Jump to content

Can't we just get along?


Recommended Posts

Its because you seem to have a narrow definition of mysticism, you are only interested in the absolute and you have a bias over religions and schools of philosophy who argue that personal God exists where as I accept both the absolute as well as the personal God(s).

I'm only sticking to the text book definition.

 

God is a quale,

On this we agree completely. But mysticism is about what lies beyond qualia. This is the entire point of it. It is precisely because God is a quale that He cannot be fundamental.

 

No, no, you've misunderstood my argument, actually my argument is like it happened in the latter (Big Bang of science in our percievable minds) only because it happened in the former(creation of the world by God in the actual physical world i.e the thing in itself). What I mean to say is that when God said "Let there be Light and there was Light" he is talking about the noumenon or the thing in itself but we misunderstand him thinking that he is talking about the phenomena or the world of sense organs, my argument is that the actual physical world or the thing in itself is made up of only five elements that is Earth, water, fire, air and space.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot bring myself to believe that God ever said 'Let there be light'.

 

Natural sciences is defined as the knowledge which is gained only through the sense organs and Tao and God are the kind of knowledge which doesn't come through the sense organs, it is either intuitive knowledge or experiential knowledge (knowledge of qualia) and hence God and Tao cannot be reduced to the natural world.

The reduction would be the other way around. The knowledge is not simply intuitive and not only of qualia.

 

If I have knowledge of qualia then I am separate from qualia. Ergo I am not a quale. And nor are you. Thus self-knowldge is more than a knowledge of qualia. Self-knowledge is, in the end, a knowledge of what is prior to qualia. You speak of Tao as if it were a quale, but Lao Tsu is clear about this. It can never be a quale, since our mind cannot conceive of such a thing. It is not an instance of a category. Were Tao a quale the words of Lao Tsu would make no sense and Buddhism, Sufism and Kabbalism would have to be false. Whatever is truly real it cannot be a quale. (Sorry, silly word but we're stuck with it).

 

... lativity then you would appreciate the fact that how much scientific models accurately predict the events of this universe and there is no discrepancy between the predictions made by those scientific theories and the events observed in the laboratories and therefore the universe is not so much of a miracle to scientists, the problem is with the interpretation of such models and this is a philosophical problem and what can be changed is the way we interpret things or the way we percieve things, so even if I come up with an evidence of a miracle or God its not going change those scientifc models in any way, what's going to change is the way we percieve things that's all.

Quite so. But this would have no bearing on the existence of God. If He exists then one wouldn't expect this to have any effect on the mathematics. If it were otherwise we could use the mathematics to disprove God.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither

I stopped reading here. What a nonsensical assertion. You should have instead said that, "Most atheists become non-believers because they've taken the time trying to understand religion and realized

Almost all of the contradictions stem from three sources:   1) Religiously motivated assertion of events that are scientifically unsupported - e.g. Noah's ark, miracles, resurrection, immaculate con

I'm only sticking to the text book definition.

 

Mysticism is not book knowledge, it is the body of knowledge accumulated by mystics who have had mystical experiences and quite amazingly they all come to the same conclusion.

 

Mysticism in general refers to a direct and immediate experience of the sacred, or the knowledge derived from such an experience. In Christianity this experience usually takes the form of a vision of, or sense of union with, God; however, there are also nontheistic forms of mysticism, as in Buddhism. Mysticism is usually accompanied by meditation, prayer, and ascetic discipline. It may also be accompanied by unusual experiences of ecstasy, levitation, visions, and power to read human hearts, to heal, and to perform other unusual acts. Mysticism occurs in most, if not all, the religions of the world, although its importance within each varies greatly. The criteria and conditions for mystical experience vary depending on the tradition, but three attributes are found almost universally. First, the experience is immediate and overwhelming, divorced from the common experience of reality. Second, the experience or the knowledge imparted by it is felt to be self-authenticating, without need of further evidence or justification. Finally, it is held to be ineffable, its essence incapable of being expressed or understood outside the experience itself.

 

I am going with the above definition.

 

On this we agree completely. But mysticism is about what lies beyond qualia. This is the entire point of it. It is precisely because God is a quale that He cannot be fundamental.

