To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black or white issue, and this is not down to agnosticism or of proof of the existence of God. Huston argues that both atheism and theism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic thinking of 'God'.
One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses on consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhism. However, there is the underlying idea of non-duality, which may be a perennial one within many traditions. I have had some difficulty thinking about the idea but have been reading recently which I am finding useful in making sense of the idea. I will share its perspective as a basis for critical reflection/analysis?
The book is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment' by Swami Abhayanda' (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non- dualism. It is hard to summarise fully a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, the Judaeo- Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism, and I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.
Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness' in Judaic Scripture, within the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation, 'the Divine Self inherent in man had become a separate being, a god, standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. He argues,
'Such a dualistic view of reality is a failure of vision and results in a narrow and self-alienating view of life. And yet it is this version of the nature of reality, that has influenced the culture of Western civilisation greatly for the last 2000 years...'
The author draws upon various traditions, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the one Soul of the Universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus, the mind remains immersed in the Eternal. Raised to that eternal Consciousness, I saw that all Creation is one coordinated whole, that every movement of every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy.'
His general perspective is one of the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself and of interconnectedness.
I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been many debates on the topic on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so it is a complicated area. Here, in this thread, I am focusing on the idea of non-duality and asking do you see the idea as helpful or not in your philosophical understanding, especially in relation to the concept of God?
One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses on consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhism. However, there is the underlying idea of non-duality, which may be a perennial one within many traditions. I have had some difficulty thinking about the idea but have been reading recently which I am finding useful in making sense of the idea. I will share its perspective as a basis for critical reflection/analysis?
The book is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment' by Swami Abhayanda' (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non- dualism. It is hard to summarise fully a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, the Judaeo- Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism, and I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.
Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness' in Judaic Scripture, within the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation, 'the Divine Self inherent in man had become a separate being, a god, standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. He argues,
'Such a dualistic view of reality is a failure of vision and results in a narrow and self-alienating view of life. And yet it is this version of the nature of reality, that has influenced the culture of Western civilisation greatly for the last 2000 years...'
The author draws upon various traditions, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the one Soul of the Universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus, the mind remains immersed in the Eternal. Raised to that eternal Consciousness, I saw that all Creation is one coordinated whole, that every movement of every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy.'
His general perspective is one of the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself and of interconnectedness.
I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been many debates on the topic on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so it is a complicated area. Here, in this thread, I am focusing on the idea of non-duality and asking do you see the idea as helpful or not in your philosophical understanding, especially in relation to the concept of God?
Comments (127)
When pressed for a quick label, I will use the label of atheist. However, it does give me pause when I do, because atheist is a parasite term. It needs theist to be defined before it is possible to be an atheist. For example, polytheists are justified in calling monotheists, atheists because they nowadays deny the existence of many gods. Or if your definition of God is the most powerful being then I might be a theist (Just depends on if you can prove power can be measured). So, in theist/atheist pairing, I can see one side of a non-dualistic relationship.
The question is the other side. Does theism need atheism to have meaning/exist? The best positive answer I can come up with is, yes because without the denial (atheism) it quickly becomes pantheism. If one cannot say this is not God then everything becomes God. And if everything is God, then God is functionally meaningless. Or it is a fun way to be a closet atheist.
To some extent it comes down to the use of various labels to try to explain the metaphysics of 'reality'. In thinking about whether theism depends on atheism conceptually and vice versa, an essential aspect is what one means by the concept of God, as an idea in the human mind.
In considering the history of theism, it is worth thinking about the origins of religion and supernatural belief. It may be considered in the context of the anthropologist, James Frazer's description of transitions from belief in magic, religion to science. In looking at whether theism itself was dependent on the opposite of atheism, it has to be remembered that ancient people did not have the knowledge of science. Also, it is possible that human beings literally believed that they conversed with gods or God, such as Moses receiving the commandments from God. This was spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes argues that the human beings may have actually heard 'voices', with schizophrenia being a throwback to such experience. He suggests that this involves a lack of differentiation between inner and outer, or subjectivity and objectivity.
