As with mind, these pure ideas are only contingent, re: theory-specific, logical starting points, a way to deny to speculation its inevitable descent into self-contradiction. — Mww

Yes, I agree. Likely, we can't help but to speculate; the starting point of all constructions. And yet, like you suggest: end of the day, they never stop being constructions.

Well said.

It is impossible to generalize since we are all unique. Some need a guru, a sangha, an advisor, a wise friend. But these are all things that must be left behind. There is really nothing to be learned, nothing to be gained, nothing to be known, beyond simply becoming able to relax completely and let go, and be yourself without any fear of missing any mark or any truth, or making any mistake.

The deepest illusion, the most profound nonsense that needs to be expunged is the idea that enlightenment consists in finding the Absolute Truth, coming to know the Ultimate Essence of Reality.

Yes, I agree. Likely, we can't help but to speculate; the starting point of all constructions. And yet, like you suggest: end of the day, they never stop being constructions. — ENOAH

Yep. And obstructions. Just being is not a condition of knowing anything.

It is impossible to generalize since we are all unique. Some need a guru, a sangha, an advisor, a wise friend. But these are all things that must be left behind.

Quite, I remember when I met and became friends with a guru at his ashram. I had expressed an interest in meeting him and when he came to sit with me, he was defensive at first which surprised me. Then I realised that most people who approached him in this way wanted him to lift a burden, to somehow solve their problems. Or be someone they can lean on (metaphorically) and somehow leave all their worries behind. When I conveyed to him that I didn’t want anything from him and just wanted to hang out in friendship. He was visibly relieved and we spent a week enjoying the practice of puja, with a sense of fun and humour. During which I realised that there was a complex dynamic of seekers, worshippers, people working through their own spiritual, or mystical processes. All using him as their focus, crutch, motivation. It was very fertile ground and I made some important realisations there.

There is really nothing to be learned, nothing to be gained, nothing to be known, beyond simply becoming able to relax completely and let go, and be yourself without any fear of missing any mark or any truth, or making any mistake.

Yes, to remove the impediments to being yourself, in stillness and joy, or contentment. And yet there is still value, meaning and education to be gained alongside that and work that can be done.

The deepest illusion, the most profound nonsense that needs to be expunged is the idea that enlightenment consists in finding the Absolute Truth, coming to know the Ultimate Essence of Reality.

Yes, but this along with other aims of the seeker are understandable, because one is blind at that stage. Blind in the sense that there is no sense of direction, no goal, no means of attaining one’s perceived goal. One is just trying anything that looks like it might work. This is where a guide is useful, or a school.
I liken this stage to questing, a series of quests that one undertakes and comes to realisations about oneself and the path and the direction of travel. Eventually one reaches a point of stillness, focus and direction*.

What this indicates to me is that this is not a process of intellectual learning, or wisdom as such, but more one of a development in the self. A process in the body, the being.

*Many seekers never reach this point.

This ain’t no place for me to expound on my own philosophical views which I’m working into a treatise
(which could be labeled as analytically philosophical mysticism), but as to this quoted conclusion:

The deepest illusion, the most profound nonsense that needs to be expunged is the idea that enlightenment consists in finding the Absolute Truth, coming to know the Ultimate Essence of Reality. — Janus

If “Absolute Truth” signifies one and the same with “complete conformity to the Ultimate Essence of Reality” (and what else could it cogently signify), then:

There is, first off, a glaring difference between 1) gaining a deep understanding of what Absolute Truth is as that which is to be forever pursued as the imperfect being you will forever be till the time it is obtained in full (together with the deep understanding that it in fact is) and 2) having gained it in full such that it becomes actualized. To illustrate via just one possible path toward it: in Buddhism, wherein Nirvana is just this so-called “Absolute Truth” of perfect and literally selfless being, and wherein all existence is but illusion (maya), there is a massive difference in having actualized an understanding of Nirvana (being Nirvana-actualized in this sense) and actually actualizing Nirvana (being Nirvana-actualized in this later sense). No body-endowed Buddha could ever have been Nirvana-actualized in the later sense while yet embodied within maya (yet needing to eat and drink to sustain one’s life, for one example of desires and attachments yet had), yet all were and are reputed Nirvana-actualized in the former sense (the Dalai Lama as one example).

That given, it ain’t like the understanding of the Absolute Truth is linguistic or else composed of thoughts one puts together. Instead, it is composed of nonlinguistic cognizance which mediates all possible thoughts one might have after the understanding is obtained (and the given human devised linguistic expressions utilized to communicate these thoughts). And, as with many another, once the understanding is had, it can’t be let go of (at least in no easy to conceive means). Even if one can find no practical way of conveying it to others than by means of artistic manifestations within the given culture one finds oneself: William Blake as one non-Eastern example of this.