 

That is a too narrow defintion of mysticism and more importantly only qualia are real and personal God as a form and the absolute both are quale. If you say God is a quale and not fundamental then you have to also admit that you're not fundamental because the self is a quale and one who have self knowledge say that self is fundamental and therefore even God as a form is fundamental.

 

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot bring myself to believe that God ever said 'Let there be light'.

 

You need to wake up and make a choice, you seem to accept the absolute and call yourself atheist, you're doing injustice to yourself, you seem weird, one has to speak the truth and not hide it, just because non-theistic mysticism eliminates God from reality and upholds the atheistic mindset, it doesn't mean that theistic mysticism is false. God as a person is as fundamental as the absolute. Reality is not something which you choose to portray it as, Reality is what it is. The reality given by Tao and Buddhism is only one view of the fundamental reality. There are many schools of philosophy which accept God as a person and also accept reality of the absolute spoken in Tao and Buddhism. Therefore arguing for God as a person or arguing for God as absolute deserves same treatment, it doesn't make the non-theistic mystics any more great than what they are.

 

The reduction would be the other way around. The knowledge is not simply intuitive and not only of qualia.

 

My below argument shows why self knowledge is not different from the knowledge of qualia.

 

If I have knowledge of qualia then I am separate from qualia. Ergo I am not a quale. And nor are you. Thus self-knowldge is more than a knowledge of qualia. Self-knowledge is, in the end, a knowledge of what is prior to qualia.

 

If you're a quale then you and your knowledge of yourself is inseperable from it. For a beautiful analogy when you have knowledge of sweetness you know that you're not sweetness itself because you exist even when you don't have the knowledge (or even when you don't have the experience) of sweetness but this is not what happens in self knowledge, your knowledge of yourself is eternal and it exists as long as you exist and therefore the knowledge of quale of self is not seperate from you i.e to say you're a quale.

 

This is the definition of what an experience of quale is.

 

Wikipedia-

 

Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:

 

1.ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.

 

2.intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.

 

3.private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.

 

4.directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

 

The experience of Self or Self experience has the four above properties, if you say that it is different from qualia then you need to show how self experience is different from the experience of qualia. What happens in Self knowledge is that you are a quale and hence such a knowledge is ineffable (can not be described in words) and this is the reason why the seers of upanishads advice us not to speak or argue of its true nature.

 

Sweetness is a quale and you know what sweetness is but you cannot put it into words, in the same way when you know yourself you know what self is but you cannot put it into words and describe yourself.

 

You speak of Tao as if it were a quale, but Lao Tsu is clear about this. Were Tao a quale the words of Lao Tsu would make no sense and Buddhism, Sufism and Kabbalism would have to be false. Whatever is truly real it cannot be a quale. (Sorry, silly word but we're stuck with it).

 

Tao and especially Buddhism believe in sunyata, nihilism or void. Buddhists neither say that unity is one and it exists nor do they say that it doesn't exist. The founder of Advaita, Shankara who followed the philosophy of Gaudapada who was also a Buddhist is certain that unity exists, he didn't accepted the void or sunya which was held by his master Gaudapada. You have to make a choice and take a stand on which school of philosophical thought you belong to, there are differences in these school of philosophical thought, you seem to quote often from Buddhism, Tao, Advaita and even the Jesus of Hammadi gnostics, this is the reason I insist you to have a stand on which school of philosophical thought you adhere yourself too. You cannot argue in favour of all these and claim yourself as an atheist.

 

Sankara of Advaita himself agress on Saguna Brahman

 

Saguna brahman (lit. "The Absolute with qualities"[1]) came from the Sanskrit saguṇa (सगुण) "with qualities" and Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) "The Absolute".

 

as well as the Nirguna brahman (Devanagari निर्गुण ब्रह्म, nirguṇa brahman, the supreme reality without form, quality, attribute)

 

Hiranyagarbha is the God of the Gods, you knock him out of the picture or out of the body of mystical knowledge then you're knocking out Upanishads and the Vedas from the umbrella of mysticism.

 

 

Saint Augustine, city of God (excerpt)

 

10. Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, in whom substance and quality are identical.

