The Yoga of the Philosophers

[Typist]

I know the argument you make here, it's hugely important in Mahayana Buddhism, but its not quite what I'm saying.

Ah, I see. Ok, thanks for the clarification, and education. It appears I'm a Mahayanist!

What I am suggesting is that this view of things, idealism, is equally as plausible as the realism we all tend to subscribe to nowadays.

Ok, we're making progress. It seems a next step might be for you to take us step by step in to idealism. If we're to come to your understanding of the equal plausibility I think we're (me at least) going to need to dig in to idealism in some depth.

Now this argument is very difficult to understand firstly because we find idealism so alien nowadays,

Right.

and secondly because we are used to settling upon unilateral 'truth' rather than this middle ground between two truths (Buddha called this perspective The Middle Way!).

Ok, yes, dualistic either/or thinking, often driven by ego competition. Got it.

If you think I've said anything false here let me know because this is a very important argument.

Hmm.. Ok, a status report.

I accept your report of how this insight has affected you. I'm open to the idea some others might be able to follow the same trail. I'm skeptical about how many others that might be.

When we think we understand reality we nearly always don't. Our arguments hinge on assumptions, always nothing more that opinions, and exclude legitimate perspectives from the outset.

Ok, digging out those hidden assumptions seems like what philosophers should be doing.

To escape this situation we really have to be brave, and intelligent, and be prepared to trace back our arguments to their real foundations.

You are suggesting we think, and think it all the way through.

What we looked at above, whether there is or isn't a world is a pretty fundamental assumption.

Indeed.

It is only when you subscribe to one view or other are we presented with the famous dividing grounds of thought: subject and object, mind and body, empiricism and rationalism, freedom and determination etc etc.

Polarities that arise directly out of the divisive nature of thought, in my oft stated opinion.

This principle is the one I would like to apply to the matter of whether the world does or doesn't exist. But we will only be able to see the weakness of realism if we can see the strength of idealism.

Yes, we need to go there. Sell us idealism please.

We don't have to go all the way - a little is always better than nothing.

If the main problem most of us have is spending way too much time thinking about "me", it seems debatable that spending even more time on this activity is "better than nothing".

After grasping something intellectually there is always, for me, been a time lag before it changes me emotionally and behaviourally. The things I've been talking about started as little flashes of insight that I couldn't quite grasp. I remember when I saw intuitively that subject and object was an illusion, but I couldn't form the argument. Its taken about two years to take shape.

Ok, so for you the transition from intellectual understanding to emotion and behavior change was a gradual process.

Emotionally I still get annoyed but it is really very rare now -

I can help you with that, just ask, anytime, I'm always here.

The consequences are very far reaching, I would definitely say that, and philosophical understanding can transform aspects of your life that you would never imagine could be related to something so seemingly abstract and intellectual.

Yes, your enthusiasm and sincerity is compelling, and welcomed.

[lancek4]

To me, making 'sense' is all that of me into the world, both the 'symbols' or knowledge there of accompanied by that which is of myself that is 'not thought' - together they work to grant me the world that 'makes sence'.

[Arising_uk]

Hey Nikolai,

Yes, it depends on what you feel you've the solution to. Some questions seem quite removed from our daily life and I'm reminded of the man who, commenting on Galileo, said 'its a matter of supreme indifference to me whether the sun goes round the earth or the earth goes round the sun!'

Obviously not one of those whose faith was based in part upon 'us' being the center of the universe.

But when the philosophical search starts to home in those questions that are near to us: who am I? and Is there a world?. Grapple with these and the possibility for salvation is near. I dont know what solutions Witt was referring to, but you only have to read line 1 of the Tractatus to know that he had a rather one-sided view on whether the world is or isn't a solid fact.

I think you should read the next lines.

I think the questions you raise are after some event, as who asks who they are? Or questions whether there is a world? The only replies I could give would be, "Who do you think you are?" or "Who do you want to be?" and "What do you mean by "world"?

This all reminds me of what Jesus said about the moral life. Its easy to be good to your friends, even theives and robbers do that. But it is when you try to be good to your enemies as well that the real moral effort begins, and the promise therein.

I agree.

With philosophy its easy to merrily discuss whether Deleuze's book sales were themselves a de facto expression of the desiring-production mode of capitalism, or whatever. Philosophy is hard, and deeply threatening, when we start to call into doubt our deepest sense of who and where we are. But it is via this steep and thorny path that the gains are to be made.

Maybe but in general I think you are talking metaphysics rather than all philosophy.

In jnana yoga, theorising is the practice. Buddha was the jnana yogi par excellence and his most distinctive teachings, on no-self, impermanence, and dependent origination are all epistemological arguments. Buddhism is now a broad church and includes many paths for many different temperaments, but you cannot argue that Buddhism is, at its heart, atheoretical. Yes, the theory must be rejected too - its just a finger pointing at the moon - but until then allow the moon to be pointed out.

I'm not saying reject the theory, as why would one do this if it is accurate? But at heart Buddhism is acts not thoughts. I think this 'many paths' idea is pretty much used as a cop-out for many from acting as the Buddha did.

I know you think this, and yet all your perceptions of your body could be viewed as contents as well. if you observe very closely you will see that 99% of your life you have no awareness of your body and yet you attribute so much to those few fleeting perceptions. This is a belief in your body, and in other people's bodies, and in other thing's bodies. It is the normal human view, and yet it is just an opinion. To stick with this view is to remain trapped in a narrow superstition. To question it will feel deeply uncomfortable, but to anyone who is willing it will be worth it in the end.

Only if they wished to become confused about things I think. As the body is the brute fact of our existence, its not like the world we perceive as its the unassailable ground of our existence and perceiving. Its why the meditators spend so much time trying to ignore it through physical practices and then come to the erroneous conclusion that its a 'belief' or 'superstition'. I think you talk about 'mind' or 'self', not body when you talk this way.

As a philosopher, you know the immediate counterarguments already - Berkely, Schopenhauer and the other idealists. You know how they are right with your head, but you know how they are wrong with your head and your heart. Now you have to make it all fair and understand how they might be right in your heart. Then you will have transcended both viewpoints.

I think Kant had it about right but disagree that phenomena has no relation to the noumena as I think Wittgenstein was right in that we can have a projective phenomena, as such I think phenomenology is the way to go rather than the metaphysics of the idealists and materialists. I'll leave science to explain how the universe works.

Yes its your belief. Where all this reality all came from you don't deign to answer though.

As I don't think metaphysics can supply such an answer? What do you mean by 'came from'? So I'll leave science to come-up with good and useful explanations of reality.

Reality is right what is happening in awareness!

Subjective reality is what is happening in awareness and you need a sensing body and a world to have it in the first place.

