How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[galen_burnett]

@Mark Foote thanks, that was much clearer and more direct, with a good heads-up as to what the quote was about at the end before including it. but personally i’m not really interested right now in discussing different practices, unless it has bearing on the argument of the OP. 

 

regarding our slight disagreement at the start of your most recent message: think about the process of learning to belly-breathe; at first one’s breath is high in the chest naturally; as one consciously practices one can sink it into the belly, but in the beginning it will return to chest when the practice ends; but after enough time the breath will stay in the belly no matter whether you’re thinking about it or not; the practice is then “subsumed into the autonomic-nervous-system [the part of the nervous-system that controls automatic functions of the body like the heartbeat and, for some people like me, flipping-out in online forums…]”. it’s the same for children learning to walk or run.

[galen_burnett]

@liminal_luke i hope you all have a nice circle-jerk there 👌. with enough false smiling and loud clamouring reason can indeed be drowned, so dw about it 👍 who knows, maybe you’ll all become glorious Buddhas in that single precious moment while you’re all there 😮

[galen_burnett]

13 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Does nirvanna exist?  If so, what's it like?  At this point in my life, my approach is not to worry about such questions.  Should I be suddenly transported to a realm of everlasting bliss, believe me, it will come as a complete surprise.  I'm far enough from the Mount Everest of spiritual achievement that it doesn't make much sense to speculate.  Let me get to the basecamp first, then I'll get back to ya.  Of one thing I'm certain: human potential is vast and there are people experiencing things I can't fathom.  Some are probably members of this forum.  Therefore, I like to keep an open mind.

sure, but you can’t not be aware that “Should I be suddenly transported to a realm of everlasting bliss, believe me, it will come as a complete surprise.  I'm far enough from the Mount Everest of spiritual achievement that it doesn't make much sense to speculate.” is exactly the sort of the thing you’re supposed to say as someone aspiring for Buddhahood…; you can’t not be aware that that game is played by pretending not to notice nor desire the ‘prey’ (Bliss) so that said prey will be lured unwittingly into your lap whereat it can be snatched… which is just dishonest really at the end of the day.

Edited August 19, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

5 hours ago, thelerner said:

Please consider me a brick wall and I'll consider you at a different point in life and philosophy than I.  

 

well go and cry about it! it was you who was rude in ignoring my questions which i even took the time to copy and paste from the OP into a new comment directly to you, and you didn’t even decline to answer them—just flat-out ignored them! i hope you get ignored a lot in your next life so can appreciate how hecking disrespectful it is. and, considering that, i was pretty civil towards you!

[whocoulditbe?]

15 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

you can’t not be aware that that game is played by pretending not to notice nor desire the ‘prey’ (Bliss) so that said prey will be lured unwittingly into your lap whereat it can be snatched… which is just dishonest really at the end of the day.

This metaphor is obviously sharp-edged, but I kind of love it.

[galen_burnett]

13 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Does extinction exist? Is absence an object? Does a candle generate darkness after its flame has been extinguished?

 

Fun questions to answer, but first i just need to observe that they don’t seem to have any direct bearing on the argument of the OP; are you deliberately concealing their direct relevance? or else maybe you just want to discuss some philosophy in general some more; i guess probably the latter as you ignored the most recent question i directed towards you (unless you’ve devised a clever argument against me that begins with a question for the opponent…). also of course i’m aware that your comment is not necessarily directed at myself, else you would’ve tagged me in it.

 

”Does extinction exist?”. So ‘extinction’, in the dictionary is the act of being made extinct, right? “the dinosaurs were erased from the earth before they could develop intelligence, and so became extinct”. And though very similar to ‘extinguish’ has the nuance of usually applying to species of animal, whereas ‘extinguish’ applies to other things ‘being snuffed-out’. So that’s just what society usually takes those words to mean—which i say because of the trouble that’s been caused already in thread by Semantic Discord. Does ‘extinction’ exist? Well, it’s a relative concept, isn’t it: for us, besides the odd survivor like Nessie, the dinosaurs on the surface of the earth are no more; for us, they are extinct. But objectively, when a dinosaur dies, it doesn’t just vanish from existence: it’s body decomposes and the chemical elements freed in that decomposition then go and become part of the soil and atmosphere; so really, the dinosaur’s body just changes form and goes elsewhere; while its soul carries on into another animalistic incarnation (presumably). 

 

