I think my point was just that the church wants nothing to do with mysticism, for this states that the God of monotheism is a misinterpretation of experience. As Plotinus notes, consistent with Eckhart, to think of The One as mind or God would be to think of it 'too meanly'. . . . .

If we ask whether we have won or lost the lottery then the answer will be yes or no.

If we ask whether two plus two equals three or five then we are abusing the rule for legitimate pairs.

If we ask whether the universe begins with something or nothing then we are assuming one of the answers is correct but do not know this. Logic tells us that neither answer is correct. So we have a choice, Our assumption creates a dilemma and renders metaphysics incomprehensible, If we follow the logic and assume both answers are incorrect then there is no dilemma. This second assumption is necessary for the Perennial philosophy.and renders metaphysics comprehensible.

In metaphysics the second assumption is generally considered to break the laws of logic. This is a technical error, since we do not know that there is not a third answer.

Philosophers often see this logical point in relation to the freewill/determinism question and adopt compatabilism, thus doing away with the dilemma. Nothing prevents us from taking the same approach to all metaphysical questions because It is not possible to prove that the opposed answers to such questions exhaust the possibilities.

If we make the wrong assumption in such cases this is either a fallacy or a basic mistake. For sound reasoning we must know that a contradictory pair of propositions are mutually exclusive and exhaust the possibilities. We never know this for metaphysical questions. .
. .

.

You cannot build a perfectly consistent theological system: it is just impossible. — Angelo Cannata

I feel this is a vital observation. Orthodox theology simply does not make sense. Fortunately, this does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus but only certain interpretations. .

I feel it was only his death that saved him from excommunication, but you're right to say he was investigated and criticised rather than condemned.

Still, he's hardly flavour of the month in the Vatican. His experience seems to have outstripped the Roman theology. Christians are not usually encouraged to believe what he teaches and in my experience rarely know what it is.

I feel the battle is best revealed by the reaction of Christians to the book A Course in Miracles. Some respect it but most deem it wildly heretical. .

We seem to agree in many respects, but I feel the topic is too deep for a forum. .

Of course. But I've seen seen some dreadful stuff on Wiki. I once had to point out errors in an article on Nagarjuna and Buddhism to the Stanford Encyclopedia, and while they were quick to correct them it goes to show how careful one has to be. .

You and I have different understandings, but they're in the same ballpark and I don't; want to argue.

I'd just note that when I use the word 'knowledge;' I don;t mean beliefs. I mean Being, 'realisation, , 'knowledge by identity' or what Merrill Wolff calls 'introception'. .

To be pedantic. the 'peak experience' you speak of would be a misnomer in my view, since true knowledge would lie beyond the experience-experiencer duality. This is not to doubt such experiences, just only the idea that they reach to the peak .Those who reach the true peak like Eckhart and the Buddha tell us the idea of God is a mistake, and in this case 'peak experience' is not a theological phenomenon.

As for the view of the church on these matters, it it is clearly unsympathetic. Eckhart, was excommunicated and that the gnostic Christianity of the early community was suppressed.around the third century and is now largely unknown to most Christians.

As you say, many Christians have explored well beyond the confines of faith and dogma. but even so believers are not encouraged to do so. I have a Christian friend who believes both metaphysics and mysticism are the work of the devil. .

My feeling is that the only way to sort out this muddle is a study of metaphysics. and it no coincidence that A. N..Whitehead characterizes the dogmatic literalist Christianity he knew as a '#religion in search of a metaphysic'. .

nteresting! Could you expand on that a little? :smile: — 0 thru 9

Despite its;crucial importance for philosophy this is a quite simple issue.

Aristotle's rules for the dialectic include the rule for legitimate contradictory pairs. This states:

Of every contradictory pair one member is true and one false

This is the input rule for his system, and when it is violated the entire system breaks down. It would be a case of 'garbage in garbage out.'.

If you examine any purported metaphysical dilemma you'll find you cannot be quite sure that its two horns obey this rule. In this case, you cannot know it is a dilemma. It is possible that both are false,or that both are unrigorous and neither quite true of false. . .

