but that it's strongly associated with samadhi, states of trance and metabolic suspension which enables yogis to maintain stillness of extended periods of time. — Wayfarer

Are you suggesting (I'm not taking issue) that The explanation for samadhi as expressed in Vedanta etc, is the physiological thus inducing, say, an "illusion" of unity? Or just that this extremely rare experience of unity is organic based (as in metabolic suspension etc)?

I'm not saying it's an illusion. To try and put it in more modern terms, my understanding is that most of our ordinary thinking and emotional reactivity, is centred in the aspects of the brain concerned with language processing, memory, emotional attachment, our sense of self, and so on. Yogis learn to rise those areas of consciousness, into aspects which appear to us as the unconscious. There is a yogic term 'nirvikalpa' where 'vikalpa' can be translated as 'thought formation' and 'nir-' the negative particle - so the 'negation of vikalpa'. Hence the term 'nirvikalpa samadhi' (wiki link). Some of this has been demonstrated, with scientific studies of yogis who are able to suspend their metabolic functions for apparently impossible periods of time.

You said:

How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality. — ENOAH

I'm not disagreeing. But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. As I mentioned, earlier in life I read of the teachings of Ramana Maharishi. It seemed very clear and almost obvious, but really it isn't. He himself, after his initial realisation, went to a 'sacred mountain' to reside, and became almost completely indifferent to food, shelter and insect bites. Had he not been noticed by the local villagers who brought him sustenance, he might well have perished. As it was, he passed many years in silence, before his reputation as a sage gradually attracted a following. But he is a classical 'Indian ascetic sage'. And mine is another world altogether. I'm middle-class, bills to pay, children to raise, prone to any number of distractions and ordinary human foibles. I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least.

But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. — Wayfarer

Agreed,

I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least. — Wayfarer

vehemently.

How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality.
— ENOAH

I'm not disagreeing. But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. — Wayfarer

I’m not disagreeing either. (Meaning, as I jump in here, that I agree.)

But if you see it at all, you aren’t fully being it, so aren’t really seeing it.

Losing the self while becoming, which is forever a becoming the self, is rare indeed.

To realize the oneness one must lose the ability to realize anything INTO the oneness. It’s why mystics call this enlightenment of losing the self both becoming one with the world consciousness, or one with total emptiness.

And it’s why I love paradox.

And mine is another world altogether…bills to pay, children to raise, prone to any number of distractions and ordinary human foibles. I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least. — Wayfarer

I think it’s also ok to be distracted, particularly when the distraction is another person. But maybe that’s just wishful thinking, since it is nearly impossible to devote oneself to not-oneself as the sages and saints do.

I think that you wrote a post to me some time ago about non-dualism. It is interesting that it can be an approach for approaching all metaphysics but is so often ignored within Western philosophy. It may be about the organisation of the right and left brain in thinking, especially within education. It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. Ideally, I would like to be able to blend the two as a more synthetic understanding, going beyond the duality of right and left brain, Eastern and Western philosophy. I am all in favour of seeing bridges rather than inherent splits. — Jack Cummins

I feel you're approach is spot on. The relationship between Western philosophical thinking and the Perennial philosophy,is quite a simple matter underneath all the details.

I was impressed by a Catholic Bishop I heard speaking recently on YT, who was expressing the view that God Is Being. Leaving aside the issue of whether 'God' is the right word in this context he is basically endorsing the |Perennial philosophy.

Have you read much of Eckhart? He bridges the gap between theism and atheism. So also does Plotinus. The latter tells us that to call the One (the Ultimate) God or Mind is to 'think of it too meanly'. Eckhart takes the same view, and speaks of what lies beyond God. Their view is not strictly theism or atheism. which is where you seem to be going.

My view is that unless one is going to sit in prayer, meditation and contemplation for a very long time these issues cannot be untangled without a careful study of metaphysics. . .

My view is that unless one is going to sit in prayer, meditation and contemplation for a very long time these issues cannot be untangled without a careful study of metaphysics. . . — FrancisRay

And if we do 'untangle' these issues, what's next?

