Hello Nikolai in Finland!
Typist wrote:Point being, if our focus is practical rather than merely theoretical, it seems we could use philosophy, reason, evidence etc to shed further light on enlightenment.
Nikolai wrote:Yes, this would be very interesting of course, as a kind of anthropological study and I'm sure it would be possible.
Yes, if a man claimed to be able to bend spoons with his mind, the philosopher would ask him to please bend a few spoons in front of an audience of observers, so we could confirm the claim.
In regards to enlightenment, it seems reasonable for the philosopher to ask, why hasn't such a study been done? Or, if it has been done, why don't we know about it?
If a group of people could demonstrate that their psychological state was no longer dependent upon outside circumstance, it seems that would be quite a compelling story that would be shared widely.
What we seem to have instead is a variety of people making a collection of rather vague claims, few of which have actually been tested by independent credible testing experts.
I am aware of at least one exception. One study tracked the brain waves of many regular people who reported they were experiencing happiness. That is, a base line was established. Then they hooked a Buddhist monk up to their testing devices, and compared his brain waves to the average, and his happiness ratings were through the roof.
Here is a link to the fellow they tested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthieu_Ricard
The point here is that science has far more credibility with most of the public than any particular religion. Thus, if the enlightened should wish to share their skills with a wider audience, it seems logical that science might be the language they would use. This seems particularly appropriate to those who wish to teach enlightenment through a philosophical form of yoga.
The Buddhists seem open to a cooperative merger of their religion and science, which is great. Most other enlightenment teachers seem to prefer instead grand speeches, personal authority, faith, etc, ie. the more purely religious approach.
Obviously this exercise would be about yogis rather than a yoga itself, but, that said, it could also dispel some of the scepticism that surrounds this stuff.
Such a study would be about the yoga itself, if we could not find any yogis who passed the test. And, the opposite is true, if we did develop evidence of yogis who could pass the test.
Its interesting what talking to you has made me think about this obedience thing. All our arguments are based on some faith or other, there is always some premise which we must assume and cannot doubt.
It might be helpful if you could develop a list of specific examples here.
At least the student at the feet of their guru is no longer in some kind of denial about this - they are bringing into full consciousness what for the average philosopher is still unconscious.
That's an interesting point, agreed. I do agree there is something appealingly honest about such a surrender. And surrender as a general concept seems important.
I would however propose that surrendering to any human being is foolishness, particularly given how many gurus clearly have a screw loose.
Surely we can choose a more qualified authority, such as reality. How about surrendering to a pine cone? This seems a more promising endeavor.
When said I require people to blindly accept the framework, I still mean that. But by being philosophers and by being present on this site there is the de facto acceptance anyway, through their very actions.
As you say, we have accepted philosophy as our method, for the purposes of this forum, and this thread. Our own action confirms this, we agree.
But you seem to want more than that. Maybe, perhaps you can clarify. It seems you may wish we might blindly accept not just the method, but your conclusions too. That is, if I'm seeing this accurately, we seem to be dancing on a boundary between philosophy and religion.
If this is true, I don't object, but as philosophers, it seems we should attempt to be clear about what we're doing.
I can't demonstrate the benefits on this forum, all I can do is recount them - which sounds,, and feels, rather hollow.
Well, I'm not requesting this, nor should you be required to participate, but it is technically possible that all forum members could heap abuse upon any particular member for months.
I agree such a test would not be perfect, due to the limitations of this medium. I also agree it would be better to do such testing in a more controlled environment. It may be pointless to run any test if we can't get wide agreement in advance that a test has credibility.
And I'm saying that we don't (this is the other side of the argument). There is no mental, there is no physical - what you call 'mental' is not a symbol but the thing in itself, and the physical reality is the thing in itself too.
Well, it is of course true that thoughts are physical reality too. But you seem to be making a larger more ambitious point. Are you saying that my holy forest does not exist outside of my mind?
Just to make crystal clear. I'm not saying you are wrong in what you say, I am saying that you are failing to account for the other view on things. This is the same as thinking that a mug is intrinsically right-handed only rather than seeing it from the other perspective (that is is also left-handed).