It is for this precise reason that metaphysicians cannot refute the nondual doctrine of mysticism for which all the extreme answers for metaphysical questions are incorrect, rendering them undecidable. It obeys the laws of logic so cannot be refuted. All the seeming dilemmas of metaphysics may be explained as abuses of the rule for contradictory pairs. It's an easy mistake to make but the consequences for philosophy are utterly catastrophic.

It might be the most significant logical mistake in all of human history.

Logical fallacies committed by philosophers are ubiquitous. The greatest of all, and the the most damaging of all, is the idea that metaphysical problems are formal dilemmas. Anyone who knows Aristotle's rule for contradictory pairs will know this is not demonstrable, but still the idea is commonplace among philosophers.

↪FrancisRay
Father RIchard Rohr is interesting. Of course much of the church finds him boarding on the heretical. — Tom Storm

He is profoundly heretical, but seems spot on to me. I suspect that if Christianity survives for another century it will because of people like him.

— Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the interesting overview.

It doesn't make "perfect sense." Faith is a journey.

It makes sense to me. What does not make sense is the idea that faith is preferable to knowledge, or that knowledge cannot replace faith. This is the anti-mystical idea that for me undermines the credibility of the church's dogma and alienates modern thinkers.

Learning anything requires a certain degree of faith but the idea of learning what must always remain merely a faith, and is merely a faith even to those who teach it, will be unappealing to a rational person.

“Unless biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith. It is not just a benign nuisance that afflicts Christianity at its edges; it is a mentality that renders the Christian faith unbelievable to an increasing number of the citizens of our world.

- John Shelby Spong Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy:

It seems we're on the same page, for this para sums up my view precisely. Christianity is dead if it does not wake up to this issue. The problem is, it cannot change unless it returns to its mystic roots, and Christians I know tend to be horror-struck by this idea.

I also find Wiki useful, but it's prone to errors and this is a very subtle and difficult topic.

I reckon Russell's paradox is a good place to start since it arises for philosophers whatever their leanings. Also, Russell was dismissive of mysticism and did not investigate it, so he makes an interesting philosophical case study.

I see no point in relying to you. It's not as if you're interested. I cannot grasp why you would visit of philosophy forum. But no worries. We can just ignore each other. .

I want to learn more about mysticism. That's why in a previous post, I asked you to recommend books but you did not recommend any. Also, you did not answer my questions.

Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

My knowledge about mysticism, Perennial philosophy, monism and nondualism is limited to what I have read on Wikipedia. — Truth Seeker

I should apologies for my previous prickliness. I seem to have misinterpreted your comments and approach. What makes forum discussions so difficult is never knowing who one is talking to.

I haven't checked but doubt if Wiki is reliable on these topics. I'll just say a little about monism because in order to understand nondualism it would be vital to see that it's not monism.

Do you know Russell's paradox? This is the problem of monism. Russell tries to reduce all sets to one set and immediately problems of self-reference arise. The term 'advaita' (not two) as used to describe the nondual doctrine is negative precisely in order to avoid the implication of monism. It means both 'not two' and 'not one'. Where the ultimate is spoken of as the 'One', for instance by Plotinus, this is not a numerical one.but a unity that transcends form and number.

On another thread there is a discussion of George Spencer Brown's book Laws of Form. In it he explains that the Many do not reduce to the One but to formlessness and a conceptual emptiness. It is for this exact reason that nondualism works where monism does not.

The topic here is what we can know with 100% certainty. How those such as Lao Tzu acquire their knowledge and can be so certain of its reliability may one of the trickiest things to grasp about mysticism. In Western philosophy, for instance in the philosophy of Russell, certain knowledge is impossible and the best we can do is 'knowledge by acquaintance or 'justified true belief'. Neither of these is certain knowledge, so often philosophers believe there is no such thing. .

In fact, as I believe Aristotle states somewhere, true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge may be certain when what we are is what we know. Then the relativity of knower and known is overcome and doubt becomes impossible. An example would be 'I am', and this would be why Descartes was forced to start here when he needed a 100% secure axiom.

Thus mysticism becomes incomprehensible when we assume it is monism or that its knowledge claims are tentative.

As for books it's a tricky question since there are so many and every reader is different. One of the joys of studying mysticism is its wonderful literature, but there's no predicting what will appeal to or suit a reader. It's a matter of just diving in and looking out for texts that make sense and resonate.

