Why the Ramana Maharshi model for humanity is flawed.

[Univalence]

That single truth is the Unity of All. Even sceptics can work out that all other ideas fail in metaphysics.

Before you can work out anything of this sort first you have to define your criterion for "failure".

Almost everyone agrees that all positive metaphysical theories fail.

How about this one? Metaphysics is logic.

Some would say that metaphysical theories fail to infinite regress. That's not a failure. That's recursion.

Recursion is computation.

[PeteJ]

That single truth is the Unity of All. Even sceptics can work out that all other ideas fail in metaphysics.

Before you can work out anything of this sort first you have to define your criterion for "failure".

A theory fails if it gives rise to contradictions.

Almost everyone agrees that all positive metaphysical theories fail.

How about this one? Metaphysics is logic.

How is this comment relevant? I'd agree metaphysics is a science of logic. It determines that all positive metaphysical theories fail. This is not news. Perhaps you could try reading Kant, who makes it very clear, or Russell, Carnap, Priest, Nagarjuna, Hegel, Plato or just about any text on metaphysics.

Some would say that metaphysical theories fail to infinite regress. That's not a failure. That's recursion.

Some would say recursion is failure and I suspect this would include all philosophers.

Recursion is computation.

Yes. And this is all it is.

If I fail to reply in future I'm not being rude, just avoiding a futile disagreement.

[Univalence]

A theory fails if it gives rise to contradictions.

You are going to have to define what you conceptualize as a contradiction.

I know what that dude, Aristotle, said ( P ∧ ¬P ⇒ False ). But he was wrong. Contradictions do exist.
Empirical Demonstration: https://repl.it/repls/IllThinCodegeneration

So if contradictions actually exist, then the sentence "Contradictions don't exist" is a lie.
No contradictions - no failures.

Try again ?

Some would say recursion is failure and I suspect this would include all philosophers.

Good thing I am a computer scientist, and not a philosopher then? That is - I have experience on my side

So I can point out your philosophical errors.

Yes. And this is all it is.

If your mind is capable of infinite recursion, then your mind is a computer. And the sentence above is the product of a computation.

How much "more" do you want it to be?

[seeds]

Thus, a sensible way to approach our dilemma would be to find a “new paradigm” (one that can [hopefully] shed light on that “...single, metaphysical truth...” that lies at the root of the Perennial philosophy).

That single truth is the Unity of All.

In what way does the phrase “the Unity of All” offer anything towards resolving the mystery of reality?

In other words, in what way does it explain how the fabric of reality was wielded and formed into the unfathomably complex physiological workings...

(suns and planets and brains)

...through-which our individual consciousnesses (our minds and souls) could then be awakened into existence?

Furthermore, in what way does “the Unity of All” explain or describe our ultimate purpose and destiny within the context of eternity?

The point is that offering-up phrases such as “the Unity of All,” or “non-duality” or “Oneness,” are nothing more than “Jedi mind tricks” that produce an illusion that a profound explanation of reality has just been uttered when, in fact, they explain nothing at all.

From my own personal perspective, I believe that the universe is founded upon a transcendent level of consciousness and intelligence that is so far above our level that it makes you, me, Einstein, Ramana, Buddha, and Plotinus, et al, seem like amoebas in comparison.

Okay. But this is not what is said by those who research these things.

When you say “those who research these things,” are you referring to the “amoebas” mentioned in the above quote?

I strongly suggest that just as you should have no confidence in the ability of actual amoebas to accurately visualize the context of the human level of being, likewise, you should have no confidence in the ability of humans to accurately visualize the context of the ultimate level of being.

Rather, it would be founded on something so simple it is free of all distinction and division.

And what, exactly, would that “simple something” be?
_______

[PeteJ]

In what way does the phrase “the Unity of All” offer anything towards resolving the mystery of reality?

Good question. One thing it explains the failure in logic of all other theories. Thus it explains why metaphysical problems are undecidable. No other reasonable explanation is available or ever has been. In this way it explains most of philosophy.