Thirdly, for the more physicalist beings out there, damn, devoid of any earnest desire upon understanding what Absolute Truth as defined above is, there would be no empirical sciences to speak of. Perfect objectivity of awareness—often mocked as “the view from nowhere”—is precisely being at one with the Ultimate Essence of Reality, is thus Absolute Truth as previously defined. Take away all earnest desire toward a closer proximity to a perfect objectivity of awareness and what remains of the sciences but quackery and snake oils sold for personal material gains without any concern for what in fact actually is. And, here again, there is a mammoth difference between a) the desire to be objective which is requisite for b) being more objective relative to what you would otherwise be, and which would both be utterly impossible to steadfastly maintain with a straight face where complete objectivity to in fact be “the deepest illusion, the most profound nonsense that needs to be expunged”. And no, there can be no dualistic ego, no self, in a state of complete objectivity—for it, conceptually, would completely obliterate all possible senses of otherness, or otherwise it could not be—but then, neither could there at such a conceptual juncture be any “views regarding otherness”. Making the mockery of objectivity a complete stawman, to not say bullshit. To then deny the absolute truth that awaits to be found in a complete/absolute objectivity is to be one's own worst enemy in upholding the validity of scientific knowledge (that of climate change as no exception).

And fourthly, what physicalist out there maintains anything other than that “the Ultmate Essence of Reality” is, in fact, physical matter—thereby maintaining their having already obtained an understanding of what Absolute Truth is. With doublethink to boot if they then go about denying this very state of their convictions.

Imperfect as I am, I find the statement quoted in this post too detrimental to not succinctly comment on it.

I know what you are saying, but there is a problem with the use of truth and knowledge here. These are both things which us mortals experience and work with in this world. Whereas in the nirvana you talk about, they have fallen away, there is direct experience, direct knowing. There isn’t anymore a question of truth or falsity, or knowledge in the sense of having learned, or understood something. It is more direct than that.
There is a whole language in Buddhism developed to talk about and describe these exalted states. Something which has not been developed very much thus far in the Western traditions.

I agree with what you say. Truths which can be questioned and knowledge in the form of JTB are things that only pertain to dualistic egos. And that which mysticisms world over point to is the culminating end of “being sans dualistic ego that is thereby in pure bliss”. It is not something that can pertain to any dualistic ego (aka empirical ego) but, rather, it can only pertain to the trancendental ego alone.

Take Sufism for yet another example. In most everything a Sufi does and says, the Sufi seems to have an understanding for this potential ultimate end which is simultaneously residing both within and without. In this, the Sufi hasn’t yet actualized this ultimate end for themselves, but retains a deep understanding of it and thereby an alignment to it. As a more concrete example of this, Sufis seek to actualize Fitra (roughly: the “innate nature” with which we’re birthed into this world of being one with the oneness (aka, divine simplicity) of God—again, with divinely simple being being non-dualistic). And—although Sufism and Buddhism rely on vastly different scaffoldings of language, tradition, conceptual understandings, etc.—the parallels between Fitra and Buddha-nature are striking. Both pointing to the same ultimate outcome and the same roundabout means of getting there.

To deny that at least certain Buddhists, Sufis, and many another all hold a deep, non-conceptual understanding of this ultimate truth (here, truth signifying "conformity to that which is real") regarding what is ultimately real—“Nirvana without remainder” for Buddhists, “Oneness with the divine simplicity of God” for Sufis—is, to my mind, to then construe all mystics world over to be utter charlatans. And although Buddhists and Sufis address this ultimate goal and awaiting ultimate end via different linguistic means and different cultural scaffoldings, it always amounts to the same thing: one’s complete conformity to, via which one perfectly becomes one and the same with, an absolutely non-dualistic wholeness of limitless being. And as per my previous post, this very same roundabout definition just as readily applies to (among many another idealized state of being) an absolutely objective awareness—which everyone seeking to be more objective (aka more impartial) approaches in due measure.

This ultimate end to me is, poetically expressed, like the very core of a jewel which can only be perceived by us dualistic egos via its many facets, each facet depicting just one of its many attributes, all of them in fact being perfectly unified in non-dualistic divine simplicity within the core. Here too one can find the same given jewel’s one facet of Plato’s “The Good”, to add just one more commonly known example.

To me, the mystic has understood the jewels core—not via debated conceptualizations but via a type of eureka moment applicable to the transcendental ego within all of us. But, in remaining a dualistic ego embedded within a specific culture which has its own ready existent scaffoldings, the mystic will then utilize the cultural and linguistic scaffoldings of his/her surroundings to navigate the waters of existence toward this very same end.

So yes, this deep inner understanding is neither a questionable truth, nor a debatable conceptualization, nor a JTB (all of which pertain to dualistic egos alone). Nevertheless, such an understanding is all the same one species of knowledge. Which again harkens back to the mysticism to be found in the dictums of the Oracle of Delfi, the mouthpiece for the god Apollo: "know thyself". (More analytically: come to understand the reality and implications of the very core to you as an aware being: that of a transcendental ego.)

I agree that there is a sense in which experience, everyday, ordinary experience is ineffable—no account or explanation is ever the experience itself. So mystical experience, which is characterized and identified in terms of feelings (even though certain kinds of thoughts are variously culturally associated with those feelings) is really no different than ordinary experience except in virtue of those heightened feelings and sensitivities.

The "deep inner understanding" is not really an understanding at all but a heightened feeling. To qualify as an understanding it would have to be capable of precise articulation, which thousands of years of documented attempts show cannot be done.

So instead of the physicists "shut up and calculate" we have "shut up and experience". Note, I don't deny that poetic language can evoke such experiences, but evocation and explanation or understanding are very different things.