Tricky may be dependent on mere subjective inclination, insofar as there is an established transcendental idealism, while not “absolute”, is certainly dualistic. Or, perhaps, sufficiently demonstrates the intrinsic duality of the human intellectual nature. — Mww

Kant's idealism - for which space and time are empirically real but transcendentally ideal.- is quite a vague affair, but it could be interpreted as a first step towards non-dualism. It doesn't go far though, so you're right to say it remains dualistic.However, I tend to think that if Kant had come across Nagarjuna then his idealism would have become non-dualism overnight. At any rate, Kant was certainly on the trail of the Perennial philosophy and, as you say, demonstrates that we live in a world of opposites of our own making, The categories of thought and all that.
. . .

And if we do 'untangle' these issues, what's next? — Tom Storm

Well, once we have calculated that only one world-theory works and identified it then all we need do is study it. We then have a sound understanding of metaphysics and only need develop it.

The calculation is quite straightforward, but the theory that emerges is anything but. .

A stray thought ...

Insofar as theism posits a creator separate from, though affecting, its creation (duality), atheism means rejection of theism (non-duality), no?

Likewise, if idealism posits both minds and ideas (duality), then materialism posits that only 'matter' is real (non-duality)?

Perhaps idealism and materialism are also, in effect, generalizations of theism and atheism, respectively. :chin:

(NB: In my case over forty years ago, materialism (subset of naturalism) was a consequence of atheism rather than the other way round.)

Insofar as theism posits a creator separate from, though affecting, its creation (duality), atheism means rejection of theism (non-duality), no? — 180 Proof

What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation? What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?

Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?

When pressed for a quick label, I will use the label of “atheist”. However, it does give me pause when I do, because “atheist” is a parasite term. It needs “theist” to be defined before it is possible to be an “atheist”. For example, polytheists are justified in calling monotheists, “atheists” because they nowadays deny the existence of many gods. Or if your definition of God is the most powerful being then I might be a theist (Just depends on if you can prove power can be measured). So, in theist/atheist pairing, I can see one side of a non-dualistic relationship.

The question is the other side. Does theism need atheism to have meaning/exist? The best positive answer I can come up with is, “yes because without the denial (atheism) it quickly becomes pantheism”. If one cannot say this is not God then everything becomes God. And if everything is God, then “God” is functionally meaningless. Or it is a fun way to be a closet atheist. — Keith

Does "supernatural" need "natural" to exist or have meaning or is it the other way around? If its the other way around in that supernatural is only meaningful in the light of the natural, then it would seem that everything is fundamentally natural including God and the domain God resides in.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. — Jack Cummins

Information is both mind-like and physical-like. Information is fundamental, not mind or matter.

It also comes down to consistency in the way one accepts evidence for any claim. Theists, I would argue, are inconsistent because they require evidence for some claims to believe in them while others they depend on faith.

I, on the other hand, only accept any claim when there is sufficient evidence to support it. All claims with the same amount of evidence have the same amount of weight, regardless of the claim. Inconsistency is a type of dualism, in that you accept some claims based on evidence and some on faith with no logical reason as to why.

Non-duality would entail treating every claim the same in requiring evidence and dispensing with faith altogether. Claims for which there is no evidence are just that and not useful beyond making the claim.

This isn't to say that atheists are not inconsistent either. They make claims in other philosophical domains, like politics, for which there is no evidence or evidence to the contrary. I am talking about being consistent across all philosophical domains.

I don't consider myself an atheist anymore than I consider myself a non-believer in unicorns. There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims, but does that mean we need labels for every (potential or possible) claim for which there is not sufficient evidence to support it, or do we simply need one label - reasonable/logical?

I, on the other hand, only accept any claim when there is sufficient evidence to support it. — Harry Hindu

That can be a problem in difficult times when what you need is hope while the situation looks utterly hopeless. There simply is no evidence that things will get better. It does not exist. Still, the only way to sit out a bad patch, is to believe it anyway in spite of having no evidence.