Of course, to see its value as a world-theory one would need to study it, and this is not something academic philosophers usually do. They usually prefer to dismiss metaphysics as hopeless. Consequently, this is a little understood area of philosophy in our universities. But there is a considerable literature for anyone interested.

Not that many people are.

[Dontaskme]

In other words, in what way does it explain how the fabric of reality was wielded and formed into the unfathomably complex physiological workings...

(suns and planets and brains)

...through-which our individual consciousnesses (our minds and souls) could then be awakened into existence?

There is nothing to explain about existence, it's interesting how we keep going through the maze...from source to individuation of source?
No awakening ever happened, any apparent awakening is simply seen for what it is/not...as and through the dream of separation.. (illusion)

The only existence is Awareness. A person is itself Awareness. There is not a person aware of itself as a person nor is there disembodied invisible consciousness aware of person as person, there is only the experience ''person''

Furthermore, in what way does “the Unity of All” explain or describe our ultimate purpose and destiny within the context of eternity?

The point is that offering-up phrases such as “the Unity of All,” or “non-duality” or “Oneness,” are nothing more than “Jedi mind tricks” that produce an illusion that a profound explanation of reality has just been uttered when, in fact, they explain nothing at all.

Anything I say is not Absolute. Everything I say is relative to the Absolute, in other words, totally redundant. There is no requirement for Existence to explain itself to BE. It simply IS without doubt or error. There is nothing except (Manifestation/Awareness) spontaneously arising as meaningfulness or not, as purposefulness or not.

The devil is in the details, better off just flushing all that crap down the loo where it belongs.

.

[Belinda]

I'm alive and can tell that everything is void of meaning. I just ignore this.

Sure. Vanity of vanities all is vain, said the naughty preacher.

It's up to you to make a meaning for yourself or for you and others. Or just hang about looking at the wall.

[seeds]

In what way does the phrase “the Unity of All” offer anything towards resolving the mystery of reality?

Good question. One thing it explains the failure in logic of all other theories. Thus it explains why metaphysical problems are undecidable. No other reasonable explanation is available or ever has been. In this way it explains most of philosophy.

In what way does “the Unity of All” explain the failure in logic of all other theories?

And in what way does it explain why metaphysical problems are undecidable?

And in what way does it explain most of philosophy?

You really need to support your assertions with more than just an assumption on your part that a reader will simply accept them as being true on their face value.

Of course, to see its value as a world-theory one would need to study it,...

I do not doubt the value of “oneness” as a world theory.

Nevertheless, I suggest that a person could study the theories of oneness and non-duality until the heat-death of the galaxies,...

...yet in no way does the idea of reality existing in a state of oneness at its most fundamental level resolve the mystery of how the unthinkable order of the universe was achieved.

Likewise, in no way does it explain the process by which our individual minds and souls were sculpted from the nebulous essence of life.

As was stated in a prior post: the Perennial philosophy...

...is a perspective in spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

To which I suggested that for the central theme of the Perennial philosophy to make any sense, then you need to view the divergent religious traditions as each possessing a hazy and tenuous piece of a “Grand Philosophical Puzzle.”

And the point is that the concept of “oneness” is Hinduism’s piece of the puzzle.

So, yes, Ramana may have done a good job of representing a specific piece of the puzzle, but as the metaphor clearly implies, one puzzle piece is not enough to reveal the full picture of reality.
_______

[PeteJ]

In what way does the phrase “the Unity of All” offer anything towards resolving the mystery of reality?

Good question. One thing it explains the failure in logic of all other theories. Thus it explains why metaphysical problems are undecidable. No other reasonable explanation is available or ever has been. In this way it explains most of philosophy.

In what way does “the Unity of All” explain the failure in logic of all other theories?

And in what way does it explain why metaphysical problems are undecidable?

And in what way does it explain most of philosophy?

You really need to support your assertions with more than just an assumption on your part that a reader will simply accept them as being true on their face value.

I expect the reader to be interested in philosophy and capable of reading. If they were they'd know what I'm talking about.

For a doctrine of Unity all positive metaphysical theories are false. Metaphysical antinomies are constructed out of pairs of such theories, Their falsity would explain their logical absurdity. The correct theory would be neutral. Thus in Sri Ramana Marharshi's view no paradoxes or dilemmas arise.