The "deep inner understanding" is not really an understanding at all but a heightened feeling. — Janus

Nope. When we get something, when something clicks with us, there may be emotions also experienced, but the thing that clicks--the deep inner (to the transcendental ego) understanding--is not the emotions that accompany. And it cannot always be easily articulated via the words currently available to us. It, however, is one of the more potent ways in which new insights make sense to us. It is one very important and pivotal type of understanding.

To qualify as an understanding it would have to be capable of precise articulation, — Janus

When it comes to the understanding of what I previously poetically referenced as the jewel's core that all mystics are aware of, I agree that current English language (more specifically, current English terms) are insufficient to address it. But this can, or at least could, be remedied via the introduction of new terms into the English language--at least so far as philosophical enquiry is concerned. This just as a plethora of philosophers throughout history have done. Terms that could parallel what was saying about Buddhist language and terms. And, at such a juncture, the understanding can then well be articulated in precise rational/analytical philosophical means.

which thousands of years of documented attempts show cannot be done. — Janus

Never say never. For one thing, it prevents any progress being made in realms such as this. As one parallel example, same can be said of what beauty is--no one has yet satisfactorily explained it despite being investigated for millennia. To say it therefor can never be satisfactorily explained terminates all enguiries into it. I much rather prefer keeping an open mind in fields such as this.

Nope. When we get something, when something clicks with us, there may be emotions also experienced, but the thing that clicks--the deep inner (to the transcendental ego) understanding--is not the emotions that accompany. — javra

You can believe that if you want to—the point is that you cannot logically or empirically demonstrate it. That shouldn't matter if you feel a conviction—why do you need to convince others of it?

But this can, or at least could, be remedied via the introduction of new terms into the English language--at least so far as philosophical enquiry is concerned — javra

I don't see how new terms are going to help support something which cannot be logically or emprically demonstrated.

Never say never. For one thing, it prevents any progress being made in realms such as this. As one parallel example, same can be said of what beauty is--no one has yet satisfactorily explained it despite being investigated for millennia. To say it therefor can never be satisfactorily explained terminates all enguiries into it. I much rather prefer keeping an open mind in fields such as this. — javra

I cannot even begin to imagine how a precise measure, or actually any measure, of beauty could be discovered. I personally believe there are degrees of aesthetic quality, that some works are better, more profound or more beautiful than others, but I have no illusions that I could ever demonstrate it such that any unbiased interlocutor would be rationally constrained to agree.

My mind would be open if I could begin to imagine a way or if someone could show me the way. But experience shows that no one can.

You can believe that if you want to—the point is that you cannot logically or empirically demonstrate it. — Janus

I cannot logically or empirically demonstrate that you are human (rather than, say, an AI program). Its called the problem of other minds. That mentioned, do you mean to tell me that all you experience are intense emotions and no moments of eureka where something novel clicks with you? I'll believe you if you so say, but most humans are not like that and know it.

That shouldn't matter if you feel a conviction—why do you need to convince others of it? — Janus

It's called philosophy. Same reason you're bothering trying to convince me of your felt convictions.

I don't see how new terms are going to help support something which cannot be logically or emprically demonstrated. — Janus

It's called reasoning. But OK, you don't see how.

I cannot even begin to imagine how a precise measure, or actually any measure, of beauty could be discovered. — Janus

You are not the measure of all things (nor I, nor anyone else). Contra Pythagorean mindsets. EDIT: Besides, I did not mention "the measuring of beauty" but its "satisfactory explanation"; we have a satisfactory explanation of physiological pain (sorta - since it can be far more psychological then physical in at least some) but don't have the foggiest notion of a "precise measure" for it - e.g., as in whose pains are in fact greater.

I cannot logically or empirically demonstrate that you are human (rather than, say, and AI program). Its called the problem of other minds. That mentioned, do you mean to tell me that all you experience are intense emotions and no moments of eureka where something novel clicks with you? I'll believe you if you so say, but most humans are not like that and know it. — javra

In principle you could indeed empirically demonstrate that I am human—all you would have to do is meet me face to face. The so-called "problem of other minds" is something else. A conversation should demonstrate that I am minded even if I'm an idiot (face to face if this conversation is not sufficient to allay your skepticism).

It's called philosophy. Same reason you're bothering trying to convince me of your felt convictions. — javra

You misunderstand—I'm not trying to convince you of my felt convictions.

It's called reasoning. But OK, you don't see how. — javra

Reasoning, if it is good is simply valid. Valid reasoning can support all kinds of whacky beliefs. You also need sound premises. Premises based on accurate empirical observation are sound——they can be checked. Premises based on mathematical or logical self-evidence are sound. If you see how some other method for determining premises can be demonstrated to be sound I'd love to hear about it.

You are not the measure of all things (nor I, nor anyone else). Contra Pythagorean mindsets. — javra

I have nowhere claimed to be the measure of all things. If someone else can imagine how a precise measure of beauty can be achieved, or even what such a purported method would look like, then I'm open to hearing about it. In all my reading and discussion I've never encountered any such thing. I'd be very happy to encounter a demonstrably precise measure of beauty——it would be a revelation.

The so-called "problem of other minds" is something else. — Janus

The problem of other minds cannot be resolved by looking at other humans face to face. This due to Cartesian doubt which Descartes introduced: e.g. if something looks like and acts like a duck, it might be an elaborate automaton. Same with something that looks like and acts like a human. Etc.

