What is Panspiritism?

[Atla]

So every way we look at it, it looks like we've found the correct worldview, and I accepted it as probably true.

Okay. But when you say it cannot be verified as true you reject the doctrine and I find this anomalous.

There is also the question of where the doctrine comes from. According to your view someone must have made it up, but this would be like making up quantum mechanics.

Basically, you're suggesting that all teachers of the doctrine including the writer of the Baghavad Gita, The Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads are making it up, and even people like Ramana Maharshi and Mooji are making it up. You're proposing that all these people and countless thousands of other testifiers are liars.

I can understand the hand-waiving comment by Sculptor because he clearly knows nothing about the topic, but you know more and endorse much of teachings so it seems odd you deny the knowledge claims of those who teach it.

Not arguing, just intrigued by a view I've never come across before.

I find your questions very vague. We seem to be talking about two things here:

1. Nondualism as the realization that no fundamental separations, divisions exist, and so our true self is the Absolute, not the ego. This can also be verified via direct investigation.

2. Nondualism as the belief that "what our True Self is like" can also be experienced directly. Or other kinds of "certain direct knowledge" can be acquired.

I'm saying that 1. is correct 2. is nonsense. And since many nondual sources like the Bhagavad Gita, most Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, Ramana Maharshi and Mooji, were also teaching the 2nd one, they were of course in that sense all delusional more or less the same way.

Eastern philosophy is full of nonsense as well, however the 1. realization is correct and far more important than the 2. one, so they didn't go wrong that much compared to Western philosophy.

That's why I say that nondualism has two awakenings but most people get stuck in limbo after the first one.

People who are stupid enough to believe to have found out through direct experience what behind it all our the True Self is like, are actually no longer nondualists. Because the True Self contains everything, including the feelings etc. that they are trying to look behind. They have created a new dualism that isn't there.

[PeteJ]

So every way we look at it, it looks like we've found the correct worldview, and I accepted it as probably true.

Okay. But when you say it cannot be verified as true you reject the doctrine and I find this anomalous.

There is also the question of where the doctrine comes from. According to your view someone must have made it up, but this would be like making up quantum mechanics.

Basically, you're suggesting that all teachers of the doctrine including the writer of the Baghavad Gita, The Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads are making it up, and even people like Ramana Maharshi and Mooji are making it up. You're proposing that all these people and countless thousands of other testifiers are liars.

I can understand the hand-waiving comment by Sculptor because he clearly knows nothing about the topic, but you know more and endorse much of teachings so it seems odd you deny the knowledge claims of those who teach it.

Not arguing, just intrigued by a view I've never come across before.

If you SAY that you endorse multiple teachers/teachings, you are effectively endorsing pluralism, which is a performative contradiction of non-dualism.

They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach. When you endorse non-dualism you are endorsing the Perennial philosophy.

[Skepdick]

They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach. When you endorse non-dualism you are endorsing the Perennial philosophy.

And yet you call it 'Perennial philosophy' and not Mathematics/Computer Science

As if it's not mainstream and abundant in our daily lives.

Which begs the question: Can you not tell that it's the same thing, underneath all the language?

[PeteJ]

I find your questions very vague. We seem to be talking about two things here:

1. Nondualism as the realization that no fundamental separations, divisions exist, and so our true self is the Absolute, not the ego. This can also be verified via direct investigation.

2. Nondualism as the belief that "what our True Self is like" can also be experienced directly. Or other kinds of "certain direct knowledge" can be acquired.

I'm saying that 1. is correct 2. is nonsense.

Well, first I would say these are claims, not beliefs, and second I'd say they are the same claim (although I'd argue with the exact wording).

And since many nondual sources like the Bhagavad Gita, most Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, Ramana Maharshi and Mooji, were also teaching the 2nd one, they were of course in that sense all delusional more or less the same way.

I rather think they're right and you are wrong. Your two statements above are equivalent and this is why these sources teach both. Do you really think you know more than the people who wrote these texts? More even than Ramana Maharshi? Do you not feel this a touch arrogant, and that maybe you're missing something?

I don't understand your opinions and cannot see how you reconcile them with each other. So maybe we should leave it here.

[PeteJ]

They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach. When you endorse non-dualism you are endorsing the Perennial philosophy.

And yet you call it 'Perennial philosophy' and not Mathematics/Computer Science

As if it's not mainstream and abundant in our daily lives.

Which begs the question: Can you not tell that it's the same thing, underneath all the language?

I cannot understand your question here. It seems to make no sense. Could you rephrase it?

[Skepdick]

I cannot understand your question here. It seems to make no sense. Could you rephrase it?

You observed that all non-dualist philosophies teach the same thing underneath the language and approach (non-dualism).