It could be argued that it comes down to the way in which opposites are constructed in the human mind, such as embraced by Taoism. There are opposites, such as good and evil, male and female, light and darkness within the framework of a larger underlying unity. The human mind constructs in a dualistic way, so this has led to the development of opposites in historic development, including subjective and objective, as well as theism and atheism, or earlier in Abrahamic religions, as God and the devil.
No. No. And yes I think they are "connected".
(A proper response to come later.)
I see no reason to deny the physical world, and no reason to deny that mind incorporates the non-physical in this same world.
Paradox, to me, is a unity, not a defeat of opposites or a crack in any foundation.
We are the instantiation of dualism; we are the contradiction in the universe (the one word). We are a paradox; impossible yet actual. There is one AND there are many. Parmenides and Heraclitus were both right, and spoke of the same Being, the same Natural world.
I am not an idealist, or a realist, or a physicalist. I see that all of these features are given, are present in the impossible beings that we are.
We are only bodies. AND, we are only spirits. Because spirits are bodily things, and bodies are spiritual things.
I do think there is a unity, but it is paradox, not just ideal reason and thought, and not just one physical universe unfolding, but both in harmonious opposition, as is a human being.
The problem with this idea is that there is no demonstration that idealism is true. Sure, there are various inferences one can follow (a la Bernardo Kastrup), but the arguments aren't overwhelmingly convincing.
Idealism doesn't imply theism. It might get one to a kind of Schopenhauerian Great Mind - some instinctive form of will, without metacognition or a plan. But this is a fair distance from a god as is generally understood. And I don't think god is a helpful word.
Quoting Jack Cummins
We are all one and everything is oneness has been a New Age monistic mantra - coming out of the theosophy movement and 1970's counterculture. God as a precondition of reality (consciousness itself) of which we are all fragments is a good story. But how do we test it? I'm not a fan of personal experince anecdotes. I wonder if 'theism' (an impersonal mental construct or unifier of experience) might be an inadequate and misleading word to use to describe this model of reality.
There are also theistic variations of idealism, but I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion you were not heading there yet.
Paradox is a useful way of seeing opposites. It is like looking at both sides of a coin and realising that they are both aspects of the same coin. Taoism grasped the idea of duality within oneness so well.
It would be hard to defend idealism in the face of science and quantum physics demonstrates duality, such as in particle as a particle and wave. It presents a less certain nature of causality. Idealism would signify the disembodied as more real than the embodied. Non-dualism goes beyond this, but it can be seen as having a foot in idealism when it involves seeing consciousness as the source, whereas materialism sees matter as primary.
What is probably the importance of Shopenhauer here, is the way in which he brought the numinous, or 'thing in itself' of Kant down to being imminent in human experiences as opposed to transcendent.
The 'new age' movement did usher the ideas of interconnectedness. The romanticism of new age has died and may have been replaced by brokenness and isolation. Also, the philosophy of materialistic determinism may be an ideology to support totalitarianism or authoritarianism in its denial of consciousness and free will. Marx spoke of religion as the opium of the people but atheistic materialistic determinism may lead people to loss of meaning, and turning to alcohol and heroin to dull the pain of meaninglessness.
I was around for the New Age movement. I think much of it was a reaction to the brokenness and isolation of the 'me generation' and 'greed is good'. I think a part of culture has always been railing against perceived brokenness and isolation - right through the ages. Most people at the time, as they do now, considered pursuits like the New Age mainly for lost souls, crackpots, the drug addled and virtue signalers. I was one of them. :wink:
Kastrup does a good job using science and quantum physics to argue for idealism. The most compelling arguments seem to be the case against what we used to think of as physicalism.
My issue with this is not really seeing why it matters. Even if idealism is true, it makes no difference to our experience or the choices we make. Which is how I feel about much spirituality and philosophy. We sometimes imagine that the arguments are revelatory, but really all they contribute is an evanescent sense of novelty.
Religion gives you hope, i.e. the belief that things will get better, if not in this life, then at least in the next one. This is the spiritual position. That is why the believer has hope. Since the believer has hope, his belief that there is hope, is completely true.
Atheism does not instill hope because there is no reason for an atheist to have any. This is the purely rational position. The atheist view is completely true. There simply is no hope for someone who is not capable of it.
Both positions are self-fulfilling prophecies. They are both completely true because in this matter, the truth is what you believe it to be.
