Philosophy Now Forum

Hi Auk,

Time is not an issue for me, so, you can take as much you like.

You said-
As far as I can understand this its a description of the process of religious experience that we both appear to agree that those who call themselves religious don't have?

Yes.

You said-
I'm not sure it applies to the sciences but can understand how the idea that the world exists and follows lawlike 'laws' amenable to reason could be considered the 'belief' of the sciences. and as such truth comes from observation, hypothesis, experiment/test, conclusions and faults, solutions and suggestions, repeat... . Not sure where faith fits in but we might have different understandings of such a thing as applied to the 'faithful'.
I would like to propose that the reasoning must be amenable to physical verification. Till then, it is belief, assumption or theory only; not fact. There should be no place left for any kind suspicion to be considered it as fact.

You said-
My understanding it that beliefs have nothing to do with the concrete world of evidence.

This notion is the crux of the confusion for all of us. Just look carefully what you are saying in the above sentence. Your statement implies that you are not bothered about the factual side of the belief, thus, you are not sure whether that the belief would be able to pass the test of physical verification or not.

This is precisely what I am saying that belief is not more than an assumption and requires verification.

You said-
In a Christian culture the thing we call faith, basically an unshakeable belief in the existence of whatever 'god/s' is being punted, is given to you before you can reason about it.

My friend, here you are contradicting yourself.

How beliefs can be unshakable; unless and until, you know that it is a fact? As far as it is for reasoning, it is fine. I do not see any problem in that, but, the reasoned cogitation must be verified empirically. Then it is faith, otherwise not.

you said-
I take it that your definition of belief and faith is what you want to replace or contextualise the discussions between religions?

It should be applicable not only for religions but each and every kind of belief and include scientific and philosophical too.

you said-
At the scale of logic all theories have to test themselves in the world of contingent states of affairs. I agree that 'god' was a good explanation for some phenomena once upon a time. I think the difference between 'god' and the BBT is the microwave background, do the religions have an equivalent? I don't think the scientists think their theories faith, I think they think them true or very probably so.

Auk, there are and could be thousands of explanations of microwave radiations. It is not a fact yet that BB happened. If that was the case then this issue would not be discussed any more.

Do we discuss today that gravity is for real or not? It is settled that it exists and works. The same should be in the case of BBT.

The definition of the faith should be the same in the case of metaphysics, spirituality and religions; what it is in the definition of a physical proven fact in the case of science; not less than that.

you said-
When you say 'we' I think your mean you religious, as I take the existence of those with 'faith' fairly seriously.

You may call me a religious person. I do not have any problem with that. But Auk, I would like to see the theories of religions through the filter of science. Hence, I would like to have faith only to that extent, which I am able to experience in person. Otherwise, I consider them just as assumptions, and, I use to apply it on myself also.

you said-
I'm not quite sure what you are proposing but if it is that you wish to teach the religions to sing from the same hymn sheet then I wish you luck. The problem I have with it is that you are thinking that a belief is amenable to evidence?

Yes.

My dear friend, what is the use of belief if we do not want to test it physically?

IMHO, this is only logical way to settle the issues. This is the problem of philosophy, not mine, as it likes to keep the issues alive just for intellectual arm wrestling.

I want to ask you that what should be the ideal or ultimate purpose of any debate; only discussing of reaching a logical conclusion?

Can any issue ever be settled without hard evidence?

I would feel highly obliged if you or anyone else would tell me any other way of settling issues in such way that would be accepted to all.

You said- What do you think NLP is proposing as its aim?

I do not think that I need to answer this as you answered it all by yourself as below-

In NLP there is no overarching explanation, so there is no real quest other than your own personal vision and mission and there are some pretty 'rough' techniques to help with that if one chooses. But I can well understand how difficult it is to stop doing it.

I think the rest of us will be happier with just 'self-improvement' at present, although from an NLP view its about modelling, learning and communication in the purpose of goals or outcomes.

And, I take your word for that.

As far as NLP and your adherence, experience and achievements from it are concerned, you would be the best judge, not me.

If you have been achieved, which is either printed on the packing or you want from it, then it is fine and you may say that you have faith in NLP, otherwise it is just your belief only. Hence, only you can realize that, no one else.

But Auk, the aim of NLP is self improvement and behavior, and, by no means, I am saying that it is a wrong thing. But, traditional forms of meditations imply this aim. On the other hand, they do not stop here as their goal is far distant.

you said-
Maybe but I thought you did not have a difference between fact and faith?

Yes, as I said above that these should the same; faith for religions and fact for science.

In this case, which is the ideal one in my opinion, there is absolutely no difference in any stream of knowledge.

You said-
I'm still not quite sure what you mean when you say "my faith", do you mean your faith in Hinduism?

No. This is my faith about the spirituality and religions in general, which is not limited to Hinduism only.

You said-
Not sure how many can spend a couple of years meditating and think that it may be a cultural intention that allows no change amongst the different practices, as I doubt Islam would be happy thinking that you can get to Hinduism through it, but I can
understand I think.

I have faith in Islam perhaps more than most of its adherents. And Auk, this is applicable to Christianity also.

To me, the definition of the Christianity is to follow what Christ used and asked to do; not the church. In that sense, which is the real one, I am a Christian too. I do not have even a slight hint of hesitation in admitting that. I am a Buddhist too, simply because, I also have faith in what Buddha said, because, I know from my experience that he was right.

But, my friend, my faith in Buddhism does not restrict me to have faith either in Bible or Quran. The reason is simple. Although, at prima-facie, all scriptures may look entirely different if read verbatim, but, at the level of essence or ultimate aim, there is not much difference. But, to conceive this understanding, we must be capable enough to look beyond the words. And, there is only one way for that; experience, not literal reading as words can confuse.

Let me explain-
It is said in the Quran that the verses were bestowed on the Mohammad by angel Gabriel firstly on his heart than the tongue.

Do you understand what does it mean?