You misunderstand—I'm not trying to convince you of my felt convictions. — Janus

Well, truth be told, neither am I.

Reasoning, if it is good is simply valid. Valid reasoning can support all kinds of whacky beliefs. You also need sound premises. Premises based on accurate empirical observation are sound——they can be checked. Premises based on mathematical or logical self-evidence are sound. If you see how some other method for determining premises can be demonstrated to be sound I'd love to hear about it. — Janus

Of course. Start with optimal but yet fallible certainties and then build them up until you obtain a coherent outlook that also has optimal explanatory power. As to examples of such sound premises: Can you in any way evidence via justifiable alternatives that you as an aware being are not ontically occurring as such whenever you are in any way aware of anything? Not a logical tautology but a mere observations that, in the absence of justifiable alternatives, become rather difficult if at all possible to rationally doubt (and emotional doubts don't count for much here). So, if no justifiable alternatives can be found to the veracity of this proposition, then this is one small (even if bedrock) example of a sound premise that's neither based on empirical observations via the physiological senses nor based on maths or formal logics.

I have nowhere claimed to be the measure of all things. If someone else can imagine how a precise measure of beauty can be achieved, or even what such a purported method would look like, then I'm open to hearing about it. In all my reading and discussion I've never encountered any such thing. — Janus

You have claimed that you can't imagine it being ergo it can't be. Which directly implies that your current imagination is the measure of all things that can be fathomed. Besides, I never stated "measure of beauty" but a "satisfactory explanation of beauty". We have a satisfactory enough explanation of physiological pain but no idea of how to accurately measure it; e.g., whose pains are greater in an objective means of measurement.

The problem of other minds cannot be resolved by looking at other humans face to face. This due to Cartesian doubt which Descartes introduced: e.g. if something looks like and acts like a duck, it might be an elaborate automaton. Same with something that looks like and acts like a human. Etc. — javra

I don't take such implausible, merely non-contradictory, possibilities seriously. For me, in order to doubt I have to have some good reason to doubt. For me, if someone claims that they know, or even could somehow come to know, the secret to "life, the Universe and everything" I think I have good reason to doubt their veracity or the soundness of their judgement.

You have claimed that you can't imagine it being ergo it can't be. — javra

No I haven't claimed that at all. I've merely claimed that if I can't imagine it, and no one has ever been able to tell me what it looks like, then I have no good reason to believe in it. I am not saying I cannot be mistaken—I'm merely addressing what I believe and don't believe, or doubt and don't doubt, and the reasons why I believe or doubt. Isn't that what we are all doing here?

I don't take such implausible, merely non-contradictory, possibilities seriously. — Janus

I get that. Neither do I. Nevertheless, that is the problem of other minds in philosophical circles. Back to the point though, there is no currently known logical or empirical means to prove that another entity which looks and acts like a human actually has a mind. The same exact problem becomes more prominent in the bizarrely persisting issue of whether non-human lifeforms have minds. Chimps? Rats? ... Ameba? And as a few others do, I do maintain that if its a lifeform, it has a mind - this as per the book Mind in Life.

You have claimed that you can't imagine it being ergo it can't be. — javra

No I haven't claimed that at all. — Janus

OK. I might of been a bit unfair. In which case my bad. You have however claimed a parallel to this for satisfactory explanations of what mystics understand, which is what the analogy of beauty was all about to begin with, basically saying that if it hasn't been done so far, then it just can't be done. Here's the quote:

The "deep inner understanding" is not really an understanding at all but a heightened feeling. To qualify as an understanding it would have to be capable of precise articulation, which thousands of years of documented attempts show cannot be done. — Janus

Notice, also, that you affirm it not to be an understanding but a heightened feeling as though this were fact, rather than best current presumption.

And good luck being am without the incessant intrusion of becoming if you were born into human history. — ENOAH

"Becoming" does directly contradict "I am".

I believe the main attempt of buddhist religion/philosophy is to strip you of everything except the true ego, at at least as you have defined it (pure consciousness)?

Anyways, buddhist meditation made a lot of sense to me in the goal of doing away with anything extraneous or superfluous, but I eventually realized that you cannot change yourself, and therefore, you cannot become enlightened.

Back to the point though, there is no currently known logical or empirical means to prove that another entity which looks and acts like a human actually has a mind. — javra

Not "prove", no. But I would say that it is established beyond reasonable doubt that humans and other entities are minded. What exactly it means to be minded is another wrinkle in the fabric, as is now being shown by the controversies over whether LLMs are minded or not.

The "deep inner understanding" is not really an understanding at all but a heightened feeling. To qualify as an understanding it would have to be capable of precise articulation, which thousands of years of documented attempts show cannot be done.
— Janus

Notice, also, that you affirm it not to be an understanding but a heightened feeling as though this were fact, rather than best current presumption. — javra

You were right to pick me up on that—I was just expressing my view. I do believe, on the basis of what seems to me to be reasonable logic, that anything that could count as understanding, should be able to be articulated or demonstrated definitively in action—such as technical abilities, for example.

Cool. :up:

So mystical experience, which is characterized and identified in terms of feelings (even though certain kinds of thoughts are variously culturally associated with those feelings) is really no different than ordinary experience except in virtue of those heightened feelings and sensitivities.