“Is absence an object?”. I would apply the same reasoning as above of relativity to this question too: Grendel is absent from the vicinity of the king Beowulf’s great hall in the day-time, but that doesn’t mean he’s disappeared into thin-air, he’s just elsewhere… But sure we can consider ‘absence’ as an object or form or thing or quality as this helps us use it in speech: to just say a person has the quality of absence, or has ‘the object’ of absence tied to themselves (if you like, as a very roundabout way of saying “they’re not here”) is much more sensible than expounding on the relativity of the concept of ‘absence’ each time. I guess you could even extrapolate this argument to any and all Forms: you could take any object or Form and argue that at the most fundamental level its boundaries blur and mesh with those of all the Forms that surround it, even scientifically this is true; and that therefore all Forms are ultimately only relative to each other in their existence and that therefore ultimately there is only Formlessness and that all Forms are therefore illusory and invalid and subordinate to the great oneness of Formlessness; but to conclude that is to then invalidate all the real-life experiences and interactions we observe in our lives that depend on the distinction of Forms—how can we make any sense of a computer without being quite confident in the distinction between the different parts of its hardware and software? So we need Forms in order to Function, regardless of the underlying Formlessness of it all. Buddhists say the ultimate is to merge one’s Consciousness with that Formlessness, and I say that that cannot be done, due to the arguments I’ve already presented in this thread regarding Consciousness being intrinsically bound to Form—any given observer must necessarily exist as a Form in order to observe at all in the first place. And I guess here is where we bring it back to the OP after-all. Buddhists say “all Forms are unreal and illusory”; i say “nothing is more real than Form”. Buddhists say Consciousness can witness the Formlessness of it all; I say it can’t, as to do so would be a Form observing itself, which is impossible—yes, Consciousness is this great sea of Formless energy, but as Consciousness is still a Form it cannot observe that Formlessness in its entirety, an observer can only observe another Form, a Form cannot observe itself. Self-reflection is your ‘shard’ of Consciousness observing different aspects of the body-mind it is inhabiting, which different aspects are other shards of Consciousness separate to (though in harmony with) your Soul. And to counter the seeming contradiction i’ve presented, “how can Consciousness be at once a Form as well as the Sea of Formlessness?”, i say that the Sea of Consciousness is itself a Form, the ultimate Form, which can never observe itself in its entirety due to no other Form existing outside of itself. A ‘shard’ of Consciousness can indeed observe a ‘field’ or ‘stretch’ of its entirety—just looking around your room you are validating that—but never the whole thing; and therefore there will always be ‘shards’ of itself that contrast with whichever ‘shard’ is being taken as the current ‘observer’ and will thence cause that ‘observing shard’ trouble.

 

“Does a candle generate darkness after being extinguished?”. Again I think the same argument applies here regarding ‘darkness’ as an object, as the one I used regarding ‘absence’ as an object in the Beowulf example above. It’s useful to think of darkness as an ‘object’ as then we can use ‘darkness’ in other contexts—we can then copy-paste the concept of darkness into other ideas. But ultimately, what is darkness but the going-away of one form of energy (visible-light) and the instantaneous filling of the space it leaves behind with other forms of electromagnetic-energy (which modern science either knows or does not know about) that are otherwise repelled by visible-light? And so we arrive at the same conclusion of this sea of intermeshing forms that swim around each other, which forms can at the atomic level be seen to have fuzzy boundaries. So then we say ‘all is Formless’ and then we’re on the same track as the greater part of the paragraph above this one.

 

Odd that none of the wise seers in this thread attempted to answer these questions… maybe there was a glitch that hid your comment from them—we should ask the admin team about it perhaps?

 

 

[galen_burnett]

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh ... thank you !

 

As long as you realize you where a target too .   

target? i’m sure you couldn’t so much as hit a lake with a pebble

[galen_burnett]

to anyone reading this in the future: if my replies suddenly cease it’s because they banned me (which i’m expecting honestly); in which case they’ll probably remove this comment as well, if not the whole entire thread—so whatever 🤷

[Ajay0]

On 8/12/2023 at 2:05 PM, galen_burnett said:

As an aside, I am not debating here that great spiritual-experiences exist—they certainly do—; neither am I debating the immortality of the soul nor of consciousness—it certainly is—; neither am I denying enlightenment when considered as the notion of a progression through higher and higher levels of awareness, ability and intelligence; this is just an argument against the idea of the existence and attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’.

 

You have only forwarded an intellectual argument to the mental idea or concept of enlightenment. 

Using the intellect to figure out enlightenment or Buddhahood is similar to a layman using a magnifying lens to study a virus instead of an electron microscope. One will not find the virus and will use the reason as an excuse to suggest that viruses does not exist, and speculate endlessly on the argument.

Similarly you are suggesting here that 'perpetual-bliss' does not exist due to the limitations of your deployed instruments. 

 

But the Self or pure consciousness or Brahman is subtler than thought or intellect, and hence intellectual thought is not the right instrument to perceive it.

Nondual perception or the unitary perception is about experiential understanding rather than intellectual understanding. You cannot conceive it from books and argue about it from the intellectual domain alone. All this sort of intellectual speculation is only bound to result in more intellectual confusions and greater entanglement.

 

Its like a beggar ignorantly sitting above a treasure,and speculating fatalistically and pessimistically that poverty and hardship is his lot in life, and advancing the views to those walking by who care to listen.

Through experiential understanding, you will be able to grasp proper intellectual understanding as well. 

 

Some sayings in this regard...

 

Quote

 

Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman the absolute; consciousness plus conceptualization is thought. -- Yoga Vasistha

Thinking and consciousness are not synonymous. Thinking is only a small aspect of consciousness. Thought cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness does not need thought. -- Eckhart Tolle

 

“Brahman is the ultimate reality; it is simultaneously Saguna and Nirguna; divisions are due to ignorance. Mind and intellect can never catch hold of it; they have only one option and that is to merge with it.” ― Amit Ray

“Mind is like a wild horse that either runs after something or runs away from something. You are not the mind. You are the rider sitting still.” ― Shunya

 

To know yourself as the Being underneath the thinker, the stillness underneath the mental noise, the love and joy underneath the pain, is freedom, salvation, enlightenment. ~ Eckhart Tolle

“True virtue is knowing the Self not by intellectual knowledge but by pure silence.”― Amit Ray

The equivalent of external noise is the inner noise of thinking. The equivalent of external silence is inner stillness.  ~ Eckhart Tolle

 

“Go deeply into the urge to be silent and not the mental interference of how, where and when. If you follow silence to its source you can be taken by it in a moment.”― Jean Klein, Who Am I?: The Sacred Quest

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Ajay0

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

26 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

to anyone reading this in the future: if my replies suddenly cease it’s because they banned me (which i’m expecting honestly); in which case they’ll probably remove this comment as well, if not the whole entire thread—so whatever 🤷

 

 

[galen_burnett]

@Ajay0 well you’re just trying to sabotage the argument in the same way that i’ve described others doing, and again, you’re not contributing anything new to the conversation—everything you said has already been covered elsewhere in this thread.