This verse of Quran tells us the right methodology of reading and understanding of scriptures. It clearly indicates that there is difference between real understanding and expression.

Is it not that what precisely Wittgenstein cogitated that language tends to fail in expressing understanding accurately? IMHO, I think so. Correct me if I am wrong. I am mentioning just a single example. Scriptures are very much loaded with such sparks of silent wisdom, if one has the eye for that. I can post at least a couple of hundreds of them. And Auk, they would not carry less weight than the prominent philosophers; right from Desecrates, Kant and till Wittgenstein.

Auk, if it is right, then, does it not mean that scriptures are not less imbued with the knowledge and wisdom than the intellectuals?

But Auk, I honestly feel that most of modern intellectual populace is not ready to look scriptures objectively. Their approach is biased as they just want to refute religions at any cost. IMHO, it is not philosophy. I do not think that modern philosophy is neutral while examining religions.

Skepticism is not a bad in its true sense, but, it should not come with any burden of bias. It is useless without objectivity or third person’s approach. It should be open to both; acceptance and denial.

You said-
Do you think if a Christian from a different culture did your meditative practices they would experience the same as you, i.e. the Hindu 'god/s'?

Yes. No religion could claim that it owns meditation or spirituality or have a patent of it.

You said-
Do you think an atheist would experience what you have?

Yes. Why not? Does the effects of NLP could be limited to any religion or belief?

You said-
that it may be a cultural intention that allows no change amongst the different practices, as I doubt Islam would be happy thinking that you can get to Hinduism through it, but I can understand I think.

Auk, meditation is a mental practice and it has nothing to do with the faith or any religion. The only ingredient required is concentration, nothing else. It does not matter at all from where and how it comes. But, having said this, it is difficult to go beyond initial levels without having motivation, because without it, it becomes a mechanical type phenomenon and loses attraction and thus, momentum.

It has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Contrary to the general perception, there is no such thing as Hindu or Islamic Gods. They exist more or less in the same way, as described in the scriptures but, they all are part of a large cosmic frame work. We can compare the cosmic or spiritual world with our one. It has many sets and subsets just as we have continents and countries.

You said-
Do you think there could be more of these inner-selfs or subtle dimensions? And what makes the difference between an inner-self or subtle dimension? I'm not saying I don't believe the practice you describe will produce interesting states of 'mind' but that I wonder whether you truly believe that these things are going on at the same time outside of your body as well?

As I'm still not quite understanding what you think your experience means?

It is not that simple to answer, yet, I have a broad idea of this labyrinth.

Human existence is divided into four parts or it would be more appropriate to say that we are four folded entities. The crux of this is consciousness. There are two wraps of astral and subtle matter around it and the soul comes into the existence. When the soul is wrapped with physical cover, a human is completed. The Gods and Deities mentioned in the scriptures belong to astral and subtle realms and our souls too.

The soul or inner self lives in subtle dimension, where all deities live. This dimension runs parallel with our physical dimension and simultaneously. Meditation can enable us to have access to this dimension. But, this dimension and its inhabitants are also mortal like humans; souls and Deities too. But, the consciousness is immortal and ultimate. I am not competent enough to conceive it precisely. No religion describes this last stage clearly. They talk more about the two intermediate dimensions; especially eastern ones. Christianity is less vocal on this issue, but, it gives a hint in the form of Trinity. The ‘father’ represents spiritual dimensions; Gods, Deities and the souls. The ‘son’ represents Jesus and humans while ‘the holy spirit’ indicates towards consciousness. Anne Catherine Emmerich described it exactly as it should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_An ... e_Emmerich

Holy trinity does not represent the three existences of God, but, it is the symbolic representation of the whole cosmos.

In a nut shell, I realized that I am not a singularity. There is a one more entity somewhere inside me, who is almost the same like me. He has a body and mind as well and those are different from my body and mind. After acquiring a certain level of concentration during meditation, we can see its activities and interaction with other spiritual entities and Deities. It uses to live there just as we live here with families and in societies.

The Gods described in the scriptures are a bit like administrators of spiritual realms; just as we have presidents or prime-ministers here. The term ‘God’ is a portfolio rather than a single or an eternal entity just as presidents have their terms here. These intermediate spiritual entities are the creators and the care takers of the mankind.

I experienced many other spiritual phenomena like ‘tunnel experience’ and ‘OBE’ numerous occasions but all that is the matter of our discussion here.

But, these realms are not the ultimate. That stage is beyond. I am not sure about that stage but I can understand how it goes.

The cosmos is made of three ingredients; consciousness, mind and matter. Each and every living entity in this cosmos consists of all these three but, the ratio is different.

Matter dominates in case of animals, not mind. This ratio differs in the case of humans as the portion of mind is more than animals. This ratio again differs in the case of soul and spiritual entities as the portion of matter decreases hence mind becomes dominant there. The portion of matter tends to decrease and mind to increase as we climb further. And then a stage comes where matter is totally eliminated from the existence and only mind and consciousness remains.

There are stages even beyond this where the ratio of mind decreases and consciousness becomes dominant in the existence. It is said that at last, consciousness tends to lose mind totally and became pure in its essence. This is enlightenment. But,
Auk this is my assumption, based on my experience and religious texts also as I am nowhere near that.

When I say ‘faith’ then I indicate towards the two spiritual dimensions. All religions mentioned this and I experienced this phenomenon in person. Thus, I am not assuming it. It is not my belief anymore, but a fact to me, and thus, faith.

We all see the life and the activities of soul in the dreams, but, with reference to our daily life. Meditation enables us to see it without cover; verbatim. Hence, it is not a very big deal, in the terms of achievement, but, it creates understanding and realization about us and that is more important. The ultimate aim of the meditation is to reach up to the ultimate part of the existence; consciousness. We can do it with the help of will, but, unfortunately it is the last hurdle too; and the most difficult one also.

This is precisely what Buddha says- use the boat to cross the river, but, do not carry it with you further, leave it there at the bank of the river.