For someone new to metaphysics, especially if they are scientifically-minded, I'd highly recommend The Mind of God by the physicist Paul Davies. It's the best introduction I've read and this may be partly because he's a scientist and does not waffle.

For mysticism it's really pot-luck. The Enneads of Plotinus and the German sermons of Meister Eckhart are well worth reading. The best introduction to the work of Nagarjuna I've found is The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso.

The first book on this topic I read was Cultivating the Empty Field: The Silent Illuminations of Zen Master Hongxhi. The poetry may mean little to a non-practitioner but the preface and introduction are brilliant.

In my opinion the best way to get to grips with the Perennial philosophy, other than to take up the practice, is to try to falsify it, so there's no need to abandon scepticism. Good luck!.

I'm trying to stop arguing but am always happy to chat on this topic.

. .

Monism is nondualism. — Truth Seeker

If you believe this you will never understand mysticism. But that's okay, unless you actually want to do so. I have the impression you're too sure it's nonsense to investigate the issues.

Do you really think your objections are telling? I finds this hard to believe. You're suggesting that even before understanding it you can work out that the Perennial philosophy is false, and not just false but easily debunked. As this would make me a complete idiot,there seems little point in my saying more.

Do you not see the irony in your name?

[qquote]So far, I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
[/quote]

Do you not know that mysticism denies the metaphysical reality of the 'I' you speak of here? They would call your view ignorance, for it assumes a naive realism. The egoic individual 'I' would be a fantasy, and this would be what is discovered when we investigate consciousness. . . . .
.

Like Dogberry, this learned constable is too cunning to be understood.

But for a mystic, that's probably the point. — Banno

No need for insults. t doesn't matter whether what I posted is a syllogism or not. The propositions I posted are true, and you can make of them what you will. There's nothing cunning about them and I doubt they could be stated any more simply.

I wonder why they seem difficult. I;d be happy to explain further.

Trouble is, from a claim that you know such-and-such, we cannot conclude that such-and-such is true.

After all, we do sometimes say "I thought I knew..."

13. For it is not as though the proposition "It is so" could be inferred from someone else's utterance: "I know it is so". Nor from the utterance together with its not being a lie. - But can't I infer "It is so" from my own utterance "I know etc."? Yes; and also "There is a hand there" follows from the proposition "He knows that there's a hand there". But from his utterance "I know..." it does not follow that he does know it.

Wittgenstein, On Certainty. — Banno

I'm not sure how these comments are relevant here. It hardly needs saying that you cannot know whether someone else knows the truth. To know something we have to know it ourselves. . .

Okay Tom. Regrettably I cant make them any simpler.

Is the world empty of all things a spiritual world, or a material world? — ucarr

It's not described in these terms. Matter would be illusory, and the word 'spiritual' is more to do with occultism and theism than mysticism. The world we are in here and now would be empty of things, being composed of mere appearances. Nagarjuna;s 'conventional' and 'ultimate' worlds or levels of analysis are two ways of thinking about one unthinkable.world, or two ways of being conscious of it. For a final analysis the advaita doctrine states that nothing really exists or ever really happens. Not even entropy. ,

Is your postulation of the conjoined two-world one that renders it paradoxical?

Great question and a can of worms. It is not paradoxical but, rather, the only global theory that is not paradoxical. To explain this would require an adventure into naive set theory and Aristotle's logic. Probably better on a thread of its own. . .

Are you saying the two worlds, being equivalent, preclude the matter/spirit duality?

Every possible form of duality would be precluded. The matter/spirit duality would be an invention of human beings. A unity has no parts, and a fundamental theory must reduce all distinctions and divisions.

Kant endorses this theory when he proposes that the the origin of the categories of thought is not a category pf thought and the origin of things is not a thing. Had he known of Nagarjuna I'm pretty sure Kant would have immediately understood the theory of emptiness and doctrine of two truths. ,

The two worlds doctrine explains why metaphysical questions are undecidable. They present us with two extreme answers each of which is true in one world and false in the other and are therefore unrigorous and fail to take into account the world as a whole. At a stroke this does away with all metaphysical problems. When we endorse this solution metaphysics becomes unproblematic.but utterly mind-bending. . .

