its definitely not science but it does serve some purpose and if the knowledge is consistent then it does adds something to the knowledge book of the humanities. So I would really like to know the truth behind all those assertions and request some time from the intellectual community for the evidence to accumulated which might be in favour of mysticism or against it.

[Moontanman]

I doesn't want to defend mysticism since the burden of proof will be upon me and I can not give you any evidence for mysticism and I'm not a mystic either and its not wrong at all on you to take the default position at this time were there is a lack of evidence.

 

The default position is the logical choice in matters of no supporting evidence.

 

On an another note I would really like to do more research on it and test their claims and would love to know whether there is any truth behind those claims.

 

Now here I think lies a disconnect, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) you seem to be assuming such claims have not been tested, when in reality they have been tested, over and over since even before scientific methodology was invented and so far all we get is a null result at best. Creationists often whine the mantra of "If you would only look, really investigate, the reality of creationism would become obvious. But this is a strawman, creationist writings have indeed been put to the test and they have failed in all cases. Mysticism, if it can be separated from religion and I do not think it really can, but mysticism is no better than religion and it's reveled truths, I have no doubt many people believe them with all their heart but such does not equal knowledge.

 

Mysticism claims many things and it server many purposes. Science can not claim to know "what space-time is?" and there is no experiment in the scientific methodology to test the assertions of "what space-time really is?" but its the kind of knowledge which mysticism claims to explain, it claims to explain "what space-time is" and gives a set of techniques to know it.

 

This is another strawman, "science can not claim to know what space time is?" so the default position is that the mental masturbation of mysticism can know what space time is simply because it claims to know??? On top of that who claims science cannot know what space time is? Again i am going to compare this to creationism, they consistently make such claims about science, science cannot know what caused the universe to come into existence but reveled truth to some slap happy televangelist snorting meth off the tight ass of a male prostitute can, the default position is not mysticism for the win, it's "we do not know"

 

Mysticism claims to have a technique which help the mystic to teleport from one place to another and we also know that there is no law in physics which would prevent teleporation from happening, it doesn't violate any laws of physics.

 

I claim to be an alien in disguise, my cloaked space craft is orbit as i type, none of the physical laws of the universe prohibit me from being an alien and having a space ship in orbit, can you see how lacking in substance both claims are?

 

We all know that all events are always happening and that the time can not be changed but it can be rewinded and forwarded to see the past and the future. Its an another claim by mystics which says that they can see events which have already happened, which is happening now and which has happened in the future.

 

Again, you would accept such an assertion with no evidence? My space craft can travel faster than light and I have used it to observe the dinosaurs and the extinction event that killed them all off.... unless you hold mystics to the same level of proof that you would hold me and my claims of a space ship in orbit they can claim anything and never have to back it up, never....

 

Its definitely not science but it does serve some purpose and if the knowledge is consistent then it does adds something to the knowledge book of the humanities. So I would really like to know the truth behind all those assertions and request some time from the intellectual community for the evidence to accumulated which might be in favour of mysticism or against it.

 

Again like the creationists you are indeed asking not only for something that has already been done many many times and your requests for respect of mysticism will be just as never ending as the creationist whine about science not being fair....

 

Moontanman,

 

Yes, I suppose that is what I am saying, and it is what I mean. Only suggesting that that is "our" way. Or one of "our" ways. From the perspective of an outsider to any particular "way", the way choosen is false. To the "insiders" the way is true.

 

Are you suggesting that a "way" is valid simply because you believe it?

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I do not believe in magic.

 

Nor do I believe in teleportation as anything other than an "imaginary" trip.

 

Just have a mystic go retreive some objects that would be valuable to us from the future. Or have him pop around to local star systems, and let us know what they are like, and where the closest planet with life on it, is. Or teleport around under the sea and surface of the Earth, and tell us where to find the minerals and resources we need. Science would have no hesitation in accepting trustworthy info of this sort, and would be anxious to know exactly how the teleportation is achieved. They would probably be able to not only use it to our benefit, but use the principles involved, to extend human capabilities fast and far.

 

Except imaginary capabilities, don't "actually" do anything at all.

The mystic can imagine all these things and never actually leave the mountain top.

He cannot do these things in any "real" way, or he would simply execute the feats, astound us, and then show us how it works. If he was nice.

 

I take back "a little" of my association with you, if you take the ideas that I assign as figurative in a literal fashion.

 

I am really not interested in "taking flights of fancy" of that sort.

 

I am looking for the "actual" ways before us.

 

They indeed, in my expectation, have been, are and will be quite astounding. And there is "something" I suspect, that is "behind" the wisdom of the ages, that is still true now, as it was when first noticed...BUT we are "already" using it, and it has gotten us to where we are. We can learn more, and understand better, and increase our human knowledge. But we have not yet done what we have not yet done. And we have not yet known what we are yet to know. And the mystic is constrained to reality as is the layman. The truth of any "actual" journey the mystics have taken would not be hard for them to show us. If they actually had anything to show us. Insights surely. Outsightings? Evidently not.

 

Regards, TAR2