There is absolutely no need to divide it all in two, so that you have 'reality' and 'reality-based perceptions' and a veil in between them. All that you need to is see, and don't think this is with the eyes, but you have to see that your thoughts of your body, the sensations of your body are reality itself. You need to see that they stand on an equal footing with all your other perceptions and thoughts. When you treat all objects of awareness as the same,as fleeting flashes of consciousness, you will learn that there is no possible way of discerning a subject from an object. The distinction is completely transcended, and the noumena and the phenomona become one and the same.

Not that I disagree with some of this but you are not using "noumena" in the sense Kant used it if you think they are the same thing. The things you describe are subjective reality and in a very real sense it is the only 'reality' we have but I think it the height of hubris to think this the all of reality. Its not the mind that makes subject/object, its the being of a sensing body that enforces the reality that there is a subject and objects.

Yes, he practiced the careful, honest observation that is needed. Hume learnt that the self is an imaginary category based on sets of individual feelings and perceptions - this is a relatively easy argument. But what is needed is to view a sensation of your hands as dispassionately as the perception of the sky. To see them both as just transient puffs of air in awareness.

But they are not transient puffs are they! You have to practice ignoring them to get this perception, just as you have to learn to control them in the first place.

Its always down to us in the end, but I think that what we all do on this forum is practical advice enough for the time being. Philosophical discussion is a legitimate path, a legitimate technique. As you say, it might not lead everyone to happiness but it's the right thing to be doing. I think you're philosophy is very robust, as well grounded as philosophy can be. When you tell me that the 'container is my body' it reminds me of the beginning of World as Will and Idea when Schop says 'The world is my idea.' These are very strong starting points, but they are the same argument and you both think they aren't. You can both go higher than this if you only learn that there is no My at all.

My fault, I should say the 'container' is the body, not that I think its containing anything separate, like a mind.

Anguish and suffering is not based in materiality, anguish and suffering is materiality. Once you see that that nothing exists in and of itself then there will be no more suffering, period. If spiritual insight gives you anything its the insight that the duailty between material and spirit is an illusion. There are many people who profess a spiritual life but haven't grasped this - in that sense they are therefore believers in spirit not knowers of spirit.

Since I don't believe in this duality either, i.e. 'spirit' is not a separate substance I'll not be a knower of it I presume, but then I believe 'spirit' is just the consideration of 'Other' with respect to ones identity. Whereas if you believe that this duality is just an illusion between 'materiality' and 'spirituality', with I presume you being spirituality, then I can't understand how you still won't be in the land of anguish and suffering, as what has changed? I do believe that beliefs have nothing to do with the world, they are there to raise ones capabilities and support ones identity, and that they can override the bodies pain responses and that one can change them in an instance.

[Nikolai]

Hi Arising,

I'm not saying reject the theory, as why would one do this if it is accurate? But at heart Buddhism is acts not thoughts. I think this 'many paths' idea is pretty much used as a cop-out for many from acting as the Buddha did.

Buddhism, at its heart, is neither actions nor thoughts. Any attempt to reduce Buddha's insights into any particular behaviours or world views is absolutely doomed to failure. What Buddha knew, and tried to communicate, completely transcends anything that could be called particular.

Buddha was just one person, with a distinctive teaching. Around this teaching rose institutions that started to cater to all who came. Yes, I agree that much of this Buddhism departs from Buddha, but in doing so starts to resemble other religions - for example Christianity. But the divergence only occurs in the means - the methodology. In terms of the ends they are all the same and so become reunited with Buddha once again.

As the body is the brute fact of our existence, its not like the world we perceive as its the unassailable ground of our existence and perceiving.

If you think the body the 'unassailable ground' you must be completely baffled by idealism!! You clearly find it impossible to view your body as 'an object among objects' as Schopenhauer would say. You are not conscious of your body 24/7, you, like everyone, become absorbed in other things - but you Believe your body exists out of awareness. The idealist would emphasise that this is a Belief, nothing else. You have no good reason not to treat your perceptions of your body just as you would transient ephemeral thoughts.

I'm not advocating idealism, as I hope you understand. What I am trying to get you to see is that your body is not a brute fact,as you seem to suggest. Your body can be subjected to the same scepticism as anything else. But you seem unable to be sceptical on this point.

Its why the meditators spend so much time trying to ignore it through physical practices and then come to the erroneous conclusion that its a 'belief' or 'superstition'.

The meditators don't call the body a superstition as such - they are as completely open to 'bodily sensations' as anyone else. What they consider the superstition is that the body is separate from the rest of the world. In other words, it is the body as conventionally understood that is the superstition. This is a denial of the 'sensations' - it is a denial of the body as it usually gets conceptualised.

When the 'bodily sensations' come, therefore, the sensations are reality itself and the distinctions between the body and the world are nowhere.

as such I think phenomenology is the way to go rather than the metaphysics of the idealists and materialists. I'll leave science to explain how the universe works.

When you say science - I assume you mean that body of materialist metaphysics!! I truly don't understand this statement - how can you be a phenomenologist and then call the Body a brute fact of existence. Where's your bracketing man?

Its not the mind that makes subject/object, its the being of a sensing body that enforces the reality that there is a subject and objects.

And yet the meditators call this a myth! I came to realise talking to Typist just how much of this thread has only been made possible by my experience in meditation. Things happen that change the way you view the world. If you give the body such primacy its because you don't meditate. All I can say is that there are investigative tools that you are failing to use. If you would only sit still and calm down you would learn things that would rock your belief in a sensing body to the very foundations.

Since I don't believe in this duality either, i.e. 'spirit' is not a separate substance I'll not be a knower of it I presume, but then I believe 'spirit' is just the consideration of 'Other' with respect to ones identity. Whereas if you believe that this duality is just an illusion between 'materiality' and 'spirituality', with I presume you being spirituality, then I can't understand how you still won't be in the land of anguish and suffering, as what has changed? I do believe that beliefs have nothing to do with the world, they are there to raise ones capabilities and support ones identity, and that they can override the bodies pain responses and that one can change them in an instance.

The main duality I've been addressing happens to be the Cartesian one between thought and extension, mind and body. Any distinction between the two is a circular argument. I have tried to make this clear by reminding us all that thoughts and perceptions are both identically experienced - as transient events in awareness. When you actually observe reality, all things, whether thoughts or perceptions, behave identically - they arise and then pass away. All things do this.

When you focus on the fundamental similarity between a thought and a perception any distinction becomes untenable. There is no more reason to think that the tree in your 'perception' exists independently than the monster in your 'thought'. Both come and go in exactly the same fashion. This argument is idealism.

if you can understand the logical legitimacy of idealism, indeed its empirical purity, then you are going to start thinking differently about our habitual realiism where we are an individual body in a world that we know as being 'out there.'

Only when you are seriously disturbed by the fact that there is no way of proving whether either you or the world do or don't exist will you be in state to understand what I am saying here - which is the resolution of all possible doubt.