 

There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. "Created," I say,--that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say "another," not "another thing," because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

 

It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body colour, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;--for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing more than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

 

According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called "manifold" because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

 

 

 

I quoted this excerpt in the beginning itself when I first started discussing these concepts with you but you ignored it, I hope you don't ignore it now.

 

 

It can never be a quale, since our mind cannot conceive of such a thing. It is not an instance of a category.

 

When you're experiencing yourself there will be no mind, mind would have dissolved in you. If you say that unity is one and not without a second then you need to explain to me from where did the mind came from? It has to have a basis and therefore there is the need for the Absolute with qualities or forms and also a God and they all have to be a quale because if it isn't then you need to explain how non physical entity like a quale can interact with a physical entity and even an immaterial entity like the self which you think is not a quale. Therefore everything is the interaction of quale and it is fundamental and real.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

21. Of God's eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will, whereby all He has made pleased Him in the eternal design as well as in the actual result.

 

For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, "And God saw that it was good," than the approval of the work in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but, on the contrary, nothing would have been made had it not been first known by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good. Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker's approval, as it had while yet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are, and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present, and future, though they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. Wherefore, if the only object had been to inform us who made the light, it had been enough to say, "God made the light"; and if further information regarding the means by which it was made had been intended, it would have sufficed to say, "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light," that we might know not only that God had made the world, but also that He had made it by creature be intimated to us, viz., who made it, by what means, and why, it is written, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good." If, then, we ask who made it, it was "God." If, by what means, He said "Let it be," and it was. If we ask, why He made it, "it was good." Neither is there any author more excellent than God, nor any skill more efficacious than the word of God, nor any cause better than that good might be created by the good God. This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God; whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed of these things by those who had read them, or, by his quick-sighted genius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisible through the things that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those who had discerned them....

 

 

 

This shows that what is important is the final actual result and God knows that the final actual result is GOOD and therefore untill we can know whether the final outcome was evil or good we cannot disprove his existence with the problem of evil. Infact I will get through the suffering and the evil in this world as the work of God because God ensures that the outcome is Good which makes me elated with joy.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic mistake that God-believers make is that they assume that the world is supposed to be a fair place but it is pretty clear that the world never was a very fair place and this will very probably never change for the better.

 

In the grand scheme of things humans really are insignificant. In this vast universe, we are probably no more important than insects.

Edited by seriously disabled
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the grand scheme of things humans really are insignificant. In this vast universe, we are probably no more important than insects.

 

 

Insects are far more important than us. Wipe out insects and the ecosystem fails

 

Wipe out people and it flourishes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Hell. I wrote a long reply but the system crashed and messed it all up. Why can't I save posts before posting them? I cannot do it all again. Sorry.

 

Hehe!! Its okay, you're not the only one who go through such an annoying situation, earlier I requested to provide such a facility to save our posts before we post them like in blogger but I don't know whether such a thing is feasible or not, that's why I write my posts first in my text editor, save it and then paste it here, you need to adapt to SFN, I have been here for a while and I know how that feels, its okay, you can quote me when you have time, take your own time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I've never been on a forum that doesn't allow me to save posts before submitting them. It's slightly crazy. An hour went own the drain. Oh well.

 

I suspect we're going to be coming back to these issues again and again though, so it'll all reappear sometime.

 

I suppose we could focus on qualia. The idea that God is a quale is mysticism, it seems to me, but the idea that a quale could be fundamental seems to deny the definition of qualia and the truth of the teachings of the sages. Perhaps I could ask how a qualia could have an independent existence when it is a quality perceived only by the mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we could focus on qualia. The idea that God is a quale is mysticism, it seems to me, but the idea that a quale could be fundamental seems to deny the definition of qualia and the truth of the teachings of the sages. Perhaps I could ask how a qualia could have an independent existence when it is a quality perceived only by the mind.