This is not something that can be explained quickly and briefly. For further reading I'd suggest for starters Nagarjuna, George Spencer Brown, Francis Bradley, Hermann Weyl, Lao Tsu, Sri Aurobindo. If you google 'neutral metaphysical position' or 'nondualism' you'll be on the trail of the ideas.

[roydop]

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense), is there anything else about his teachings that truly represent something earth shattering?

If there is, then here is a good opportunity to show it to us.

For goodness sake. Do you imagine you understand what Sri Ramana is teaching? Such arrogance. Do you not consider the possibility that it might take some effort to understand him?

If you had paid the slightest bit of attention to the conversation then you should have noticed that the main intent of the thread is to point out to poster roydop how wrong he is in thinking that the extinction of humanity would be a good thing.

And if the “welcomed” extinction of humanity is what Ramana’s teachings have inspired him to accept, then either something is wrong with Ramana’s teachings, or roydop needs an attitude adjustment (or both).

He teaches what the Oracle at Delphi teaches and what the Perennial philosophy teaches. If you can find some sound objections to the the latter then I'll attempt to meet them. I haven't seen one yet.

I have nothing against the Perennial philosophy. Indeed, I have often used its central theme to support some of my arguments.

According to Wiki, the Perennial philosophy...

...is a perspective in spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

In which case, my only objection to the Perennial philosophy is that even though it makes what I believe is a logical assertion that all of the world’s religious traditions have a common origin, it offers absolutely nothing** towards resolving the mystery of what that shared origin actually is.

**(Nothing unless you view the divergent religious traditions as each possessing a hazy and tenuous piece of the “Grand Philosophical Puzzle.”)

There is nothing earth-shattering about his teachings. it is standard stuff in the perennial tradition. It's just that such a degree of realisation is rare, and this allows him to teach at a simple and direct level.

Again, you are missing the point of the thread being a rebuke against poster roydop’s assertions, one of which was this:

My Satguru Ramana Maharshi spoke of remaining in the heart and not "going out" in awareness into thought and sensations.

And my point of contention is that if we did not go out into “thought and sensations,” then I suggest that the ultimate purpose** of this universe would be rendered null and void.

**(Ask me what I think the “ultimate purpose” of the universe might actually be.)

Hos preferred method of teaching was silence, and if you don't know why this is then dismissing him as you do just reveals a lack of interest. When you dismiss him you do the same for Buddha. Lao Tsu, Rumi, Al-hallaj, Plotinus, Mooji. Osho, Wei Wu Wei, Nagarjuna. Eckhart and ten thousand other teachers of the same message. This is not a sensible way to approach philosophy.

I do not mean to seem disrespectful of those who have attempted to give us spiritual guidance down through the ages, for I have learned a great deal from many of them.

No, I am merely pointing out that the promoters of any of the “old paradigm” religions...

(Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.)

...are working with doctrines that are so tainted with arcane and mythological nonsense that not only do they not fit-in with our modern understanding of the universe...

...but their incompatibility with each other in this new age of globalization has us on the verge of annihilating each other.

Thus, a sensible way to approach our dilemma would be to find a “new paradigm” (one that can [hopefully] shed light on that “...single, metaphysical truth...” that lies at the root of the Perennial philosophy).

From my own personal perspective, I believe that the universe is founded upon a transcendent level of consciousness and intelligence that is so far above our level that it makes you, me, Einstein, Ramana, Buddha, and Plotinus, et al, seem like amoebas in comparison.

And the point is that amoebas that appear to be in possession of a little more knowledge and insight than their fellow amoebas are still just amoebas (hence my air of dismissiveness).
_______

Many times Ramana stated that this realm is not fundamental, but is dependent upon Self. That is, worlds arise and pass within Awareness, not the other way around.

Many of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics came to similar conclusions.

All species go extinct. Fact. Now would you rather die peacefully or kicking and screaming? If peace is what one seeks then one must abide in stillness (of mind especially).