Actually even duality is non-dual. Every conceivable duality is also non-dual. Non-duality, insofar as it is a thought, is a duality. Reality is neither dual nor non-dual but, you might say, allows for them both. This will become very very obvious to some people, myself included - but why it happened to me I honestly can't say.

best wishes, nikolai

[Arising_uk]

Buddhism, at its heart, is neither actions nor thoughts. Any attempt to reduce Buddha's insights into any particular behaviours or world views is absolutely doomed to failure. What Buddha knew, and tried to communicate, completely transcends anything that could be called particular. ...

Get out! What're the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths then? He even chucks in some enlightenment techniques.

Buddha was just one person, with a distinctive teaching. Around this teaching rose institutions that started to cater to all who came. Yes, I agree that much of this Buddhism departs from Buddha, but in doing so starts to resemble other religions - for example Christianity. But the divergence only occurs in the means - the methodology. In terms of the ends they are all the same and so become reunited with Buddha once again.

Bollocks I think. And I think Christ would think much the same.

If you think the body the 'unassailable ground' you must be completely baffled by idealism!! You clearly find it impossible to view your body as 'an object among objects' as Schopenhauer would say. You are not conscious of your body 24/7, you, like everyone, become absorbed in other things - but you Believe your body exists out of awareness. The idealist would emphasise that this is a Belief, nothing else. You have no good reason not to treat your perceptions of your body just as you would transient ephemeral thoughts.

I've always been pretty much stunned by it! But Kant's version is pretty tight although I still have issues with Idealism as they have problems getting back to the world they left. But the Body is the ground of your transient ephemeral thoughts? Do I think it exists out of awareness? You'd have to say what you mean by this? But whilst I'm aware the Body is much different than the other objects, well a lot of them, as they are not connected in the same way the hands, feet, arms, legs and torso are. The Body does a lot of its functions autonomously but 'us' not noticing it is habituation rather than 'out of awareness'. I thought this is much of what the meditator discovers when doing Yoga to prepare for meditation.

I'm not advocating idealism, as I hope you understand. What I am trying to get you to see is that your body is not a brute fact,as you seem to suggest. Your body can be subjected to the same scepticism as anything else. But you seem unable to be sceptical on this point.

Because my hands, arms, legs, feet and torso show me that whilst scepticism can apply to all, its also a tool to find the obvious.

The meditators don't call the body a superstition as such - they are as completely open to 'bodily sensations' as anyone else. What they consider the superstition is that the body is separate from the rest of the world. In other words, it is the body as conventionally understood that is the superstition. This is a denial of the 'sensations' - it is a denial of the body as it usually gets conceptualised.

When the 'bodily sensations' come, therefore, the sensations are reality itself and the distinctions between the body and the world are nowhere.

A few have denied sensation as the unit of experience, I pretty much think sensation is perception. You'll have to explain what you mean by the Body not being an object in the world? In what sense is it not what separates the world? I think you mean mind.

When you say science - I assume you mean that body of materialist metaphysics!! ...

I do!! But you forget Empiricist as well. And lets not forget what these metaphysicians did, married it to Maths to produce Physics. What have the Idealists got that can make toast?

I truly don't understand this statement - how can you be a phenomenologist and then call the Body a brute fact of existence. ...

Because I understand Phenomenology as an attempt to describe subjective experience in a way another can understand by testing for themselves what is said. As such, I think that with no Body, no experience. The brute fact of existence.

Where's your bracketing man?

Love him a lot but its back up here with some tools rather than back there long on language and short upon techniques. Maybe its reading in translation and in German Husserl achieves his goal of teaching how to bracket but whilst I found it inspiring and it led me in my thoughts, in English it was painful and short of detailed techniques. But I accept I've always found most of the Germans hard to read in English. Tell me the bleed'n' point and then I'll decide whether to wade through your proof of it! But did appreciate the experience of how reason, logic and thought can work in a more efficient language.

And yet the meditators call this a myth! I came to realise talking to Typist just how much of this thread has only been made possible by my experience in meditation. Things happen that change the way you view the world. If you give the body such primacy its because you don't meditate. All I can say is that there are investigative tools that you are failing to use. If you would only sit still and calm down you would learn things that would rock your belief in a sensing body to the very foundations. ...

Such as? What could possibly convince me that involves a fairly long process that involves training ones body to ignore itself that the Body is not the issue?

The main duality I've been addressing happens to be the Cartesian one between thought and extension, mind and body. Any distinction between the two is a circular argument. I have tried to make this clear by reminding us all that thoughts and perceptions are both identically experienced - as transient events in awareness. When you actually observe reality, all things, whether thoughts or perceptions, behave identically - they arise and then pass away. All things do this.

So what is this 'awareness' that has these transient events, if not the Body? I agree that thought could be considered perception, but I think you forget thinking and a think is not the same as a perception and close to a thought as its without the perception, I think. And so did Descartes.

When you focus on the fundamental similarity between a thought and a perception any distinction becomes untenable. There is no more reason to think that the tree in your 'perception' exists independently than the monster in your 'thought'. Both come and go in exactly the same fashion. This argument is idealism.

Maybe but then you can't get back to the world that spawned your idea. You know that bit where you said you've experienced thought of things going out of existence, the early idealist had to say that something else was thoughting it else they'd have to admit to a world that existed out of Idea. So the reason to think that the tree is more there than the monster in my head is that when I charge or run or freeze from it, only the tree remains. Put it this way, I'd prefer the monster as the tree is implacable.

if you can understand the logical legitimacy of idealism, indeed its empirical purity, then you are going to start thinking differently about our habitual realiism where we are an individual body in a world that we know as being 'out there.'

Not sure what truth logical legitimacy confers? Its not that its 'out-there' its that there has to be an 'out-there' for there to be an 'in-here'. You are already 'out-there' before you start. I think you will think differently, I think you think wrongly if you think it means reality is actually yours. As it is, but only in the sense of having a Body.

Only when you are seriously disturbed by the fact that there is no way of proving whether either you or the world do or don't exist will you be in state to understand what I am saying here - which is the resolution of all possible doubt.

You mean a faith? There is no need to prove you exist, if you think this thought you've proved it. Now from your position you face the problem of how to reconnect back to the world or reality or the other. How are you doing this? Descartes used 'God', I think some use Transcendental entities, me, I use Language as evidence of Other.

Actually even duality is non-dual. Every conceivable duality is also non-dual. Non-duality, insofar as it is a thought, is a duality. Reality is neither dual nor non-dual but, you might say, allows for them both. This will become very very obvious to some people, myself included - but why it happened to me I honestly can't say. ...

Its because its nonsense, if its non-dual its not a duality. Its why I prefer bodymind to describe what the dualists call mind and meat for what they call body. I don't doubt that 'reality' is what the meat makes and experience what we make in bodymind but do doubt that it actually depends upon us in the sense that when I die my descendents actually die with me.

best wishes, nikolai

yours as ever.

