How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[silent thunder]

I'll echo the sentiment of iinati regarding perpetual bliss and even its more moderate cousin happiness which have been revealed as manic, unsustainable states resulting from craving and desire.  I used to crave happiness as a state to be maintained indefinitely as if it were some expression and result of progress on 'the way' but now happiness is revealed as hollow as fear in its insubstantiality and unsustainability and i no longer seek it, nor seek to sustain it.

 

Contentment however, appears to be a potential foundational state, requiring no upkeep but seemingly arises as a side effect of abiding as one is, where one is.  Perhaps it's a matter of semantics and my definition of bliss.  I suspect this is often the case in discussions of such concepts and esoteric frameworks.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Contentment however, appears to be a potential foundational state, requiring no upkeep but seemingly arises as a side effect of abiding as one is, where one is. 

 

A musical interlude inspired by the above:

 

A little out of place, A little out of tune
Sorta lost in space, Racing the moon
Climbing the walls, Of this hurricane
Still overall... I can't complain.

 

I got nothin' to lose, 'Cause there's nothin' to gain
It's like a one-way ticket to cruise in this passing lane
I can't complain.

 

 

 

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

huh.

 

Oh ?   I'll explain it to you then .

 

Down here , having a 'big head' means you  have a lot of self importance attached to your own ego and opinions .

 

Or, if you dont think things through   .......   deep enough  ...... you might have a small tiny puny pin-head .   ( Just some  common person's  'slang' ).

 

So , your head be either really huge and full of itself .... or tiny and insignificant .  Sorry , its an either / or and there is no third or transcendent option .

 

- but it is good that it seems your liver feels better now .   

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

 

But that still comes under unhappiness !

 

 

 

Pfffft !    They are WAY   beyond  being 'unhappy' .   Crack open an English dictionary mate !

 

 

What do you understand by the Self ? 

 

Why do answer a simple question with another question , was my question too difficult for you ?

 

What do you understand by Buddha nature ?    - see , we get nowhere if we keep that up .

 

- my understanding of 'self' is that it is an illusory by-product of the personna  gathering a semblance of 'unity' and 'control' together from various sources and levels of the psyche and imbued  with subtle energy due to the human's  position within the hierarchy of spirits .

 

And by personna I mean the end results of all the forces and energies and realizations and consciousnesses  that do not come from  outside influence (environment )  combined with that outside influence .

 

Now , are YOU going to answer MY question ? 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nungali

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

"Whoever digs a pit needs a pit-digging unit." 😉

 

Whats that ?

 

I will be digging a pit  -  well its finished now - I won't be falling into it .... I gotta jump down into it .  excavate the edges  a bit to take a strip foundations, make the form work, mix and pour a concrete slab  and then build the structure on top .

 

Its an 'outhouse' ... a 'dunny'   a 'back yard thunderbox' .

 

One woman , having trouble, the house owner (it isnt quiet finished yet ) and another , the would be renter . Both are women that are being abused by men and the system . The renter and her little girl more recently , so a bit fractured and seeking refuge , but the house is not ready yet . 

 

yeah , it was nice of those other people to give them 'support' ....  'love' ...... flowers ......

 

Guess its me though that gotta get in the pit and dig out a crap hole for them .

 

Old crappy Nungali .

[Daniel]

20 hours ago, C T said:

Whenever the notion of "not self/non-self/no self" arises per discussions within a Buddhist context, it is imperative to support/enhance the convo by including at least a basic understanding of the Two Truths as propounded by Nagarjuna. 

 

https://www.learnreligions.com/doctrine-of-the-two-truths-450002

 

@Daniel

 

 

 

OK.

 

From the link:  "these are the two truths, not the one truth and one lie. Both truths are true.... the sages tell us that enlightenment actually is going beyond both."

 

I would very much appreciate elaboration on "going beyond both".  Does this mean both truths are abandoned?  left behind?  are they both still considered true?

 

Thank you,

[Daniel]

19 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Daniel 19/08/23. Thanks a lot for your reply! You really grilled me and I’ll need to take some time to properly reply to it (internet is down so am using my phone and signal which isn’t good enough for replying to your sophisticated message). I’m sorry if I was too rude before, it wasn’t at first clear to me how different you are to the rest of them. I hope I can answer you without my ontology collapsing and sending me into an existential crisis 🤯

 

No worries.  I didn't feel you were being rude to me.  I liked the questions.  It's good to get the feedback.  I wasn't meaning to grill you, just explain what I meant to say.  Regarding the extistential crisis, please remember?  I agree with what you said in the OP.

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

17 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

What is your experience ? 

 

It depends on what sort of experience you're asking about.  I wouldn't describe anything in my "current" life experiences in terms of acheivement of any sort of non-dual perception.  I would instead use the words: expanded awareness.

 

Quote

If I may ask, did you find it hard to use functional speech that denoted such dualistic terms as suggested, during the experience of nondual perception !

 

During the experience of expansion, on a small scale, it feels like using peripheral vision and focused vision simultaneously.  No, I don't have trouble communicating during those episodes.  Probably because I am at ease.  But also since it's dualistic ( or perhaps a better word is diverse ), all the tools of language are available.

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Daniel

[C T]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

OK.

 

From the link:  "these are the two truths, not the one truth and one lie. Both truths are true.... the sages tell us that enlightenment actually is going beyond both."

 

I would very much appreciate elaboration on "going beyond both".  Does this mean both truths are abandoned?  left behind?  are they both still considered true?

 

Thank you,

 

Thank you for the question, Daniel. 

 

A hammer has conventional designates. Depending on the user, really, a hammer can also 'be' many other things. Is a hammer still a hammer when it's used as a door-stop? What is it when it's lying in the toolbox? 