[seeds]

For a doctrine of Unity all positive metaphysical theories are false. Metaphysical antinomies are constructed out of pairs of such theories, Their falsity would explain their logical absurdity. The correct theory would be neutral. Thus in Sri Ramana Marharshi's view no paradoxes or dilemmas arise.

Sure, no paradoxes or dilemmas arise as long as no one asks any questions as to how the universe was created.

In other words, as long as everyone adopts the “shut up and meditate” mantra, all is well.

I cannot help but think that the devotees of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or even materialism, all feel just as strongly about their own pieces of the puzzle as you do of yours.

However, to borrow from a parable in Buddhism (another puzzle piece), the divergent religions of the world are nothing more than temporary “rafts” that will be abandoned when everyone discovers the absolute truth of reality after crossing the threshold of death.

And as I have often suggested, whatever our ultimate destiny may be, it will be the exact same destiny for each of us, regardless of the conflicting doctrines from which our opposing rafts are constructed.

Indeed, the absolute equality and sameness of our eternal destiny should be one of the basic canons of the “new spiritual paradigm” mentioned earlier.
_______

[Dontaskme]

So, yes, Ramana may have done a good job of representing a specific piece of the puzzle, but as the metaphor clearly implies, one puzzle piece is not enough to reveal the full picture of reality.

There is no full picture as infinity never completes.

All there is is one pixel / puzzle piece at a time...and while that is known, nothing else is known...the bigger picture is simultaneously occurring all at once...but only one frame at a time can be experienced, known.

That's just the way it is seen from this one here...as for the bigger full picture, you are it, you can't know it, you are it all at once, one without a second.

As awareness you are peering through the lens of individuated perception one frame at a time.

Any attempt to cross the horizon is futile, for wherever you go there you are infinitely for eternity, never quite catching up with yourself because there isn't one.

Any attempt to get a peek up your own skirt ..forget it...for there is nothing to see.



.

[PeteJ]

For a doctrine of Unity all positive metaphysical theories are false. Metaphysical antinomies are constructed out of pairs of such theories, Their falsity would explain their logical absurdity. The correct theory would be neutral.

Sure, no paradoxes or dilemmas arise as long as no one asks any questions as to how the universe was created.

In other words, as long as everyone adopts the “shut up and meditate” mantra, all is well.

I cannot help but think that the devotees of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or even materialism, all feel just as strongly about their own pieces of the puzzle as you do of yours.

Do you have any arguments or just these opinions? Do you have an objection to the philosophical point? Why can't we ask how the universe was created? If we can't do that we can't even begin to do metaphysics. Why would you say such a thing? Do you not read the metaphysical literature?

However, to borrow from a parable in Buddhism (another puzzle piece), the divergent religions of the world are nothing more than temporary “rafts” that will be abandoned when everyone discovers the absolute truth of reality after crossing the threshold of death.

Exactly. Obviously the metaphysical facts are the same for all of us.

And as I have often suggested, whatever our ultimate destiny may be, it will be the exact same destiny for each of us, regardless of the conflicting doctrines from which our opposing rafts are constructed.

Of course. Is this not rather obvious?

Indeed, the absolute equality and sameness of our eternal destiny should be one of the basic canons of the “new spiritual paradigm” mentioned earlier.

Yes. It's the basic canon of the old 'spiritualism' as well, so nothing new here. I prefer to call it mysticism or the perennial philosophy. I recommend getting to know it.

_______
[/quote]

[seeds]

Seeds wrote:

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense),

The many myths of what we call 'Hinduism' describe ways to God, or good, or how best to live. There is no religion that does not do that or aim to do so. When I say religion I refer to the mythology and codification of morality and cosmological explanation.

Sorry for the late reply, B, but I’m having trouble understanding how your post addresses the point I was getting at.
_______

[seeds]

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death.

Tell that to a mother who just lost her child.

If there is no sort of life after death then there is oblivion which means no sadness, no tears, no dashed hopes, no bereavement,...

No joy, no discovery, no love, no amazement, no laughter, no music, no fragrant aromas, no tasty flavors, no pleasant sounds, no warm feelings, no beautiful visions, etc., etc., etc...

Shall we get out the scale and weigh the pros against the cons?
_______