Thanks for the good questions. We've wandered way off topic so apologies to the OP.

Apparently, knowing "the truth" doesn't involve having very good reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about the Buddha or Lao Tzu — wonderer1

Pardon me but yes you did. You claimed that the mystics are naive, grandiose and by implication untrustworthy. I can't imagine how you arrived at this idea.

Let's talk about your grandiosity instead. Why would anyone take seriously your claim to know "the truth". Lots of people know all sorts of truths that you don't know. So other than as a naive grandiose claim, how is your claim to know "the truth" to be interpreted?

I did not claim to know the truth, What I would claim is that the nondual doctrine, for which it is possible to know the truth, is the only theory that makes sense in metaphysics. I can know this because it's just a matter of doing the sums. . . .

To make things more concrete... There is an object sitting on the computer case on the right side of my desk. What is "the truth" about the nature of that object. Give as much detail as you can.

All object are empty of substance or true reality and may be reduced to nothing, as was shown by Kant. Meister Eckhart puts this clearly when he states that extended objects are 'literally nothing'. This would go for your body as well, and those who dig deep say it also goes for your mind. . . .

Both metaphysics and mysticism study the nature of all extended objects, so it makes no difference whether it is this or that object. As the Upanishads state:

“The understanding of one single thing means the understanding of all;
the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all.”

Aryaveda
Catuhsataka
v. 191

No, someone could be convinced that they know the truth about reality yet be mistaken about reality. I have met people who believe that the Earth is flat. They are 100% sure that they are right. I am 100% sure that they are wrong. — Truth Seeker

This has nothing to do with the knowledge claims of the mystics. I appreciate that you believe these claims are speculative, but I have the impression you've never studied them. For the mystic a ;justified true belief is not knowledge. Knowledge would be what we know. This is perhaps the most basic issue in the practice, which requires that we abandon our faiths, beliefs and speculations for the sake of knowledge. . . .

It seems an odd thing that someone called 'truth-seeker' would deny the possibility of knowing the truth. What exactly are you seeki0ng? .

Why are the answers to my questions "no"?

Because they all imply dualism. All such ideas are rejected by nondualism. Western philosophy rejects all these ideas for their absurdity, where mysticism rejects them all for their falsity. .

What incontrovertible evidence do you have to prove your claims?

Which claims do you mean specifically?

Your TOE configures "everything" and its origin as discrete things? — ucarr

Not ultimately discrete, but usually discrete in our thoughts and ordinary experience. I'm endorsing the advaita (not two) doctrine, and if there are not two things then discreteness is not an issue. In a sense there would be two worlds, one composed of things and one,empty of all things, but for an ultimate analysis or realisation the two worlds would be one.

Thus the line from the poet Rumi, 'I have put duality behind me, I have seen that the two worlds are one.' . , . ,

It is not my TOE, of course, for it predates human literacy. You might like to check out Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'two truths' or 'worlds' since it is designed to help us understand the relationship between the world of things and the world from which they emerge. . .

These ideas are very definitely testable. To state otherwise would be to say that every mystic who has ever claimed to know the truth is or was a liar. — FrancisRay

Not a liar, just naive, and in too many cases grandiose. — wonderer1

Oh boy,.. You're calling the Buddha and Lao Tu naive and grandiose? But not yourself?

If you can prove your claims, please do. — Truth Seeker

See post above.

I didn't call mystics liars. I am an agnostic regarding not just the existence and nature of Gods but also about the nature of reality. Is solipsism true? Is idealism true? Is materialism true? Is monism true? Is dualism true? I don't know yet. I may never know and that's ok. — Truth Seeker

You said that they may be wrong, in which case they are lying when they say they know the truth.

The answers they would give to all your questions here is no. None of these ideas would be true. This would be why none of them survive analysis. . ,

Lots of people make claims with 100% certainty - like many ordinary Christians or Muslims - they may also be 100% wrong. How would we know? There are many fundamentalists out there who also say things like, "I know that I know that I know that Jesus is Lord.' They 'feel' this as truth and certain knowledge. — Tom Storm

Yes, people often confuse beliefs with knowledge, but avoiding doing this must be the very basis of any search for truth. The entire point of the mystic's practice is to replace belief and faith with knowledge. The idea that the Perennial philosophy is an expression of faith will not survive a little investigation. . .