There are plenty of documented cases, although they are mainly from the east (there are some in the Christian tradition and also shamanistic traditions) and are all regarded as anecdotal, when it comes to philosophy. One encounters the problem of provability, which can’t be provided*.
Also the documented experiences are often different to ordinary experience, including revelation.

The "deep inner understanding" is not really an understanding at all but a heightened feeling. To qualify as an understanding it would have to be capable of precise articulation, which thousands of years of documented attempts show cannot be done.

Again it has been done, it’s just not verifiable. Or as James Randi demonstrated, produced on demand.
We don’t need to go down the rabbit hole of just what precise articulation means.

Let me explain how it is articulated in Eastern traditions. If you look at the statue of Shiva in this article you will see that he is standing on a little man, lying on his side and yet trying to look up. In turn they are both standing atop the petals of a lotus flower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataraja

Now there is a rich, complex and precise language and teaching describing and articulating what this deity represents in the Hindu tradition. What it depicts is a being who has subjugated his lower self, the self incarnated into the physical world, with all that entails, animals passions, avarice, greed etc etc. This is the little man, They are both standing on a lotus flower which represents the thousand petalled lotus of the crown chakra, the highest chakra of the seven chakras in the human body(again, there is extensive literature on this). This indicates that the being has fully awakened the crown chakra and is inhabiting a more subtle divine world, of which the physical world is a pale reflection. The little man looking up is his incarnate self trying to get a glimpse of this world.

If you look at any Hindu, or Buddhist religious art work you will see this iconography in almost all of them.

cannot even begin to imagine how a precise measure, or actually any measure, of beauty could be discovered. I personally believe there are degrees of aesthetic quality, that some works are better, more profound or more beautiful than others, but I have no illusions that I could ever demonstrate it such that any unbiased interlocutor would be rationally constrained to agree.

Actually beauty has been quite well explained, although I won’t go into that here as it’s a distraction from the OP, in terms of evolutionary conditioning to distinguish between mating partners, to find the better mate, the faculty was developed in most larger animals.

*It would be impossible to prove God exists even if he/she came down and tapped you on the shoulder and introduced himself.

Anyways, buddhist meditation made a lot of sense to me in the goal of doing away with anything extraneous or superfluous, but I eventually realized that you cannot change yourself, and therefore, you cannot become enlightened.

You can open yourself to the possibility that a development within yourself can result in enlightenment. Provided your evolutionary stage of development has reached that point of awakening.
We cannot know if people did actually reach enlightenment during the heyday of the Buddhist and Hindu religions, when they wrote their teachings down. Or if it represented a goal of their practice. We really don’t know how things were back then.

Take Sufism for yet another example. In most everything a Sufi does and says, the Sufi seems to have an understanding for this potential ultimate end which is simultaneously residing both within and without.

Yes, Sufi’s have developed a good language for expressing these things. I remember the first spiritual book I read when a teenager, Autobiography of a Yogi. On reading it, I had an intuitive understanding and familiarity with what was being described.

To deny that at least certain Buddhists, Sufis, and many another all hold a deep, non-conceptual understanding of this ultimate truth (here, truth signifying "conformity to that which is real") regarding what is ultimately real—“Nirvana without remainder” for Buddhists, “Oneness with the divine simplicity of God” for Sufis—is, to my mind, to then construe all mystics world over to be utter charlatans

“Truth signifying “Conformity to that which is real” is an appropriate way of using the term truth in this area of discussion. And yes, I agree that there are people who have this deeper understanding. But there is a subtle distinction to be made here, which is I think the cause of confusion when addressing this topic. It might not be appropriate to describe it as an understanding, yes there is an understanding. But an understanding which does not entail thought as produced in the brain. It is a more subtle understanding in which, communion (presence), witness (to bear witness to something), recognition and familiarity play more formative roles. It is the thinking in the brain which attempts to articulate this experience, in our “dualistic” world. Hence when the experience is conveyed, it is done via thinking, language and intellectual understanding. Which is quite different from how understanding manifests in the subtle realm.

This ultimate end to me is, poetically expressed, like the very core of a jewel which can only be perceived by us dualistic egos via its many facets, each facet depicting just one of its many attributes, all of them in fact being perfectly unified in non-dualistic divine simplicity within the core.

Nice imagery.

To me, the mystic has understood the jewels core—not via debated conceptualizations but via a type of eureka moment applicable to the transcendental ego within all of us. But, in remaining a dualistic ego embedded within a specific culture which has its own ready existent scaffoldings, the mystic will then utilize the cultural and linguistic scaffoldings of his/her surroundings to navigate the waters of existence toward this very same end.

Very much so, although “eureka moment” implies some kind of strained, extreme moment. It is not always like this, it might be a subtle distinction meeting a memory, met with a sigh, or seem to always have been that way, with no real knowledge of when it became so. Or knowing through doing, in which the mind is not really all that involved.

Yes, Sufi’s have developed a good language for expressing these things. I remember the first spiritual book I read when a teenager, Autobiography of a Yogi. On reading it, I had an intuitive understanding and familiarity with what was being described. — Punshhh

It's nice to hear.