Some people choose to be hopeful. Others prefer to be hopeless. Everyone chooses what suits him best because there is no compulsion in matters of religion.
There are no partial truths in this matter. Both views are entirely true
I've been told that that's a type of idealism, so... kinda?
"Non-duality", like monism, I don't find as "helpful" (i.e. incisive) as double-aspect theory¹ (e.g. Spinoza's mind-body parallelism of Substance/God) because I assume "the split" is epistemic different, complementary ways of describing the same entity but not ontological.
I also think "materialism and idealism" or "atheism and theism" are logical negations of one another and yet each is consistent with dependent on any of the monist, dualist, pluralist or non-dual ontologies. IMO, "a non-dualistic viewpoint" doesn't "solve" these logical negations (i.e. "the split"), only denies-ignores them.
No. I'm a pandeist²
No. I'm a naturalist³
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory [1]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [2]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/871001 [3]a
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/800071 [3]b
I first encountered it in my late teens through a pamphlet on the Teachings of Ramana Maharishi. I went on to read a lot of related books - in those days, there was the Adyar Bookshop, owned and operated by the Theosophical Society, which had a large range of titles. Stand outs were Swami Vivekananda's books, numerous titles on Zen, and the teachings of Krishnamurti. I think having some knowledge of non-dualism is an essential aspect of cultural and spiritual literacy in today's world.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Early on, I came to understand that any concept of God was bound to be mistaken, although of course that is a difficult point to make. The crucial point that was conveyed to me in many of those books was the centrality of 'realisation'. Realisation, in that context, has two meanings: first, coming to understand, and also, making it real (as a builder 'realises' the design of a house). You learn what it means by seeing it, hence the emphasis on sadhana, spiritual practice.
There's something very different about the way this is conveyed in 'dharmic' religions than in Biblical religions. Explaining it would take a long essay, but suffice to say that while dharma and religion overlap, they're not the same. Dharma is one of those quintessential words that doesn't have a direct equivalent in English, but a lot of people will mistakenly equate it with biblical religion due to their cultural background. See http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
So rather than 'the concept of God', I think dharma teachings convey more a general "sense of the sacred", which in India, appears in many forms, or no form. It's a much more expansive understanding. Through my engagement with those teachings, at least I got some kind of felt sense of relationship to them. I guess you could say some degree of realisation, not that it amounts to any kind of attainment or unique insight. Having realised that, it helped me to re-assess Christian teachings, which in some ways I am closer to now than I was previously, although I'm not a church-goer.
There are some 'Christian non-dualist' teachers. I could mention Father Richard Rohr, a Franciscan monk, who I encountered at the appropriately-named Science and Nonduality Conference.
Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? True or false?
Both answers turn out to be false (Russell's paradox).
Decidable propositions are (either true or false). One of both. Undecidable propositions can be (false and false) or (true and true).
Therefore, the first question is not: Is it true or false? Instead, the first question is: Is it decidable or undecidable?
Religion versus atheism is rationally undecidable of the type: (true and true). This translates into: There is hope for the believers and no hope for the unbelievers.
Nonsense.
Hi Jack
Fascinating question. Yes, non-dualism deals with the split between materialism and idealism, and between atheism and theism. The issues are tricky, however, because of the words.;For instance, 'transcendental' or 'absolute' idealism is non-dualism.
All extreme or 'positive' metaphysical positions are rejected by non-dualism. It states that all such positions are wrong. Philosophers find that all such positions are logically absurd, and this is the central problem of metaphysics, but usually overlook this fact and fail to reject them. Kant makes the situation clear in the Critique of Pure Reason, where he concludes that all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Here a 'selective conclusion' is an extreme position, and 'undecidable' means not what it means in mathematics, but that positive (yes/no) both answers are absurd, rendering all metaphysical questions undecidable. As F.H. Bradley puts it, 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. .
Thus non-dualism does not simply solve the two problems you mention but all metaphysical problems. Simply put, (as I explain at length in a forthcoming book), non-dualism is the only global theory or 'theory of everything' that survives analysis.