Here once again we can see the difference between a philosopher and a spiritualist. Schopenhauer, even being influenced with Hindu mythologies, is not able to put the definition, use and working of the will precisely, but, Buddha does. This is not the difference of intelligence but the experience. Buddha, being enlightened or even at the verge of that is able understand will, while Schopenhauer uses reasoning to form his argument and thus, the difference is evident in the interpretation.

you said-
Good luck in converting these religions.

I do not know whether my luck is good or not but I would like it to leave to the destiny.

But, I shall give it a sincere effort for sure; in the form of a book, which is in the process.

You said-
My take is I try to sort out what I want, then go find something that looks like it'll meet that need, then give it a sincere go, if its not working, change the want or do something else.

Agreed. It is a wise thing to do.

You said-
With respect to Religion I agree, with respect to the sciences I think we'd have got nowhere with this approach, to much re-inventing the wheel.

Auk, this phenomenon is true even for science, but, in a different way.

Look at any automobile. It uses all the inventions of the mankind since Stone Age up to now. It uses the concept of rolling stones which was the invention of Stone Age. It uses physics; lows of motion, dynamics. It uses chemistry in the form of metallurgy. It uses IT in the form of computers. If we break down all this till the end then, it will be clear that is not a single product but uses almost all or a good portion of acquired knowledge of the mankind. We cannot even imagine that the effort of how many people and time is consumed in making a car, if we calculate it real terms.

This is where previously acquired knowledge comes in to play in the form of information and this is the only difference in the methodologies of science and religions.

In science we can use the previous knowledge without going through the process of inventing it, because it uses physical means and achievements. Hence, one can test and use others work.

But, this formula fails in the case of religions and spirituality, because they use mind and consciousness as their tools and goal also. Hence, it is not possible to test and use the work done by others easily. Each and every one has to go through the entire process of invention in person. Scriptures can only provide some information or guidance, not more than that. And, even that information is conceivable when we engage ourselves in the process.

And Auk, this notion is even applicable to the good portion of philosophy also.

You said-
You're right, all reason can do is point out the nonsense in the idea of " falls outside the jurisdiction of thinking.".

Yes, my friend.

You may use your liberty of expression for making a joke of it. I would not neither mind nor object it. I shall not even take it seriously too. Let me tell you the reason also.

But, I would like to remind you what you said about folks when I said that they do not care about philosophy and philosophers and you replied that so be it.

I would also ask you to think about NLP from the other’s point of view. You must have read about it somewhere, in the first place, thought that it is worth trying and practiced it. You also found that it benefits you and could be same to others also.

Now, just imagine about a person, who is not interested or has not practiced NLP and only read about it. Now try to visualize his arguments as if you are trying to convince him about NLP. Can you ever put forward any argument other than your experience?

Auk, NLP is not proved successful what it proposes. There were sincere tests done regarding that and it was not proved that it is able to help significantly in self improving. So, where is the proof?

You cannot argue your case. If you want to realize it, then, I will start to keep asking you ‘what’ and ‘why’ after your each and every sentence regarding NLP and after two or three posts, either you will either run away or start calling me names.

But my friend, even having said this, I know that you are right. The failure of proving of NLP is due to the lack of sincerity among the contestants. No practice can be found useful if it is not tried with conviction. Hence, it is not the failure of the NLP, but the adherents. Simply because, one cannot fill the NLP in a syringe and inject it to anyone to enable self improvement. It has to be done in person and requires commitment and patience too. There cannot be any instant results for such phenomena. But, in the fast forward world of today, no one is ready to wait. This is the main problem. We use to only talk, talk and talk about these things and try to derive cogitations through reasoning and thus, fail.

You said- Wittgenstein.

I would like to disagree from you, if you are proposing that Kant and Wittgenstein are in the same league. IMHO, Wittgenstein is a step behind Kant.

If we follow the trail and keep breaking down any notion till the end, then we will end up with a single thought. Trail ends here. We cannot follow beyond this. But, still there is something left, which is posteriori understanding of emotions or schemata or the originating source of thoughts. Kant realized this phenomenon and tried to bridge this gap but failed. But, it was not his fault, but, of reasoning. We cannot find the origin of thought by thought. Can we?

This is what exactly I mentioned many posts before that; we have to lower our yardstick to find out the building block and originating source of the thought, and, it is no more the jurisdiction of the traditional philosophy and thinking too. Thus, in this sense, Kant is the limit of thinking.

On the other, Wittgenstein did not provoke this stage as he stopped a ladder below. He argued that language tends to fail to express the understanding precisely. Hence he said- the more important part of my work is that, which I did not write, instead of that which I wrote. Thus, his whole stress is on language and its limitations while Kant primarily dealt with thoughts and its limitation. Thus, there is a difference of one grade between the two.

You said-
I can take Nikolai as at least he's bothered to read some philosophy, as such I think his disappointment with psychology is what drives him, and think he'll love NLP and explanations and techniques like it, may stop all his 'eastern mysticism' but since he's with the mad Finns I reckon the 'fey and scary' will be visiting soon.

Typist upon the other hand has nothing to say to me about philosophy as he's not read any, just some hippie babble from his youth with a couple of pet psychological ideas and a lost faith.

Auk, I do not think that your take on these both learned members are right, but still, it would not be proper for me to comment of argue on their behalf, especially when they are not active on the board.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT YOU ARE UNDERESTIMATING BOTH OF THEM.

You said-
Because to understand a word is to understand the representations it refers to. Are they the 'real' ones? No, there are no real ones as there is no private language, even tho' the 'voice' in ones head makes one think so.

I think its because 'thought' comes from perception and perception is built by the body and not the 'mind'.

I think it implies that there is no "it" nor "you" in this situation, just 'I' or 'me' and what that is is a body with senses, the ability to 'remember' part of the representations without the actual inputs and a language(which means there's two of them at least).