 

One who employs the hammer as a tool to hit nails with and another who uses it as a doorstop could well have an endless debate over nothing because ultimately, there's really only expressions of various applications of this particular object. But human tendencies and habits often gets in the way of validating the nuances and the limitless potential of the essence behind the mere appearance of an object (in this case, the hammer). 

 

So it can be said that a hammer is both a hammer (conventional truth) and not a hammer (ultimate truth) simultaneously. 

 

To go beyond... means when it's no longer in use, we must know to put it away. This is crucial. We mustn't make the common mistake of assigning more importance to anything than is necessary. Then a tool ends up being a burden or an obstacle. Or worse, we falsely identify with and make assertions over what is basically something that possesses nothing other than a mere label. 

 

"My label is more accurately assigned than your label." 

 

Ridiculous, isn't it? 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by C T

[Ajay0]

11 hours ago, Nungali said:

Pfffft !    They are WAY   beyond  being 'unhappy' .   Crack open an English dictionary mate !

 

Dude, you have not figured out the difference between bliss emanating from the Self, and the transitory states of  happiness/unhappiness emerging from sensory experiences. 

 

There is a major difference between the two. 

 

Unhappiness must follow happiness in the realm of material realm and sensory objects because of the factors of impermanence and saturation.

 

But there is no opposite to bliss from the Self, because the non-conceptual Self or Being/Brahman is beyond the pair of opposites related to the material world and is not subject to impermanence and saturation.

 

Quote

 my understanding of 'self' is that it is an illusory by-product of the personna  gathering a semblance of
'unity' and 'control' together from various sources and levels of the psyche and imbued  with subtle energy due
to the human's  position within the hierarchy of spirits
 
And by personna I mean the end results of all the forces and energies and realizations and consciousnesses  that
do not come from  outside influence (environment )  combined with that outside influence .

 

How can the illusory self be equated with the true Self or Buddha nature !

 

Your understanding is poor. First get hold of the basics correctly and then your questions will dissolve on their own .
 

[Ajay0]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It depends on what sort of experience you're asking about.  I wouldn't describe anything in my "current" life experiences in terms of acheivement of any sort of non-dual perception.  I would instead use the words: expanded awareness.

 

 

The experience is that of nondual perception that comes with emptiness or awareness with the simultaneous cessation or slowing of mental traffic. 
 

Quote

During the experience of expansion, on a small scale, it feels like using peripheral vision and focused vision simultaneously.  No, I don't have trouble communicating during those episodes.  Probably because I am at ease.  But also since it's dualistic ( or perhaps a better word is diverse ), all the tools of language are available.

 

 In nondual perception, there is the ability to use functional speech with dualistic terms, without being under the grip of images or words or past.

 

 Krishna taught about non-duality to Arjuna in the midst of the battlefield if you may recall, while persuading him to perform his duties as a warrior.

 

Ramana Maharshi, usually silent, was vocal about allowing animals or birds to enter the ashram in spite of opposition to them from his fastidious disciples, and he referred to the animals as 'he' or 'she' instead of 'it', humanizing them.

 

The examples of these masters shows that nondual perception is not in opposition to functional speech depicting dualistic terms. 

 

The perception ceases to be nondual when the psychological past or personal self takes over with its emotional likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions. 

 

Then the 'you' or 'they'  will be related to the lower self or 'I' unconsciously with corresponding past memories of an emotional content in the background dictating the relationship, rather than impersonal awareness.

 

Since the personal self or ego is  bound to be insecure and fragile due to its transitory emotional content , it is bound to drift in the direction of strife and violence in the long run.

 

Apparently conflicts have the hue of duality to it due to their emotionally charged nature. The 'I' or 'us' is emphasized in opposition to 'he/she/you' or 'them', as well as other labels related to political ideology, language, gender, religion, race, sexuality, country and so on.

 

And consequently such dualistic terms gain an unnecessary bad reputation in spite of their functional utility as in work relations, gender-based washrooms, passports or normal conversation.

 

In nondual perception or impersonal awareness,  such dualistic terms remain functional without the emotional charge associated with unconscious dualistic perception and conflict.
 

[galen_burnett]

@Daniel 

In your §2 you mention the notion of ‘perpetual-bliss’ being an aspect of Buddhism that is foreign to you; I believe you; but regardless I can see that it is there in Buddhism. I couldn’t really find, at a glance online, anything that suggested that Sat-Chit-Ananda was any different to the other words I’ve tagged in the OP for ‘Bliss’. Again, regarding definitions: I feel like the other camp is pretending the elephant is not in the room; the notion I am referring to by all the tags in the post is that of ‘perpetual-bliss’, and many in this thread have seemed to think me dim enough to gas-light into thinking I never saw anyone ever suggest it—I mean, I’m not an animal, I have human eyes to see and human ears to hear, the notion is everywhere you look in Eastern spirituality!

 

Would you please explain your tree-metaphor in §3 a little more? are you saying that conquering the tree is the attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ and their experiences of “temporary experiential bliss” are the steps along the way that suggest to them that they are on track to get to their goal? Sorry, I couldn’t completely understand the metaphor, which is on me. Otherwise I think I understand that you are saying that those Buddhists who insist on the existence of attainable ‘perpetual-bliss’ haven’t understood the Buddhist teachings correctly.

 

Your §4. I made an error in my use of ‘contrarian’! Sorry! How confusing. No I didn’t look-up the definition before using it—I meant contradictory, and inconsistent, not contrarian. Sorry again for that confusion; I hope that clears that up. Yes! Otherwise yes! there is great value in being contrarian in a debate, as to just nod and agree wouldn’t get the discussion anywhere. 