“Truth signifying “Conformity to that which is real” is an appropriate way of using the term truth in this area of discussion. And yes, I agree that there are people who have this deeper understanding. But there is a subtle distinction to be made here, which is I think the cause of confusion when addressing this topic. It might not be appropriate to describe it as an understanding, yes there is an understanding. But an understanding which does not entail thought as produced in the brain. It is a more subtle understanding in which, communion (presence), witness (to bear witness to something), recognition and familiarity play more formative roles. It is the thinking in the brain which attempts to articulate this experience, in our “dualistic” world. Hence when the experience is conveyed, it is done via thinking, language and intellectual understanding. Which is quite different from how understanding manifests in the subtle realm. — Punshhh

I think I fully agree. I’ll share something with you and would be grateful for your general feedback.

In my attempts at analytically approaching this issue among many others, in my own writings I make the distinction between “allo-understanding” and “proto-understanding”. Allo-understanding is the “grasping the meaning of” that which is other relative to you as transcendental ego—and is thereby a dualistic understanding. Examples include the understanding of any concept, idea, or paradigm (all of which are other than one as transcendental ego which is aware of these other). Proto-understanding, which is far more difficult to properly articulate, on the other hand, is fully non-dualistic comprehension. Difficulties in articulating it stem from the fact that the moment it becomes contemplated via concepts or else analyzed via language it is no longer pure proto-understanding but, instead, becomes a potential allo-understanding of that which in fact is proto-understanding—this since here one thinks via a duality between the transcendental ego as the subject of awareness, one the one hand, and its concepts, etc. as the objects of its awareness on the other. That briefly mentioned, possible examples of proto-understanding include immediate awareness of momentarily being, for one example, psychologically certain or else in any degree psychologically uncertain as a transcendental ego, this among many other possible experiences of the transcendental ego per se. These "states of being" being that which one as transcendental ego momentarily is. Importantly, such that there is no duality whatsoever between the transcendental ego as the subject of awareness which is aware of its very own being as the object of its awareness: both subject of awareness and object of awareness are here perfectly unified into an undifferentiable, non-dualistic whole. And this non-dualistic (auto-)awareness is perpetual to the transcendental ego. More complexly, all humans will typically hold a proto-understanding throughout our adult life of being a human earthling—rather than of being, for example, an extraterrestrial alien (to not specify even more absurd alternatives)—hence, will hold this very understanding in manners fully devoid of conceptualizations of it, verbalization, or any form of thought whatsoever. Not until this issue is brought into explicit conscious awareness—such as by being asked what one is or else by reading a science fiction novel or seeing such movie wherein one can’t help but associate with human earthlings over extraterrestrial aliens—that this constantly held proto-understanding can become an allo-understanding.

So roughly expressed, the mystic does not gain an allo-understanding of what I’ll here again term “ultimate truth” but, rather, a very profound proto-understanding of it, at which juncture everything more or less clicks into place in terms of the transcendental ego’s (and not necessarily the empirical ego's) understanding of being and of the existence in which being per se is embodied. A profound proto-understanding which, to here make use of traditional western shamanistic poetry, then serves as the bone upon which all flesh and skin of the mystic (to include all thoughts and allo-understandings) becomes attached.

In parallel, be it addressed as Nirvana, the divine simplicity of God, a complete henosis with “The One”, etc., I verbally then interpret this ultimate reality yet to be actualized to be constituted of limitless and, hence, infinite proto-understanding that is perfectly devoid of all allo-understanding (more broadly, infinite pure being that is perfectly devoid of all existence, i.e. that which stands out)—thereby being pure bliss which is divinely simple and hence utterly nondual (I’ll add to this, in which one comes to fully know oneself as pure being (this in a non-JTB sense of knowing)).

Though I’m not sure whether what you intend by “subtle understanding” translates into the roughly sketched appraisal of what I’ve just outlined as "proto-understanding", I’d again like to hear your input on the matter.

Nice imagery. — Punshhh

Thanks. :smile:

Very much so, although “eureka moment” implies some kind of strained, extreme moment. It is not always like this, it might be a subtle distinction meeting a memory, met with a sigh, or seem to always have been that way, with no real knowledge of when it became so. Or knowing through doing, in which the mind is not really all that involved. — Punshhh

The "eureka moment" doesn't to me necessarily imply a straining so much as a revelation, a realizing of new deep understandings regarding what has always been which, as such, could effortlessly come about unexpectedly. (Archimedes was reputedly casually taking a bath when his eureka moment struck. :smile: ) But, yes, I fully agree that there are a vast array of paths toward this same possible outcome.

There are plenty of documented cases, although they are mainly from the east (there are some in the Christian tradition and also shamanistic traditions) and are all regarded as anecdotal, when it comes to philosophy. One encounters the problem of provability, which can’t be provided*.
Also the documented experiences are often different to ordinary experience, including revelation. — Punshhh

It seems we agree there are plenty of documents attempting to describe or interpret mystical experiences. We also seem to agree that such experiences are different than ordinary experience. As to revelation, I'd say that classing something as revelation is a kind of interpretation of mystical experience and that the very idea of direct knowledge (noesis) is the idea of revelation.

The idea of enlightenment is an idea of revelation. This is not to deny that there can be different notions as to what revelation consists in―is it, for example from a God, or a universal consciousness, or an inner self or soul experiencing anamnesis?