I think thoughts manifested by the body from perception. I think the diverting is done by 'language' or whatever is the preferred representation that one thinks in, which is pretty much the same as 'mind' I think. I also think the bodys recognition of an other is a big factor, pretty much every species recognises its others.

Auk, I shall not say that you are wrong but your explanation is not up to the mark as you are still entangled in the event, not the cause.

You are saying that the thoughts use to come with references thus, with the remembrance of thought, reference uses to come with the thought automatically. Agreed. But, this should be happened once only, not again and again.

Let us go back to the case of body.

Imagine that you are walking bare foot on the ground and a thorn sticks in your foot. Now what will you do after that? you shall become watchful and not let that happen again. Right. But Auk, why the son could not able to do that in the case of monkey? You are claiming that you are a single entity as a bodymind, then, why is there difference in the both cases? Does this not indicating that body and mind are two different entities, instead of one, as they behave differently?

with love,
sanjay

Nikolai wrote:Original post

Right on the money, Nikolai!
Finding a 'true' philosopher (anyone with even a modicum of ability with 'critical thought') anywhere (on the net or not) is more difficult than chicken dentistry!
Even here, gee, go figure...
Jnana yoga certainly can be effective as you suggest (obviously), if honestly, sincerely and dilligently practiced.

Hi Nameless - good to see you back here!

..nameless.. wrote:Jnana yoga certainly can be effective as you suggest (obviously), if honestly, sincerely and dilligently practiced.

You sound like you talk from experience. Do you consider that your intelligence and reason has, in a sense, liberated you from something? Do you recognise a resemblance between your life as a thinker and the life of the religious saint?

If I remember your philosophy right, it bears a resemblance to the argument I laid out here:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7122

Best wishes, Nikolai

Nikolai wrote:Hi Nameless - good to see you back here!

Thank you. Nice to see you again!

..nameless.. wrote:Jnana yoga certainly can be effective as you suggest (obviously), if honestly, sincerely and dilligently practiced.

You sound like you talk from experience.

I do.

Do you consider that your intelligence and reason has, in a sense, liberated you from something?

One can always see it from that perspective; a sip of water 'liberates' a mouth of it's dryness. Knowledge 'liberates' you from ignorance...
I don't think that the 'hallmark' of my experiences is 'liberation', per se, as much as assimilation, an at-One-ment.
We are all One Omni- 'Self!'!

Everything exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is True!

Do you recognise a resemblance between your life as a thinker and the life of the religious saint?

Duuude, you are speaking to the biggest ego on the block, have mercy!
I see no difference between this 'life as a thinker and this life of a religious saint".
I do feel uncomfortable talking about myself, though.
There is not anything that I can say about myself (egoic construct; ego = thought) that would give what I have come to offer any more or less credibility.
I have been writing and erasing and writinf and erasing... what can I say that is not ego blather?

If I remember your philosophy right, it bears a resemblance to the argument I laid out here:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7122

Well written! Yes, a resemblance.
But the new updated version is worth some critical evaluation and understanding. You should hear the New translation!

You might find some interesting resonations here;
http://www.otoons.de/mysticrose/novus.htm

I certainly did!

peace

Hi Nameless,

..nameless.. wrote:One can always see it from that perspective; a sip of water 'liberates' a mouth of it's dryness. Knowledge 'liberates' you from ignorance...

Yes, its just one thing after another. We move from ignorance to knowledge, back to ignorance and back to knowledge. When this process is seen there is no knowledge and no ignorance, just different versions of the same thing.

..nameless.. wrote:I don't think that the 'hallmark' of my experiences is 'liberation', per se, as much as assimilation, an at-One-ment.
We are all One Omni- 'Self!'!

Everything exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is True!

It's amazing to see such breadth! To the ignorant this will seem like an empty platitude, and yet it is hard and takes time, effort and thought to be able to see the world in this way.

I'm sure you'll also agree that when everything is true, there is nothing that is false. And when nothing is false the notion of truth doesn't make any sense - truth and falsehood are the same. But we have to say something so we might as well use the positive term - yes, everything is True!

..nameless.. wrote:I have been writing and erasing and writinf and erasing... what can I say that is not ego blather?

I realised the same thing while writing on this thread, and yet everyone seemed to more interested in me than the arguments. You don't have to say anything to me, but it is a pleasure to meet someone like minded, so to speak.

..nameless.. wrote:But the new updated version is worth some critical evaluation and understanding. You should hear the New translation!

Let's hear it!

..nameless.. wrote:You might find some interesting resonations here;
http://www.otoons.de/mysticrose/novus.htm

I certainly did!

That guy knows how to talk! Inspiring stuff, thanks.

Nikolai

Nikolai wrote:Hi Nameless,

Hi Nikolai

We move from ignorance to knowledge, back to ignorance and back to knowledge. When this process is seen there is no knowledge and no ignorance, just different versions of the same thing.

Of course that is true! *__-
Let me show you that truth from this Perspective (just a 'thumbnail', of course);

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

The Universe only exists for one timeless moment.
A 'moment' is not, as I have said, not a unit of 'time' but a unit of 'perception'! A 'percept'. One unit of Conscious Perspective (Soul, us).

Coupled with this 'Law' that I have stumbled upon;

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives (all 'moments' of perception)!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Did you ever prepare to defend an argument, 'prove' a point, have a Perspective worth propagating over others? Of course, we all do, any time we say "No, it's like this...!" "That is not true!" Etc...
Such is a 'single Perspective.
Now the wonderful part is when we apply the 'First Law of Soul Dynamics'.
Here we are, all ready to 'teach 'em a lesson', to show them what's 'right'.
Suddenly, you can perceive their 'opposite' Perspective, and one is left at peace. Speachless! Now we perceive the truth of the opposite Perspective. Truth = Truth and we cannot defend (our ignorance) any particular truth over another.
Opposite Perspectives self-cancel/annihilate when perceived by (One) Consciousness!
Every moment of Reality/Existence/Truth exists Now! Not even long enough to contain any time. All Perspectives, every moment of existence, arise synchronously and synchronously annihilate.