 

Your §5. I misquoted you: you say “This is natural […]” not “That […]”, that’s my fault. But you were perceptive enough to see correctly what I was asking regardless of my misquoting. No, no, I do agree it is natural to use the Contra-Positive against the Material-Conditional in dialectic and debates; my only issue is how being inconsistent relates to the Contra-Positive. But again, I think this confusion has only arrises due to my ignorant and incorrect use of ‘contrarian’ before; please read ‘inconsistent’ where I used ‘contrarian’ before—I’m a bit embarrassed honestly. And again, no, I agree, I don’t think hostility is intrinsic to the application of the Contra-Positive to the Material-Conditional; regarding hostility in debate, I just meant that in general hostility can arise in debate when sensitive issues like established world-views or ontologies are being challenged. [After re-reading the original part of the comment that you first mentioned this about ‘hostility’, it seems there’s a chance you could be referring to a dialectical term ‘Hostility’ that I’m not aware of—a quick Google search didn’t show me anything in that regard, at least…]

 

Your §6.  Due to my lack of study in Western philosophy, I’m still unclear about how Paradoxes of the Material-Conditional warp or break logic. I’ll just put again that same example about George Washington here for convenience "it is definitely raining (1st premise; true); it is not raining (2nd premise; false); George Washington is made of rakes (Conclusion); as there is no possible situation where both premises could be true, then there is certainly no possible situation in which the premises could be true while the conclusion was false.". I can’t say I really understand this example, could you perhaps explain it to me? Both of those premises cannot be simultaneously true—sure. That conclusion cannot follow from those premises—sure. Is the Paradox to say that that conclusion can follow from either of those premises being true? maybe the author misspoke in this part “[…] there is certainly no possible situation in which the premises could be true while the conclusion was false.”; here he seems to be saying that that conclusion is always true… (“[…] no possible […] premises true […] conclusion was false.”). I agree that logic does inevitably fail at a certain point when considering any and all ontologies, but I currently need help seeing examples of where logic fails in dialectical debate, such as in Paradoxes of the Material-Conditional, as I cited just now; if you could help me see such examples then I could agree more fully with you on what you say in this paragraph of yours. It’s a point of minutiae, I know, but I think it would help with our discussion overall.

 

Your §7. Yes, that is essentially what I propose—an inherent and inescapable Duality to existence. Alright, so I think there is a misunderstanding here I need to clarify: in my opinion, intuitional, emotional, internal understanding, the sort of things one comes to know without application of the ‘thinking-mind’, is still rational and logical; e.g. things like recognising the common-sense of the phenomenon of reincarnation just through casual observation of the cycles of life and nature within one’s self and in nature—we can spark this unfolding of understanding through first hearing or reading about it with the help of our ‘thinking-mind’, but then the actual unfolding of the understanding, and full appreciation of its truth, comes from experience. There is still a logical and rational progression to these internal unfolding understandings: a sequence of connective events can still be traced that lead to such an internal understanding. I think probably, at the mortal level of an homo-sapien, such connective internal understandings will always involve some ‘deductions by faith’, some leaps of faith will need to made at points to bridge the gaps that appear in the connective sequence due to our incomplete knowledge of existence, whereas with the knowledge of a divine being our understanding of that would be more complete, requiring less ‘deduction by faith’. I am not denying the modes of activity that lead to supposedly ‘supra-rational’ understanding, I’ll call them ‘non-cerebral activities’: ‘non-cerebral activities’ are as vital to my rational understanding of the universe as is my intellect (as the cogitative, “logical”, “rational”, side of understanding)—which intellect strings it all together in my thoughts for me, and also serves to make sense of intellectual ideas of others to further colour my ontology. What I am denying is the existence itself of supra-rational understanding—that which cannot be understood with reason—one may not be able to make sense of a spiritual experience that reveals to you an incommunicable truth at first, but with time and a clearer picture and a greater intelligence the words will come to effectively make sense of that experience. This is true up to the ‘limit of infinity’; what I mean by this is that I think everything can be understood rationally—except for a couple of things, which are the questions that come at the ‘limit of infinity’ such as “how does anything exist at all?” that I’ve mentioned before. I definitely make a distinction between the, what I think is rational, understanding of ‘non-cerebral activities’ and this ‘supra-rational’ understanding. But I need some help understanding how denying the ‘supra-rational’ falsifies my argument—if it is at the edge-case of infinity that I have mentioned that my denial of it falsifies my argument, then I can definitely expand on that. But I was not trying to invalidate the ‘non-cerebral activities’. And I repeat, yes, Duality cannot be denied (it is most insistent…). Then, just to clarify on a point in your next paragraph, “[…] this […]” in “If this is what is happening […]”, of your §8, is the denial of ‘supra-rational’ understanding, I think? not ‘undeniable Duality’, right?

 

Your §8. So by ‘cancel’ I mean like how ‘+1’ cancels ‘-1’; yes I think we have the same understanding of annihilation—that is, it’s dictionary definition. My whole ontology is pretty-much built on the premiss that everything you could ever think of belongs to a pair, and that each pair behaves in the same way as the mathematical ‘+1’ and ‘-1’. Pain and joy are a pair; yes, we cannot have one without the other; they interdepend; but because they balance in their polarity, the net-sum is zero—this is why I say they ultimately cancel and annihilate each other. Sorry, I wasn’t too clear on what about this you meant to be “[…] violations of the law of non-contradiction.”

