See my response to Banno, about 7 entries up.I may have missed it but tell us (again?) why – on what basis – you "don't believe
... encounters with uncreated light" are delusions. — 180 Proof
Art48
I've quoted that very passage numerous times on this forum. Doesn't change anything I said. There's no point discussing these kinds of ideas on this forum. — Wayfarer
The majority will never accept that there is the kind of state of self-realisation or higher knowledge that the Advaitins are speaking of, as it has no reference points in modern philosophy or Western culture generally. — Wayfarer
When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.
Hypoxia mistaken for ontology. — Banno
Don't you mean "God was not talking to or about children, but grown men."?To be fair, they were not talking to or about children, but grown men. — Vera Mont
Quite possibly. W. T. Stace in his Mysticism and Philosophy points out in chapter 3 "The Problem of Objective Reference" that severe alcoholics commonly see snakes and spiders that aren't real. On the other hand, as Stace notes, there are multiple reasons for accepting the reality of some visions as experiences of an objective reality. Much depends on one's ontology. If it doesn't include God, then obviously experience of God is impossible. If it includes an ultimate ground of existence, then how can we not experience "it", if that is what we are, if we are literally its image?It seems to me more likely than not that these "experiences" are "similar or identical" cognitive illusions. — 180 Proof
Yes. Even in Christianity, some denominations say they have the means of salvation and other Christian denominations do not. So, Pascal's wager becomes Pascal's lottery - spin the wheel to pick which religion and which denomination to believe in and then hope to God you've picked right.The wager is a pretty shallow and ineffective idea. For a start, what if Allah is real and you are praying to Yahweh? Or what if Brahma is god but you're banking on Jesus? Or what if Yahweh subscribes to Presbyterian sectarianism and thinks Catholicism is condemnable heresy and you are posing as a Catholic? — Tom Storm
Art48
It's more that, the approach of saying there is some vital truth presented in something like Advaita Vedanta - let's take that as scientific fact, leaving behind the religious fairy tales. But what if that vital truth is inextricably connected to the religious element in the tradition? — Wayfarer
I believe it's a clear and distinct idea which should stand or fall on its own merits. Vedanta doesn't own it.Wanting to extract 'the good bits' from that, and leave behind the cultural accretions, may distort the understanding of what actually is at issue. — Wayfarer
He may have described or thought of his experience in Neo-Platonic terms, but the actual raw experience is arguably the same for anyone. A person in India might have the same experience of uncreated light and equate it with an experience of Krishna. And then there's the Buddhist Clear Light of the Void. Descriptions differ but experiences may be similar or identical.Augustine is Neo-Platonist, and "the Light" referred to by him is "the good" of Plato's "Republic". — Metaphysician Undercover
I would question that. I think the attempt to distill this kind of understanding outside the philosophical-religious frameworks in which it was articulated often amounts to an act of cultural appropriation. — Wayfarer
Excellent questions. The answer is to think of consciousness as the subject, entirely independent of objects of consciousness. Consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is not changed by them. In this view, consciousness doesn't cease in deep sleep but memory does, so on awakening there is no memory of being in deep sleep. Vedanta has this view of consciousness. Here's a reference.If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? :chin: — 180 Proof
Good point. It worth noting the debt that Christianity owes to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonic ideas were smuggled into Christianity thanks to the the writings of Dionysius the Aeropagite (also called Pseudo-Dionysius). In brief, the story is as follows. St. Paul converted a man named Dionysious who was a member of a ruling counsel of Athens called the Areopagus. About four centuries later, an unknown monk wrote "On the Divine Names" and "Mystical Theology," which were Neoplatonism with a thin veneer of Christianity. The monk used the name Dionysius the Aeropagite, so his writings were credited by later Christians as having an authority just a bit below St. Paul's. For instance, Aquinas repeatedly quotes Pseudo-Dionysius as an authority.If you're interested in this kind of thing - human peak experiences and how they relate to reality, metaphysics, etc., I would highly suggest getting into Plato and the Neoplatonists. — Tzeentch
Ultimate ground of existence is a purely secular/philosophical idea as is the idea it can be directly experienced as uncreated light. That the idea occurs in different religions is further proof it is not tied to any one religion (in contrast, say, to the idea of the Trinity). That the basic idea is not tied to any one religion also indicates it is independent of religion.You will find nearly all these accounts presented in the context of religious cultures. There is a tradition of 'the uncreated light' in Eastern Orthodoxy also, and even in Buddhism there is a reference to the 'luminous mind'. There's an SEP entry on 'divine illumination' referring back to Augustine. So the degree you can disentangle it from 'religious fairy tales' and still keep the gist of it is dubious. — Wayfarer
True. The general populace often isn't terribly interested in the truth, much less a direct encounter with it. Many scientists, however, are deeply interested in the truth.Within those traditions, those who seek to encounter the source of the 'uncreated light' are generally ascetics, renunciates and contemplatives. — Wayfarer