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

The new and complete (all inclusive) definition of 'knowledge' is "that which is perceived!" Every moment (percept) of existence is one moment of 'Self!' Knowledge!

The complete definition of 'Self!' is the sum-total of all Perspectives, all percepts of every moment of existence!
Reality/God/'Self!'/Tao... has a 'moment' if 'Self!' Knowledge! Talk about a 'Big Bang'!!
Every moment is a moment of 'Self' Knowledge! Omni-! One!

'Ignorance' is simply that which you, at the moment, do not perceive. What you do perceive, whatever it might be, is a true and real feature of the One Reality. As the same One Consciousness winks from all of our eyes, we are never actually 'limited/barred from any other Perspective, any other moment of existence, of Omniscience! The limitations are perceived as 'self' (the egoic image that exists as 'thought'. The 'self' with boundaries and limitations. That 'self' is a 'feature' of 'Self!'

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

it is hard and takes time, effort and thought to be able to see the world in this way.

Jnana, the Yoga of the Philosophers!
Thank you!
Who'da thunk? *__-

I'm sure you'll also agree that when everything is true, there is nothing that is false.

If everything is True, then as 'thoughts' exist, are Real, thus True, thoughts of 'falseness' also exist, are Real, are True!
True and false are Perspectival, remember the First Law of Soul Dynamics? Two Perspectives of the same One Reality, 'That Which Is'!
As everything exists, so does 'false'.
We have healed, no one is marginalized, no one irrelevent to the One!

And when nothing is false the notion of truth doesn't make any sense - truth and falsehood are the same.

Exactly! Like 'pain' and 'pleasure/blessing', two Perspectives of the same One Reality!
Ego = thought!
It is thought alone that subject/object distinctions are perceived, but they must exist to be perceived! Not anything exists that is not perceived. Like the tree in the forest...

But we have to say something so we might as well use the positive term - yes, everything is True!

It can be taken axiomatically that everything exists, is real and true!
The trick is now to learn how it is true! Thus we perceive a greater feature of a (sum-total of all Perspectives) Reality. Like the blind dudes and the elephant.
We never have to reinvent the wheel by such time wasting questions as "Does this exist?" "Is this real?"
Simply stating anything ('pigs fly! Not 'do they fly') states a truth. It can always be found how this is true!

..nameless.. wrote:I have been writing and erasing and writinf and erasing... what can I say that is not ego blather?

I realised the same thing while writing on this thread, and yet everyone seemed to more interested in me than the arguments.

I do my darnedest not to play. To me, philosophy is about the thoughts/communication. When something said 'pinches' and ego, when rational/experimental refutation is not possible, some emotionally respond with ad-hom attacks..
I am resigned, again, the messenger MUST die!

You don't have to say anything to me, but it is a pleasure to meet someone like minded, so to speak.

If you like, you are welcome to continue our chat via email. Let me know.

..nameless.. wrote:But the new updated version is worth some critical evaluation and understanding. You should hear the New translation!

Let's hear it!

Shhhh, listen...

..nameless.. wrote:You might find some interesting resonations here;
http://www.otoons.de/mysticrose/novus.htm

I certainly did!
That guy knows how to talk! Inspiring stuff, thanks.
Nikolai

peace

zinnat13 wrote:I would like to propose that the reasoning must be amenable to physical verification. Till then, it is belief, assumption or theory only; not fact. There should be no place left for any kind suspicion to be considered it as fact.

This notion is the crux of the confusion for all of us. Just look carefully what you are saying in the above sentence. Your statement implies that you are not bothered about the factual side of the belief, thus, you are not sure whether that the belief would be able to pass the test of physical verification or not.

This is precisely what I am saying that belief is not more than an assumption and requires verification.
My friend, here you are contradicting yourself.

How beliefs can be unshakable; unless and until, you know that it is a fact? As far as it is for reasoning, it is fine. I do not see any problem in that, but, the reasoned cogitation must be verified empirically. Then it is faith, otherwise not.

Then it depends upon what you mean by physical verification? How can you physically verify to me your faith that that your 'god/s' exist?

Beliefs can be unshakeable exactly because they can not be affected by the facts, ergo, people believe in their 'god/s' despite what they considered empirical facts being shown to them that disprove what they believed were their reasons for believing in their 'god/s' in the first place.

I've listened to many who meditate and they do not report the experiences your sayy you have had, i.e. an experience of the Hindu mythological 'god/s', does this mean that your physical verification is now false? Would you accept that?

It should be applicable not only for religions but each and every kind of belief and include scientific and philosophical too.

Why should the sciences have to do this? As they do have a method of physical verification that appears to work well.

Auk, there are and could be thousands of explanations of microwave radiations. It is not a fact yet that BB happened. If that was the case then this issue would not be discussed any more.

Its not that the microwave background needs explaining? Its that the microwave background fitted the theory that predicted such a thing existing if the BBT was correct. Pretty much the only place the BBT is questioned is by the religious or philosophical, the physicists are not discussing this as an issue any more.

Do we discuss today that gravity is for real or not? It is settled that it exists and works. The same should be in the case of BBT.

The physicists are much discussing gravity today as they have no good theory for it, unlike the BBT.

The definition of the faith should be the same in the case of metaphysics, spirituality and religions; what it is in the definition of a physical proven fact in the case of science; not less than that.

The physicists are the philosophical metaphysicians who did come up with a way of deciding what is a 'fact' or not. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8308, they are called the Newtonians and so far whats left of metaphysics, the spiritualists and the religious have nothing to touch it.

You may call me a religious person. I do not have any problem with that. But Auk, I would like to see the theories of religions through the filter of science. Hence, I would like to have faith only to that extent, which I am able to experience in person. Otherwise, I consider them just as assumptions, and, I use to apply it on myself also.