The rational person will reasonably give up, while the spiritual one keeps going. This phenomenon seems to be enough to explain why atheist societies do not last long enough to actually make it into the history books.

There simply is no evidence that things will get better. It does not exist. Still, the only way to sit out a bad patch, is to believe it anyway in spite of having no evidence. The rational person will reasonably give up, while the spiritual one keeps going. This phenomenon seems to be enough to explain why atheist societies do not last long enough to actually make it into the history books — Tarskian

Some of the most famous atheists ( Sartre, Marx, Derrida, Nietzsche) believe that rationality evolves or becomes, so that today’s evidence becomes tomorrow’s superstition. By the same token, spirituality and doubt walk hand in hand. Perhaps these atheists have a more reliable approach than the faithful.

What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation? — Harry Hindu

Well, at best, theism is incoherent.

What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?

"Idealistic" (i.e. supernatural).

Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?

Yes. However, theism posits a supernatural creator of nature, which is incoherent.

There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims .. reasonable/logical?

I prefer anti-supernatural (though absurdist (Zapffe-Camus) would do).

Kant's idealism (….) is quite a vague affair, but it could be interpreted as a first step towards non-dualism — PeterJones

Interesting notion. How would you suppose non-dualism to arise from it, on what….logical?…. ground would it be possible?

The way in which you describe religion points to the way in which, in its extreme, religion can give comfort of salvation and atheism to nihilism.

At the moment, a friend who has become a Jehovah Witness, keeps sending me 'preachy' emails, saying that the Bible holds the 'truth' for the troubles of the world, the 'end times', which will be replaced by a better world for the righteous to inherit. Such people cling to hope, which may be similar to the romanticism of the 'new age'.

In connection with Swami Ahhanyananda as a figure, my first approach in reading his book, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', as he describes his life in a cabin in the wilderness, in his own quest was that it would be so difficult to do this in the current time. That is because it is so difficult to establish a life detached from others in the West. To participate in life in the West one needs is subject to ID checks and reliant on the internet for so much. Most exploration of ideas, even about spirituality, is done online.

One other aspect which he speaks about is how he followed Ram Dass initially.Then, he found out that Ran Dass had a 'dark side' with his sexual relationships with women and attempts to conceal this. He stopped following Ram Dass and his teachings for some time. What this shows is that even though the ideas of the East may be an appealing alternative, the dark side of religion, or human nature, shows up in Eastern as well as Western religions and spiritual movements.

It is a good question whether it is necessary to have theism or atheism before one gets to non-dualism. It may be possible in secular society, which is science-based and plural, to get to non-dualism but,historically, most form of non-dualism emergent in the East came after the Hindu belief in gods. Nevertheless, even though Hinduism had many gods there was still a belief in an underlying 'oneness'.

Also, even though theism preceded atheism, many aspects of ancient philosophy, including Greek and Stoic philosophy were less dependent on belief in God than in the thinking of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

Such people cling to hope — Jack Cummins

Not all the ones who have hope, will be saved. However, the ones who do not believe that there is hope, will probably not be saved. A good way to understand the true power of hope, is to talk to people who have no capacity for hope. The suicide prevention helpline talks with the worst cases every day. Both hope and the lack thereof are probabilistic self-fulfilling prophecies. That is why I'd rather put my money on people who cling to hope than on people who are not capable of hope.

To have no hope can be to be at the end of one's tether and suicidality. I have known people who have committed suicide or attempted it in the face of despair and loss of all hope. One book which I found useful for thinking about this is by James Hillman, 'Suicide and the Soul', in which he argues within suicidality, there is usually a wish for transformation. This is dependent on hope to some extent, although acknowledging despair is probably essential as well.

Bringing this back to the topic of theism and atheism, it is possible that both can lead to suicidal despair. The first person who I ever knew who committed suicide did so after becoming an evangelical Christian. That is because rather than being filled with a sense of salvation, he saw himself as so sinful. In some religious perspectives the duality comes down not to good being projected 'out there' metaphysically onto God as a separate being. The Biblical account of 'the fall' of the angels and mankind, with the idea of original sin, is a bound up with assumptions of duality.