I wonder if mysticism isn't just a more sophisticated version of this very human desire to encounter certainty. I have no doubt that many mystics are certain about their experiences, what I do doubt is any need to accept their subjective experience of certainty.

The practices of mysticism take us beyond subjective experience. If it did not it would have to be nonsense.

I think there may be a Noble Prize waiting for the person who can demonstrate nondulaism. Can you tell us how this can be done? You can't just say it is 'easy' and breezily move on. While it might be child's play to point to omissions and flaws in scientific knowledge, this doesn't give us license to fill the gaps with what some might call 'woo'.

Nah. I''m not even the first person to demonstrate this. The most famous logical proof appeared in the second century CE and has yet to be refuted. Here is my briefest proof I can manage. .

1. It is demonstrable that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible/ .
2. It is demonstrable that a neutral theory is logically defensible
3. The nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical theory.
4. Ergo. the Perennial philosophy is the only fundamental theory that survives analysis.

As a philosopher It is within your powers to verify the truth of these statements - with no need to take up a meditation practice. We could go through them in order if you wish. .

This argument explains why Western metaphysics never makes any progress. It sees the truth of the first proposition but rejects nondualism, as you do in your comments above, and so has no way forward and has been rooted to the spot for twenty centuries. Even today It still thinks mysticism is all about speculative faith and belief despite having easy access a vast explanatory literature.

Happy to expand if you wish.
.

There is no secure evidence that consciousness exists other than,our own experience. This would be why Behaviourism flourished in the sciences for a while, and it's the cause of the 'other minds' problem.

The empirical evidence cannot reliably decide whether nothing is conscious, everything is conscious or everything simply is consciousness.
.

Not sure what you mean by the question but you might like to look up the word 'Turiya'. . .

If you are referring to unfalsifiable propositions then we can include all manner of claims: ghosts, alien abduction stories, and most variations of conspiracy theories. None of which are falsifiable. The fact that a claim is unfalsifiable is problematic, not a strength. If we can't test a proposition then I don't see how we can assume that it must be true. How would we determine nondualism is an accurate account? — Tom Storm

This is true for untestable and unfalsifiable claims, but I did not say the nondual doctrine is untestable or unfalsifiable. It is testable and falsifiable but as yet unfalsified because it passes the tests. It is really quite easy to test a neutral or nondual metaphysical theory. . . . . .

Not sure what you are thinking of here. The fact that a person believes something deeply and sincerely does not make it any more true. How do we know when a mystic holds a true belief?

In mysticism nobody talks about true beliefs. Either one knows or one does not. The Western idea that truth or knowledge is 'justified true belief' is rejected. For the mystic truth and knowledge depend on knowledge-by-identity or what Merrell Wolff calls 'introception'.

This is a vital point and much misunderstood. To believe that the mystics rely on beliefs that might be wrong is to entirely misunderstand what mysticism is about. It is about the acquisition of certain knowledge, and the only certain knowledge is identical with its object. This is possible where the knower and the known are one.

Thus the great Sufi sage Al-Hallaj was executed for stating 'I am truth, and not 'I know truth'. Or as Sri Aurobindo writes: 'Knowledge can only come by conscious identity, for that is the only true knowledge, - existence aware of itself'.

The basic point is that mysticism is not about believing but about knowing. Hence no knowledge claim made by mysticism has ever been refuted or falsified. These claims are made with 100% certainty. .


.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do mean that they are untestable by sensory empiricism. Please tell me what empirical evidence there is that lends these ideas credibility. Mystics may believe their claims, but they could be mistaken about their claims. Being mistaken makes them wrong without making them a liar. — Truth Seeker

Mystics claim to know the truth, and for the most advanced to actually BE the truth, so you're claiming they are liars. No mystic who ever lived claimed that they rely on beliefs rather than knowledge. To do so would make them a laughing stock. In one of his German sermons Meister Eckhart openly and explicitly pledges his soul on the truth of his teachings, and nobody would do this on the basis of beliefs that might be mistaken. , .