Yes, this point seems fundamental to your perspective. Would it be consistent with your view to say neither of our perspectives are either right or wrong, and that our entire discussion is based an illusion of division?
As you see it, are both of us are trying to conceptually divide off a section of the whole, and claim that particular section to be superior, when in fact nothing can be superior or inferior, as everything is one?
If I am not stating your view correctly, please clarify. What I'm trying to do is to translate your view in to various different wordings, both to see if I get it, and to make it more accessible.
Exactly! So stop thinking your thoughts aren't it. Stop thinking they get in the way. For that brief moment they are the thing, the real deal - stop thinking that they are symbols that get in the way of something better.
A few things...
First, you are doing a good job of identifying my own religion, which I agree is as faith based as any other. To use simple language, I am a nature worshiper, and worship nature in much the same way others might worship Jesus. Everybody needs
something to believe in, and I have made my choice, probably due to the historical circumstances of my life (grew up first next to a farm, and then a block from the beach).
Second, you are doing what I always do, blindly assuming that the reader wishes for their religion to be undermined, simply because they've said so by joining a philosophy forum. This is more me pleading guilty of a long standing pattern of taking people literally, than it is any accusation of you.
I really don't mind your assault upon my nature religion, but you know, if you should get struck by lightening, well, just saying, these things happen. And yes, I'm joking!
Tragically, you've put the sex manual down, you've got the real life Diane Lane naked in bed with you - and suddenly you get the insane notion that she's some kind of imposter!
Anybody in bed with me claiming to be Diane Lane would most certainly be an imposter! But I don't mind, so long as they do a good job of it. And don't even get me started about Diane Lane naked in the holy forest, as that would surely be more than I could handle at my advancing age. Oh dear, now I'm not going to be able to think about anything else the rest of the day.
Please visit my new site: philosophical-porn.com
Typist wrote:As example perhaps, why does the pine tree in my front yard not exist, if that is your premise.
Nikolai wrote:It really really does exists, but only as a brief flash of awareness and only in that moment.
Nikolai wrote:This is why this perspective, called idealism, dominated western philosophy in the 18th and 19th centuries. After all when you are looking into your fridge, thinking about lunch, how do we know that the tree in the front yard exists in that moment, out of awareness.
Because my neighbor is video taping the tree in the front yard, while I look for Diane Lane in my refrigerator. There's a reason why idealism no longer dominates western culture, it got replaced by common sense. I dunno, this seems a pretty weak argument.
However, it's also true that purely scientific endeavors like quantum mechanics are turning common sense on it's head.
Yes, we can go to the front yard and look for it, but that doesn't prove that it was there when you looked in the fridge. It is perfectly rational to remain sceptical about the existence of everything except what is right here and now in my awareness - whatever it is.
It's only perfectly rational if we can develop some evidence that the pine tree does not exist while my focus is on pictures of Diane Lane.
Typist wrote:If we devote sufficient time to managing thought, we will have no need of the insight.
No but you would have to live alone on a remote mountain devoting your life to meditation.
We need only accept the reality that human beings are imperfect. If we accept being imperfect, if we embrace it and enjoy it, we no longer need to chase perfection.
All becoming agendas, such as the quest to become rich, famous, powerful, enlightened etc etc, are all based on rejection.
Of course this rejection is part of our imperfection, and we can accept and embrace this too. So, I'm not suggesting we must stop climbing the glorious mountain, if that is what we feel compelled to do.
Instead, I'm suggesting that as philosophers, we try to see clearly what we are doing and why.
I propose that we are climbing the glorious mountain, because we are unwilling to embrace and fully enjoy the nice little ordinary meadow at the foot of the mountain, which we already have. If we would first master enjoyment of the little meadow, we would discover we have no need to climb the mountain.
That is, climbing the glorious mountain is an escape from the job of embracing what is, right now. It is a retreat in to the future.
I'm not claiming this is easy, but I am claiming that you, Typist,, can do it.
Ah, even if true, we should first establish why I should do it.
You demonstrate your talent and suitability with every sentence you type.
With every sentence I type, I demonstrate a talent for typing sentences, for, I am the Typist!