It does seem that materialism arose as a consequence of atheism rather than the other way around. Personally, I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others.

One book which I have been reading recently is 'Berkley: A Guide for the Perplexed', by Talia Mae Betcher (2008). Berkley's idealism may have been a central one and it was connected with theism. It holds that only ideas and spirits exist, to the point where even objects and the external world are seen as mind-dependent. He denies the existence of matter. This is open to a lot of potential criticism.

Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley. Also, the philosophy of Sartre sees the existence of matter and bodies as à starting point. It does come down to what is primary, in the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unity. The way in which non-dualism departs from such perspectives is that it sees mind as embodied, but sees consciousness, as the source, whether this is called 'God' or not.

Interesting notion. How would you suppose non-dualism to arise from it, on what….logical?…. ground would it be possible? — Mww

Kant places the Ultimate beyond the categories of thought, which is just where the Perennial philosophy places it. He sees this as a matter of logic, as do I. Thus it is easy, with a few tweaks, to reconcile Kant's analysis in the Critique with the Middle Way doctrine. Both require a particular approach that allows one to transcend the dualism intrinsic to dialectical logic.

The idea that the categories of thought are not fundamental immediately gives rise to the principle of non-duality and the rejection of all dialectically opposed metaphysical positions, I suspect Kant would have seen this if only he'd known something of Buddhist philosophy, . . . . . .





.







.
. . . .

I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others. — Jack Cummins

Well, I think materialism (i.e. only 'the material' is real) is a form nondualism.

Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley.

On the contrary, they preceeded Berkeley by millennia in both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions.

the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unity

I.e. Descartes or Spinoza. The scientific description of the latter is embodied cognition (A. Damasio, G. Lakoff, T. Metzinger).

 

At the moment, a friend who has become a Jehovah Witness, keeps sending me 'preachy' emails, saying that the Bible holds the 'truth' for the troubles of the world, the 'end times', which will be replaced by a better world for the righteous to inherit. Such people cling to hope, which may be similar to the romanticism of the 'new age'. — Jack Cummins

Note that they might be right about the Bible, but wrong in their interpretation of it. Babies and bathwater and all that.

That can be a problem in difficult times when what you need is hope while the situation looks utterly hopeless. There simply is no evidence that things will get better. It does not exist. Still, the only way to sit out a bad patch, is to believe it anyway in spite of having no evidence.

The rational person will reasonably give up, while the spiritual one keeps going. This phenomenon seems to be enough to explain why atheist societies do not last long enough to actually make it into the history books. — Tarskian

If God exists, then who created the circumstances of your hopelessness in the first place to then look to it for hope? God created childhood cancer, schizophrenia, our bodies that have the capacity to be tortured, etc. I can imagine a more moral universe than the one we live in today, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to live in this one. This one isn't all that bad, so hope isn't necessary for me to continue existing - just the curiosity to continue to see what happens next. As Christopher Hitchens once put it, death is like being told you have to leave the party when the party is still going on.

What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation?
— Harry Hindu
Well, at best, theism is incoherent.

What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?
"Idealistic" (i.e. supernatural).

Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?
Yes. However, theism posits a supernatural creator of nature, which is incoherent.

There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims .. reasonable/logical?
I prefer anti-supernatural (though absurdist (Zapffe-Camus) would do). — 180 Proof

I think that anti-supernatural is too restrictive. Maybe anti-delusion?

As for absurdism, I believe that meaning/information is the relation between causes and effects, so meaning is everywhere you care to look, hence my claim that information is fundamental, not mind or matter which are complex configurations of information.

What meaning/information is useful at any moment depends on ones present goal in the mind. This is why you may determine that some bit of information is irrelevant to your current goal but that does not mean it is irrelevant in all cases. It depends on what your goal is. Usefulness is a relation between some bit of information and your goal in the moment. One could say that it is process/relations all the way down (Whitehead).

