Monism is essentially foundationalism. You're trying to find a foundation that has no prior identity, and it is not a sub identity of anything else. Ice = water = H20 = molecules = existence. Existence is the final identity that basically describes everything that all entities can simplify down to. — Philosophim

Yes.

The abyss is the substance. — bert1

Is this like the emptiness of Buddhism?

That is exactly what I am stating. Identities are mental constructs that we as humans can create. There is no limit to what we can identify. As such, it a logical allowance to do so. — Philosophim

True, but we seem to be talking about two different things. Monism, as I understand it, requires the "supreme being" to be the ultimate ground and basis of all that exists, much as water is the basis of ice.

We can now group them together into the one supreme reality that exists. — Philosophim

Is there any reason using that logic we cannot group all the universe's entities together and call the grouping the one supreme entity? I think of the supreme reality as the fundamental reality upon which all things are based. For instance, everything I see on my monitor is at root a manifestation of light.

Science tends towards monism. — Art48
Science does not posit an ultimate ground or one supreme reality. The terms 'ultimate' and 'supreme' are question begging. — Fooloso4

There's a big difference between "tends towards" and "posits".
You are attacking a straw man.

Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach? — Fooloso4

Good question. Refer
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14272/why-monism

The OP appears to be assuming the exterior world is real and the house is in the real external world. But information might just as well lead me to a house if I’m playing a video game and the house is in the game. If brain in a vat or solipsism is the case, then following information might also lead me to a house in the simulation or an imagined house in my mind. In other words, consistency within a world does not demonstrate the world is an actual objective fact.

My pet cat reasons as follows.
1. I can conceive of nothing greater than MO (my owner), who takes care of me, feeds me, provides me catnip and a comfortable place to live.
2. If MO existed contingently, there would be something greater
3. Nothing is greater than MO
4. Thererfore, MO exists necessarily
5. Therefore, MO is God.

The flaw is
2. Nothing is greater than TTWNGCBC
Any limitation in what we can conceive, doesn’t imply anything about what exists.

:smile: Yes

I think it must transcend the subject-object distinction, because it includes both the cognizing subject and the object of cognition. Hence frequent references in the literature to the union of knower and known. Objectivity, as a criterion for what really exists, is very much an artefact of the modern mindset with its emphasis on individuality and empirical validation. — Wayfarer

I used "objective" to indicate the ultimate ground IS, unlike unicorns. But your point is well-taken. Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius) would say that the ultimate ground, because it's the source of all existence, is above and beyond existence. Vedanta makes a similar point.
Is Awareness Experienced as an Object? | Swami Sarvapriyananda
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoV47KLEw

I think the idea of union with the supreme, whether that is cast in Christian or Advaita terminology, is not necessarily a similar kind of cognitive understanding to that divulged by experimental physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, we do not know the ultimate ground as we know other things. Usually, knowing involves 1) the knower, 2) the object known, and 3) the act of knowing. But in unitive knowledge of the ultimate, there is only knowing (or, if you prefer, only the knower).

I'm confused here by what you mean by "philosophy" and what you mean by "religion" and "science" as well. Some clarification would be helpful. — 180 Proof

That a tall order. Here's a response.

Epistemologically, science and philosophy accept the supremacy of human reason; religion has sacred texts and people (prophets, incarnations, etc.) whose authority cannot be denied.

Ontologically, science determines what is and philosophy (ideally) draws on science, attempting to answer ultimate questions, or, at least, give guidance in how to best live life. Current religions (ideally) become obsolete, although any valid insights are incorporate into science/philosophy.

An analogy: suppose a tribal civilization believes that the bark of a certain tree relieves headaches because the tree is dear to some god. Science examines, extracts the active ingredient, and doesn't accept belief in the tree god.

I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian. — Tom Storm

Of course, no one has a patent or trademark on the word "Christian" but most self-described "followers" of Jesus don't even know everything Jesus said, much less follow it. Rather, they follow their preachers.

Two examples.

1. Matthew 5:33-37 has Jesus in the plainest, strongest terms saying "Don't take oaths." which most "Christians" (i.e., Jesus fans) cheerful ignore, when they testify in court, assume political office, join the armed forces and, if they are schoolchildren in the U.S., daily recite the pledge of allegiance, which is, in fact, an oath. They are fans of Jesus (they think highly of him) but they are followers of their preachers.

2. But I don't mean to say that everything Jesus says is good, or should be followed. Jesus endorses OT commands about killing a child who curses a parent. This is Jesus speaking.
• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Matt 15:4
• For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Mark 7:10

In Matthew, 15:1-4 is as follows.

1Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat.” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother' and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if anyone says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he need not honor his father or mother with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

So, Jesus says the Pharisees "nullify the word of God" by not killing children who curse parents.

Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said.