Good luck with that. The problem I think you have is its about others being able to have the same experience as you, not just you having the experience and so far I see no sign that you have a method to achieve what the sciences have.

Yes.

My dear friend, what is the use of belief if we do not want to test it physically?

I think you mean religious belief, as from my understanding beliefs are what one uses to inform ones capabilities. But I agree that if ones beliefs are stopping one from using ones capabilities to change ones behaviour to achieve some goal then the belief should be discarded.

IMHO, this is only logical way to settle the issues. This is the problem of philosophy, not mine, as it likes to keep the issues alive just for intellectual arm wrestling.

I think it more that they have come to no firm conclusion.

I want to ask you that what should be the ideal or ultimate purpose of any debate; only discussing of reaching a logical conclusion?

Can any issue ever be settled without hard evidence?

I would feel highly obliged if you or anyone else would tell me any other way of settling issues in such way that would be accepted to all.

This depends upon what ones goal was in the first place? But the Newtonians appear to have come to a reasonable approach. Define what both would accept as a measurement or observation that would settle the matter and then do them.

I do not think that I need to answer this as you answered it all by yourself as below-

In NLP there is no overarching explanation, so there is no real quest other than your own personal vision and mission and there are some pretty 'rough' techniques to help with that if one chooses. But I can well understand how difficult it is to stop doing it.

I think the rest of us will be happier with just 'self-improvement' at present, although from an NLP view its about modelling, learning and communication in the purpose of goals or outcomes.

And, I take your word for that.

As far as NLP and your adherence, experience and achievements from it are concerned, you would be the best judge, not me.

If you have been achieved, which is either printed on the packing or you want from it, then it is fine and you may say that you have faith in NLP, otherwise it is just your belief only. Hence, only you can realize that, no one else.

But Auk, the aim of NLP is self improvement and behavior, and, by no means, I am saying that it is a wrong thing. But, traditional forms of meditations imply this aim. On the other hand, they do not stop here as their goal is far distant.

What is their goal then? As far as I can see these traditional forms have not achieved much in the world. Its why I looked for simpler forms.

No. This is my faith about the spirituality and religions in general, which is not limited to Hinduism only.

Which means what? A general belief in 'god/s'? 'Spirit', 'souls', that 'mind' is not matter?

I have faith in Islam perhaps more than most of its adherents. And Auk, this is applicable to Christianity also.

What do you mean you have faith in Islam? You mean you believe that there is only one 'god'?

To me, the definition of the Christianity is to follow what Christ used and asked to do; not the church. In that sense, which is the real one, I am a Christian too. I do not have even a slight hint of hesitation in admitting that. I am a Buddhist too, simply because, I also have faith in what Buddha said, because, I know from my experience that he was right.

But, my friend, my faith in Buddhism does not restrict me to have faith either in Bible or Quran. The reason is simple. Although, at prima-facie, all scriptures may look entirely different if read verbatim, but, at the level of essence or ultimate aim, there is not much difference. But, to conceive this understanding, we must be capable enough to look beyond the words. And, there is only one way for that; experience, not literal reading as words can confuse.

What is this ultimate aim? As the Buddhists have fundamentally different beliefs than the theists.

Let me explain-
It is said in the Quran that the verses were bestowed on the Mohammad by angel Gabriel firstly on his heart than the tongue.

Do you understand what does it mean?

This verse of Quran tells us the right methodology of reading and understanding of scriptures. It clearly indicates that there is difference between real understanding and expression.

It does and it also says the only way to read and understand it is in Arabic, no other language.

Is it not that what precisely Wittgenstein cogitated that language tends to fail in expressing understanding accurately? IMHO, I think so. Correct me if I am wrong. I am mentioning just a single example. Scriptures are very much loaded with such sparks of silent wisdom, if one has the eye for that. I can post at least a couple of hundreds of them. And Auk, they would not carry less weight than the prominent philosophers; right from Desecrates, Kant and till Wittgenstein.

The difference is that Wittgenstein says that whatever can be said in language can be said clearly, not that it fails in expressing its understanding accurately. What he did say was that some things can only be pointed to or shown.

Auk, if it is right, then, does it not mean that scriptures are not less imbued with the knowledge and wisdom than the intellectuals?

Then they should say the same thing and be able to be understood clearly. Apparently they can't agree upon the simplest things, like how many 'god/s' there are, etc.

But Auk, I honestly feel that most of modern intellectual populace is not ready to look scriptures objectively. Their approach is biased as they just want to refute religions at any cost. IMHO, it is not philosophy. I do not think that modern philosophy is neutral while examining religions.

I think modern philosophy has given-up bothering. I think given the opportunity modern populaces are voting with their feet when it comes to religions.

Skepticism is not a bad in its true sense, but, it should not come with any burden of bias. It is useless without objectivity or third person’s approach. It should be open to both; acceptance and denial.

I think it is and has decided that those who say they know either from the study of scripture or personal experience that there are 'god/s' are deluded that this is evidence enough for others to believe as well.

Yes. No religion could claim that it owns meditation or spirituality or have a patent of it.

Pardon? You think they would experience the Hindu mythological 'god/s'?

Yes. Why not? Does the effects of NLP could be limited to any religion or belief?

No, but then its concerned with communication and learning and not 'god/s'.

The reason why not is because each meditators culture is what influences what they expect to experience when meditating. For example, the US military are using meditation for their soldiers and they report no such experiences.

Auk, meditation is a mental practice and it has nothing to do with the faith or any religion. The only ingredient required is concentration, nothing else. It does not matter at all from where and how it comes. But, having said this, it is difficult to go beyond initial levels without having motivation, because without it, it becomes a mechanical type phenomenon and loses attraction and thus, momentum.

But what you mean by 'motivation' is exactly the religious belief system you bring with you to this practice.

It has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Contrary to the general perception, there is no such thing as Hindu or Islamic Gods. They exist more or less in the same way, as described in the scriptures but, they all are part of a large cosmic frame work. We can compare the cosmic or spiritual world with our one. It has many sets and subsets just as we have continents and countries.