 

There are methods to percieve your own mind and that would make mind itself as a qualia, such a method is called as Avastratreya (Avaste- means states like awake, deep sleep and dream states and these states are represented by the mind). Jiva is the thing which is subjected to experience such states and if you gain the ability to percieve things through Jiva then you can percieve your own mind. Only those who have this ability are called as true philosophers because only they will know the true nature of things as they really are and he will not speculate that it might be like this or it might be like that. Only such persons have the liberty to study the different school of Darshan Shastras.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are methods to percieve your own mind and that would make mind itself as a qualia, such a method is called as Avastratreya (Avaste- means states like awake, deep sleep and dream states and these states are represented by the mind). Jiva is the thing which is subjected to experience such states and if you gain the ability to percieve things through Jiva then you can percieve your own mind. Only those who have this ability are called as true philosophers because only they will know the true nature of things as they really are and he will not speculate that it might be like this or it might be like that. Only such persons have the liberty to study the different school of Darshan Shastras.

But this is what I am saying also, or much of it. The mind is to be transcended, and thus all qualia. By definition things as they are cannot be qualia. To me it seems you go as far as God but then stop. For the Kabbalist and their like there would be another step. Do you know 'The Conference of the Birds?'

 

In some way our disagreements are rather pointless, and I expect you'd agree, since we either know what is true or we don't. But really I am arguing from metaphysics, not from experience, and also a long literature survey. I wouldn't argue from experience because it would be innapropriate here. I would say that your view does not survive in metaphysics since this endorses only the Middle Way view of Nagarjuna, namely that nothing really exists, including gods. I have never seen a counter-argument, only a counter-claim.

 

So for me your view seems to be about correct, but is non-reductive or not fundamental. God has to be there as an axiom, but the axiom is a lemma.

 

Just how I see it.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is what I am saying also, or much of it. The mind is to be transcended, and thus all qualia. By definition things as they are cannot be qualia. To me it seems you go as far as God but then stop. For the Kabbalist and their like there would be another step.

 

If qualia can exist independently outside of mind then they are fundamental, real and exist as they are. If you have knowledge of the quale of mind itself and if you can percieve mind through Jiva then it shows that mind itself is a quale and not something which is confined within one's mind.

 

What you're talking about is just transcending outside of mind and knowing the absolute and I don't stop at God, I know there is an another step. Its like you want to directly fly from above and see the land where as I want to take the sea route and arrive at the sea shore. To me the knowledge of a personal God as well as the knowledge of absolute is important. I choose this path.

 

Do you know 'The Conference of the Birds?'

 

Are you talking about the Dwasuparna Shruti? Two birds sitting on the branch of a tree ... that one or is this something different.

 

In some way our disagreements are rather pointless, and I expect you'd agree, since we either know what is true or we don't. But really I am arguing from metaphysics, not from experience, and also a long literature survey. I wouldn't argue from experience because it would be innapropriate here.

 

So for me your view seems to be about correct, but is non-reductive or not fundamental. God has to be there as an axiom, but the axiom is a lemma.

 

Just how I see it.

 

Mysticism is not metaphysics. Mysticism provides a method to experience the claims that it asserts and hence it neither falls to the boundary of science nor to the umbrella of metaphysics.

 

I don't agree with you yet and you have not addressed my points in my previous posts and you don't seem to understand my views and please don't predict what's on my mind and assert what I seem to be thinking, you cannot speculate on what's going on my mind, if you didn't understand please ask I will repeat it hundred times but please don't assert claims which I am not making.

 

Our disagreements are understandable because you're arguing from metaphysics but I am arguing from mystical experiences or mystics who have had direct experiences of the nature of things, that's the main difference. Mystics are the true philosophers because they're the one's who truly make things done, they give us the methods and even guide us to percieve our own minds and only such kind of empiricism can add some knowledge to the already existent huge body of knowledge for humanity. Metaphysics will take you nowhere. Kant has really shown that we need rationalism as well as empiricism if it has to be accountable as real knowledge. You're reading literature from blind philosphers who haven't seen the light, they will just argue it will be like this or it will be like that but it is the literature of mystics which will help us to have great insights into the knowledge of God and the absolute, the exact nature of things and how to achieve that knowledge by ourselve and hence such a knowledge is real because it can be passed on to others.

 

I would say that your view does not survive in metaphysics since this endorses only the Middle Way view of Nagarjuna, namely that nothing really exists, including gods. I have never seen a counter-argument, only a counter-claim.