I think that anti-supernatural is too restrictive. — Harry Hindu

Why do you think so?

If God exists, then who created the circumstances of your hopelessness in the first place to then look to it for hope? God created childhood cancer, schizophrenia, our bodies that have the capacity to be tortured, etc. I can imagine a more moral universe than the one we live in today — Harry Hindu

The incessant attacks on every living being are inevitable.

In the beginning, when God created the universe, he decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence. What about me? Said the original nothing. Now that the universe exists, I have disappeared. Can I also seek to exist? The universal Lord responded: Yes. There are no exceptions to the law. You have the right to attack and destroy everything that exists in the universe in order to reappear, including every living creature.

The reason why the original nothing has the God-given right to attack and destroy us, is not an injustice. On the contrary, it is the consequence of divine justice. The original nothing is not doing anything illegal. On the contrary, he may be our enemy but he is also a faithful and obedient servant of the universal Lord. God could have chosen to be unjust to the universal nothing but he didn't.

Hence, creating a more moral universe than the one we live in today was not possible. Such universe would have been based on a glaring fundamental injustice.

Because belief in the supernatural is one type of delusional belief. In being logical one rejects all types of delusion. My point was that consistency is a way of practicing monism in that one applies logic to all claims and rejects faith, not just those in the domain of religion. Theists do apply logic to some claims, but not consistently across all claims. Is there more evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God than the Greek gods? If both claims have the same amount of evidence then why believe in one over the other? It has already been pointed out that theists are atheists when it comes to a majority of gods. This applies to all philosophical domains, including politics. If some theist claim has the same amount of evidence as some political claim made by some Democrat or Republican - none, then why would you believe one and not the other?

I could argue that the political parties have become like religions with their faithful followers that believe what their leaders tell them without question. Political parties should be abolished. I am as a-political as I am a-theistic (or anti-group-think).

The incessant attacks on every living being are inevitable.

In the beginning, when God created the universe, he decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence. What about me? Said the original nothing. Now that the universe exists, I have disappeared. Can I also seek to exist? The universal Lord responded: Yes. There are no exceptions to the law. You have the right to attack and destroy everything that exists in the universe in order to reappear, including every living creature.

The reason why the original nothing has the God-given right to attack and destroy us, is not an injustice. On the contrary, it is the consequence of divine justice. The original nothing is not doing anything illegal. On the contrary, he may be our enemy but he is also a faithful and obedient servant of the universal Lord. God could have chosen to be unjust to the universal nothing but he didn't.

Hence, creating a more moral universe than the one we live in today was not possible. Such universe would have been based on a glaring fundamental injustice. — Tarskian

Citations?

Really though, if God is eternal then there was never nothing to begin with. If nothing can speak, "What about me?" then how can you say that it is nothing as SOMETHING was said, or asked? These are the type of inconsistencies I am talking about. You make a claim without incorporating the other characteristics associated with God, like being eternal. You are compartmentalizing.

Citations? — Harry Hindu

This is what I personally believe about it. It is original.

if God is eternal then there was never nothing to begin with — Harry Hindu

There was no universe. That state is what I mean by "nothing".

If nothing can speak — Harry Hindu

Time did not exist at that point. Hence, it wasn't a sequence of sounds.

You make a claim without incorporating the other characteristics associated with God, like being eternal. — Harry Hindu

Time did not exist at that point. All of this took place outside time. Time is just some byproduct of the expansion of the universe. Time is not even universal within the universe itself. It depends on the position and even the speed of the observer. God was there when time did not even exist. God created time as part of the universe.

God exists outside time. Therefore, the term "eternal" confuses the matter, because it implies an arbitrarily long time. How I see it, is that God existed before time and will exist after time, when the universe will be gone. What is even the meaning of "time" at a point in which it does not even exist or no longer exists? Furthermore, time will never become arbitrarily long or "infinite". Time will cease existing when it is still finite.