I believe this is a basic problem with Kant's metaphysics. We can see this with his phenomena/noumena distinction. It seems that we cannot have any real knowledge of the noumenal world because it appears to us only through the medium of the phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover

In Schopenhauer's view:
"Schopenhauer . . . believes that the supreme principle of the universe is likewise apprehensible through introspection, and that we can understand the world as various manifestations of this general principle.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#3

My own explanation:
To Alice, Bob in a phenomena, a manifestation of the noumenal. Therefore, it may be possible for Bob to experience the noumenal, which is his fundamental ground, via introspection.

My name for Christian culturist is "Jesus fans." The don't actually follow his teaching, but they say he's a really great guy.

I did, and that's why I still want (more) compelling reasons. If that's all you've got, well okay, Art, ... whatever. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure there are more compelling reasons other than actually having the experience. Even then, some people interpret mystical experiences as of some person God: Jesus, Krishna, etc. And other people decide they temporarily went nuts.

However, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says the departed awareness naturally approaches the "Clear Light" but most cannot endure the intensity, and fall back through various states until rebirth. If it's accurate, we'll all have the experience then, even if we don't have it sooner.

Wayfarer,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I’m working on an article. (links below to the current draft version). I’d like to explain some points from the article to address your response.

I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. The table’s ground of existence is the wood; the wood’s ground of existence is its atoms; etc., etc., down to the ultimate ground of existence which underlies the entire universe. At this point, it’s a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. I'd say the concept of ultimate ground is harmonious with science, which is looking for a theory of everything.

Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea. And others who ascribe their experience to some God may be guilty of what I call “gratuitous attribution.” For instance, Pascal had an experience of FIRE and attributed it to "the God of Abraham."

I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe I’m still doing philosophy, not theology.

But accepting the testimony of the mystics implies that a human being can have a direct experience of the ultimate ground. How can this be possible? How can a human being have a direct experience of something below quarks? On the other hand, how can a human being NOT experience ultimate ground if that, ultimately, is what a human being is? One answer is evolution has tuned us to pay attention to the physical universe. Contemplate your ultimate ground and you may become some animal’s lunch. So, various practices may be helpful to unlearn evolution’s lesson and have direct experience of the ultimate ground (although the experience seems to sometimes occur spontaneously). Mystics have recommended various practices.

So, a human being is an expression of the universe’s ultimate ground of existence and can choose to try to directly experience his/her own ultimate ground. At this point, I believe I’m still in philosophical territory, although perhaps not within philosophy’s current scope.

Now comes the link to theology.

How to relate to the ultimate ground? That is up to the individual. Schopenhauer called it blind. Someone else might call it the goddamned stuff that underlies our horrible world of evil, suffering and pain. But because it is that in which “we live and move and have our being,” someone might regard it religiously as God, not a God who is a person who lives in heaven, but more like Brahman or Tao, i.e., an impersonal God who is immanent in the universe, who in fact IS the universe.

Regarding the ultimate ground religiously or not is a person's choice. When I next revisit the article, one goal will be to make that clearer.

There’s more that could be said, but this, I hope, gives a rough idea of my thought.

P.S. I'd describe Neoplatonism as a philosophy, with optional religious component.

Links to article
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

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

See my response to Banno, about 7 entries up.

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

OK, you have much more experience on this forum than I, so I believe you. But I'm puzzled. Why is there no point in discussing a "a perennial philosophical reflection" on a philosophy forum? Can you elaborate?

Banno,

OK. People can "see stars," and weird things may occur when someone is dying. But people "see stars" when they are bumped on the head and don't claim the experience was of God. The experience of uncreated light, per Augustine, is "Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind". Augustine goes on to call the light, God, and went from being a libertine to a saint. It seems like his experience was something more than "seeing stars."

Accounts like Augustine's seem to be what mysticism is based on. Here's another account.

In 1945, a 42-year-old Jungian psychiatrist raised Protestant, had an unusual experience.

There was light everywhere. . . . [T]he world was flooded with light, the supernal light that so many of the mystics describe . . . [T]he experience was so overwhelmingly good that I couldn’t mistrust it. . . . [G]lory blazing all around me. . . . I realized that some of the medieval poems I had been so innocently handling were written to invoke just such an experience as I had had. (That stuff is still alive, I tell you.)

Her experience lasted for five days; the aftereffects lasted longer. At age 82, she wrote her experience was “. . . so far from anything that I had thought in the realm of the possible, that it has taken me the rest of my life to come to terms with it.”

The quote is from Foster, G. W. (1985). The World Was Flooded with Light; A Mystical Experience Remembered. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, p. 33-34

I'd say the evidence can be interpreted either way. I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are.

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

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Arthur Schopenhauer:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
in the section 4. The World as Will

I've added the bold

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

The Cleveland Clinic page on Hypoxia doesn't mention the experience of white light.
> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23063-hypoxia
Can you provide a source for your assertion?
Also, can a retina be deprived of oxygen without the entire body being deprived of oxygen?

I already acknowledged that experience of uncreated light may be illusory when I wrote "Quite possibly."
Are you now arguing that it is illusory?

To be fair, they were not talking to or about children, but grown men. — Vera Mont

Don't you mean "God was not talking to or about children, but grown men."?
If so, can you explain how you know what was in the mind of God?