 

it sure is strange to say “no point thinking about it” for a philosophy with such a huge body of literature behind it it… you do realise words can only be written when thoughts are engaged, don’t you? and really you should go ahead burn all that literature then, if you want to support your argument there. 

 

and then it just comes down to you trusting an ‘enlightened’ person that their claim to Ananda is verified—but if it’s all beyond words how can that person even tell you that in the first place..? [again i’m just repeating myself now]
 

any attempt to refute my hypothesis in this thread has just collapsed under its own weight like a dry sand-castle. the only way for you to persuade me is to show me a real-life Buddha; but that’s besides the point—you don’t need to persuade me, it’s i who is trying to persuade you, all you need to do is ignore my words and reaffirm your trust in your idol or guru through thinking again about how cool they are.

 

”proper intellectual understanding”… i like that phrase lol, it would be cute if it weren’t so bigoted and dogmatic

Edited August 19, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

@Pak_Satrio i don’t get it, is this a joke about that time that jeremy clarkson defecated himself on camera?

[C T]

@galen_burnett"Buddhists say the ultimate is to merge one’s Consciousness with that Formlessness..." 

 

The above, among other "Buddhists say..." statements you uttered, are a mix bag of hearsay and presumptions, none of which hold any water. 

 

What Buddhists assert is that form and emptiness are inseparable. Within form is emptiness; within emptiness... form. 

 

(if interested, please enlighten yourself on The TwoTruths; the Prajnaparamita Sutra, and various accepted commentaries pertaining to.) 

 

The whole premise of your hypothesis, therefore, is flawed due to your misconceptions and quasi- knowledge of Buddhism's take on perpetual bliss. 

 

Debating further is futile. Not to mention your incessant need to resort to put-downs. It's like talking close to someone with bad breath. 

[galen_burnett]

@C T i don’t need to add anything here lol

 

i’m sure yours is matey

[C T]

26 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

@C T i don’t need to add anything here lol

 

i’m sure yours is matey

 

You can't even if you wanted because your hypothesis (within the context of Buddhism) is so very flawed. Matey. 

 

 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

any attempt to refute my hypothesis in this thread has just collapsed under its own weight like a dry sand-castle. the only way for you to persuade me is to show me a real-life Buddha; but that’s besides the point—you don’t need to persuade me, it’s i who is trying to persuade you, all you need to do is ignore my words and reaffirm your trust in your idol or guru through thinking again about how cool they are.

I’m so grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of this amazing thread. My eyes are wide open now and I truly feel enlightened for the first time ever. 
 

I literally burned every book in my house after reading your comments, I don’t need that false knowledge when I have real wisdom right in front of me.

 

I thank you for teaching me, senpai.

[Ajay0]

3 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Ajay0 well you’re just trying to sabotage the argument in the same way that i’ve described others doing, and again, you’re not contributing anything new to the conversation—everything you said has already been covered elsewhere in this thread.

 

 You are habitually and compulsively oriented to the intellect, and think or believe there is nothing beyond that, due to social conditioning.

 

Conceptualizing nondual perception or enlightenment, imho, is like wrapping a banana skin around an another unskinned banana, and then arguing vehemently it tastes bitter and not sweet as some claim it to be.

 

Quote

 

it sure is strange to say “no point thinking about it” for a philosophy with such a huge body of literature behind it it… you do realise words can only be written when thoughts are engaged, don’t you? and really you should go ahead burn all that literature then, if you want to support your argument there. 

 

 

 

 

All this nondual literature has been written to inform the aspirant to move beyond thought and the intellect to grasp the Absolute. It is similar to using a thorn to remove an another thorn stuck in the foot, and then getting rid of both thorns.

 

The finite intellect cannot grasp the Absolute, just as a small clay jar cannot hold the ocean in it. Zen even has a saying on burning the scriptures, as it enables the aspirant to break and go beyond the compulsive habit of intellectualizing and conceptualizing everything.
 

Quote

 

and then it just comes down to you trusting an ‘enlightened’ person that their claim to Ananda is verified—but if it’s all beyond words how can that person even tell you that in the first place..? [again i’m just repeating myself now]

 

 

 

 

There are enlightened sages who have stated the same. The scriptures such as the tao te ching, and upanishads and dhammapada are testimony of the same. Nondual experience is beyond words, but the enlightened sage can use speech as a tool to communicate the same and for other purposes, and switch it off when needed, unlike a compulsive chatterbox. 

 

Quote

 

any attempt to refute my hypothesis in this thread has just collapsed under its own weight like a dry sand-castle. 

 

 

 

 

A person claims that viruses don't exist after examination with a magnifying lens , and adamantly argues on the same refuting all suggestions to employ an electron microscope instead. 

 

 What do you suggest to convince the person to use an electron microscope instead !

 

 

Quote

”proper intellectual understanding”… i like that phrase lol, it would be cute if it weren’t so bigoted and dogmatic

 

 Thank you.