This is the reason why metaphysics is not understood in the Western philosophical tradition, which studies every philosophical theory except the one that works. I would suggest that most people could understand philosophy better than most famous philosophers if only they study the only theory scholastic philosophers almost never study.
Russell's paradox is what happens when set theorists do not endorse non-dualism, and many other paradoxes arise.
,
. .
. . , .
Nonsense is a categorical technique:
There is an interesting discussion on hacker news on whether category theory lends itself to analyzing Russell's paradox:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24355739
The answer seems to be "no".
Tricky may be dependent on mere subjective inclination, insofar as there is an established transcendental idealism, while not absolute, is certainly dualistic. Or, perhaps, sufficiently demonstrates the intrinsic duality of the human intellectual nature.
My argument was not categorical. So, your proposition is not receivable.
Quoting Lionino
I know what the problem is with my academic education. I largely spent my time learning how to manually carry out the steps that the following software can do automatically:
Furthermore, in the decades since, I never got the opportunity to use any of that. So, I am the first one to admit that academic training is not necessarily very useful. It was fun, though. And since the education was for free in the United Socialist Countries of Europe -- I even got a scholarship to pay for living expenses -- it could all have been much worse.
It is debatable how much the issue of materialism vs idealism matters; for some it can be pure academic philosophy. In a way, it may matter more to those who come from a theistic perspective, especially in relation to the issue of life after death. Having grown up within a Catholic background, I definitely began with a clear belief in life after death and it has perplexed me ever since.
At one point, the issue was whether life after death would be physical or material. It was round about that time that I began to question life after death seriously. Heaven and hell, reincarnation, karma and nirvana may be symbolic of one's place in the eternal scheme. Nevertheless, coming from the starting point of Catholic or Christian theism, which was rather worrying with the prospect of fear of hell, I continue to find issues of God, or lack of God, as well as concepts of mind, body and spirit fascinating. Non-dualism appeals to me because it encompasses the splits, especially in a way which is a realisation of one's self, or ego, in a way which is part of larger processes, which can be an important part of the experience of enlightenment.
I have started looking at your links but will read them further before making a full reply. My current approach to your post is that you see the issues very theoretically. I am not dismissing theory, because it is certainly a way of navigating one's way around thinking about issue carefully. I try to read the theories for clear thinking, especially in untangling knots of socialised beliefs. But I am not sure that it comes down to ontology completely. There seems to be something deeper, but maybe I say this because I am not convinced entirely by naturalism.
I didn't come across the idea of non-dualism until a few years ago. Nevertheless, even when I was going to Christian Union as a student the Brahman-Atman relationship which I had read about seemed important. I do find the ideas of Eastern traditions more compatible than many in Western theism or atheism. It may come down to a far more contemplative approach to life or a softer, more subtle metaphysics.
I think that you wrote a post to me some time ago about non-dualism. It is interesting that it can be an approach for approaching all metaphysics but is so often ignored within Western philosophy. It may be about the organisation of the right and left brain in thinking, especially within education. It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. Ideally, I would like to be able to blend the two as a more synthetic understanding, going beyond the duality of right and left brain, Eastern and Western philosophy. I am all in favour of seeing bridges rather than inherent splits.
A thoughtful OP.