[Nikolai]

Hi arising

Get out! What're the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths then? He even chucks in some enlightenment techniques.

He did, and the whole time he was saying this isn't it, this is just a finger pointing at the moon - a raft to be discarded. And alongside the eightfold path and the four noble truths he taught impermanence, dependent origination and the Middle way - all of them intellectual arguments.

But whilst I'm aware the Body is much different than the other objects, well a lot of them, as they are not connected in the same way the hands, feet, arms, legs and torso are.

I'm interested why you capitalise the B in Body? Are you trying to connote something different from the conventional sense of the word body. As for the connections of the body - these perceptions (or thoughts) of connectivity are also fleeting and transient.

Do I think it exists out of awareness? You'd have to say what you mean by this?

Does the tree in your garden exist while you're consciousness is preoccupied with ice cream? How do you know? And then, as a further experiment, substitute the tree for any of the various perceptions that you think are you're body. Do they continue to exist? How do you know?

I still have issues with Idealism as they have problems getting back to the world they left.

That this constitutes a problem is your realist prejudice. The idealist's world is fluid and stays with them wherever they go. It is always before them in its entirety. Maybe you should go back to your Hegel, he's probably the purest of the them all.

The Body does a lot of its functions autonomously but 'us' not noticing it is habituation rather than 'out of awareness'.

Its an excellent argument, but is a realist's rationalisation. Perhaps you don't notice it because its not happening?
Again, I'm not trying to convert you to idealism. I'm just trying to get you to see how they explain the world - and its equally as plausible and coherent as the realist.

Because my hands, arms, legs, feet and torso show me that whilst scepticism can apply to all, its also a tool to find the obvious.

Or....There is nothing more obvious than what it happening here and now, there is nothing more obvious and intently empirical. And 99% of the time your body is not in the here and now of awareness.

You'll have to explain what you mean by the Body not being an object in the world? In what sense is it not what separates the world?

When the various thoughts, perceptions etc that are normally associated with the body are seen as identical with those of the outside world the normal grounds of distinction between body and world are extinguished. The content of perceptions (eg trees) are viewed as being as dreamy and ephemeral as thoughts of monsters. A monster and a tree pass before you in an identical fashion.

What, then, is 'in here' and what is 'out there'. Subject and object have completely merged into one another. It is the distinction between subject and object that is most untenable. You might therefore be tempted to say 'everything is my subject' or 'everything is my object' but even this is unsatisfactory. Subjectivity only makes sense in contradistinction to objectivity and vice versa. All that can be said is that the subject/object distinction is born out of illusion. The split is only possible if one fails to notice that thoughts and perceptions are also identical.

This is transcendental idealism. Its an excellent argument and until you come to grips with it you won't be in a position to reject it and understand what I'm saying here.

But you forget Empiricist as well. And lets not forget what these metaphysicians did, married it to Maths to produce Physics. What have the Idealists got that can make toast?

As I've tried to make clear to you, idealism is intensely empiricist as well. The conclusions of idealism only come about because they are unwilling to assume anything other than is right before them. Berkeley is good on this point - he was starting where Locke left off.

Idealists can make toast as well as realists. Toast is a practical skill known for millenia. There are a whole host of theories that might fit it, not just scientific ones. Berkeley would doubtless have claimed that God makes the toast.

Because I understand Phenomenology as an attempt to describe subjective experience in a way another can understand by testing for themselves what is said. As such, I think that with no Body, no experience. The brute fact of existence.

The moment a phenomenologist talks about their experience they fail to be phenomenologists. What they turn into can be deduced from the language they use. Personally, I don't think you understand the phenomenologist's method. If you had a clear sense of what bracketed experience is actually like I think you would be more attuned to its ineffability. The way you translate your so-called experience into words and theories is remarkably glib.

What could possibly convince me that involves a fairly long process that involves training ones body to ignore itself that the Body is not the issue?

When you meditate you are not training your body. When you do a million stretched and poses in hatha yoga, guess what...you are not training your body.

If this is hard for you to understand it is because you have a one-sided belief about what your body is.

The body is not something that needs to be beaten into submission. The body needs to be understood. Philosophy is an excellent way to do this, but I recognise that alone it is insufficient. Thinking needs to be complemented by sitting still and looking. If there was the slightest chink of scepticism about your body I think you would really take to meditation because it would help you to explore who you really are.

Look, why don't you do me a favour - as an old friend. Sit still on a cushion for 20 minutes every day for the next month. I promise you that as a philosopher will find the results fascinating. All those beautiful idealists who have left you 'stunned' will suddenly become crystal clear. Reading philosophy I don't think gets better than with old Arthur Schopenhauer - its beautiful. As for renouncing idealism...we have to sooner or later but not just yet.

You know that bit where you said you've experienced thought of things going out of existence, the early idealist had to say that something else was thoughting it else they'd have to admit to a world that existed out of Idea. So the reason to think that the tree is more there than the monster in my head is that when I charge or run or freeze from it, only the tree remains. Put it this way, I'd prefer the monster as the tree is implacable.

Thoughts are every bit as concrete as trees to your average human, if not more so. You only have to work with the mentally ill to see that some thoughts, mere superstitions, are as real and as terrifying as anything that is, as you put it 'real'.

As for what it 'thoughting' there are a few things to say. Firstly, nothing is thoughting because thought is now recognised as being indistinguishable from perceptions, so we must drop this term thought.

You are therefore left with the question: 'what is This that is happening?' But there is only the questioning in existence, all else has passed away from awareness. So we are left with just 'what is this?' - the world is nothing more than this simple question. Well, then the question passes and something new comes up. A tree perhaps. Then perhaps the question again: 'what is this?

It is a question that can't be answered because it does not refer to anything. 'What is this?' It is no longer a question about something but an event in itself. When this is seen the question is accepted and by being accepted is left unanswered. This is the end of enquiry.

To the average human the end of enquiry happens in other ways. No one knows where the universe came from so the question isn't answered - it is the end of enquiry. In 99& of cases this end of enquiry lurks but is never acknowledged. Some realists start to trace their worldview back and then find the end of enquiry waiting like a brick wall. After this point they can't take all their science and theory as seriously as they once did.

Sorry out of time...

Nikolai

[lancek4]

Admittedly, we are cought in a particular way of coming upon reality. But I would counter that 'trans idealism' is also part of that limit. The only way we can posit the 'subject/object dualism' is in illusion is to rely upon the same limitation. Any other way of knowing would be merely another way of knowing, it does not remove the paradox, it merely denies it.
Anthing transcendant is merely another scheme, another 'idea' if you will. Another 'strategy' of dealing with existance. Any thing I come upon in my humanness is dealt with through the operation of consciousness as I indicate here.

[Arising_uk]

He did, and the whole time he was saying this isn't it, this is just a finger pointing at the moon - a raft to be discarded. And alongside the eightfold path and the four noble truths he taught impermanence, dependent origination and the Middle way - all of them intellectual arguments. ...