 

Your §9. Sorry! Sorry! Your agnosticism wasn’t clear to me at all earlier in the thread; I see now you are not an opponent but rather are Swiss. The reference to the ‘rear-guard’ and ‘clean-up-crew’ seems to be humorous… though it eludes me—would you kindly explain it a bit for my curiosity? (the ‘clean-up-crew’ being the neutral caretakers of the stadium or arena, who ‘clean-up’ after the festivity, maybe? by ‘belonging to the rear-guard’ I guess you mean you haven’t got enough stake in the partisan debate to be at the front lines, a neutrality). Yes, yes, you’re right—we should invest in loss—; though I still can’t help myself from trying to ‘win’ wherever competition presents itself in my life.

 

Your §10. So I’ll wait to see your replies to what I’ve said above regarding the self-refutation of my argument. And again, I don’t quite see how saying “all contradictions are false” (which I do maintain, at least as far as I can in my ontology, I mean at least as far as the mind-breaking ‘edge of infinity’) denies Duality. The others and myself talking past one-another: well we have our Semantic Discord, unfortunately, which prevents any real discussion, sure—which I would blame on them, of course… —but that’s all been covered exhaustively throughout the thread; and otherwise, I will maintain that they are deluded, and they that I am ignorant and uninitiated. 

 

Your §11. I think I understand your perspective on the ‘one-to-many’ relationship of scientific discoveries and I respect it. Firstly, I maintain that all magic is science we have yet to understand, as are all internal processes and spiritual-experiences. I need to stress here that I’m not trying to invalidate these things by ‘rationalising’ them, and I am aware that usually when people talk like this they are arguing that such things don’t exist; no, they do exist, and I think our rough understanding of them is correct; it’s just that we don’t understand the minutiae of these things yet, and when we do one day, when we have divine knowledge, they will appear as scientific and as mechanical to us as a computer. Again, the things I think can never be known are those exceptions I listed in the section you quoted above your §11–including the nature of, or the ‘material’ or ‘substance’ of, the Soul or Consciousness. But everything else can be known with a great enough intelligence and field-of-view; perhaps it would be apt to note here that, in my own ontology, all that exists does so within the mind of ‘God’, and so any Soul occupying ‘Godhead’ would know it all. Your own view suggests to me the ontology that everything is always ascending to greater and greater heights of complexity, like a plant growing forever upwards, yet having never actually begun, and will never stop ascending; I can’t deny that this could be the truth and that such a model of existence is plausible; it’s just that for me my own ontology makes more sense of things to my own mind, than that one does.

 

Your §12. Yes I think you put it well. I guess I just don’t like lies and can’t accept an ontology based on one, no matter how much fun it would be to follow that yellow-brick-road. I also get frustrated because at a glance it seems like people in these religion-philosophies would share a lot in common with me and that we could be friends; but then the ugly head of the Heaven thing comes up and ruins things for me. I guess if I could rattle them a little there’s a chance they could then review their stance on that issue and so become a better fit as a friend, and if not for me—have surely earned their enmity in this thread—then at least the ripples of that ‘rattling’ could then spread across their hive-pool, thus potentially preparing others I have not met yet to be better suited for me as friends. To summarise, at the end of the day, in my opinion, a better world would be one in which people are not deluded by Heaven complexes.

 

Your §13. I’m still not convinced festina lente and slow is smooth and smooth is fast aren’t the same, or at least, that the latter is a contradictory maxim after closer examination. I think what I said about festina lente would still work in a team-environment. To make festina lente work without recourse to ‘preparation’: when we take care and go slowly we move at maximum speed because we avoid the obstacles and hinderances which trying to move more quickly would cause us to collide with, which would slow us down to a greater degree than simply taking it slowly would in the first place; is this more what your maxim means? Could you give an example of your maxim being applied in a team-environment? I guess all this is somewhat important as it’s a point that either supports or undermines what you say about logical-failings being more common than I would otherwise think. Regarding the references to ancient philosophers, I just meant that the expansion I presented to show how festina lente is not self-contradictory is not difficult for people interested in such things to understand, and so you yourself did understand it, of course, also—our disagreement currently isn’t about festina lente itself, but rather is about whether slow is smooth and smooth is fast can be seen as non-contradictory.

 

Your §14. “I'm saying, non-contradiction is not a universal law.” in context with the section you quoted just above that line: I think what you’re getting at here is the point you explain later on about multiple possibilities in your §20—basically about the existence of infinite parallel-universes, I think, in which all conceivable events, contradictory and non-contradictory, do indeed take place, and so “Non-Contradiction is not a universal law”. If I have that right then I would still say, no, Non-Contradiction is still universal, because, in my opinion, still, even in remote parallel-universes, logic must still be obeyed and nonsensical contradictions cannot exist. The differences between parallel-universes and our own, I presume, extend to things like differences in the mathematical constants of the universe, like Pi and the charge of an electron and the speed of light in a vacuum (so whereas here it is 3x10^8 m/s/s, in another universe it is perhaps 1.5x10^3 m/s/s); and these differences give rise to a different tapestry of forms in that universe to our own. Otherwise, it seems we are agreeing that ultimate bliss as something that can be permanently kept in one’s pocket is false, and that it is rather a transitory experience. But even then, I think the qualifier ‘ultimate’ is dubious as ‘ultimate’ is only relative to where a living-being is on their ‘Soul-path’, and the great joys of one Soul in one realm may not be felt by another Soul in a different realm, even if that latter Soul were to be transported to the former’s realm: the ‘ultimate’ bliss for a cow may be eating lush grass in a pleasant pasture in early summer—but that would not be nice for a person—; on the other hand, the bliss of spiritual-ecstasy could probably not be appreciated by a cow.