 

I am talking about intellectual understanding that comes with your own experiential understanding, not others experiential or intellectual understanding. Since it is your own experiential understanding, the question of dogma and bigotry does not arise.

 

Personally, I feel sorry that something as beautiful as nondual perception, and which is the intrinsic birthright of any human being as his leg or hand or eye, is unknown to most people and they go to the grave in ignorance.

 

Maya, which is but the untamed mind, indeed is a master manipulator and trickster in making dummies of seemingly intelligent human beings, and preventing them from seeing the obvious. The skill levels in deception is quite admirable and breathtaking.

 

As the Upanishads say, only the strong and heroic can cut the net of illusion and see the truth for what it is. The weaklings and cowards live in perpetual falsehood and consequent penalty of psychological suffering.

The prize of perpetual bliss and enlightenment must be earned by intelligence and effort, like anything else in life.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Ajay0

[old3bob]

The  Self (by Grace) chooses the Self, for not even intelligence or hard effort (which are preparations) has the power of that choice.

[C T]

59 minutes ago, old3bob said:

The  Self (by Grace) chooses the Self, for not even intelligence or hard effort (which are preparations) has the power of that choice.

 

What advice do you have for those who do not ascribe to this notion of grace? What's your personal experience of it?

[steve]

On 8/12/2023 at 4:35 AM, galen_burnett said:

If we accept the argument that joy and pain are essentially dualistic opposites, then how can we sever them, throw out one, keep the other and then escape into Non-Duality with it? How can we smuggle a dualistic entity—i.e. joy—into the realm of Non-Duality? Wouldn’t Non-Duality be devoid of all experience whatsoever—blanker than blank—as all experiences in existence, including all forms of joy and pain, belong to Duality? even ‘experience’ itself can be thought of as being a dualistic opposite to ‘non-experience’ (though non-experience is impossible to comprehend).

 

I haven’t read much of this thread but wanted to comment on this. One error in your argument can be seen in the comments above. Non-duality is not something one escapes into. There is no severing of pain and holding on to joy. Non-duality is not in any way devoid of experience, not at all blank in any sense. These are wrong views. I’m coming from a dzogchen background so I am not referring to nirvana as non-duality. Non-duality embraces both nirvana and samsara in the dzogchen paradigm.

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

Zen even has a saying on burning the scriptures, as it enables the aspirant to break and go beyond the compulsive habit of intellectualizing and conceptualizing everything.
 

 

 

The disciple of Yuanwu in China attempted to destroy all the copies along with the wood printing blocks of his master's "Blue Cliff Record".

Yuanwu approved of his understanding, saying something like "now you know that I haven't been kidding you, all this time."

I'm very grateful for the Pali sermon volumes, and the "Blue Cliff Record".  For the "Gospel According to Thomas", and Cheng Man-Ching's "Thirteen Chapters".

If you have some experience with maps, and a few basic tools, you can successfully navigate over the horizon.  Some indigenous sailors in the South Seas can do it by instinct, but when you ask them for an explanation, all you get is nonsense.

 

 

6 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

The scriptures such as the tao te ching, and upanishads and dhammapada are testimony of the same. Nondual experience is beyond words, but the enlightened sage can use speech as a tool to communicate the same and for other purposes, and switch it off when needed, unlike a compulsive chatterbox. 
 

 

 

"How to make use of the mind", as Shunryu Suzuki described it, follows from seeing the mind made proper use of.  That's not the same as enlightenment, I don't think.

The examples of the sayings you provided feature several East Indian voices.  I meant to point out earlier on the thread, that the association of bliss with enlightenment seems to me more like a Hindu (or at any rate, East Indian) assumption than a Buddhist or Daoist one. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

As the Upanishads say, only the strong and heroic can cut the net of illusion and see the truth for what it is. 

... The prize of perpetual bliss and enlightenment must be earned by intelligence and effort, like anything else in life.

 

Or by having an exceptional reach?  I'm with galen_burnett on that, or with old3bob ("The  Self (by Grace) chooses the Self, for not even intelligence or hard effort (which are preparations) has the power of that choice").

[Mark Foote]

12 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

 

So we need Forms in order to Function, regardless of the underlying Formlessness of it all. Buddhists say the ultimate is to merge one’s Consciousness with that Formlessness, and I say that that cannot be done, due to the arguments I’ve already presented in this thread regarding Consciousness being intrinsically bound to Form—any given observer must necessarily exist as a Form in order to observe at all in the first place.
 

 

 

“Udayin, as an emerald jewel, of all good qualities, might be strung on a thread, blue-green or yellow or red or white or orange coloured; and a [person] with vision, having put it in [their] hand, might reflect; ‘this emerald jewel… is strung on a thread, blue-green… or orange-coloured’–even so, Udayin, a course has been pointed out by me for disciples, practising which disciples of mine know thus: This body of mine… is of a nature to be constantly rubbed away… and scattered, but this consciousness is fastened there, bound there….”
 

(MN II 17, Vol II pg 217; see also AN IV 304-305, Vol IV pg 202-203)

 

 

In freedom is the knowledge that [one] is freed and [one] comprehends: “Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the (holy)-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so’. [They] comprehend thus: “The disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of sense-pleasures do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of becoming do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of ignorance do not exist here. And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself.” 

(MN III 108-109, Pali Text Society Vol III p 151-152; emphasis added)

 

 

Gain is delusion; loss is enlightenment.

(Kodo Sawaki)
 

 

Quote

I say that the Sea of Consciousness is itself a Form, the ultimate Form, which can never observe itself in its entirety due to no other Form existing outside of itself.
 