But you still have to walk down the bleed'n' arm! I don't see many western 'buddhists' giving-up their goods and depending upon alms? I see a shit-load talking about what the middle-way means.

I'm interested why you capitalise the B in Body? Are you trying to connote something different from the conventional sense of the word body. As for the connections of the body - these perceptions (or thoughts) of connectivity are also fleeting and transient.

I'm giving it the same import many give to Mind. When are your arms not in view? What is that weight when you shut your eyes? How can you touch your nose this way? How far back can you actually see? If you still very still and practice I don't doubt you can get these phenomena or state of 'mind'.

Does the tree in your garden exist while you're consciousness is preoccupied with ice cream? How do you know? ...

Why would I care? Lets say I did, then yes a tree exists in the garden whilst I'm scoffing ice-cream but no its not the tree that exists when I actually go and look at it. That tree exists at the same time as the rest of the ice-cream I put in the freezer. Lets say you leave the room to look at the tree and your ice-cream has melted when you got back. How do you account for the change?

Ever walked into a lamp-post whilst engrossed in your ice-cream? Where was that before?

And then, as a further experiment, substitute the tree for any of the various perceptions that you think are you're body. Do they continue to exist? How do you know?

Having real trouble unpacking this. When in body motion where is any sign of not existing?

That this constitutes a problem is your realist prejudice. The idealist's world is fluid and stays with them wherever they go. It is always before them in its entirety. Maybe you should go back to your Hegel, he's probably the purest of the them all.

Well I've heard he was an absolutist idealist. Is this you, existence as Mind, with itty-bitty other 'minds'?

Its an excellent argument, but is a realist's rationalisation. Perhaps you don't notice it because its not happening?

Or perhaps I've taken time out to notice it happening? But I've lost exactly what I'm not noticing now?

Again, I'm not trying to convert you to idealism. I'm just trying to get you to see how they explain the world - and its equally as plausible and coherent as the realist.

I've read the originals and I still think Kant makes the tightest case, but for me, if I was going for the metaphysics, the currently radical choice would be Leibniz, as i reckon you could tie a nice physics spin around it, given that its all particles at present.

Or....There is nothing more obvious than what it happening here and now, there is nothing more obvious and intently empirical. And 99% of the time your body is not in the here and now of awareness.

For me, that's because the Body is the ground for the here and now of awareness, its actually in the just before awareness game, so really there and then.

When the various thoughts, perceptions etc that are normally associated with the body are seen as identical with those of the outside world the normal grounds of distinction between body and world are extinguished. The content of perceptions (eg trees) are viewed as being as dreamy and ephemeral as thoughts of monsters. A monster and a tree pass before you in an identical fashion.

Try touching them, better still, take a running charge.

What, then, is 'in here' and what is 'out there'. Subject and object have completely merged into one another. It is the distinction between subject and object that is most untenable. You might therefore be tempted to say 'everything is my subject' or 'everything is my object' but even this is unsatisfactory. Subjectivity only makes sense in contradistinction to objectivity and vice versa. All that can be said is that the subject/object distinction is born out of illusion. The split is only possible if one fails to notice that thoughts and perceptions are also identical.

No, the 'split' is natural, subjectivity only makes sense in the case of Others and the Body recognises like Others, the gaze as its been put. Subjectivity is forced upon one in a sense otherwise the world would be perfect.

This is transcendental idealism. Its an excellent argument and until you come to grips with it you won't be in a position to reject it and understand what I'm saying here.

Well I've certainly forgotten a lot about the position. Mu current remembrance is that its Kants apriori 'world' of 'mind'. My slant is much of it is Body's based upon an existent 'reality'.

As I've tried to make clear to you, idealism is intensely empiricist as well. The conclusions of idealism only come about because they are unwilling to assume anything other than is right before them. Berkeley is good on this point - he was starting where Locke left off.

Depends what you mean? As I doubt Locke would agree with Berkeley. Can you call what you talk about as "Idealism"? As I agree that the early idealist could be considered empiricist but your view? As you say we cannot 'trust' the senses?

Idealists can make toast as well as realists. Toast is a practical skill known for millenia. There are a whole host of theories that might fit it, not just scientific ones. Berkeley would doubtless have claimed that God makes the toast.

He'd be wrong then, as it burns when you're not looking and toast burns so 'God' can't have been looking. Its why my metaphysicians produced the toaster, it keeps on looking so no burnt toast.

The moment a phenomenologist talks about their experience they fail to be phenomenologists. What they turn into can be deduced from the language they use. Personally, I don't think you understand the phenomenologist's method. If you had a clear sense of what bracketed experience is actually like I think you would be more attuned to its ineffability. The way you translate your so-called experience into words and theories is remarkably glib. ...

In what sense? As I'm unaware that I've said what a "bracketed experience is actually like "? As I'm pretty sure I said that where I left Husserl was that he gave no clear techniques that I could apply. I guess I could have reverse fitted techniques I already knew about but that seemed unphilosophical.

Not sure where I talked about my experience either but I'll be surprised if "experience" does not become an issue in a field that proposes to explore subjective phenomena?

When you meditate you are not training your body. When you do a million stretched and poses in hatha yoga, guess what...you are not training your body.

I accept that the 'mind' comes into this and that 'training' can be misunderstood, but the physical part is exactly to exercise the body it the shape where it can sit properly, all the tendons, muscles, skeletal structure in repose. Its why I think the Buddha smiles, not that its not that he might be enlightened either.

If this is hard for you to understand it is because you have a one-sided belief about what your body is.

Or that I've followed different 'eastern' meditations.

The body is not something that needs to be beaten into submission. The body needs to be understood. Philosophy is an excellent way to do this, but I recognise that alone it is insufficient. Thinking needs to be complemented by sitting still and looking. If there was the slightest chink of scepticism about your body I think you would really take to meditation because it would help you to explore who you really are.

Not if it means I come back having trouble with Others and reality. But I agree its not about submission but coherence, timing and synchronicity, as such moving about with others also pays dividends in body understanding, breathe idiot! I think thinking can be complemented in having a bit of a sit and contemplation about "What is called thinking?".

Look, why don't you do me a favour - as an old friend. Sit still on a cushion for 20 minutes every day for the next month. I promise you that as a philosopher will find the results fascinating. All those beautiful idealists who have left you 'stunned' will suddenly become crystal clear. ...

Stunned that anyone could be so hubristic, not stunned in that I could not understand the whys and wherefores and appreciate them, had to write enough about them. So I do understand your fascination. But lol at the cushion, if I was going to use a western aid it'd be a float-tank I think, save on the exercise but you'd never quite know if its what the Buddha looked so serene about.

Reading philosophy I don't think gets better than with old Arthur Schopenhauer - its beautiful. As for renouncing idealism...we have to sooner or later but not just yet. ...