 

Your §’s 15 and 16. Sorry if I came across as rude with the pop-culture references, I was just getting annoyed again in general at the thought of the notion that the OP is targeted against. Alright, so I’ve replied regarding ‘the universality of Non-Contradiction’ above; and also I have explained how I don’t think the co-existence of the opposites of suffering-joy to be contradictory (my §7). Furthermore, as pain and joy intermingle, I say that they do not ever occupy the same ‘space’ simultaneously, to avoid contradiction; and the sensation of bittersweetness is a very close blending together of the two, yet with close enough analysis the ‘particles’ of the two within that blend would be seen to still be distinct. To be clear: Non-Contradiction is an inviolable law and the coexistence of pain and joy do not violate it—would you please explain how you think it does violate it?

 

Your §17. I think we still need to talk through my replies in this message to your points before we will know that my argument has been falsified; which will be fun regardless, as you are fun to talk with. I have said elsewhere in the thread that I do think the Non-Dual exists but only that it cannot be experienced. That the Non-Dual is Consciousness itself, existence itself, is the collective of all Forms; it cannot ever be experienced in its entirety, yet it exists. And I can see the benefits of an agnostic stance.

 

Your§18. After re-reading the section of your previous message in which you mention Modal Logic it seems that you are referring to parallel-universes which I have addressed above. But then, are these different Logical Proposals you present in this paragraph what you mean by Modal Logic? Whereas in the relevant section on your previous message you seem to be saying that any and all arguments, no matter how much they defy the law of Non-Contradiction, are possible given the existence of parallel-universes; here you instead seem to be saying that what you were actually referring to in that section I just mentioned were these different Logical Proposals in this paragraph. Sorry Daniel, but I am still yet to see an example of how the law of Non-Contradiction can be violated (you have referenced quantum-physics already, and I will say a bit on that in a minute). The Logical Proposals you presented: I say that Ultimate Bliss is false because it can’t be made sense of, can’t be ‘proven’, within my own field-of-view; neither can I imagine a parallel-universe which would have logic that allowed for it, as I think all parallel universes use the same logic, the same logic that the entirety of existence is bound within.

 

Your §19. Sorry both Connexive Logic and Modal Logic seem to be very complex subjects; I think I have an idea of what Modal Logic is now (parallel-universes?) but won’t really have a clue about Connexive without further study, beyond your example of “innocent until proven guilty”. Perhaps you could give an example of these Paradoxes of the Material Conditional? Again, sorry, but I haven’t studied Western philosophy and logic, so all this is a bit beyond me at the moment. Any terms I use like ‘logic’ are not being used in an esoteric way, but just how the common dictionary would define them, and as the average person would understand them. If you wouldn’t mind being quite clear about how any of these dialectical terms you use relate to the argument of the OP I’d appreciate it. I don’t think a lack of understanding of formal philosophy invalidates my argument either, just like a lack of knowledge of the intricacies of criminal law does not make a defendant automatically guilty; and not that you are implying this, just that because I can’t meet you up where these formal terms would probably make the discussion more efficient, we need to discuss at a baser level of terminology, unfortunately. 

 

Your §20. Alright, you’ve given a decent explanation of what Modal Logic is in that Wiki link right there. But I still don’t see how Modal Logic necessarily implies that logic can be contradictory in parallel-universes; it just seems to be saying that given 3 universes, if dogs exist in all of them then dogs definitely exist, whereas if they exist in only one universe then they are unique to the single universe… I still maintain what I said two paragraphs above this one about the universal application of our own logic (that the logic of this universe applies to all others too).

 

Your §21. I think I’ve addressed the matter of the same logic applying to external as well as to internal processes when I said in my §10 “I maintain that all magic is science we have yet to understand, as are all internal processes and spiritual-experiences.”. Regarding “the Observer Effect”, or Einstein’s wave-particle duality of light thing, and also quantum dual-binary-states: I maintain that this apparent paradox will one day be resolved, and you can hold me to that. Could you possibly explain a bit further what you mean by “[…] non-contradiction is a result of the observer effect.”, I did re-read the relevant section of your previous (first?) message. “Logical non-contradiction requires systems in isolation […]”;  I guess I would perhaps say again that the whole of existence is one complete isolated system. And could you maybe give an example of how “[…] the observed non-contradiction is produced by being constantly bombarded by interactions with others.”?

 

Your §22. I think I see. So your saying in classical logic things are definitely either true or false, right? Yes, I think things are either true or false, and I can’t see the weakness of this as you have suggested. I can’t see a reality where truth is not absolute, is partial, where things can be ‘kind-of’ true. Regarding strong and weak evidence, sure they certainly exist, but in the context of not yet knowing the truth: in court before the case is solved there is some evidence which appears more compelling than others; but after the case had been resolved and the truth has been discovered those differentiations between the strengths of the evidence evaporate, and all that is left is the connective thread of the events of the case which includes some of the items presented as evidence and excludes others. But I myself can still hold an agnostic position regarding the truth, despite the truth’s absolute nature, if that absolute truth is hidden from me: I myself may not know what the final word on page 135 of, say, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying is; but that doesn’t mean that there is not definitely a certain word at the end of page 135 of that book. But regarding the matter of the OP I am saying that, no, I am not agnostic, ‘perpetual-bliss’ is fully false, and that I know that, or am confident enough that it is false to say “I know it is false”, and that there is no parallel-universe in which it is true. If my ontology were to collapse, I would not necessarily flip sides and deduce that then it must actually be real because my previous argument which denied it had collapsed, I would probably remain agnostic; but that wouldn’t mean that the absolute truth would not be out there, waiting to be found out by an higher intelligence than my own.