Good luck convincing the theists about this. but I'm interested? Who's at the peak or outer framework?

It is not that simple to answer, yet, I have a broad idea of this labyrinth.

Human existence is divided into four parts or it would be more appropriate to say that we are four folded entities. The crux of this is consciousness. There are two wraps of astral and subtle matter around it and the soul comes into the existence. When the soul is wrapped with physical cover, a human is completed. The Gods and Deities mentioned in the scriptures belong to astral and subtle realms and our souls too.

The soul or inner self lives in subtle dimension, where all deities live. This dimension runs parallel with our physical dimension and simultaneously. Meditation can enable us to have access to this dimension. But, this dimension and its inhabitants are also mortal like humans; souls and Deities too. But, the consciousness is immortal and ultimate. I am not competent enough to conceive it precisely. No religion describes this last stage clearly. They talk more about the two intermediate dimensions; especially eastern ones. Christianity is less vocal on this issue, but, it gives a hint in the form of Trinity. The ‘father’ represents spiritual dimensions; Gods, Deities and the souls. The ‘son’ represents Jesus and humans while ‘the holy spirit’ indicates towards consciousness. Anne Catherine Emmerich described it exactly as it should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_An ... e_Emmerich

Holy trinity does not represent the three existences of God, but, it is the symbolic representation of the whole cosmos.

In a nut shell, I realized that I am not a singularity. There is a one more entity somewhere inside me, who is almost the same like me. He has a body and mind as well and those are different from my body and mind. After acquiring a certain level of concentration during meditation, we can see its activities and interaction with other spiritual entities and Deities. It uses to live there just as we live here with families and in societies.

The Gods described in the scriptures are a bit like administrators of spiritual realms; just as we have presidents or prime-ministers here. The term ‘God’ is a portfolio rather than a single or an eternal entity just as presidents have their terms here. These intermediate spiritual entities are the creators and the care takers of the mankind.

I experienced many other spiritual phenomena like ‘tunnel experience’ and ‘OBE’ numerous occasions but all that is the matter of our discussion here.

But, these realms are not the ultimate. That stage is beyond. I am not sure about that stage but I can understand how it goes.

The cosmos is made of three ingredients; consciousness, mind and matter. Each and every living entity in this cosmos consists of all these three but, the ratio is different.

Matter dominates in case of animals, not mind. This ratio differs in the case of humans as the portion of mind is more than animals. This ratio again differs in the case of soul and spiritual entities as the portion of matter decreases hence mind becomes dominant there. The portion of matter tends to decrease and mind to increase as we climb further. And then a stage comes where matter is totally eliminated from the existence and only mind and consciousness remains.

There are stages even beyond this where the ratio of mind decreases and consciousness becomes dominant in the existence. It is said that at last, consciousness tends to lose mind totally and became pure in its essence. This is enlightenment. But,
Auk this is my assumption, based on my experience and religious texts also as I am nowhere near that.

When I say ‘faith’ then I indicate towards the two spiritual dimensions. All religions mentioned this and I experienced this phenomenon in person. Thus, I am not assuming it. It is not my belief anymore, but a fact to me, and thus, faith.

We all see the life and the activities of soul in the dreams, but, with reference to our daily life. Meditation enables us to see it without cover; verbatim. Hence, it is not a very big deal, in the terms of achievement, but, it creates understanding and realization about us and that is more important. The ultimate aim of the meditation is to reach up to the ultimate part of the existence; consciousness. We can do it with the help of will, but, unfortunately it is the last hurdle too; and the most difficult one also.

This is precisely what Buddha says- use the boat to cross the river, but, do not carry it with you further, leave it there at the bank of the river.

Here once again we can see the difference between a philosopher and a spiritualist. Schopenhauer, even being influenced with Hindu mythologies, is not able to put the definition, use and working of the will precisely, but, Buddha does. This is not the difference of intelligence but the experience. Buddha, being enlightened or even at the verge of that is able understand will, while Schopenhauer uses reasoning to form his argument and thus, the difference is evident in the interpretation.

So you seriously think all this is happening outside your head? I think you've brought all this with you to your meditations. For some one who believes in 'physical verification' I think you should show or point to me where all these realms are? Show me a 'god'.

I do not know whether my luck is good or not but I would like it to leave to the destiny.

But, I shall give it a sincere effort for sure; in the form of a book, which is in the process.

Then you're not leaving it to 'destiny' but lots of luck anyway.

Agreed. It is a wise thing to do.

I think so.

Auk, this phenomenon is true even for science, but, in a different way.

Look at any automobile. It uses all the inventions of the mankind since Stone Age up to now. It uses the concept of rolling stones which was the invention of Stone Age. It uses physics; lows of motion, dynamics. It uses chemistry in the form of metallurgy. It uses IT in the form of computers. If we break down all this till the end then, it will be clear that is not a single product but uses almost all or a good portion of acquired knowledge of the mankind. We cannot even imagine that the effort of how many people and time is consumed in making a car, if we calculate it real terms.

I think I understand your point but I think it a Flintstone myth that the Stone Age had wheels. I also think it a myth that there is an unbroken 'knowledge of mankind'.

This is where previously acquired knowledge comes in to play in the form of information and this is the only difference in the methodologies of science and religions.

The difference between the sciences and religion is that the sciences allow the facts to determine their theories whereas religion makes the facts fit their theories.

In science we can use the previous knowledge without going through the process of inventing it, because it uses physical means and achievements. Hence, one can test and use others work.

I think you misrepresent the sciences as the science student does have to experience the process of 'invention', the difference is that they don't have to go through all the failures.

But, this formula fails in the case of religions and spirituality, because they use mind and consciousness as their tools and goal also. Hence, it is not possible to test and use the work done by others easily. Each and every one has to go through the entire process of invention in person. Scriptures can only provide some information or guidance, not more than that. And, even that information is conceivable when we engage ourselves in the process.