For me, non-duality is certainly helpful, if not pivotal, to my philosophical understandings. Yet this necessitates a very different perspective compared to mainstream views. Firstly, in the non-dualistic ontology which I hold onto there must - or at least should - be initially clarified different levels of reality (here more stringently interpreted as actuality): the realities/actualities that are strictly private to individual agents (e.g., the reality of the quality of what one experiences during an REM dream which one upon awakening does not share with any other; or, more broadly, the reality of what is nowadays termed one's personal umwelt - which to me currently seems incommunicable in whole); then there is the realities/actualities of mutually shared experiences or else of mutually shared information and interactions (e.g., the reality of languages, cultures, and relationships); then there is the globally singular reality/actuality of, in part, that information which is equally applicable to all coexistent agents (this being the reality of what we know of as physicality). These three distinct, though entwined, realities will however all be dualistic when technically appraised: if for no other reason, in all these there will occur a duality between self/selves and other. Then, finally, there is that reality which is non-dualistic in all conceivable senses. Maybe for obvious reasons, this ultimate reality is hard toward impossible to illustrate via examples - other than by introducing what are typically termed religious or mystical concepts found throughout cultures both past and present. But for the sake of this post, this non-dualistic ultimate reality is - at the very least for all intended purposes - logically identical to what in many a philosophy is termed the Good (Neo-Platonic notions of "the One" as just one instantiation). Once one adjusts to the notion that this ultimate non-dualistic reality is (for lack of better concise terminology) in fact the only reality that actually is in in the sense of being eternally permanent, or static, or fixed (and is thereby both uncreated and imperishable) - to further complicate matters, with this same non-dualistic ultimate reality being one and the same as an egoless awareness that is therefore utterly devoid of any limitations (the complexities of this here placed aside) which, nevertheless, comprises the very essence of any aware being - then one can then intellectually (but not experientially) look back upon the first three layers of reality previously addressed (all of them being dualistic) as a mixture of this ultimate non-dualistic reality (in the form of all co-occurringt instantiations of awareness) and the ultimately transient information it creates (either as individual agents/selves, or as societies, or, far more complexly, via the simultaneous co-occurrence of all agents/selves in the cosmos). I know this mouthful is here poorly expressed rationally, but I'm not here seeking to adequately justify my philosophical outlook, only to outline its key features. So, then, from the vantage of this non-dualistic ultimate reality, all duality will then be interpreted as various forms of maya/illusion. To include all three types of reality first expressed.
The more concise I make this outline, the more implausible or else gappy this worldview becomes. I know. But, again, I won't be expounding on what I find to be the rational consistency of this outlook in this post.
Nevertheless, once this perspective becomes comfortably upheld, one then can quite easily both have the cake and eat it too: Yes, all "form is emptiness" and there can be no thing as a self - this from the vantage of ultimate (and, in at least one sense, the only true/authentic) reality - while at the same time (but in a difference sense) fully acknowledging the truth of physicality and all that it encompasses (e.g., that there can be no living human mind if the human brain gets too badly injured or else perishes; that brain-operations fully correlate to the operations of mind - both pertaining to an individual human self which can quite safely affirm "I am" such that it is other than all which it is not (hence,forever being in a dualistic relation to the world as an I-ness/ego); and so forth). And one can likewise make sense of the Hindu notion of Brahman wherein all currently divided or else separate "witness consciousnesses" are constituents of the true, authentic, or else absolute Self of Brahman (here, though, the true self is utterly devoid of ego/I-ness). But to so comfortably interpret the just aforementioned, all four levels of reality/actuality previously mentioned need to be entertained.
I don't deem this philosophical perspective which I espouse to be either theistic or atheistic. Nor agnostic for that matter. But it is certainly non-physicalist. And it could be understood as one particular type of idealism - or else of neutral monism in so far as both mind and matter are deemed to equally be aspects of the comsic maya/illusion (which, again, shall always be dualistic).
And, as to the concept of God, God can mean many disparate things to different people. As one example of more Western beliefs regarding divinity, or else God, which can be fairly easily interpreted in non-dualistic manners is the Judaic notion of the Ein Sof that can be found in Kabbalah. But this or like notions proper are in no means anthropomorphic; God here is not an ego which creates or controls or determines or judges. Rather it is infinite (in the strictly literal, non-mathematical sense of "devoid of any limits whatsoever") awareness which holds no duality relative to anything other whatsoever yet - to here introduce Aristotelian terminology - "moves everything" despite being itself as infinite being utterly unmovable and part-less (divinely simple). To assimilate this in what I previously described of my own current philosophical perspective, this notion of God as just expressed is identical to the non-dualistic ultimate reality of the Good which I've previously mentioned. But express this same concept to most via the term "God" and most - from my experiences so far most Jews included - will wrongly assume you're thinking of a superlative and incorporeal ego that in some way or another controls everything. Which would be an utterly incorrect interpretation of what is being upheld.
Almost feel like apologizing for getting so personal into my outline of my own currently held beliefs. But then the OP does ask its leading question at a personal level.
In other words, in non-duality, as Im reading it, there is ultimately neither atheism nor theism, all of reality is One (if non-dualism is like monism).
In that sense, maybe it bridges the gap by "telling" both theism, and atheism (and everything in between) that they're ultimately all wrong. Ultimately, it (metaphysically, literally and poetically) makes no difference.