 

Your §23. By “[…] the pitfall which you identified in the OP.” do you mean how I say that Non-Dual experience is impossible because Duality is required for experience to take place? Or are you referring to how you have described elsewhere that the law of Non-Contradiction is not absolute and thence the weakness in my argument? Otherwise would you please explain which “pitfall” you mean. By ‘linear’ you mean that progress doesn’t follow a straight line, that we progress slowly at times, quickly at others, sometimes plateau and sometimes have set-backs, right? But regardless of how quickly or slowly progress may be, it is still logical and coherent: a path can still be traced from one’s position back to one’s ‘beginning’ point. And, as I’ve explained above in §10, though the minutiae of our logical process may not be clear to us, with an higher intelligence those minutiae would be perceived. “[…] a corresponding observer effect.” sorry, could you explain this a bit more for me; if it’s a joke I’m sorry to be so dense.

 

Your §24. Again, I maintain that that quantum paradox will be resolved one day. And again, I must agree to disagree on whether internal processes can be modelled logically.

 

Your §25. I would say that seeming spiritual contradictions, such as the starkly conflicting aspects of the personality of a guru for example, can be resolved logically with a great enough field-of-view; am I right to presume that you would say, as what you had to say about the one-to-many relationship of scientific discoveries, that as the field-of-view increases so do the paradoxes ‘requiring’ solving? if so, then doesn’t the solving of the lesser paradoxes at our base level as our field-of-view increases imply that the paradoxes stretching ahead into infinity will similarly be solvable? like levels in a game, the number may stretch to infinity, and though each may seem impossible to beat at first, as one’s skill in the game increases each level is indeed conquered in turn. “And this is because they are not bombarded by electromagnetic interference in the same way as exernal phenomena.” could you please explain this a bit more? Again we must agree to disagree, I say that internal systems are not isolated just like external systems are not isolated, whereas you say internal systems are isolated but external ones are not: the internal is completely connected to the external, making one complete system formed of both an external and internal aspect, and that complete system connects with every other complete system in existence forming one great big inter-connected system, which I would call Existence or Consciousness or God or the Great Soul, or Unity if you like (and I’ve already said above somewhere about the whole of Duality equating to a Non-Dual unit, so no need to repeat that here). The division into ‘systems’ is only something we do in order to navigate through this great Sea of Consciousness; we perceive and delineate divisions to help us find the best way towards our next joy and to find the best way to avoid or to shut-out or to eliminate our most pressing trouble. Could you please explain a bit more about what you mean by “These quantum interactions produce non-contradiction.”? “It assumes that everything is in an isolated system […]”, you mean that it assumes every thing is its own isolated system, right? “[…] benefit because almost everything appears to be distinct on the human scale.”, sure, I agree, as I said above in this paragraph about “navigating the Sea of Consciousness”. “And as it is observed, all contradictions are resolved.”, yes, I would say they are. “The liability is assuming this is the case internally and universally.”, and this is the point we will just need to agree to disagree on, right? as I’ve said above, in my opinion, internal and external systems behave the same way with regard to isolation—perhaps you could give an example here actually of an internal and external system that behave differently in regard to isolation, that we could discuss?—; and also as I’ve said throughout, I believe that logic does indeed apply universally (caveat, up to the ‘mind-breaking’ limit of infinity).

 

Your final paragraph of your comment. So in my ontology Yin-Yang is the inanimate  and inviolable law that governs all in existence; implicit in this, for me, is that all things balance too. So that’s the base of my logic. Yes, my logic is that all things are in harmony with Yin-Yang, and my logic cannot go any deeper than the ‘ground’ of Yin-Yang, so that’s it’s lower limit. Probably all ontologies have to assume something as a premise, don’t they? and so anyone trying to appreciate said ontologies will need to suspend their disbelief for a moment and accept without argument that basic premise in order to understand that ontology; after understanding said ontology, then the basic premise is either rejected or accepted, according to the world-view of the listener. The Buddhist ontology is based on (I’m sorry, I know you said you don’t think it is in Buddhism, but regardless) the premise that Nirvana can be escaped into from Samsara. My ontology is based on what I just described. An (typical, modern, online) atheist’s may be based on the assumption that the soul isn’t real.

 

Again, I’m sorry I can’t meet you on the plain of formal dialectic, I just don’t have the terminology nor knowledge of that discipline. So it’s going to be difficult for me to answer you when you use those terms. I can get the hang of the odd one with the help of Google, like the law of Non-Contradiction, but otherwise… And again I want to stress—because in my experience often people do this—: just because I’m unfamiliar with the discipline (be it Western philosophy or the law or whatever) that doesn’t automatically invalidate my argument which is nonetheless of the genre of that discipline. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by galen_burnett

[Michael Sternbach]

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Whats that ?

 

It could be something as simple as a shuffle, or as advanced as an excavator if you have the funds.

 

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

I will be digging a pit  -  well its finished now - I won't be falling into it .... I gotta jump down into it .  excavate the edges  a bit to take a strip foundations, make the form work, mix and pour a concrete slab 

 

Make sure you get out of it prior to that. Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.

 

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

and then build the structure on top .

 

Its an 'outhouse' ... a 'dunny'   a 'back yard thunderbox' .

 

One woman , having trouble, the house owner (it isnt quiet finished yet ) and another , the would be renter . Both are women that are being abused by men and the system . The renter and her little girl more recently , so a bit fractured and seeking refuge , but the house is not ready yet . 

 

yeah , it was nice of those other people to give them 'support' ....  'love' ...... flowers ......

 

Guess its me though that gotta get in the pit and dig out a crap hole for them .

 

Old crappy Nungali .