 

 

Here’s a paragraph or two from Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematics:

 

Infinity has ruffled feathers in mathematics almost since the field’s beginning. The controversy arises not from the notion of potential infinity–the number line’s promise of continuing forever–but from the concept of infinity as an actual, complete, manipulable object.

 

Assuming actual infinity leads to unsettling consequences. Cantor proved, for instance, that the infinite set of even numbers {2,4,6,…} could be put in a “one-to-one correspondence” with all counting numbers {1,2,3,…}, indicating that there are just as many evens as there are odds-and-evens.

 

 

The mathematician Poincare sums it up nicely for me (from Wikipedia, "actual infinity"):

 

There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions.

 

(H. Poincare [Les mathematiques et la logique III, Rev. metaphys. morale (1906) p. 316])
 

 

I would say that the assumption of the existence of a completed infinite, as in “True Nature”, or “Dao”, or “God”, will result in contradictions, and such an assumption isn’t really required to benefit from the positive and substantive particulars in most of the wisdom teachings of the world.

 

At the same time, there’s a lot of useful mathematics that relies on the notion of a completed infinity for proof, and I would guess the majority of people on this earth find terms like “True Nature” useful as a means of orientating themselves in everyday living.

 

(About Completed Infinities [“True Nature”])

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Nondual perception or the unitary perception is about experiential understanding rather than intellectual understanding. You cannot conceive it from books and argue about it from the intellectual domain alone.

 

With the highest respect, whenever someone says "you cannot ... " when it comes to a non-dual or unitary perspective that indicates, at least to me, that they have not achieved the non-dual / unitary perspective.  "You cannot..." is a consequence of a dualistic perception. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_peak

 

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, C T said:

 

What advice do you have for those who do not ascribe to this notion of grace? What's your personal experience of it?

 

my personal experience was verified by the power of Grace by Grace...everything else is preparation for the "beyond" which is important, and granted all sorts of higher realms can be attained with hard work,/good karma/merit/etc.. but those exist in some form of time and space and thus are ultimately limited, as depicted in the Tibetan Wheel of Life or in other depictions or pointers as being god realms.

[Daniel]

On 8/17/2023 at 12:18 AM, galen_burnett said:

@Daniel 

Yes, I agree. But I think the concept of ‘good feeling’ and ‘bad feeling’ are simple enough to not warrant a complex definition; not vague—i don’t think there’s anything vague about a good nor a bad feeling (except in the edge-case of the bitter-sweet, but i think that’s a tangent)—just simple. I don’t think trying to give them complex definitions has any merit in the context of this argument, beyond trying to validate the Ultimate Bliss concept through semantic discord, which matter i’ve already addressed many times elsewhere. The dictionary definitions for words of ‘good feeling’ and ‘ bad feeling’ are enough to support my hypothesis, and I have yet to see any good argument that suggests otherwise.

 

 

Galen, please understand the delay in my response.  I wanted to reread what you wrote originally to be sure I didn't misunderstand what you were saying.  My initial reaction to the OP was that it resonated deeply with me, and I agreed with virtually everything you said.  And on review, I still agree, and I still relate to what you're saying.  I still think I understand your point of view and the argument you are making.

 

My concern about vague definitions is best described in this quote from the OP:  "The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in Buddhist philosophy...".  I disagree here.  I'm not a buddhist, it doesn't speak to me even in the smallest way.  However, from what I read in their canon, Buddha did not advocate at all for attaining perpetual-bliss.  Instead, I would label it, attainment of death or a void, literally avoiding all sensations including suffering.  However, I do think that buddhists acheive a form of bliss from their practice, but, I think they are actually achieving sat-chit-ananda from the hindu tradition.  Of course, all of this depends on proper rigorous definitions.  And as you pointed out these definitions can be denied, or shifted, like goal posts undermining meaningful discussion.  None the less, without the rigorous defintion to begin with and agreement among the interlocutors no logical discourse can occur.

 

So, what are we ( you and I ) really talking about?  And what are those in opposition to our position really talking about?  I propose that when the objection is coming from a buddhist, there is probably a disconnect between what buddhism is preaching and what the practioner is experiencing.  And this is the fault, at least part of it, that you have identified in the OP where an individual denies the duality of their process to temporary experiential bliss like someone who has climbed a tree but denies the branches they are using (present-progressive) to get there.

 

 

Quote

“The material conditional is a fickle beast, as such, most logical proofs employ the contra-positive, what I think you're observing as "contrarian", in order to interact with a logical proposal.”

 

I thought liminalluke contrarian because he was at once saying “pleasure is not happiness” and then going on to say how we can be happy just through experiencing daily “pleasures”. I don’t think liminalluke was employing the Contrapositive (‘A is false therefore B is false’, in argument against ‘A is true therefore B is true’), i really don’t see any connection there at all, he was just being self-contradictory, which is just flat-out incoherent. Don’t really see why you’ve brought a discussion of the Material Conditional and the Contrapositive into the matter.

 

I didn't read those comments that way.  But to answer the question, my intention was to highlight the value of being contrarian in any logical discussion.

 

 

Quote

“This is natural” it’s not too clear what you are referring to by the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’. I guess, by your following sentences, you mean by it ‘the application of logic’.

 

"That", was intended to be the "contrarian" or contra-positive attitude when responding to a logical proposal.  It, the contrarian, is responding naturally and normally because "logic" in spite of being formal it is also natural.  Contrarian, in my opinion is not hostile in this context.  But, it sounds like maybe, my observation is shared between us, or irrelevant to you, so please disregard.   