If I may hazard a guess, the so called East (and the farther east you get the more this applied) "did" there philosophy, rather than keeping it in their "heads". While the Brahmins and rest of India created a wealth of theoretical work, they also had Jnana Yoga and the other Yogas. Then by the time Buddhism reaches China, it's stripped of most of the theoretical--iconaclastically--
and the focus is on Zazen, tge exercise of sitting.
Maybe there is something in that which the West, having ignored (in Philosophy, to date), has not "seen." I.e., for instance (and now I'm being almost recklessly hypothetical) that the human organism can by a physical exercise of the body sitting in meditation, come to "see" with its organic senses, released very briefly from Mind's constructions, that all in Nature (what we call the Universe) is One. A thing that cannot be arrived at in theoretical reflection where difference, logic, cause, effect, are necessary mechanisms. How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality. Perhaps, though very vaguely, meditation has been a gift to the Eastern thinkers.
Some popular history: a seminal event in the history of this particular cultural moment, was the Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, 1893 (link to wiki entry). Amongst the presenters were Swami Vivekananda, of India's Ramakrishna Mission, Soyen Shaku, a Japanese Rinzai Zen master, Anagarika Dharmapala, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk. 'The Parliament of Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the World's Congress Auxiliary Building (now The Art Institute of Chicago), and ran from 11 to 27 September, making it the first organized interfaith gathering. Today it is recognized as the birth of the worldwide interfaith movement.' After this session, Vivekananda stayed on the US, travelling the country by rail and giving lectures. He was by all accounts a charismatic and magnetic speaker. The Vedanta Society of New York was set up by him, active to this day, and now headed by the erudite Swami Savapriyananda. The California Vedanta Society has also been around a long time, and was frequented by Alduous Huxley and Christopher Isherwood, among others.
Soyen Shaku also had a major impact, and came to stay in San Francisco after the event. He was accompanied by his private secretary, one D T Suzuki, who went on to become a major populariser of Zen Buddhism in America, lecturing at Columbia University in the 1950's and 60's. Soyen Shaku too planted the seeds of the later flourishing of Zen centres throughout America and beyond.
That is where a lot of non-dualist teaching entered Western culture, although there were elements before it, and many after it. But the Parliament of Religions was a major source.
Quoting ENOAH
Actually, there is what is designated the 'wisdom-eye' of 'discriminative wisdom' (Sanskrit 'viveka' - the root of Vivekananda's name.) There is a form of 'higher knowledge' throughout the yogic and Buddhist texts (unpopular though that suggestion might be in the secular flatlands). It is called by various terms including Jñ?na or Prajna - notice the 'gn-' root which is the common indo-european root of 'gnosticism'.
I do accept that there is a state which might be called the 'unitive vision', but that it's strongly associated with samadhi, states of trance and metabolic suspension which enables yogis to maintain stillness of extended periods of time. Those states of meditative trance are very clearly mapped out in the early Buddhist texts, but they're extremely rare and difficult to attain (and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.) There appear to be some who have a natural inclination or ability to fall into those states, but again, they're few and far between. (I think Krishnamurti was one.)
But I agree with you that this general orientation is much more strongly presented in Eastern philosophies than in Western culture, especially since the Renaissance.
Are you suggesting (I'm not taking issue) that The explanation for samadhi as expressed in Vedanta etc, is the physiological thus inducing, say, an "illusion" of unity? Or just that this extremely rare experience of unity is organic based (as in metabolic suspension etc)?
You said:
Quoting ENOAH
I'm not disagreeing. But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. As I mentioned, earlier in life I read of the teachings of Ramana Maharishi. It seemed very clear and almost obvious, but really it isn't. He himself, after his initial realisation, went to a 'sacred mountain' to reside, and became almost completely indifferent to food, shelter and insect bites. Had he not been noticed by the local villagers who brought him sustenance, he might well have perished. As it was, he passed many years in silence, before his reputation as a sage gradually attracted a following. But he is a classical 'Indian ascetic sage'. And mine is another world altogether. I'm middle-class, bills to pay, children to raise, prone to any number of distractions and ordinary human foibles. I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least.