 

Always someone's gotta do the dirty work. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[galen_burnett]

On 21/08/2023 at 12:31 PM, whocoulditbe? said:

Dude, why are you speaking so loudly?

just cuz the way copy-paste works from text-editor (ipad ‘notes’)

Edited August 22, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

@Daniel just edited to italicise some words i’d forgotten about

Edited August 22, 2023 by galen_burnett

[old3bob]

20 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Whats that ?

 

I will be digging a pit  -  well its finished now - I won't be falling into it .... I gotta jump down into it .  excavate the edges  a bit to take a strip foundations, make the form work, mix and pour a concrete slab  and then build the structure on top .

 

Its an 'outhouse' ... a 'dunny'   a 'back yard thunderbox' .

 

One woman , having trouble, the house owner (it isnt quiet finished yet ) and another , the would be renter . Both are women that are being abused by men and the system . The renter and her little girl more recently , so a bit fractured and seeking refuge , but the house is not ready yet . 

 

yeah , it was nice of those other people to give them 'support' ....  'love' ...... flowers ......

 

Guess its me though that gotta get in the pit and dig out a crap hole for them .

 

Old crappy Nungali .

 

new code for thunder boxes: must have a methane detector, a no smoking sign and a fire extinguisher. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by old3bob

[Nungali]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:04 AM, silent thunder said:

I'll echo the sentiment of iinati regarding perpetual bliss and even its more moderate cousin happiness which have been revealed as manic, unsustainable states resulting from craving and desire.  I used to crave happiness as a state to be maintained indefinitely as if it were some expression and result of progress on 'the way' but now happiness is revealed as hollow as fear in its insubstantiality and unsustainability and i no longer seek it, nor seek to sustain it.

 

Contentment however, appears to be a potential foundational state, requiring no upkeep but seemingly arises as a side effect of abiding as one is, where one is.  Perhaps it's a matter of semantics and my definition of bliss.  I suspect this is often the case in discussions of such concepts and esoteric frameworks.

 

Especially if contentment comes from contemplating a successful outcome of effort .

 

It seems to relate to satisfaction , relaxation, contemplation and observation of what we have done that  'made a difference' .

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

Dude, you have not figured out the difference between bliss emanating from the Self, and the transitory states of  happiness/unhappiness emerging from sensory experiences. 

 

 

Its a shame you never read what I wrote or understood it if you did read it .  What you just wrote up there is a total misunderstanding of what I wrote about eudamonia .   It is not a transitory state , it is not happiness / unhappiness  and it does not 'emerge' from , nor is it generated by 'sensory experience' .

 

 

 

 

There is a major difference between the two. 

 

Of course , but its your made up division dues to assigning and labeling things  yourself and slipping them into wrong categories as you are unfamiliar with the state .

 

Unhappiness must follow happiness in the realm of material realm and sensory objects because of the factors of impermanence and saturation.

 

Sure , but I am not and I keep saying I am not, referring to mere 'happiness' .

 

But there is no opposite to bliss from the Self, because the non-conceptual Self or Being/Brahman is beyond the pair of opposites related to the material world and is not subject to impermanence and saturation.

 

Thanks for the lessons in personified ontolgy  , but  I am not disagreeing with that . I was saying grief is of an order much higher than mere 'unhappiness '  ... which somehow caused you to go off about something I am not really saying at all .

 

 

How can the illusory self be equated with the true Self or Buddha nature !

 

Easy .   Maybe the Buddha nature is an illusion ? 

 

Ya see .... if the self is an illusion , any thing the self thinks, says or 'realizes' is an illusion as well .

 

But your question is skewed as you stated    " because the non-conceptual Self or Being/Brahman  " ... that is you equated the two ... fair enough  for the NON CONCEPTUAL self  .....  I was explaining the concept of the CONCEPTUAL self ... and typically , you cant seem to follow the conversation  as a  stream of concepts and answers related to the previous ones .  A common occurrence with today's 'debaters' .

 

Ask what someone's CONCEPT of self is ... then make a little diatribe about how they are wrong as the 'the non conceptual self is blah blah blah ... buddha blah blah Brahma blah blah  

 

Your understanding is poor. First get hold of the basics correctly and then your questions will dissolve on their own .

 

 

 

   Nah . My understanding is deep , I have the basics well in hand  and it was actually your question I answered even though  you would not answer mine in the first place .
 

 

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

It could be something as simple as a shuffle, or as advanced as an excavator if you have the funds.

 

 

Make sure you get out of it prior to that. Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.

 

I dont mind going in there after I die , save on a coffin and making another hole . I told friends this , but they dont want to do it . They also said if they did that , then  they could not use it anymore . I also said I didnt mind that as I will be dead .

 

Nah, they couldnt handle that .

 

 "   Ohhhhhhhhh   (groan )  ....

 

....  the lack of impermanence awareness ."

 

 

Always someone's gotta do the dirty work. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

And someone who didnt ... gets the prize !   Hooray ! 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

new code for thunder boxes: must have a methane detector, a no smoking sign and a fire extinguisher. 

 

dont forget the disabled ramp access ! 

[Mark Foote]

23 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Down here , having a 'big head' means you  have a lot of self importance attached to your own ego and opinions .

 

Or, if you dont think things through   .......   deep enough  ...... you might have a small tiny puny pin-head .   ( Just some  common person's  'slang' ).

 

 

 

[Ajay0]

13 hours ago, Nungali said:

Its a shame you never read what I wrote or understood it if you did read it .  What you just wrote up there is a total misunderstanding of what I wrote about eudamonia .   It is not a transitory state , it is not happiness / unhappiness  and it does not 'emerge' from , nor is it generated by 'sensory experience' .