He was a curmudgeonly git and definitely wrote well, first philosopher I spoke aloud to, one sentence mind. But I'm unsure what sort of Idealist you are? As Schopenhauer and Hegel do not sit at ease. Kant's not Hegel nor is Leibniz. (what's Spinoza?)

Thoughts are every bit as concrete as trees to your average human, if not more so. You only have to work with the mentally ill to see that some thoughts, mere superstitions, are as real and as terrifying as anything that is, as you put it 'real'.

See the words, "mentally ill"? I don't doubt beliefs are stronger than reality, as they do not touch it. For your position, I'd ask the person to close their eyes and charge the tree. When they come around ask them what happened?

As for what it 'thoughting' there are a few things to say. Firstly, nothing is thoughting because thought is now recognised as being indistinguishable from perceptions, so we must drop this term thought.

Or we could redefine "perception" as what the neuro-biologists, etc, explore and "thought" what the philosopher explores.

You are therefore left with the question: 'what is This that is happening?' But there is only the questioning in existence, all else has passed away from awareness. So we are left with just 'what is this?' - the world is nothing more than this simple question. Well, then the question passes and something new comes up. A tree perhaps. Then perhaps the question again: 'what is this? ...

Its a tree, the clue is in the word.

It is a question that can't be answered because it does not refer to anything. 'What is this?' It is no longer a question about something but an event in itself. When this is seen the question is accepted and by being accepted is left unanswered. This is the end of enquiry.

And the start of waffle I think.

To the average human the end of enquiry happens in other ways. No one knows where the universe came from so the question isn't answered - it is the end of enquiry. In 99& of cases this end of enquiry lurks but is never acknowledged. Some realists start to trace their worldview back and then find the end of enquiry waiting like a brick wall. After this point they can't take all their science and theory as seriously as they once did.

To the 'average' human such enquiries don't even start. I think what you describe is your experience of what happened to you when you said you lost your faith in Psychology.

Sorry out of time...

No worries.

[zinnat13]

Dear Nikolai,
I feel you got it absolutely right.
I am quoting you (in the red) from this thread and myself (in the blue) from another thread.

This is why I call philosophy a spiritual search, philosophy is nothing other than the attempt to see throuigh our various worldviews. The good philosopher is able to be skeptical, to see alternative views, when others fail. When I say that philosophers are doing something sacred, I enjoy the rhetorical impact. But their activity will tend towards the same destination as prayer, devotion, good deeds that are normally associated with the spiritual search.

The philosopher becomes the yogi.

In the second mode, the thoughts aren't perceived as being the product of you, the thinker. There isn't a sense that they a links in a chain but rather exist independently, in their own right. They seem to serenely pop into your brain, and they pop out again. The subject matter might be identical to in the first mode but they exist as flashes of inspiration rather than as the product of something that's been 'thought out'

Yes and no. Speaking personally I had experiences as a child, and a strong experience at university that left an impression and I often felt I was searching them out again. It was only several years later and I started taking an interest in spirituality that I made the link between what they were saying and what I experienced. In other words, I had to have experienced it myself before I could relate to the teachers. Look, why don't you do me a favour - as an old friend. Sit still on a cushion for 20 minutes every day for the next month. I promise you that as a philosopher will find the results fascinating. All those beautiful idealists who have left you 'stunned' will suddenly become crystal clear. Reading philosophy I don't think gets better than with old Arthur Schopenhauer - its beautiful. As for renouncing idealism...we have to sooner or later but not just yet.

If you don't appreciate all the spiritual connotations, and I'm sure many will be completely turned off, then so be it. I would still like to tell people that philosophy is taking them somewhere really very remarkable. Even if it never occurs to them to make the spiritual connection, what they will achieve, ataraxia, is something incredible. But I think once experienced, it is very likely to occur to them that this is what all the religious saints and mystics have been banging on about all this time.

So, we see philosophy is just thinking but in its true sense. As soon as we do anything more or else than thinking, philosophy takes a back seat immediately.

But, it is still not complete. Socrates is not talking about all this. When he says the aforesaid statement, he has taken all these stages for granted. He is talking beyond that. But, here at this juncture, we must understand that philosophy ends here. What happens beyond this has nothing to do with philosophy. The veil start from here and it is impossible to penetrate it with the tools of thinking only as it demands something more than that.


This is the starting point of the journey to see the unseen. Reaching this stage one can starts to understand how mind works and how emotions take control of our mind. Books lost their relevance here. If one has enough patience and concentration, the veil starts fading and the unseen tends to unfold. But, I have to mention again that there is no instant way. The traveler has to go step by step. Socrates is taking about these stages as reaching there and even crossing many of them, he is still feeling that it is not going to end soon and he does not even know how much and what is left. So his words are stating his surrender to the ultimate.

I do not know whether all this is said before by anyone else or not. You and other members are more informed than me but let me explain how I draw this cogitation as it will clear the perspective more.

All this happened many years back, when I start meditating. After some time it became a bit like habit for me and it is still intact. So, when I used to meditate, I found there are many such things in the mind which I do not know. While meditating, I often witnessed irrational and unconcerned thoughts.
It was bit like this- imagine that something important happened 3-4 days back like a heated argument with someone. Apparently, it is looking to me that I am done with it and it has no importance to me at this very moment. My mind is not recalling that event so that chapter is closed forever. But, when I start to meditate, and as the concentration increases, I am again seeing the thoughts regarding that incident. They are still very much alive there. I am trying to avoid them to concentrate on meditation but they are just refusing to leave.
This phenomenon unveiled to me a very important fact that, though I am not able to realize it normally but my mind is still discussing the issue in its loneliness. I am claiming that it is my mind so it should do what I want but it is not the case. It is not in total control of my will. If I do not want to recall that incident then who is that other entity which is overruling my will by dragging me back.
Standing at this very moment, I can clearly see that there are two entities fighting each other to take control of mind. One is my will and the second is who is originating those thoughts. I used to wonder that where the real “I” or “me” has gone.

Is my will is real myself or those thoughts are real myself?
Or the real myself is something else that is existed independently from the other two?