 

I am not endorsing the Middle way view of Nagarjuna at all. Infact I am arguing that personal God and the absolute both exist and they both are as fundamental as they are real.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh. I guess it's a good thing I wasn't trying to break new ground. Let's remind ourselves of the context here. A member made a post. I followed up, 'FYI - that's also known as the problem of evil. Go here to read more.'

 

 

Well....

 

And yet... The problem of evil I shared in a later post remains unaddressed.

 

I addressed it because you brought it up again. I didn't originally address it because I saw the two proofs you offered as essentially the same thing.

 

 

I'd rather just stick to the other countless reasons why it's more appropriate not to accept the existence of god as a valid claim. The problem of evil is just one among many of those reasons.

 

 

So you offer a proof, it gets challenged and you simply move along without evaluating the counter argument? That doesn't bode well for the diligence with which you evaluated the "countless" other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine. You can continue to believe in your imaginary friends if you want. It doesn't phase me.

 

 

Whoa, thanks. I was worried there for a minute. :rolleyes:

 

The basic mistake that God-believers make is that they assume that the world is supposed to be a fair place but it is pretty clear that the world never was a very fair place and this will very probably never change for the better.

 

 

This is a misunderstanding of what "God-Believers" actually believe. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a "God-Believer" who believes that this world is a fair place.

Edited by jryan
Link to post
Share on other sites
(Immortal) If qualia can exist independently outside of mind then they are fundamental, real and exist as they are. If you have knowledge of the quale of mind itself and if you can percieve mind through Jiva then it shows that mind itself is a quale and not something which is confined within one's mind.

But does not the definition of 'quale' means that it requires a mind to exist? The word was invented to describe a mental phenomenon. How can a mental phenomenon be fundamental?

 

What you're talking about is just transcending outside of mind and knowing the absolute and I don't stop at God, I know there is an another step. Its like you want to directly fly from above and see the land where as I want to take the sea route and arrive at the sea shore. To me the knowledge of a personal God as well as the knowledge of absolute is important. I choose this path.

Oh. Okay. Maybe we don't disagree so much after all.

 

Are you talking about the Dwasuparna Shruti? Two birds sitting on the branch of a tree ... that one or is this something different.

'The Conference of the Birds' is a Sufi teaching story by Attar. I mentioned it because it deals directly with the God question. Not important here maybe. It's just one story. Worth a read though.

 

Mysticism is not metaphysics. Mysticism provides a method to experience the claims that it asserts and hence it neither falls to the boundary of science nor to the umbrella of metaphysics.

Yes. But it is consistent with metaphysics and solves metaphysical problems. The Dalai Lama advises 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. and metaphysics is the best place to see what would and would not contradict logic. Of course, in the end metaphysics is a waste of time, but it is a useful ladder, and indespensible for someone wanting to test the doctrine against the facts, maybe before they dive into the practice. This is presumably why Nagarjuna took the trouble to lay out the metaphysical basis of Buddhist cosmology. People often point to Zen practice as an argument against the need for metaphysics, but at least one patriarch of Zen was a good metaphysician and gives the logical basis for the practice. Not necessary, no, but extremely useful. In metaphysics one can prove that the doctrine of mysticism is the only one that leads to no contradictions.

 

Our disagreements are understandable because you're arguing from metaphysics but I am arguing from mystical experiences or mystics who have had direct experiences of the nature of things, that's the main difference.

I'm arguing for the veracity of these experiences. It's just that I wouldn't expect appeals to first-person experience to be taken seriously here. If you ask me what I gain from my experience, it would be, among other things, the veracity of my views about metaphysics.

 

Mystics are the true philosophers

Yes. They are the genuine truth-seekers.

 

Metaphysics will take you nowhere.

This is wrong. Metaphysics led me like an arrow to Buddhism.

 

Kant has really shown that we need rationalism as well as empiricism if it has to be accountable as real knowledge.

Not sure what this means. I'm a fan of Kant. He used metaphysics to show that world is as Lao Tsu says it is. In his view both the basis of the intellect and of the world itself is a phenomenon that is not an instance fo a category. He left it to Hegel to name this a 'spritual unity'. From this comes Bradley's 'Absolute Idealism', which is an endorsement of Nagarjuna's Middle Way doctrine and the 'advaita' doctrine of the late Upanishads etc.