 

Quote

I don’t think I’ve generated any Paradoxes of Material Conditional, where an example of such a Paradox would be thus (quoted from Google): “it is definitely raining (1st premise; true); it is not raining (2nd premise; false); George Washington is made of rakes (Conclusion); as there is no possible situation where both premises could be true, then there is certainly no possible situation in which the premises could be true while the conclusion was false.” [As an aside, Wiki tells me that despite what you say at the start of §3, Material Conditional and Material Implication are the same, and I don’t really care to get into semantic discord on this as it seems to be besides the point]. I think my logic works fine: it is based on my collective life-experience, intuition and intellectual knowledge: my hypothesis runs through that collective body logically, with the joints that are most vulnerable to refute being where it must be taken on trust by others that I have experienced certain unusual things, and also the parts where I make some necessary leaps of deduction in the absence of concrete knowledge. I disagree that I’ve over-intellectualised anything, as, like I said, a large part of my hypothesis is based on tangible experience; the intellect of the hypothesis is just a natural connecting of everything i can see, and that i know, together into a string.

 

Here, I was reacting to what appeared to be pitfall along the way to making your point.  The pitfall is, logic is not perfect.  It is in many ways "rules" based, and those rules can be bent or broken.  The breaking and bending is what produces the paradoxes in that link.  What I was trying to convey is that logic has some issues.  

 

Big picture, my concern was that in the same way that the non-dual claimant defeats themself, the argument you are bringing defeats itself if it makes the same mistake.  From my review of your argument in the OP, what you are identifying is an inherent duality which cannot be denied.  ( of course, I'm summarizing.  There's a lot more detail there. )  If logic/rational understanding is lifted up and its own partner supra-rational/experiantial/emotive understanding is being denied, then the original argument of inherent duality collapses.

 

If this is what is happening, and being completely honest, that's how it appeared to me, then what resonated with me in the OP is greatly diminished.  If i understand what you are saying in the OP, there are inherent natural violations of the law of non-contradiction.  Suffering does not cancel joy, one cannot have one without the other.  Or, from my point of view, in general, one cannot annihilate one without anihilating the other.   

 

Quote

You’re talking about what it means for an argument to be defeated. It kinda just sounds like you’re getting your camp ready for ‘defeat’… like “defeat is not so bad—think about it this way…”.

 

My camp is mobile and from what I have noticed round here.  Solitary.  Which is perfectly fine with me.  I am inspired by the rear guard, the clean-up crew.  But, yeah, other than that, defeat isn't so bad at all.  It's just another opportunity.  

 

Quote

All ontologies break eventually, including my own—I understand and admit this—; therefore any attempt at figuring out life is ultimately futile—but it’s still fun and supportive and comforting to try nonetheless, as you can still figure out a lot of it with respect to one’s own point of view, through developing an ontology (or in the case of Buddhists etc. assuming another person’s ontology). But I repeat, no-one has  been able to meaningfully refute anything I’ve said so far. 

 

I agree.  What seems to be happening is talking past one-another.  But, if your argument hinges on inherent duality, if that duality is abandoned ( "nothing defeats classical logic, all contradictions are false" ) then your argument has refuted itself.  Please note, I said 'IF'.

 

Quote

We’re all human beings living in society in 2023 on the surface of planet Earth, right? So a lot of our experiences are common between us. The differences in opinion in philosophy arise when we come to try and deduce the deeper things which we can’t know concretely due to the  limitations on our scientific understanding of life. I assert that all things can, in the end, be understood scientifically by the highest intelligence imaginable (by God, say); all matters of life and death and the soul and the material and immaterial can with omniscience be understood logically, just like mathematics in a book (the exceptions to this being the small handful of ultimately unanswerable questions of “why and how does anything exist?” and “what is consciousness?”, and also, in my opinion “why is it that all things necessarily balance?”). So our disagreements come when we deduce different things about these deeper more elusive matters, such as the exact procedure of reincarnation for example, the finer details of which our beyond our current ken. But what can happen when two parties engage in philosophical debate is that one party presents a world-view that does indeed relate to the experience and knowledge of the other party and does so in such a way as to join it all together more coherently for that second party than the world-view previously held by that second party did: someone subscribing to Buddhism recognises that the ontology of Buddhism makes more sense to them than that which they previously held (I guess usually people don’t have much of an ontology at all before subscribing to published philosophy, and that’s fine, we all start somewhere, and I myself was like that once). What am I doing here? I’m trying to ‘defeat’ the philosophy of Ultimate Bliss by placing in opposition to it what I think would be recognised by an open mind as a more coherent ontology; i don’t necessarily want anyone to assume for themselves my own ontology, rather i just want to shake people up enough so that they can realise that Ultimate Bliss is a fallacy—it would be cool if they thereafter developed their own ontology which was impressive enough for me to need to make changes to my own, and so forth. Yes, hostility can easily arise in this sort of thing, we’re touching on very sensitive stuff, but c’est la vie. Regarding what one should think upon being defeated (“agnosticism; trivialism”), I already touched on that in my previous sentence; and really that’s a ‘post-game’ matter, I think, additional to the main discussion (which is the matter of the existence of Ultimate Bliss). No, I agree, defeat does not mean you have to throw out absolutely everything you used to know; my own ontology is in fact informed greatly by Eastern philosophies—as in, I once subscribed to those philosophies, was ‘defeated’ by my current ontology, yet I have retained a lot of what I used to think in my new world-view. I’m not going for a nuclear-attack here on Eastern philosophy; I’m just targeting something very specific about it.