Sometimes the stories are just nonsensical. For instance, in the story of the Passover, the OT God repeatedly tampers with the Pharaoh's free will (i.e., "hardens the Pharaoh's heart) and then repeatedly punishes the entire Egyptian nation. It's a sickening the story of the OT God toying with the Egyptian nation like a sick little boy tortures a helpless little animal. And then there's the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree for not having figs when it was not the season for fig trees to be bearing figs. Or the following: This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt. 3Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destructiona all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” Of course, that's not to say clever preachers can't invent and superimpose some plausible religious meaning.The 'fairy tales' you refer to are mythological and symbolic means to convey religious maxims to a general audience, the vast majority of whom won't be monks or mystics. — Wayfarer
Consciousness seems to be the part of us closest to the ultimate ground of existence, if not actually identical with it.Something always is. Is this 'is' 'deeper' than 'consciousness' ? — plaque flag
I don't understand. What can't be instantiated? The visual perception of white or black? The auditory perception of the rain? The odor of food cooking? In what sense is the sense data delivered by my five physical senses not instantiated?They are not reality because they cannot be instantiated. — NOS4A2
Sensations (or sense data) IS reality.You are sensing sensations. You see sight. You smell smells. It’s not reality because it doesn’t apply to anything in reality. — NOS4A2
Sight, taste, touch, smell, soundIf sensation is reality, what are you sensing? — NOS4A2
Over the years, I have often heard people debating god versus no god - and the argument I seem to hear from many theists is that the world is uglier and less enchanted without a god and/or without contemplative practice. The person expressing such a view appears to regard atheism and humanism and the privileging of science over the 'supernatural' as unattractive, mean and an example of bad taste. — Tom Storm
Sensations are what I directly, immediately experience.Do you experience experience? Or sense sensations? — NOS4A2
You are free to define "sensation" however you wish.Sensations are by definition mind-dependant. — NOS4A2
The common sense view also says the Earth is flat and stationary.↪Art48
the common sense view is that mind can experience things outside the mind in the world - the blue sky, the green leaves, the singing birds. — lorenzo sleakes
Are you saying that matter and mind are merely useful fictions and dont really exist? I would agree that sensations are epistemologically primary - all of our knowledge is based on them. But then we can theorize that matter and mind are real in that matter lies behind and helps make sense of sensations and mind is real in its capacity to experience them. — lorenzo sleakes
We can define sin as doing something against the will of God.But do we know that sin exists? — Tom Storm
I've argued elsewhere if sin is doing something against God's will, then it is impossible to knowing sin because God hasn't bothered to make his (or her) will known. All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want.We have sin. — plaque flag
Good point. However, I don't mean act as intentional agency.'Field excitations' are events, I think, not "acts" (i.e. intentional agency). — 180 Proof
I've seen energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) used in that way but, of course, there are differences between that and Buddha's unborn and the One of Plotinus. The idea of one principle that underlies the universe is the object of science's search for a theory of everything. So, we have multiple concepts which, thought dissimilar, seem to point to a monist view of the universe.My view is that there is no conceptual equivalent for the uncreated in the modern lexicon. — Wayfarer
I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48
I don't think so. For instance, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is reported to have taught support of "evil" by not resisting "evil-doers" (re: "turn the other cheek" Matthew 5:38–42, "love your enemies" Luke 6:27–31, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" Matthew 16:24, etc). :brow:
Not a "word" preached against marital rape or incest, against slavery, against executions, or in favor of thinking for oneself – nothing but teachings on how to live self-abegnating lives like "sheep" to be flocked and fleeced by "the shepherd" for his piously mysterious (i.e. "revealed") purpose. — 180 Proof
↪Nickolasgaspar
These are not steps in a philosophical method, they are branches of philosophy, areas of philosophical study. What you might find in a college philosophy course catalog. — Fooloso4
Because evolution is in the headset, it explains what happens in the headset.If evolution is only a part of the "headset", how is it that it can explain that we are evolved conscious agents? — Banno
Human flourishing is one, admittedly vague, answer. But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves.Some "goals" are moral and some are not; how do we tell the difference? — 180 Proof
Untrue. Hoffman says objects and spacetime are part of the headset, which implies that evolution is, too. There's no contradiction.Tallis' argument is clear. Hoffman claims on the one hand that "There are no such things as objects as they are usually understood as discrete items localized in space and time". But such objects are the very basis of the theory of evolution, and of science more generally. Hoffman thereby undermines the basis of his own theory.
Hoffman uses objective reality to deny objective reality. — Banno
At the risk of diverting this thread, I'd say that science + goals can give us oughts.Science, as we all learn, can't give us an ought from an is. — Tom Storm
Do scientists have a gulf between theory and practice? If science says plutonium is deadly, do some scientists nonetheless carry plutonium in the pockets? Religion claims possession of the Truth (with a capital "T") but I'd say science respects the truth much more than religion.The gulf between theory and practice is one of the things which makes us human. — Tom Storm