Again it has been done, it’s just not verifiable. Or as James Randi demonstrated, produced on demand.
We don’t need to go down the rabbit hole of just what precise articulation means. — Punshhh

I don't see it as a rabbit hole, but a clear distinction between what can be described in a way that anyone can understand, as is the case with narration of ordinary experiences, and what cannot. I say mystical experiences are in the latter category―the best that can be achieved is an interpretation, usually heavily conceptually mediated by some traditional religious context or other. It is this conceptual dependency on cultural and religious contexts which leads me to think the idea of direct knowing is unsupportable.

I am very familiar with Eastern traditions of thought―for more than thirty years I was fascinated by Zen, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Daosim and Buddhism generally. I also studied Steiner, Gurdjieff, Theososphy and the Western Hermetic tradition and read the works of mystics Meister Eckhardt, Jacob Boehme, Theresa of Avila, Valentin Thomberg and others. I also meditated pretty much daily for more than twenty years. I have thought about these things from every angle I could imagine.

I see direct knowing in the sense of 'being familiar with' as applying to both everyday experience and mystical experience, but this kind of knowing is not a discursive knowing―that is nothing propositional is known. So, when people say they know God exists, or that karma is real, or that there is an afterlife or rebirth, I have no doubt they are confusing the 'knowing that' of propositional knowledge with the direct knowing of acquaintance, of felt experience that we all enjoy every day. Of course we do need to learn to attend to that experience, and for me that is the value of meditation, which I say can be, in principle, constantly practiced―it is not confined to being in a particular posture.

As soon as we try to talk about these things, in any way other than via an allusive language meant to evoke, as soon as we imagine that we are accessing some real knowledge (in the propositional sense) we go astray. But it seems we just can't help ourselves―we can't help imagining that propositional metaphysical knowledge must be possible.

Now there is a rich, complex and precise language and teaching describing and articulating what this deity represents in the Hindu tradition. — Punshhh

Of course precise descriptions of fictional entities are possible, but they have no ground other than imagination.

This indicates that the being has fully awakened the crown chakra and is inhabiting a more subtle divine world, of which the physical world is a pale reflection. The little man looking up is his incarnate self trying to get a glimpse of this world. — Punshhh

I think this is a terrible idea. It, and other ideas about "higher realms" being more important than this life are a large part of the problem, and offer no real solution to the human condition at all. I have come to see the whole idea of salvation or spiritual liberation as being, ironically, a narcissistic obsession with the self and a bolster for elitism.

I’ll share something with you and would be grateful for your general feedback

Yes, I relate to your definitions here and my next point was going to be about what you refer to here;

More complexly, all humans will typically hold a proto-understanding throughout our adult life of being a human earthling—rather than of being,

Which I was getting ready to explain myself. I would add that this proto-understanding is shared with all plants and animals and we can learn a lot from communing with nature.

So roughly expressed, the mystic does not gain an allo-understanding of what I’ll here again term “ultimate truth” but, rather, a very profound proto-understanding of it, at which juncture everything more or less clicks into place in terms of the transcendental ego’s (and not necessarily the empirical ego's) understanding of being and of the existence in which being per se is embodied.

Again I agree and would add another system I use a lot, the idea of orientation. So the clicking into place is like focussing a lense. Or like an astrolabe, we are like a combination lock, a combination of a number of parts which when aligned allow the clear passage of light. This is built upon a foundational belief* of the idea that we are already at our destination (enlightenment), there is not really any extension in time and space and that all that is required is to re-orientate in subtle ways.

In parallel, be it addressed as Nirvana, the divine simplicity of God, a complete henosis with “The One”, etc., I verbally then interpret this ultimate reality yet to be actualized to be constituted of limitless and, hence, infinite proto-understanding that is perfectly devoid of all allo-understanding (more broadly, infinite pure being that is perfectly devoid of all existence, i.e. that which stands out)—thereby being pure bliss which is divinely simple and hence utterly nondual (I’ll add to this, in which one comes to fully know oneself as pure being (this in a non-JTB sense of knowing)).

I don’t think we can presume any of these ideas about the nature of Nirvana, God, or a deeper reality. These can only be taken on faith, on trust so to speak, of what sages have written down the ages. There must be something in common in the form these descriptions take, as they are all similar and follow a common pattern. But I choose not to define it myself, because It may be a consequence of human nature, ie a reflection of something in us. As such we may be idolising something about ourselves.

What does the abbreviation JTB represent?

* I don’t hold any beliefs in the traditional sense, only those that are required to live a life in the world.

Yes, I relate to your definitions here and my next point was going to be about what you refer to here;

"More complexly, all humans will typically hold a proto-understanding throughout our adult life of being a human earthling—rather than of being,"

Which I was getting ready to explain myself. I would add that this proto-understanding is shared with all plants and animals and we can learn a lot from communing with nature. — Punshhh

It's good to hear, and yes, I'm in agreement.

Again I agree and would add another system I use a lot, the idea of orientation. So the clicking into place is like focussing a lense. Or like an astrolabe, we are like a combination lock, a combination of a number of parts which when aligned allow the clear passage of light. This is built upon a foundational belief* of the idea that we are already at our destination (enlightenment), there is not really any extension in time and space and that all that is required is to re-orientate in subtle ways. — Punshhh

Very nicely said.

I don’t think we can presume any of these ideas about the nature of Nirvana, God, or a deeper reality. These can only be taken on faith, on trust so to speak, of what sages have written down the ages. There must be something in common in the form these descriptions take, as they are all similar and follow a common pattern. But I choose not to define it myself, because It may be a consequence of human nature, ie a reflection of something in us. As such we may be idolising something about ourselves. — Punshhh

Fair enough.