 

I view it differently.  It seems to me that each and every scienfic discovery produces several new unanswered questions.  This produces a one-to-many relationship between what is known and the unknown.  As a result there will always and forever by much much more that is unknown compared to the known.  If so, then, science will never explain everything.  It can't.  Not that humanity should give up on this pursuit.  Look how much has been accomplished!  Instead, I appreciate parallel pursuits which are more comprensive; where each and every individual's talents are included.  We are a wildly diverse species.  This diversity is a natural advantage.

 

Personally, I think the push-back on what you're saying is because the master/disiciple guru/adherent relationship is extremely spiritually rewarding for both the master and the disciple.  Getting either the master or the disciple to articulate the mechanism dispells the illusion which undermines the potential reward an the time spent pursuing it.  They do not want anything interfering with access to their honey.   (swarm imagery intended)  And, honestly, I don't want to interfere with it either.  Even if it's a lie, as long as people are enjoying their honey, who am I to object as long as innocent people aren't being hurt?  Although I do get a bit miffed when ancient authors are misquoted and their texts revised or if morality is being erased in favor of a free-for-all.  Those are slippery slopes which I think are important to guard against. 

 

Quote

 

 

Yes I agree a purely intellectual understanding of life is an ignorant one; and though it may perhaps seem like my own is of that nature, due to the relative complexity of my writing when compared to the average post on the world-wide-web, I must assure you, as I mentioned above in one of my paragraphs in response to your ‘§3’, my world-view has developed out of a mix of experience, intuition and intellectual knowledge. As it happens, I get very flustered and annoyed with these obtuse atheists who deny all notions of anything existing beyond what they can see using computers and microscopes.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

“Slow is smooth and smooth is fast”; while I understand why you’re using it to illustrate the closed-mindedness of ‘logicians’, it’s not a great example with which to demonstrate the failings of logic: this maxim also goes by ‘festina lente’ (‘hasten slowly’ in Latin), and can be expanded to ‘start slowly and carefully, and over time the efficiency that that you will develop through that careful attention will yield great speed’—and in that expanded form it is completely logical, there’s no contradiction there; it just seems contradictory (and is not really that hard to see through) when you condense it verbally to ‘festina lente’; and I’m sure logical philosophers of antiquity such as Plato or maybe Cicero would not have got confused by this.

 

I learned it more literally as a maxim for execution of a carefully coreographed team objective.  Not preparation, execution.  Slow is fast. literally.  But it's from a team environment, not self-cultivation.  My intention here is to bring an example where the law of non-contradiction fails.  I have no idea how Aristotle would react to this idea.

 

Quote

“But when I say defeat, I only mean that it is not true in this case, but might be true in others depending on the connections and relevance between the phenomena.” 

 

Are you saying that while Ultimate Bliss may well be refuted and deduced to be non-existent here, it can still exist elsewhere? If so, I don’t follow your reasoning there…

 

I'm saying, non-contradiction is not a universal law.  Regarding ultimate bliss, I think it exists, but it has nothing to do with non-duality.  Folks may get a glimpse of the bliss, but as soon as they claim it's non-dual, I pretty much disregard anything intellectual they have to say about the mechanism which is producing their blissful experience.  If they describe it as a relief?  OK, ok, that's different.    

 

Quote

I don’t think you can ever ‘prove’ the law of Non-Contradiction to be non-universal: a ‘proof’ requires in itself the law of Non-Contradiction to hold fast. Ultimately, I think the law of Non-Contradiction does indeed break at some point when trying to grasp the nature of reality; but it does so at a point beyond the considerations of suffering and bliss; and in any case, the breaking of logic does not in any way validate the existence of  Ultimate Bliss, just like it doesn’t necessarily validate the real-life existence of Super Mario—absurd, no? You seem to be throughout this message trying to validate contradiction, which is the ultimate way one could think of to sabotage my hypothesis: if logic is defeated, there can be no arguing, no theses nor hypotheses, so no-one is right and no-one is wrong and so Ultimate Bliss is real if i say it is real, as is Pinocchio…

 

Well, my intention was to show that non-contradiction is not universal, not a law.  It sounds like we agree here.  And, if I understand, your argument against non-dual-perpetual-bliss requires the contradiction that suffering and joy co-exist.

 

The problem I'm identifying is one cannot use the argument "suffering and joy co-exist" while at the same time arguing for universal law of non-contradiction.  Ad it sounded like that's what was happening.

 

However, even if the argument against non-dual-perpetual-bliss breaks down, ( is defeated ), my approach returns the propostion to agnosticsm.  IOW, if the argument breask down, my conclusion is: "Maybe non-dual-perpetual-bliss exists."  Althought that's not my position.  My position is, "non-dual oblivion exists, and if that's your cup of tea, be grateful people like me exist to cover your backside from tryannts who wish to stomp on you.  Oh yeah.... there's no room for grateful in oblivion.  Never mind.  Feel free to be oblivious.  My reward doesn't come from your gratitude."

 

Quote

I made a brief search for Modal Logic but couldn’t see how it relates at all to our discussion. As an aside, please know that I have not studied Western philosophy much at all, so any esoteric terms you use of that field will be unfamiliar to me and I will need to research them if you do not explain them.