Agreed,
Quoting Wayfarer
vehemently.
Im not disagreeing either. (Meaning, as I jump in here, that I agree.)
But if you see it at all, you arent fully being it, so arent really seeing it.
Losing the self while becoming, which is forever a becoming the self, is rare indeed.
To realize the oneness one must lose the ability to realize anything INTO the oneness. Its why mystics call this enlightenment of losing the self both becoming one with the world consciousness, or one with total emptiness.
And its why I love paradox.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think its also ok to be distracted, particularly when the distraction is another person. But maybe thats just wishful thinking, since it is nearly impossible to devote oneself to not-oneself as the sages and saints do.
I feel you're approach is spot on. The relationship between Western philosophical thinking and the Perennial philosophy,is quite a simple matter underneath all the details.
I was impressed by a Catholic Bishop I heard speaking recently on YT, who was expressing the view that God Is Being. Leaving aside the issue of whether 'God' is the right word in this context he is basically endorsing the |Perennial philosophy.
Have you read much of Eckhart? He bridges the gap between theism and atheism. So also does Plotinus. The latter tells us that to call the One (the Ultimate) God or Mind is to 'think of it too meanly'. Eckhart takes the same view, and speaks of what lies beyond God. Their view is not strictly theism or atheism. which is where you seem to be going.
My view is that unless one is going to sit in prayer, meditation and contemplation for a very long time these issues cannot be untangled without a careful study of metaphysics. . .
And if we do 'untangle' these issues, what's next?
Kant's idealism - for which space and time are empirically real but transcendentally ideal.- is quite a vague affair, but it could be interpreted as a first step towards non-dualism. It doesn't go far though, so you're right to say it remains dualistic.However, I tend to think that if Kant had come across Nagarjuna then his idealism would have become non-dualism overnight. At any rate, Kant was certainly on the trail of the Perennial philosophy and, as you say, demonstrates that we live in a world of opposites of our own making, The categories of thought and all that.
. . .
Well, once we have calculated that only one world-theory works and identified it then all we need do is study it. We then have a sound understanding of metaphysics and only need develop it.
The calculation is quite straightforward, but the theory that emerges is anything but. .
Insofar as theism posits a creator separate from, though affecting, its creation (duality), atheism means rejection of theism (non-duality), no?
Likewise, if idealism posits both minds and ideas (duality), then materialism posits that only 'matter' is real (non-duality)?
Perhaps idealism and materialism are also, in effect, generalizations of theism and atheism, respectively. :chin:
(NB: In my case over forty years ago, materialism (subset of naturalism) was a consequence of atheism rather than the other way round.)
What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation? What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?
Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?
Quoting Keith
Does "supernatural" need "natural" to exist or have meaning or is it the other way around? If its the other way around in that supernatural is only meaningful in the light of the natural, then it would seem that everything is fundamentally natural including God and the domain God resides in.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Information is both mind-like and physical-like. Information is fundamental, not mind or matter.
It also comes down to consistency in the way one accepts evidence for any claim. Theists, I would argue, are inconsistent because they require evidence for some claims to believe in them while others they depend on faith.
I, on the other hand, only accept any claim when there is sufficient evidence to support it. All claims with the same amount of evidence have the same amount of weight, regardless of the claim. Inconsistency is a type of dualism, in that you accept some claims based on evidence and some on faith with no logical reason as to why.
Non-duality would entail treating every claim the same in requiring evidence and dispensing with faith altogether. Claims for which there is no evidence are just that and not useful beyond making the claim.
This isn't to say that atheists are not inconsistent either. They make claims in other philosophical domains, like politics, for which there is no evidence or evidence to the contrary. I am talking about being consistent across all philosophical domains.
I don't consider myself an atheist anymore than I consider myself a non-believer in unicorns. There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims, but does that mean we need labels for every (potential or possible) claim for which there is not sufficient evidence to support it, or do we simply need one label - reasonable/logical?
That can be a problem in difficult times when what you need is hope while the situation looks utterly hopeless. There simply is no evidence that things will get better. It does not exist. Still, the only way to sit out a bad patch, is to believe it anyway in spite of having no evidence.