 

Eudaimonia in the eastern context, is similar to what is known as Dharma or living based on values. 

 

The performance of duties and Dharma is bound to result in happiness as per eastern philosophy, due to the austerity in duty. 

Dharma is one of the four purusharthas or objectives of human life. By adherence to Dharma through value based living and self-discipline, worldly happiness can be maximised without crossing any moral boundaries .

 

 However the happiness of Dharma is also considered inferior to the bliss of Moksha or enlightenment. It is the adherents of Dharma however who have the highest chance of attaining enlightenment. 

 

Quote

Of course , but its your made up division dues to assigning and labeling things  yourself and slipping them into wrong categories as you are unfamiliar with the state .

 

 You are jumping to conclusions due to poor understanding as usual.

 

 Those familiar with the ancient philosophies of yoga and advaita can understand what I am talking here.

 

You are also claiming that I am unfamiliar with the state. But if you claim that I am unfamiliar, that implies that you are familiar with the state of nondual perception, and can identify the errors. 

 

So why don't you describe your own experience of nondual perception here, other than drug related hallucinations. 

 

Quote

Sure , but I am not and I keep saying I am not, referring to mere 'happiness' .

 

I am contrasting worldly 'happiness' with the bliss of the Self here.  What are you referring to !

 

Quote

Thanks for the lessons in personified ontolgy  , but  I am not disagreeing with that . I was saying grief is of an order much higher than mere 'unhappiness '  ... which somehow caused you to go off about something I am not really saying at all .

 

 There are higher degrees of happiness like ecstasy and higher degrees of unhappiness too, like grief. But those who were grieving have also moved on to higher states of happiness as well and vice versa, clearly showing their nature of being opposites.

 

Extreme happiness or extreme unhappiness are also opposites, if you want  to put it that way, for better comprehension.

 

Quote

 

Easy .   Maybe the Buddha nature is an illusion ? 

 

Ya see .... if the self is an illusion , any thing the self thinks, says or 'realizes' is an illusion as well .

 

 

 

 

But the lower self is already established and considered to be illusory !  What is the truth or benchmark to contrast it with, as in the Self or Buddha nature or any description of your own !

 

Quote

  I was explaining the concept of the CONCEPTUAL self ... and typically , you cant seem to follow the conversation  as a  stream of concepts and answers related to the previous ones .  A common occurrence with today's 'debaters' .

 

But I had asked what you understood by the Self, which is non-conceptual in nature. How can you talk about the conceptual illusory self then as an answer or reply!

 

Quote

My understanding is deep 

Yes, I can see that.

 

Quote

 

I have the basics well in hand  and it was actually your question I answered even though  you would not answer mine in the first place .

 

 How can you talk of equating the Self with this or that when you don't even have a clue on what the true Self is, as per nondual or advaitan philosophy !

 

And how can you realistically expect me to answer your question related to the Self and Buddha nature, when you don't even know what they are in the first place, and have mere uncertain speculations to offer on what they are !

 

Without understanding the basics, you will only jump to greater confusions and never-ending mazes of superficial speculation. Good luck with that. 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Ajay0

[galen_burnett]

@Michael Sternbach “The man who has a dig-pitting unit will most likely have a mobile phone in his pocket.”

 

—Sun Tzu, Twitter Post, 2018.

 

your comment on 22/08/23. “Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.” as an aside, are you implying that the findings of archaeological study in general are inaccurate? 

 

[i meant ‘pit-digging’, not ‘dog-pitting’… or did i..?]

Edited August 23, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

@Ajay0 your reply to Nungali on 21/08/23. “But that still comes under unhappiness ! “ Well you’re splitting-hairs again.

 

“What do you understand by the Self?” again, splitting-hairs: there is no self as distinct from the identity nor ego of your average homo-sapiens, no glorious transcended Buddha-nature beyond the filthy egos of the average person. Everyone has a different shape of identity and each is as valid and as objectively ‘valuable’ as the last. i don’t think we’ll find any agreement here; i will say that in my my own field-of-view i cannot see any such distinction, and i think you have merely been told by proselytisers of these philosophies that such a distinction exists and have not witnessed it yourself; share your experience if you have; but then i will probably just say that you are confusing a Dualistic experience as a Non-Dual one, and are interpreting it as a Non-Dual one due to your indoctrination in these philosophies, and that you would not have interpreted it that way otherwise; but i cannot disprove you nor your belief and neither can you prove it.

 

and your first comment on 22/08/23 is probably the best example yet of belief in the ‘perpetual-bliss’.

 

your reply to Daniel on 22/08/23. these examples don’t necessitate a Non-Dual perception, rather they imply a broadening of awareness such that a greater level of harmony within one’s ‘life-sphere’ is temporarily achieved. i’ve discussed elsewhere in the thread about how you cannot, while maintaining logic, exist in both a Dualistic and Non-Dualistic state—such an existence would be just Dualistic (‘Dualstic state’ is one, ‘Non-Dualistic state’ another; giving us more than one thing). Also there would be no way back at all into the realm of Duality if you merged with the Non-Dual—as I’ve explained elsewhere, simply by being conscious you are in a Dualistic state, as an observer can only observe outside of itself. 

 

see my most recent reply to liminal_luke (of today’s date) for my stance on the ego.

 

yes, conflicts are necessarily Dualistic… how could there ever be conflict in a Unity?

 

Again, in the Non-Dual you would not be able to conceive of anything Dualistic at all, as to do so would automatically kick you out of the Non-Dual. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

@silent thunder 22/08/23 again you’re just another one here splitting-hairs

Edited August 23, 2023 by galen_burnett