 

The point I was trying to make is that different logical systems exist and the choice of which to use is important.  I use a blend.  Maybe you could answer this?  When you are considering this specific logical propsal:  "Perpetual bliss does not exist" do you assume it's true unless it is proven false?  Do you assume it's false unless it's proven true?  Do you assume it's unknown unless it's proven true or false?  The answer to these questions are important to determine what it means when an argument is presented in support or in opposition to the proposal.

 

I'm in the agnostic camp, which is a essentially a combo of connexive logic and modal logic.  Modal logic includes an all inclusive paramater, necessary truth is true "in any possible world".  One of the features of connexive logic is that is adopts Aristotle's theorum, "from falsehood... nothing."  Which is another way of stating the principle of all modern justice systems, "innocent till proven guilty".   Suprisingly, classical logic has adopted the opposite, "guilty till proven innocent", and that is the basis of the material conditional, aka formal "implication".  But the amatuer logician will never admit it.  This is what produces all the paradoxes I mentioned from the material conditional.  People love it, though, because it permits maximum creativity.  

 

Anyway, From this, if a valid argument is made in opposition to a proposal I'm making, it generally results in a negation in one of many possible worlds.  In all other worlds, the proposal is still innocent.  The reason I adopt this method is that I believe **one way** that the perpetual bliss is achievable is from exploring any and all possible worlds.  If a person brings me a model for a possible world I have not considered, it is a blessing if I can lift myself up out of myself and visit that possible world in my mind.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Well, no, the law of Non-Contradiction, the existence and power and use of logic is not rare at all; it is absolutely everywhere you look and the whole world as we know it collapses without it: without it there is no day and night, no living creatures, no machines nor technology, no words, no nothing.

 

All of those are external phenomena.  And, what I was trying to say before about quantum mechanics is that the non-contradiction is a result of the observer effect.  So, there's an inherent sympathetic paradox.  Logical non-contradiction requires systems in isolation, but the observed non-contradiction is produced by being constantly bombarded by interactions with others. 

 

Quote

[Also, what do you mean by “classical logic has no hierarchy”?]

 

Meaning that heirarchy of significance and relevance cannot be established in classical logic.  It doesn't have tools for weak and strong evidence, for example.  There is no spectrum.  It's on/off, binary, true or false.

 

Quote

 

§6

 

“Further, almost any internal process cannot be modeled using classical logic because it is better modeled as quantum phenomena.  Particles in a quantum domain are known to occupy two distinct "places" at the same time violating the law of non-contradiction.” 

 

Well, the whole discussion so far has been about trying to validate liminalluke’s contradictory statements; but you seem to now be trying  extend a justification of contradiction to “internal processes” and thence, I guess, to the validation of Ultimate Bliss. And yes, of course you can model an internal-process on logic: we practice A and B and C in yoga and then we get to state Z—logic! it’s not “we bounce around randomly and somehow end up in desired state Z through some quantum glitch”. Yes there is apparent contradiction in quantum physics, but I’d bet my life that those contradictions will be resolved with a greater knowledge of the science and it is naive to try and use our current limited understanding of that science to validate contradictions in logic.

 

The idea was not to validate what Luke said, but to avoid the pitfall which you identified in the OP.  Yoga, if I understand, is not a linear progression.  People practice and then jump, quanta, to another concsious state.  There is not perfect recipe for this, and like quantum particles, they absorb energy then jump.  My assertion is that they also emit energy and collapse as well just as the quantum particles do.  And there's probably a corresponding observer effect as well.

 

Th notion that 0=1 in a quantum domain is well established.  I'm not sure that it will be corrected.  The thing is, it's not a contradiction in the quantum domain.  It's perfectly natural.  It just doesn't follow the rules of observed phenomena.  And this example is intended to support my position that non-contradiction in classical logic is not appropriate for understanding the mechanics of internal processes. 

 

 

Quote

“In this way, internal processes are, somewhat, isolated systems.”. No, I don’t follow you there, I don’t see how you’ve arrived there from a consideration of quantum-physics. Isolated systems don’t exist. And it’s trivial to say the internal is isolated because we can’t see it with our eyes: it can be ‘seen’ with all our other senses! And so your logic in

 

“Because of this, I think it's good to retain a bit of caution applying rigid external logic systems to internal human dynamics like happiness and suffering.” 

 

doesn’t follow for me. Neither do I see a connection between your reference to “closed systems” in your fifth paragraph and this reference to “isolated systems” here; in the fifth paragraph you seem to say “logic only works in closed systems” yet here you’re saying both that people are “isolated systems” yet somehow logic should not be applied to them, despite what you stated in the fifth paragraph…

 

Sorry.  I'm trying to describe an objective difference between inner processes and external phenomena.  Internally, in my experience and conversations with others, the contradictory nature of internal processes can be objectively felt.  And this is because they are not bombarded by electromagnetic interference in the same way as exernal phenomena.  External phenomena, while it can be modeled as isolated systems, nothing is actually isolated.  These quantum interactions produce non-contradiction.  So like I said earlier, the benfit and the liability of logic is its rigidity.  It assumes that everything is in an isolated system, which is a benefit because almost  everything appears to be distinct on the human scale.  And as it is observed, all contradictions are resolved.  This is a benefit  The liability is assuming this is the case internally and universally. 

 

Quote

Happiness and suffering are bound to logic due to them being a pair of opposites, like any other in Duality, and thus are bound to the ‘law of balance’ in Yin-Yang.

 

I wouldn't call that logical.  I would call it harmony with yin and yang.  ( apologies for the semantics, but I think it's an important distinction. ) 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Daniel