I tried to find the answer in the religious books but did not get any. I found them silent on the issue. But, as time passed I began to understand these things to some extent. Many years later, destiny provided me the opportunity to have a look at religious and spiritual texts once again. But this time, to my surprise, they started chatting. Hence, I understood that they were vocal all the time but my ears were not tuned to their wavelength.
So, Arising_uk, I think that I have myself clear enough at the issue of thinking in third person and as well as about what I meant by seer and seen.
This very stage is the maximum which our thinking or philosophy is able to lead us; not beyond. One needs not to be a religious person or spiritualist up to here. Many scientists fall in this category. I want to mention two names particularly; Einstein and Newton. In my opinion, they are true philosophers. All of their finding is derived by their ability to think in third person. Relativity and curved spacetime are the perfect examples of that.
As I said earlier, our mind is possessed by two entities; we can name them as outer mind and inner mind for our comfort. In general they do not concentrate on a single issue at any given time. But, as they are somehow connected and even influence each other, so if such a state comes when they concentrate on a common issue together, their combine capacity increases manifolds. This is the stage where out of the world concepts like curved spacetime came into existence. This precise moment is the starting point of the journey to the ultimate. Theist or atheist, scientist or priest, feeling this moment, one is compelled to believe that there is something else and beyond me and my mind.
No one knows exactly how much is there and in which form is there. These are the stages talked by Buddha, Mohammad, Mahavira and Zen monks and many religions. There is no need to stretch the list.
There is no need to believe me as one can easily say that he is satisfied with that version of him, which is reflected in the mirror. But I want to ask a very simple question; is one can see his mind in the mirror?
If one finds the answer in affirmative then it is OK. But if not, then try to have a look at your mind. Go on a date with it. If we start spending some time with it, it will automatically show the way, just because it is the very part of the ultimate and as well as the only tool by which the journey could be done. There is no need to look anywhere else.

I think that we have something to share with each other. Just have a look at this thread. I have 5 posts there at page 52, 53,55,56,57
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6446&start=765

with love,
sanjay

[Nikolai]

Hi Sanjay,

Thanks for your message, I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner but I have my parents staying with me at the moment and it is hard to find the time to concentrate!

I think that we have something to share with each other. Just have a look at this thread.

I've been reading your posts and I agree that we have a great deal to share, I really enjoyed the way you express yourself. i particularly enjoy your analysis of Socrates famous statement. This is something that I have written about myself, because a couple of years ago I finally felt I understood why Socrates claimed to know nothing.

I understood it as being something similar to what you have called first and second person perspectives. For me all conceptual truths can be both true, from one perspective, and not-true from another. Because there is no way of arbitrating which is the truer/better of these, it gives rise to a third perspective - which is the objective, god's eye view. This eye does not see things from a particular viewpoint in time and space, but transcends all viewpoints. It is empty of any particular opinion, but able to acknowledge the legitimacy of all opinions.

I agree totally that this where true philosophy starts. I also think that all people are true philosophers to a certain extent, in that everyone has some ability to take an objective view on matters. Those people who are very good at this are, like the people on this site - they are natural thinkers who are able to take the objective view on complex and emotive subjects.

Eventually there will come a time when the philosopher starts to gain insight into his own method - philosophy. He will start to wonder whether there is a truth beyond this state of affairs where every truth is also a falsehood. He will proceed by other methods, and i agree entirely that this is the start of the spiritual path. This is person, in one sense, abandons philosophy and its technique of reason, but in another sense is the philosopher of highest excellence.

I consider religion, science and philosophy to be entirely compatible and are in fact the same thing. I know you have said words to the same effect and perhaps this is something we can explore.

It is really exciting to read your posts, especially as we come from different cultures ( I am English, raised an atheist). I knwo you've been here a while but welcome to the forum.

Best wishes, Nikolai

PS - i think my thinking about ohilosophy can be summed up in this short essay viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7122

[lancek4]

Z , nicoli and SJ;
From my Western mind, I would call what you describe as 'ironic detachment'.

The problem, I feel, is when you put it into a "spiritual" scheme, you deny the significance of what u r attempting to indicate by using the term 'spiritual'. Since once you use this term, a bets are off. The conscious individual is left with some sort of 'two worlds'.

Which is ironic, and is why I choose to remove 'spiritual' from my repetuior (sp) of discourse.

What I mean is this:
Suppose I have had this 'spiritual experience' and come to this understanding of which you seem to imply. What then? Perhaps it then equates to a humility of perspective and activity, but then such a spiritual-philosophical understanding is not necissary, since there are many people who behave in this way. Perhaps then this is what is indicated by the types of 'yoga'. But then we are really speaking of 'caste' in the social arena indicated by the bahagvata gita (sp). But is this then 'spiritual' ? Or is it 'just the way things are' ? If its just the way things are, then we have posited a further 'spiritual' realm which we might not investigate, but we could. This last then advocates a metaphysical knowledge, which really is just another 'knowledge' that avoids the fact that consciousness just 'has knowledge' and is really an argument of itself.

So I guess what I am really saying is that the term 'spiritual' is not necessary if indeed what we are investigating is essentially spiritual anyways.

[zinnat13]

Dear Nikolai,
Thanks.
Take your own time in replying as we are not participating in 100 meter sprint. Our parents deserve more attention than philosophy forum for sure. Furthermore, it is always good to give some time to mind to conceive all thoughts otherwise sometimes; our reply converts into just a reaction instead of proper thought out analysis. Due to my routine, I also find it difficult to reply as promptly as some other members are able to do.
Although I am Hindu by religion but I do not have any religious bias. Besides Hinduism, I respect, believe and try to understand all of them especially; Sufism (liberal version of Islam) and Christianity (concept of trinity).
Yes, by nature, I am very much influenced by Hindu culture because I found humanity is embedded with it. I and my family do not eat any kind of meat or sea food but eggs are allowed once in a while. Hinduism says that it is an extreme sin to kill any other living being just for a taste of our palate because Mother Nature has provided us with alternatives and furthermore, our body is not perfectly designed to digest meat. Hinduism stresses too much on empathy and moral values. It says that it our duty to impose morality on our life. Hinduism places parents and guru next to God.

I gone through your essay through the link provided by you.

Relativism is a not only a concept but even a fact of life though it is not accepted by all. It is visualized in a very narrow way. It applies to the mental phenomena in the same way as to physical objects. Unless and until we are in the universe and even more importantly, in the time; relativity will last. There is absolutely no escape from it.
Relativity is a universal phenomenon. Spirituality also holds that everything in this universe is relative as science says. We and our mind are not static. Our mind is evolving continuously; so our mindset and thinking is changing and relative to circumstances, that’s why we are not able to realize ourselves in true sense. The ultimate objective of the spirituality to keep the mind firm on its feet in this flow and to enabling it in conceiving a look at this state of flux from outside as a third person. Let the world, and even your mind, flow before you. In simple terms, this is Yog or enlightenment.

This approach is also stated as detachment. It is not synonyms of escapism as some misinterpretate is as such. There is a thin line between the two. Escapism means to avoid the circumstances imposed by destiny while detachment says that there is no need to run away.Just takes it as it comes. Instead of running away, one should not let the effect of circumstances to take control of his mind

Circumstances cause different emotions. They create a constant stream of emotions which runs through us. More often than not, our mind fails to withstand the current of stream and tends to flow with it. Escapism means to step out of stream to avoid to flow with it. But, it could not serve the real purpose because as soon as the mind steps again in the stream, the current drags the mind with it. Detachment means to become able to withstand the pressure of the stream of emotions and be in a static state of mind. When, each and everything, including emotions, flow in front of us; only then, we become able to understand that there is something remains in us, even if we exclude our body and mind from our existence. This is the relativism of spirituality.