So that thing underneath all the language, that you observe and recognise. That nameless phenomenon that all philosophies are endorsing (which you have labelled The Perennial Philosophy).

Do you not observe it and recognise it anywhere in modern science and in modern life (despite it being obscured by new language and new approaches compared to Perennialism)?

I do. In 2019 it's called humanism.

[PeteJ]

I cannot understand your question here. It seems to make no sense. Could you rephrase it?

You observed that all non-dualist philosophies teach the same thing underneath the language and approach (non-dualism).

So that thing underneath all the language, that you observe and recognise. That nameless phenomenon that all philosophies are endorsing (which you have labelled The Perennial Philosophy).

Do you not observe it and recognise it anywhere in modern science and in modern life (despite it being obscured by new language and new approaches compared to Perennialism)?

I do. In 2019 it's called humanism.

I'm happy to chat about this but you have some responsibility to do your own research. If you make statements like this all we'll do is argue. Anybody who reads your posts will know you have not studied this topic, so why the strong views?

[Skepdick]

I'm happy to chat about this but you have some responsibility to do your own research. If you make statements like this all we'll do is argue. Anybody who reads your posts will know you have not studied this topic, so why the strong views?

Because my "strong view" is in strong agreement with your view. I am literally agreeing that Perenialism is the same as all non-dualism.
And I am further pointing out that non-dualism has a new name in 2019. It's the teachings of non-dualism under the banner of Humanism (which is a continuation of Renaissance Humanism)

To use your very words "They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach". Which is just another way of saying that underneath the narratives and rituals, it all points to the same thing. Which is precisely the claims of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola which got the Perenial/Humanist ball rolling in the Renaissance ages.

Yet it seems to me you are trying to back away from the very position you are defending. This is rather surprising to me.

I am also surprised that you can't see THAT Perenialism and Humanism are endorsing the same thing. Considering that you are an expert on Perenialism - it should be a trivial observation for you. It should be trivial to see past "the language and approach".

And then the irony in all this, is that in failing to recognise the non-dualism in Humanism (and its equivalence to Perenialism), you, in fact believe in dualism.

You believe in the Perenialism-Humanism dualism. Unless, I am misunderstanding your objection.
If you agree that Humanism and Perenialism are equivalent in their non-dual teachings, then your nostalgia for Perenialism is quite inexplicable.

Just as well, lets see if you are actually capable of agreeing on something, despite me calling you out on the fact that you don't practice what you preach.

[PeteJ]

Because my "strong view" is in strong agreement with your view. I am literally agreeing that Perenialism is the same as all non-dualism.

This would be why I'm disagreeing with you. Here are the three characteristics of Humanism from a humanist website

- trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
- makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
- believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Clearly Humanism is nothing to do with non-dualism.

..... lets see if you are actually capable of agreeing on something, despite me calling you out on the fact that you don't practice what you preach.

Did you? Apparently I missed it. What was I preaching that I don't practice?

[Skepdick]

Clearly Humanism is nothing to do with non-dualism.

Maybe you should start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Predecessors

Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Consequences
The re-discovery of ancient manuscripts brought a more profound and accurate knowledge of ancient philosophical schools such as Epicureanism, and Neoplatonism

I do believe "The One" and Neoplatonism are central ideas to Perenialism, isn't it so, Mr Expert?

And this is curious THE HUMANIST THEOLOGY OF MARSILIO FICINO.

Or this Marsilio Ficino, Renaissance Humanism, and Platonic Traditions

Google can help you find plenty of references to both Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Humanism.

Why is that even relevant to my argument you may ask? Well because... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Perennialism has its roots the Renaissance interest in neo-Platonism and its idea of the One, from which all existence emanates. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) sought to integrate Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought,[/size][1] discerning a Prisca theologia which could be found in all ages.[2] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) suggested that truth could be found in many, rather than just two, traditions. He proposed a harmony between the thought of Plato and Aristotle, and saw aspects of the Prisca theologia in Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Quran, the Kabbalah and other sources.[3] Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis.

Did you? Apparently I missed it. What was I preaching that I don't practice?

You are paying lip service to non-dualism. You can't recognize it for what it is when it stands before you. You over-exaggerate trivial differences and under-emphasize the colossal similarities. And since you can't recognize it - you don't understand it.

But mostly, MOSTLY because on the one hand you claim that "They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach", and then you trip up over the language and approaches of Humanism. Demonstrating clear inability of seeing the teachings underneath.

The human condition (being qua being) hasn't changed one bit in the last 5000 years (recorded philosophy). Only the narratives and the context changes.

[Atla]

I find your questions very vague. We seem to be talking about two things here:

1. Nondualism as the realization that no fundamental separations, divisions exist, and so our true self is the Absolute, not the ego. This can also be verified via direct investigation.

