I don't follow the Hindu religion, but I do occasionally refer to some sublime Indian Philosophical concepts in describing my own worldview. For example, what I call "G*D", or the "Programmer" in my modernized philosophy, is similar to the abstract notion of Brahman : "creative principle which is realized in the whole world". Unfortunately, the Hindu religion has dumbed-down (anthropomorphized) that abstraction into a mere god among gods -- to make it palatable for the masses. Likewise, Hindu "Atman", and Christian "Soul", is what I call in my non-religious worldview : the human Self-image. :smile:We are Brahman, but we are not Parabrahman. We are Atman, but we are not Paratman. There's a Supreme Mind underlying our minds. — Dharmi
When it comes ot everyday matters you can often find out what is the case for yourself but it's not always possible. It's not even possible to know whether there really are true gurus (enlightened beings) at all. — Janus
Anyone who believes themselves to be enlightened and able to pass on their knowledge to others could well be deceiving themselves. But if going down such a path makes you happy, then why not, eh? — Janus
That's just something you claim. Why is your opinion the one I should take? — Dharmi
You can say that about anyone or anything. But if you're a reasonable person, then you keep an open mind and you try to find the truth as best you can, rather than just saying "I can't know anything, it's all an illusion, everything is just a deception in my head." That's laziness. — Dharmi
I didn't say you should take my opinion, I said there is no way of knowing whether there are true gurus. If there were such a way you could demonstrate that there are or are not true gurus. So it remains — Janus
I don't think that applies to anyone or anything. If someone claims to be a master musician, mathematician or athlete etc., whether or not they are deluding themselves is pretty much demonstrable. Life is short, so avoiding any path the verity of which is not at all demonstrable is simply being prudent, not being lazy. — Janus
comfort — Janus
Unless of course I find great joy or comfort in pursuing such a path, in which case my pursuing it would be based simply on my good feeling about it; which is fine. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledgement that it remains a question of faith, not of knowledge. — Janus
The seat of Narayana is the lotus of the heart. The knowledge of Narayana alone is the highest form of wisdom. Sri Krishna, the son of Devaki, who is the vanquisher of Madhu is the ultimate Brahman. He alone resides in all beings. He is both the causeless and the cause of everything. — Narayana Upanishad
Don't worry about it. Religious Thinkers and Philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool:I don't see what you mean. I don't think any of it has been dumbed down at all. — Dharmi
Don't worry about it. religious thinkers and philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool: — Gnomon
There is a way you can demonstrate it. You do the experiment, and you attain self-realization and God-realization. — Dharmi
All of this is just supposition. — Dharmi
No, it's 100% a question of experiential knowledge. If you do the experiment and it works, then it works. If it does not, then it does not. Blind faith has nothing to do with it. — Dharmi
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse
I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse
The point is that it cannot be demonstrated to any one else. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like. — Janus
It's not supposition; expertise or lack of it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open mind in many, many fields, such that it would be clear if someone were deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others. This is simply not the case with so-called spiritual teachers. — Janus
You might become convinced that the spiritual experiment has worked and you have become enlightened. But you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, and it is always possible that you could be deceiving yourself. — Janus
The very idea that there is "experiential knowledge" of the type you are claiming cannot be demonstrated in any way that an unbiased person would have to accept, so it remains a matter of faith. But as I said, there's no shame in that provided you are intellectually honest enough to admit it. — Janus
Of course it can. You do the experiment yourself. — Dharmi
You need to be intellectually honest to realize that an experiment that anyone can perform is as objective as you can get, and is the total opposite of blind faith. It's more objective than many sciences, which cannot be done by anyone. — Dharmi
Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of thought. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability. :cool:Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth? — Dharmi
Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile:Modern philosophy is nothing more than philodoxy, different opinions clashing with other opinions. — Dharmi
Right, so I have been saying that a Guru's "expertise" or lack of cannot be demonstrated in a way that a musician's, artist's, engineer's, doctor's, etc can; such that an unbiased observer would have to acknowledge the expertise or lack of. You haven't said anything that demonstrates this is wrong, you have just argued against a claim that you wouldn't be able to test it yourself over a period of many years or a lifetime, which is a claim I haven't made. — Janus
Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile: — Gnomon
Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of though:cool: — Gnomon
t. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability.
And even then, if you have only your own experience to measure against, you might be deceiving yourself. It's always going to be matter of faith, that is inescapable. Ultimately everything, even trust in science and inter-subjectively testable knowledge is a matter of faith to some degree.
No, I think you need to be intellectually honest and admit that as fallible humans we are all capable of deceiving ourselves about almost anything. The only thing which "keeps us honest" is inter-subjective feedback and agreement, which is impossible in the context we are discussing. The "expertise" or lack of it of so-called gurus simply cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated as it can with other professions. — Janus
If you're playing the skeptic game, then there's no debate or dialogue. — Dharmi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.