As I am not aware whether somebody acknowledged it or not, that religions were very much aware centuries before of two most renowned principles of science; relativity and uncertainty principle. I will try to discuss in the next post.

To the lancek4—
Hello,
It is good to see you again.

I think we have talked enough about ‘ironic detachment’.

It seems to me that you are a learned and well versed with philosophy but I feel that sometimes you did not give enough time to read and reply the post. You did it once and I thank you very sincerely, though you asked me why.

A skeptic is good but only then; when one is able apply it to oneself also. You mentioned that ‘my western mind’ but perhaps, did not realize that by saying this; you threw both skepticism and philosophy out of the window because you are talking in first person, and that means you are going to listen the answer just to negate it. This is against the basic principle of philosophy. An ideal skeptic should be ready to question and even amend himself otherwise he is called hardliner, not a skeptic. It is of no use to ask question if one conceives his version of answer prior to it. Let the answer come first then judge it.

Now let us take “spirituality”.
If you remember me that I very clearly stated that I see spirituality just as physics and biology.
Science is what we experience with our body. Philosophy and psychology are which we experience with our normal state of mind. Spirituality is what we experience with a particular of somewhat advanced stare of mind.

This time I want to put it differently.
You must be aware that recently a scientist showed that some particles can travel more than the speed of light. As we all know, this phenomenon is against relativity and mass energy equality which is an established formula since almost a century. Now, what should that scientist do? Should he negate his finding because e= mc2 will be proved wrong or rely on his findings? I think that both of us know the answer.

When I start mediating, neither I had belief nor any sort of quest for anything beyond our physical senses. In initial stages, I overlooked whatever I felt, considering it as my imaginary mental fabrications. But when, with the time, all this became a default process and I became able to experience physically, then I do not had any option but to accept that there is something beyond our physical reach which is not known to me. My curiosity arose I tried to understand it. As time passed, I found that religious texts are also in the line of my experiences so started studying them. At least in my opinion, it is a scientific way. I do not see any speculation in it.

As I told you earlier that I do not have any formal education of philosophy but, even unknowingly, my efforts taught me about mind. I became able to understand things around me because, having seen the working of my mind, it was easier to visualize about other’s minds. This ability helped me a lot in life as I said to you that animals can think just as we do and I explained it too.

I do not see spirituality as talking about imaginary concepts. If you go through my posts there once again, you will find that I refrained myself talking much about the ultimate because I know that it is useless for me, unless and until, I find myself close enough to it. My talk about the second dimension may look speculative to you but it is a fact for me so I cannot deny it. I said what I experienced in person. That’s why I said that you need not to believe me, but, consider it just a concept and check it whether it is able to hold himself in all situations or not. The questions, which will arise during this process, will be the essence of true skepticism. Skepticism is not an outright denial in the first place, but to reach step by step at the state of denial through questioning. We should test every new concept. Al least, this is the method of science. I do not know how philosophy does it.

Although I do not like personal comments but one thing is very surprising to me that, in the forums here and also on the net in general, people find it very easy to discuss about God or ultimate truths either in support or denial. I am just unable to understand that, without knowing even our mind, is it appropriate to talk about such things, which are difficult even to visualize. Perhaps, philosophy provides them liberty for that as its digestive system is best in the world.

With love,
sanjay

[lancek4]

Yes SJ. I like your post.

The detachment I indicate is similar to what you explicate, and I would add it is 'ironic' because it is a detachment through which we become more effectively and puposefully attached to the world around us, in this thus 'spiritual' way.

I should make a distiction for myself: philosphy is a way a speaking about the world. I do not enjoy speaking about 'spiritual' things in philkosophy because philosohy already implies spirituality. Thus, I take 'spiritual' as indicating a separation, a deviation from the world. In positinng the spiritual it thus places philosophy as self defeating, as if the spiritual takes over where philosophy leaves off. This indeed may be true in one manner of speaking, but if I am looking for a solution, I wish to Reduce variables, not add more.

[Nikolai]

Hi Lance,

The problem, I feel, is when you put it into a "spiritual" scheme, you deny the significance of what u r attempting to indicate by using the term 'spiritual'. Since once you use this term, a bets are off. The conscious individual is left with some sort of 'two worlds'.

I agree with you on this, but the spiritual teacher works on the assumption that the person is living in two worlds anyway - even if they are not aware of it. When it comes to the existence of the self, most people believe in their selfhood completely while deep down in their heart uncopnsciously feeling that they are one with existence. The teacher gives concrete arguments to show how the self is both true but also untrue (it is often the untrue argument that they find themselves emphasising). Only when both arguments are understood, only when both worlds are acknowledged, are we in a position to unify them into one spiritual vision.

So I guess what I am really saying is that the term 'spiritual' is not necessary if indeed what we are investigating is essentially spiritual anyways.

If everything is essentially spiritual then there is no need for you to say that the term spiritual is unnecessary!

The teacher always has to 'come back down to earth' of they are to help their students. They will have to translate what they know into the jargon of the world. It is a hazardous activity because there is always the chance that the student will be led even further astray. The authentic spiritual teacher will be at pains to remind their students to reject their tecahing in the end.

I should make a distiction for myself: philosphy is a way a speaking about the world. I do not enjoy speaking about 'spiritual' things in philkosophy because philosohy already implies spirituality. Thus, I take 'spiritual' as indicating a separation, a deviation from the world. In positinng the spiritual it thus places philosophy as self defeating, as if the spiritual takes over where philosophy leaves off. This indeed may be true in one manner of speaking, but if I am looking for a solution, I wish to Reduce variables, not add more.

This is a very wise attitude, although there have been perhaps times in your life when you endorsed a separation between the world and the spiritual life. Perhaps now you have moved beyond that phase. I think it becomes very obvious, both to yourslef and others, when the worldly world and the spiritual world are really one for you. You naturally become happier, less anxious, more caring,and yes, wiser. This is one of my own interests: I am interested to know how the philosophical search has transformed people - do they feel better or worse for it, do they have abilities they didn't have.

The higher reaches of philosophy, which are so often about negation and emptying of former knowledge would have to be attractive of people will be motivated to study them.

Best wishes, Nikolai

[lancek4]

Ah ha! Nicoli - touche ! A most excellent and beautiful rebuttal. Thank you.

I enjoy the ' translate into worldly jargon' description.
Indeed, the 'phases' as you say - at some point I 'realized' the futility of what I 'believed' and then all that I had believed 'before' became crystal clear.
Now philosophy to me is the endeavor to translate this 'experience' into 'worldly jargon'.

I hesitate at the term 'spiritual' because to me it has connotations to what I 'believed before'.
Philosophy is suffficient now for me

Excellent !