As for empirical evidence - off hand I would cite the falsification of local realism, the 'hard' problem of consciousness, entanglement and non-locality. Then there is the failure of scientists and philosophers to construct a fundamental theory to compete with the nondual global theory endorsed by the mystics. There is no other global theory that works, and this could be called an empirical fact since it may be established by a literature review. .

For conclusive evidence I would cite the demonstrable logical absurdity of all other global theories, although I''m not quite sure a logical argument counts as empirical evidence.

Then there is the empirical fact that nobody is able to falsify or refute the nondual doctrine which, after two millennia of trying, might be counted as suggestive.empirical evidence.

Then there is the global phenomenon of mysticism itself, which is inexplicable unless it is grounded in truth.

Just some of what comes to mind, But you've given men an idea for an essay bringing the empirical evidence together. Or perhaps it could be a new topic for the forum. .

. .

. . ,

By universe I mean: space-time universe. — ucarr

In this case you're not speaking of a fundamental theory, .

There are axiomatic ambiguities perplexing both math models and the material systems they model. The quest for T.O.E. might be quixotic.

They can be overcome. They have no impact on my TOE. I won't expand because to do so would mean going off topic. I'll just say that a TOE must explain more than every ;thing'. since it must explain where 'things' come from. (As Kant recognized). A discussion for a different thread, though, and not relevant to the topic of entropy. . ..... .

So, in this context, I am raising the philosophy questions of how was Chrisianity was constructed, and may it be deconstructed? If the emphasis on the supernatural is demystified, how does the traditional stand as a philosophy and foundation for ethics? It may be connected to a belief in God and life after death, but these are components and how do they come together? — Jack Cummins

I feel the important point here is that it was constructed. That is, it is an invention of interpreters, not a Divine revelation direct to the Pope and his priests. This invention may easily be deconstructed in such a way that it makes sense, but to do so would require a good grasp of the Perennial philosophy. I'd put (upper-case) Gnosticism aside as a distraction and focus on (lower-case) gnosticism and Classical Christianity. . . .

In this way, I am suggesting that a fuller critique of the Christian worldview is important in philosophy, especially as the perspective shaped so much Western thinking, including the foundations of science, especially the ideas of Kant and Descartes. Any thoughts?

I completely agree. The most obvious evidence of this need is a well known book by Richard Dawkins. He clearly buys into orthodox theology and thinks that by disposing of this he is disposing of religion. This is nonsense and poor scholarship. He should take your advice and dig deeper.

Whitehead notes that the orthodox Christianity of the Roman church is a 'religion in search of a metaphysic'. What we need is a metaphysical theory that explains and justifies the teachings of Jesus and the only available option is the neutral theory endorsed by Perennial philosophy. This denies the existence of the God of most Christians yet at the same time fully justifies it as a useful metaphor.

Generally I enthusiastically agree with you that this is a vital philosophical issue and that Western philosophy suffers from not properly investigating it. But how does one persuade people to be interested in mysticism when they are so sure it's a lot of nonsense they can't be bothered? Dawkins shares with many philosophers.an inability to see that the all the best arguments against the God of orthodox theology and the unquestioning faith He is said to require come from within religion, and that what he calls Christianity is a straw man invented by the later Roman church.

I feel the best way to investigate Christianity is to investigate metaphysics, for this approach will prevent a lot of potential misunderstandings. I was brought up a Christian but gave it up because I could make no sense of it - until forty years later I got to know Buddhism and the metaphysical theory that is its philosophical foundation. This allows the teachings of Jesus to sit comfortably alongside those of the Upanishads, Sufism, Buddhism, Taoism and the Christian mystics.- for instance the sermons of Meister Eckhart and the Mystical Theology of the pseudo-Dionysius - and may be securely defended in logic.

I'd say the nearest orthodox Christian theology comes to truth is the the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity as endorsed by Aquinas, but Christians are not encouraged to study this since it is too 'mystical'. A religion that discourages questioning of the doctrine is obviously flawed, regardless of what else it states. . . .

By analytic idealism, I take it to be that reality is fundamentally (ontologically) one mind which has dissociated parts (like bernardo kastrup's view). — Bob Ross

Just a note. I doubt that this is BK's view, although his language is sometimes imprecise on this point.