 

You're reading literature from blind philosphers who haven't seen the light, they will just argue it will be like this or it will be like that but it is the literature of mystics which will help us to have great insights into the knowledge of God and the absolute, the exact nature of things and how to achieve that knowledge by ourselve and hence such a knowledge is real because it can be passed on to others.

We cannot borrow knoweldge, as they say in Zen. What we read in books is relative knowledge. It might be utter nonsense. True knowledge is identical with its object, and this is an axiom for mysticism. It does not come from books or from other people. Do we not agree even about this?

 

It is rather an astonishing insult to say that I am reading books by blind philosophers. It suggest that I am so blind I cannot even see that these authors are blind. My dissertation was on the relationship between metaphysics and mysticism, and while I might be wrong nobody has shown me where yet.

 

I am not endorsing the Middle way view of Nagarjuna at all.

Yes. That's my problem. You are claiming that Buddhist doctrine is false.

 

Infact I am arguing that personal God and the absolute both exist and they both are as fundamental as they are real.

To claim that there are two real phenomenon is dualism, not mysticism. I suppose you would say otherwise, and may believe that 'The Philosophy of the Upanishads' by Professor Radhkrishnan is by a blind author. But I think he's got it right. Dualism is false or mysticism is nonsense.

 

I have to be away for few days, so may not be able to carry this on. Not such a bad thing maybe. See you about later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Okay. Maybe we don't disagree so much after all.

 

 

'The Conference of the Birds' is a Sufi teaching story by Attar. I mentioned it because it deals directly with the God question. Not important here maybe. It's just one story. Worth a read though.

 

 

Yes. But it is consistent with metaphysics and solves metaphysical problems. The Dalai Lama advises 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. and metaphysics is the best place to see what would and would not contradict logic. Of course, in the end metaphysics is a waste of time, but it is a useful ladder, and indespensible for someone wanting to test the doctrine against the facts, maybe before they dive into the practice. This is presumably why Nagarjuna took the trouble to lay out the metaphysical basis of Buddhist cosmology. People often point to Zen practice as an argument against the need for metaphysics, but at least one patriarch of Zen was a good metaphysician and gives the logical basis for the practice. Not necessary, no, but extremely useful. In metaphysics one can prove that the doctrine of mysticism is the only one that leads to no contradictions.

 

 

I'm arguing for the veracity of these experiences. It's just that I wouldn't expect appeals to first-person experience to be taken seriously here. If you ask me what I gain from my experience, it would be, among other things, the veracity of my views about metaphysics.

 

 

Yes. They are the genuine truth-seekers.

 

 

This is wrong. Metaphysics led me like an arrow to Buddhism.

 

 

Not sure what this means. I'm a fan of Kant. He used metaphysics to show that world is as Lao Tsu says it is. In his view both the basis of the intellect and of the world itself is a phenomenon that is not an instance fo a category. He left it to Hegel to name this a 'spritual unity'. From this comes Bradley's 'Absolute Idealism', which is an endorsement of Nagarjuna's Middle Way doctrine and the 'advaita' doctrine of the late Upanishads etc.

 

 

We cannot borrow knoweldge, as they say in Zen. What we read in books is relative knowledge. It might be utter nonsense. True knowledge is identical with its object, and this is an axiom for mysticism. It does not come from books or from other people. Do we not agree even about this?

 

It is rather an astonishing insult to say that I am reading books by blind philosophers. It suggest that I am so blind I cannot even see that these authors are blind. My dissertation was on the relationship between metaphysics and mysticism, and while I might be wrong nobody has shown me where yet.

 

 

Yes. That's my problem. You are claiming that Buddhist doctrine is false.

 

 

To claim that there are two real phenomenon is dualism, not mysticism. I suppose you would say otherwise, and may believe that 'The Philosophy of the Upanishads' by Professor Radhkrishnan is by a blind author. But I think he's got it right. Dualism is false or mysticism is nonsense.

 

I have to be away for few days, so may not be able to carry this on. Not such a bad thing maybe. See you about later.

 

I have replied to this post in this thread http://www.sciencefo...__gopid__655548 since I had to say the same thing by quoting your posts in both the threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.