I think it fails because the religions and spirituality have no agreement about their aims.

And Auk, this notion is even applicable to the good portion of philosophy also.

Maybe but on the whole philosophy does make the student go through the processes involved in its results. Its just that many don't bother.

Yes, my friend.

You may use your liberty of expression for making a joke of it. I would not neither mind nor object it. I shall not even take it seriously too. Let me tell you the reason also.

But, I would like to remind you what you said about folks when I said that they do not care about philosophy and philosophers and you replied that so be it.

I wasn't making a joke. People don't care about philosophy because its producing no results that are applicable to their lives.

I would also ask you to think about NLP from the other’s point of view. You must have read about it somewhere, in the first place, thought that it is worth trying and practiced it. You also found that it benefits you and could be same to others also.

Now, just imagine about a person, who is not interested or has not practiced NLP and only read about it. Now try to visualize his arguments as if you are trying to convince him about NLP. Can you ever put forward any argument other than your experience?

Yes, I'd ask them is there anything they are failing to achieve now and would they like to change that? But I agree that reading about it will not get the job done.

Auk, NLP is not proved successful what it proposes. There were sincere tests done regarding that and it was not proved that it is able to help significantly in self improving. So, where is the proof?

Show me these sincere tests? As the only double-blind one I've seen that was done by Psychology showed that in the areas it is concerned with it was more effective and produced significant results compared to other methods.

You cannot argue your case. If you want to realize it, then, I will start to keep asking you ‘what’ and ‘why’ after your each and every sentence regarding NLP and after two or three posts, either you will either run away or start calling me names.

Ask away then!

But my friend, even having said this, I know that you are right. The failure of proving of NLP is due to the lack of sincerity among the contestants. No practice can be found useful if it is not tried with conviction. Hence, it is not the failure of the NLP, but the adherents. Simply because, one cannot fill the NLP in a syringe and inject it to anyone to enable self improvement. It has to be done in person and requires commitment and patience too. There cannot be any instant results for such phenomena. But, in the fast forward world of today, no one is ready to wait. This is the main problem. We use to only talk, talk and talk about these things and try to derive cogitations through reasoning and thus, fail.

It does not fail in its aims? What you say is exactly the answer that all the meditative and spiritual gnus have said since time immemorial, its the students fault! Whilst its true one has to do NLP to understand it, you can't just read about it, nor listen to a guru, it is exactly suited to this day and age if one wants to improve ones thinking and thoughting and reach ones goals or outcomes. not that you may attain them as somethings are just unrealistic but with NLP at least it won't be from defeating oneself.

I would like to disagree from you, if you are proposing that Kant and Wittgenstein are in the same league. IMHO, Wittgenstein is a step behind Kant.

Depends if you like brevity or not.

If we follow the trail and keep breaking down any notion till the end, then we will end up with a single thought. Trail ends here. We cannot follow beyond this. But, still there is something left, which is posteriori understanding of emotions or schemata or the originating source of thoughts. Kant realized this phenomenon and tried to bridge this gap but failed. But, it was not his fault, but, of reasoning. We cannot find the origin of thought by thought. Can we?

I don't care about the 'origin' of thought as to me its obviously the being of a sensing body with language in an external world. I care about thinking and thoughting clearly.

This is what exactly I mentioned many posts before that; we have to lower our yardstick to find out the building block and originating source of the thought, and, it is no more the jurisdiction of the traditional philosophy and thinking too. Thus, in this sense, Kant is the limit of thinking.

I think it a fools errand as its based in the bodys perception and these are below the tools of thoughting and thinking. We may well find a 'how' by these methods and I think the sciences will provide this. So much so that in the future we're going to have to be worried about things like 'mind' viruses that will re-write all ones thoughts and thinks in line with whatever the virus-maker decides, i.e. I can think with horror at the idea of actual meme-warfare and think the religious loons will just love this.

On the other, Wittgenstein did not provoke this stage as he stopped a ladder below. He argued that language tends to fail to express the understanding precisely. Hence he said- the more important part of my work is that, which I did not write, instead of that which I wrote. Thus, his whole stress is on language and its limitations while Kant primarily dealt with thoughts and its limitation. Thus, there is a difference of one grade between the two.

No Wittgenstein didn't, he said that whatever can be expressed in language can be expressed clearly. He pointed-out that there is no 'other-side' to symbolic meaning and any such talk is meaningless. Kant I'll have to leave to others as I thought he just pointed out what reason can and cannot reason about.

Auk, I do not think that your take on these both learned members are right, but still, it would not be proper for me to comment of argue on their behalf, especially when they are not active on the board.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT YOU ARE UNDERESTIMATING BOTH OF THEM.

I did not say I underestimated Nikolai and I think my opinion of Typist when it comes to philosophy is spot-on.

Auk, I shall not say that you are wrong but your explanation is not up to the mark as you are still entangled in the event, not the cause.

You are saying that the thoughts use to come with references thus, with the remembrance of thought, reference uses to come with the thought automatically. Agreed. But, this should be happened once only, not again and again.

No, I'm saying that when we use our perceptions as thoughts, i.e. use memory, the references that they came with don't exist, hence we are re-creating but not exactly.

Let us go back to the case of body.

Imagine that you are walking bare foot on the ground and a thorn sticks in your foot. Now what will you do after that? you shall become watchful and not let that happen again. Right. ...

Wrong, I'd buy or make some shoes. If I can't afford them then I would try to be more observant but it may well happen again.

But Auk, why the son could not able to do that in the case of monkey? You are claiming that you are a single entity as a bodymind, then, why is there difference in the both cases? Does this not indicating that body and mind are two different entities, instead of one, as they behave differently?

As I said, I think the son could have done it if he'd had the tools. What do you mean by 'entity', as I obviously have a difference between perception, thoughts and thinking, I just think it an error to think that anything is going on outside our 'heads' or the body when it comes to such things.

All the best.
a_uk