What does the abbreviation JTB represent? — Punshhh

Ah. Justified True Belief.

Thank you for your feedback!

This is not to deny that there can be different notions as to what revelation consists in―is it, for example from a God, or a universal consciousness, or an inner self or soul experiencing anamnesis?

Yes, we are in the dark on this issue, all we have are the accounts from people who claim to have experienced revelation. I include myself, as I have experienced something which I interpreted as revelation. But I withhold judgement as it might just aswell be something innate in the human condition that I experienced in a peculiar way.

I say mystical experiences are in the latter category―the best that can be achieved is an interpretation, usually heavily conceptually mediated by some traditional religious context or other. It is this conceptual dependency on cultural and religious contexts which leads me to think the idea of direct knowing is unsupportable.

Agreed, it should only be taken as raw experience, for study within a personal framework of mystical enquiry, by people who have a serious interest and predisposition for this kind of endeavour.

I see direct knowing in the sense of 'being familiar with' as applying to both everyday experience and mystical experience, but this kind of knowing is not a discursive knowing―that is nothing propositional is known. So, when people say they know God exists, or that karma is real, or that there is an afterlife or rebirth, I have no doubt they are confusing the 'knowing that' of propositional knowledge with the direct knowing of acquaintance, of felt experience that we all enjoy every day. Of course we do need to learn to attend to that experience, and for me that is the value of meditation, which I say can be, in principle, constantly practiced―it is not confined to being in a particular posture.

Agreed, I think it is important when considering such study and practice to adopt a rigorous philosophical, self critical, sceptical stance. Develop a deep humility and be very critical of any beliefs one begins to hold.

As soon as we try to talk about these things, in any way other than via an allusive language meant to evoke, as soon as we imagine that we are accessing some real knowledge (in the propositional sense) we go astray. But it seems we just can't help ourselves―we can't help imagining that propositional metaphysical knowledge must be possible.

Perhaps this why it is called esoteric. It is incumbent upon the practitioner to have a rigorous approach so as to learn to navigate these distractions etc.
But propositional knowledge is not necessarily required, why would it be, it is only something to be found in the heads of people. It is something within human nature, part of what mysticism entails is to break out of this straight jacket.

Of course precise descriptions of fictional entities are possible, but they have no ground other than imagination.

There are accounts of it happening to real people too.

I think this is a terrible idea. It, and other ideas about "higher realms" being more important than this life are a large part of the problem, and offer no real solution to the human condition at all. I have come to see the whole idea of salvation or spiritual liberation as being, ironically, a narcissistic obsession with the self and a bolster for elitism.

You make a good point here, it is unfortunate that such ideas along with religion are so amenable to corruption, especially for political purposes and control of populations. When it comes to solutions to the human condition, prophets have tried to offer guidance, like Jesus for example. But it is only really applicable in prehistoric and medieval cultures. Although we mustn’t omit the very real legacy left in our cultures by the moral codes offered by these religions. One only need imagine the last couple of thousand years if religions hadn’t developed to realise how self destructive and exploitative human nature can be. We may well observe it’s destructive nature over the next few years.

Provided your evolutionary stage of development has reached that point of awakening.
We cannot know if people did actually reach enlightenment during the heyday of the Buddhist and Hindu religions, when they wrote their teachings down. Or if it represented a goal of their practice. We really don’t know how things were back then. — Punshhh

If I may, i have some questions:

-what kind of evolution are you referring to, the mythical rebirth cycles of buddhism, maybe something easier to grasp that you think is fundamental to enlightenment?

-what do the ancients have to do with any of this? Weren't their canons created because they knew they would die? So how can transcendental-ego practices be off limits?

If I may, i have some questions:

Of course.

what kind of evolution are you referring to, the mythical rebirth cycles of buddhism, maybe something easier to grasp that you think is fundamental to enlightenment?

No not evolutions as given to us in religious ideology. Rather any actual evolution that is going on. This is on the assumption that there is a spiritual, or other, dimension. Something that we can’t verify. But we can verify that evolution and natural growth processes go on in organisms, using science and the spiritual teachings passed down to us state that we are evolving souls (in most cases). It is this evolution, if it is actually going on, that I’m referring to. So the idea is that one will only reach enlightenment when one’s soul has reached the point of development where it is ready to (through natural developmental processes) undergo that transformation.

The ancients produced the canons which these traditions either rely on, or refer to. There is the New Age movement which has come up with modern ideas about this. But on the whole spiritual and mystical movements rely on historical teachings. I can’t really comment on phenomenological ideas as I haven’t studied that field.

:up:

Apologies, I missed these two questions, thinking there were only two questions.

Weren't their canons created because they knew they would die? So how can transcendental-ego practices be off limits?

Firstly we don’t know why their cannons were created, it would seem to me that they were organising into religious movements. Which would require formal teachings to be written and disseminated.

Regarding transcendental practices, the way I see it is that if a being is ripe for the development of enlightenment, they would naturally be drawn to institutions where it is facilitated. The implication being that people joining these institutions who aren’t ripe, so to speak, will not achieve enlightenment. The conclusion being that people cannot force enlightenment, which I agree with.