He has come around, I believe, perhaps partly due to his friendship with Rupert Spira, to a view sometimes called transcendental or absolute idealism.for which mind is emergent and not fundamental. For this view the extended universe may be explained as mind but not reality To think of 'The One' as mind, Plotinus tells us, is to think of it 'too meanly'.

I've discussed this with Bernardo and we seemed to agree on this point.

In other words, I don't see much amiss about sudden enlightenment, or instantaneous downloads from the universe. — Bret Bernhoft

It is said that enlightenment is always sudden since it is outside time.

It seems to me, that those who are against so-called "shortcuts to wisdom" are protecting something. But in my experience, when a quicker route to understanding is available, it is often wise to take said journey. This isn't to say that integrating explosive growth won't take a while; it probably will. This is to say that as those interested in philosophy, we should be open to what works, what is effective.

The thing is that 'integrating explosive growth' does, as you say, take time. Thus while enlightenment may be sudden wisdom takes time to nurture. We may have a sudden realisation that E-Mc2, but understanding its meaning and implications is a long process.

I don't think those who are against 'shortcuts to wisdom; are protecting anything. They are against the idea that such shortcuts are available. The difficulty here is the meaning of the word 'wisdom; for by some definitions perhaps there are shortcuts. .

Going off-piste a little, this would be why I strongly disagree with the translation of the Buddhist philosopher-monk Nagarjuna's text Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way under the now widely used title Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.. It seems to me a misuse of the word 'wisdom', as if one can get it from a book, which Nagarjuna did not suggest. .

Even if my consciousness did exist before it was aware of its consciousness, then in what reality did that unconscious mind exist?

Thoughts? — vanzhandz

I'd say consciousness depends on being aware of itself and that the idea of consciousness existing but not being aware of itself is oxymoronic.

You might like to consider that for the Perennial philosophy consciousness and reality are (is) the same phenomenon and mind would be emergent. The 'I Am' of consciousness would be fundamental, but this would not be 'your' consciousness or mine but the global phenomenon in which we all share. This is the consciousness that is referred to when it is said that if we can transcend our egoic 'me' and 'my world' consciousness then we may 'partake of the perpetual'. These ideas complicate the issues or simplify them, depending on one's pov. . . . .

Of course, it is possible that I am an immortal soul who is experiencing the illusion of having a body and being on Earth. It's possible that I don't actually have a brain and body and cells and genes and environments and nutrients. It's possible that I only have the illusory experiences of being embodied. These are interesting ideas but they are totally untestable. — Truth Seeker

These ideas are very definitely testable. To state otherwise would be to say that every mystic who has ever claimed to know the truth is or was a liar. If you mean they are untestable by sensory empiricism then this is true, but only in the sense of finding a final proof. There's plenty of empirical evidence that lends these ideas credibility.. Only for a final proof would inner realisation be necessary, for this would be the only way to finally test them. .

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.

That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.

Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized

Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr — ucarr

Could you define the word 'universe' here? Do you mean the space-time universe or the 'world as a whole'. These are very different things.
.
. .

You cannot build a perfectly consistent theological system: it is just impossible. — Angelo Cannata

I feel this is a vital point. By the same token, one cannot build a perfectly consistent materialistic system. These things do not work in metaphysics. They are found to give rise to contradictions.

I'd also agree about Jesus and the Bible. A literal reading kills the message and makes a mockery of it. One of the problems, it seems to me, is that many Christians today regard the Roman church's interpretation as reliable. They forget that prior to the third century Jesus was given a quite different interpretation

Defining concept of controversy before discussion is an important and critical step in philosophy. — Corvus

Good point. There's a reason mathematicians begin their proofs with definitions. I wasn't tempted to read the long OP without being clear at the start what was being talked about. .

When you think about it really. In philosophy there are only questions and no answers. As opposed to maths,physics,engineering and logic where there should be a definite answer to every question even if the problem is unanswerable, then answer is that it's unanswerable.
So I think I contradicted my self here, and philosophy does have answers that we cannot answer those question really, that is the answer. — A Realist

Even three months later I would strongly disagree. I say this in case you want to discuss the point.