2. Nondualism as the belief that "what our True Self is like" can also be experienced directly. Or other kinds of "certain direct knowledge" can be acquired.

I'm saying that 1. is correct 2. is nonsense.

Well, first I would say these are claims, not beliefs, and second I'd say they are the same claim (although I'd argue with the exact wording).

And since many nondual sources like the Bhagavad Gita, most Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, Ramana Maharshi and Mooji, were also teaching the 2nd one, they were of course in that sense all delusional more or less the same way.

I rather think they're right and you are wrong. Your two statements above are equivalent and this is why these sources teach both. Do you really think you know more than the people who wrote these texts? More even than Ramana Maharshi? Do you not feel this a touch arrogant, and that maybe you're missing something?

I don't understand your opinions and cannot see how you reconcile them with each other. So maybe we should leave it here.

I don't understand how you can see the two as equivalent? They are different statements?

I mean that there is no "extra, unique feeling or sensation or quality" associated with the True Self that can be experienced.
I have decades of personal experience with these illusions (and also studied psychology and neuroscience rather heavily), and yes I do think that many great sages are, on this point, rather delusional.

They think beneath it all is some kind of happy/positive sensation or feeling or awareness or whatever, which puts a happy spin on Eastern nondualism. But "genuine" nondualism can of course be pretty dark and horrifying in its actual emptiness.

[Atla]

...

Just ignore Skepdick btw, it's a long story but he will probably never understand anything you say or even anything he himself says.

[PeteJ]

Just ignore Skepdick btw, it's a long story but he will probably never understand anything you say or even anything he himself says.

This was my plan. Thanks for this comment since I now feel better about it.

I mean that there is no "extra, unique feeling or sensation or quality" associated with the True Self that can be experienced.

Yes. I thought you said something different earlier.

I have decades of personal experience with these illusions (and also studied psychology and neuroscience rather heavily), and yes I do think that many great sages are, on this point, rather delusional.

Okay. On this we part company.

They think beneath it all is some kind of happy/positive sensation or feeling or awareness or whatever, which puts a happy spin on Eastern nondualism. But "genuine" nondualism can of course be pretty dark and horrifying in its actual emptiness.

I thought you just said there is no feeling or sensation. I've never read anyone saying that the goal is a 'happy/positive sensation. This is exactly what the goal is not.

I don't think there's much point in us arguing. We must read different books and have different expriences of mediation. I've never had any objections to my essays on these topics and rather think my view is orthodox. You seem to believe you know more than Nagarjuna and Lao Tsu and this seems a tad unlikely to me. Shall we agree to differ?

[Skepdick]

Just ignore Skepdick btw, it's a long story but he will probably never understand anything you say or even anything he himself says.

This was my plan. Thanks for this comment since I now feel better about it.

Well, you two sophists can continue your parlance.

I'll just leave this question up in the air, for when you decide to challenge your own bullshit.

They are all the same teaching underneath the language and approach.

Clearly Humanism is nothing to do with non-dualism.

If "the are all the teaching underneath the language and approach.", then how did you determine that Humanism and Non-dualism are different teachings by reading a website (language) and familiarising yourself with its approaches ( science, ethics and pursuit of happiness, self-governance)?

By your very own epistemic standard, the evidence does not justify your conclusion.

[Atla]

Just ignore Skepdick btw, it's a long story but he will probably never understand anything you say or even anything he himself says.

This was my plan. Thanks for this comment since I now feel better about it.

I mean that there is no "extra, unique feeling or sensation or quality" associated with the True Self that can be experienced.

Yes. I thought you said something different earlier.

I have decades of personal experience with these illusions (and also studied psychology and neuroscience rather heavily), and yes I do think that many great sages are, on this point, rather delusional.

Okay. On this we part company.

They think beneath it all is some kind of happy/positive sensation or feeling or awareness or whatever, which puts a happy spin on Eastern nondualism. But "genuine" nondualism can of course be pretty dark and horrifying in its actual emptiness.

I thought you just said there is no feeling or sensation. I've never read anyone saying that the goal is a 'happy/positive sensation. This is exactly what the goal is not.

I don't think there's much point in us arguing. We must read different books and have different expriences of mediation. I've never had any objections to my essays on these topics and rather think my view is orthodox. You seem to believe you know more than Nagarjuna and Lao Tsu and this seems a tad unlikely to me. Shall we agree to differ?

Agree to disagree. (I wonder though what you disagree with?)

I wasn't talking about any goal? And of course some people (1 in 10000 maybe) can now know better than Nagarjuna and Lao Tsu. We have all of modern science, and every philosophical insight ever, at our fingertips. But they were giants and we are standing on their shoulders.