OK, let's imagine some horrible person who turns to Jesus moments before death and ends up in heaven, enjoying the beatific vision of God. Does heaven's lack of divine hiddenness imply the person will not be able to exercise their free will (are they now a robot?) and will not be able to grow morally? Or are they somehow magically transformed upon entrance to heaven so that they don't need to grow morally or exercise their free will?

It seems to me more likely than not that these "experiences" are "similar or identical" cognitive illusions. — 180 Proof

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?

I was taught in Catholic school that the Roman Catholic Church is the "One, True Church." Which means God allows almost everyone to be born into one of the Many, False Churches. So, either I'm extra-special, or I, too, was born into one of the Many, False Churches. I'm not extra-special. So, I decided that truth was something to be pursued, not something to be spoon-fed to children. If you want to see where I ended up, here's an account of what I believe.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

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

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 belief that a book with a talking serpent represents God's will is the fundamental false belief that engenders lots of questions like the one in the OP. Here's another "gem" from what many misguided people take to be God's Word.

Old Testament.
• “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:17
• For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. Leviticus 20:9

In the following verses, it is Jesus himself who is speaking.
• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4
• For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Mark 7:10

The Biblical teaching about what should be done to a child who curses a parent is quite clear. And quite monstrous and evil.

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

OK, but I don't believe the idea is that consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is unaffected by them is inextricably connected to anything. The idea happens to occur in Vedanta but it's an idea that anyone, East or West, might believe or, at least, find interesting.

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

I believe it's a clear and distinct idea which should stand or fall on its own merits. Vedanta doesn't own it.

Augustine is Neo-Platonist, and "the Light" referred to by him is "the good" of Plato's "Republic". — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Without cultural appropriation, Western science would still be using Roman numerals!

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

Cultural appropriation is a concept for which I have no sympathy. If China uses quantum mechanics, is that cultural appropriation? If someone in India wears Levis and uses an iPhone, is that cultural appropriation? If so, I don’t care.

Science takes the truth wherever it finds it. Religion would be better off if it did the same.

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

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.
> Consciousness beautifully explained in 200 sec
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n6NvDpcwLM

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

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.

One reference is chapter 6 of Rufus Jones' Studies in Mystical Religion which is about Dionysius.
> https://archive.org/details/studiesinmystica00joneuoft

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

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.

Within those traditions, those who seek to encounter the source of the 'uncreated light' are generally ascetics, renunciates and contemplatives. — 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.

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

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.

Something always is. Is this 'is' 'deeper' than 'consciousness' ? — plaque flag

Consciousness seems to be the part of us closest to the ultimate ground of existence, if not actually identical with it.

They are not reality because they cannot be instantiated. — NOS4A2

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?

You are sensing sensations. You see sight. You smell smells. It’s not reality because it doesn’t apply to anything in reality. — NOS4A2

Sensations (or sense data) IS reality.
They are what I directly and immediately know to exist.
Ideas such as mind, matter, ego, etc. are concepts.
In a mirage, the idea of water arises in my mind but there is no corresponding reality of water.

If sensation is reality, what are you sensing? — NOS4A2

Sight, taste, touch, smell, sound

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

I’ve encountered this attitude many times. To me, it demonstrates just how far some religious people are from reality. Let’s see, God created an eternal torture chamber and, at one time, sent everyone there because of the sin of Adam and Eve. But wait! There is “good news”! God is loving; so he impregnated a woman who wasn’t his wife so their little boy could grow up to be horribly tortured to death. Now, God lets a select few people into heaven – all those that accept his son as their personal savior. No, it’s all those who follow the dictates of the One True Church, the Catholic Church. No, that’s not right either. It’s all those who are baptized by immersion. Hm. It looks like his son didn’t clearly say what is needed to get into heaven. But if you’re a Christian – and you’re lucky enough to be in the right denomination and have the right belief – they you get to go to heaven. Everyone else, hell.

A wonderful world view? I leave the answer to the reader.

Do you experience experience? Or sense sensations? — NOS4A2

Sensations are what I directly, immediately experience.
Mind and matter are ideas which make my sensations coherent.

Sensations are by definition mind-dependant. — NOS4A2

You are free to define "sensation" however you wish.
For me, sensation is primary. It's what I actually experience. It's reality.
Mind, on the other hand, is a concept that describes the hypothetical experiencer of sensations.

↪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

The common sense view also says the Earth is flat and stationary.

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

If I call them fictions, then I have a burden of proof. But it seems plain they are hypothesized entities, theoretical constructs. Sensations are fundamental and unarguable. If I'm a brain in a vat, then the matter I experience doesn't really exist but the sensations unarguably do. Mind is our name for an hypothesized entity that experiences sensations. Mind and matter are theoretical constructs; they are hypothesized entities, which may or may not exist in reality.So, if someone says sensations are mind dependent, then they are explaining the undeniable (i.e., sensations) in terms of theoretical constructs (mind and matter) which may or may not exist in reality. Explaining the certain in terms of the uncertain seems a risky strategy.