I haven't said anything about sin as vice or the opposite of virtue. I explicitly stated that I was talking about sin in terms of "missing the mark". Missing the mark in this context means being caught up in views and failing to see things in their numinous light. — Janus
The best you can do may be reducing anxiety, and that is a necessary beginning, but you have no warrant for believing it is just the same for others. — Janus
Of course there is always a linguistic overlay to our seeing, but that can be put in abeyance with practice. — Janus
Maybe try some psychedelics to get you started.
Animals do not deploy dualistic language; do you think they do not see at all?
I don't believe animals parse experience in terms of subject/ object. — Janus
To see non-dually is to see without the discursive overlay. Distinguishing things is not disabled by that. I can see a tree without thinking in terms of a tree/ not-tree duality. I don't have to separate a tree from its surroundings in order to see it. — Janus
What they lack is the ability to consider themselves as subjects, i.e. they're absent rational self-awareness. Yes some can pass the mirror test, but I bet none of them are thinking 'what am I doing here?' or 'what does being an elephant mean, really?' They don’t have the predicament of selfhood. — Wayfarer
They don’t have the predicament of selfhood. — Wayfarer
. The sacred has a nasty habit of becoming mundane, in other words. — praxis
I think it's counterproductive to conflate vision and abstract thought. — praxis
So I too can develop a giant ego like Leary and crew? No thank you. — praxis
They have an internal model of their bodies just as we do, as well as a model for everything else they know, just as we do. They can develop maladaptive responses to situations that cause them undue anxiety, just as we can. — praxis
That's an odd thing to say, that you don't have to separate a tree from its surroundings in order to see it. If you mean to say that our minds, and the minds of animals, automatically distinguish things like trees and you don't need to consciously focus on a tree to see it then yeah, that makes sense. — praxis
While animals do not speak, nothing stops them from generating their own phenomenal experiences, and thus having at least a rudimentary sense of self. — hypericin
The question was: if they don't possess symbolic language then they don't conceive of their experience dualistically (meaning they would not "consider themselves as subjects), but does it follow that they would experience nothing, as praxis claimed? — Janus
While animals do not speak, nothing stops them from generating their own phenomenal experiences, and thus having at least a rudimentary sense of self. — hypericin
Animals, I imagine, live in the eternal present, in a non-dual state of awareness. — Janus
The difference is in individual bodies. If we want to explain the difference between the way a man sees and the way a bat sees we explain the body. We don’t need to say they see different things, we need only say that they have different bodies and see differently. — NOS4A2
You’re assuming inputs and outputs and the computational theory of mind. Computers and Turing machines may try to mimic human beings but they are not analogous to human beings, I’m afraid. Do you think computers can perceive? — NOS4A2
I'm sure that's a kind of romantic myth. They're also incapable of wrestling with the meaning of existence, that is the perogative of rational sentient beings. (See Are Humans Special, David Loy.) — Wayfarer
I'm wondering why you speak in terms of "generating" phenomenal experience. — Janus
Well, first, I'm not at all certain what 'generating your own phenomenal experience' means. Do you mean, hallucinating? — Wayfarer
I think non-dual awareness is very ordinary, it is just everyday experience. — Janus
When you think to yourself, "I'm having a nice day", you are generating the phenomenal experience of a voice in your head saying "I'm having a nice day". — hypericin
Then what can you say you do with the visual components of your dreams? With the auditory components?
You do wonder, then, why it's origins and traditions lie mostly with renunciates and sannyasins.
You might be referring to the 'ordinary mind' approach of Zen but bear in mind it is situated in Japanese society with high levels of ritual and aesthetic enculturation. It appeals to Westerners because it sounds very approachable but I think the reality is different. — Wayfarer
When you visualize, or play a song in your head, is that not phenomenal? — hypericin
I learned in Enlightenment 101 that the state of enlightenment is inconceivable, but let's not get too far into the long grass.What do you imagine the experience of the "enlightened ones" is like? — Janus
I learned in Enlightenment 101 that the state of enlightenment is inconceivable, but let's not get too far into the long grass. — Wayfarer
No. Phenomena are 'what appears' - sensory input. — Wayfarer
Phenomena' is a hugely overused word nowadays, because it's come to mean, basically, 'everything' - which makes it meaningless, as it doesn't differentiate anything. — Wayfarer
The stream of consciousness is just that, a stream of consciousness. — Wayfarer
Apart from internality and accuracy, what is qualitatively different about the song you hear and the song you play in your head? — hypericin
The question I asked is along a different trajectory: I was asking whether you imagined enlightenment as being in a constant state of ecstasy, such as might be experienced when tripping, or when having a "mystical" or intense aesthetic experience. — Janus
No. Phenomena are 'what appears' - sensory input. The stream of consciousness is just that, a stream of consciousness. 'Phenomena' is a hugely overused word nowadays, because it's come to mean, basically, 'everything' - which makes it meaningless, as it doesn't differentiate anything. — Wayfarer
I think my response would always be 'defiled' or 'contaminated' by my own preconceptions and expectations. I also think there's considerable danger in envisaging such states in terms of what we consider pleasure or ecstacy. (I actually I recall a remark in the preface to Zen Mind Beginner's Mind where Suzuki roshi remarks that, if you have an enlightenment experience, you may not like it!) — Wayfarer
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.