The rational person will reasonably give up, while the spiritual one keeps going. This phenomenon seems to be enough to explain why atheist societies do not last long enough to actually make it into the history books.
Quoting Tarskian
Some of the most famous atheists ( Sartre, Marx, Derrida, Nietzsche) believe that rationality evolves or becomes, so that todays evidence becomes tomorrows superstition. By the same token, spirituality and doubt walk hand in hand. Perhaps these atheists have a more reliable approach than the faithful.
Well, at best, theism is incoherent.
"Idealistic" (i.e. supernatural).
Yes. However, theism posits a supernatural creator of nature, which is incoherent.
I prefer anti-supernatural (though absurdist (Zapffe-Camus) would do).
Interesting notion. How would you suppose non-dualism to arise from it, on what .logical? . ground would it be possible?
The way in which you describe religion points to the way in which, in its extreme, religion can give comfort of salvation and atheism to nihilism.
At the moment, a friend who has become a Jehovah Witness, keeps sending me 'preachy' emails, saying that the Bible holds the 'truth' for the troubles of the world, the 'end times', which will be replaced by a better world for the righteous to inherit. Such people cling to hope, which may be similar to the romanticism of the 'new age'.
In connection with Swami Ahhanyananda as a figure, my first approach in reading his book, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', as he describes his life in a cabin in the wilderness, in his own quest was that it would be so difficult to do this in the current time. That is because it is so difficult to establish a life detached from others in the West. To participate in life in the West one needs is subject to ID checks and reliant on the internet for so much. Most exploration of ideas, even about spirituality, is done online.
One other aspect which he speaks about is how he followed Ram Dass initially.Then, he found out that Ran Dass had a 'dark side' with his sexual relationships with women and attempts to conceal this. He stopped following Ram Dass and his teachings for some time. What this shows is that even though the ideas of the East may be an appealing alternative, the dark side of religion, or human nature, shows up in Eastern as well as Western religions and spiritual movements.
It is a good question whether it is necessary to have theism or atheism before one gets to non-dualism. It may be possible in secular society, which is science-based and plural, to get to non-dualism but,historically, most form of non-dualism emergent in the East came after the Hindu belief in gods. Nevertheless, even though Hinduism had many gods there was still a belief in an underlying 'oneness'.
Also, even though theism preceded atheism, many aspects of ancient philosophy, including Greek and Stoic philosophy were less dependent on belief in God than in the thinking of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.
Not all the ones who have hope, will be saved. However, the ones who do not believe that there is hope, will probably not be saved. A good way to understand the true power of hope, is to talk to people who have no capacity for hope. The suicide prevention helpline talks with the worst cases every day. Both hope and the lack thereof are probabilistic self-fulfilling prophecies. That is why I'd rather put my money on people who cling to hope than on people who are not capable of hope.
To have no hope can be to be at the end of one's tether and suicidality. I have known people who have committed suicide or attempted it in the face of despair and loss of all hope. One book which I found useful for thinking about this is by James Hillman, 'Suicide and the Soul', in which he argues within suicidality, there is usually a wish for transformation. This is dependent on hope to some extent, although acknowledging despair is probably essential as well.
Bringing this back to the topic of theism and atheism, it is possible that both can lead to suicidal despair. The first person who I ever knew who committed suicide did so after becoming an evangelical Christian. That is because rather than being filled with a sense of salvation, he saw himself as so sinful. In some religious perspectives the duality comes down not to good being projected 'out there' metaphysically onto God as a separate being. The Biblical account of 'the fall' of the angels and mankind, with the idea of original sin, is a bound up with assumptions of duality.
It does seem that materialism arose as a consequence of atheism rather than the other way around. Personally, I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others.
One book which I have been reading recently is 'Berkley: A Guide for the Perplexed', by Talia Mae Betcher (2008). Berkley's idealism may have been a central one and it was connected with theism. It holds that only ideas and spirits exist, to the point where even objects and the external world are seen as mind-dependent. He denies the existence of matter. This is open to a lot of potential criticism.
Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley. Also, the philosophy of Sartre sees the existence of matter and bodies as à starting point. It does come down to what is primary, in the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unity. The way in which non-dualism departs from such perspectives is that it sees mind as embodied, but sees consciousness, as the source, whether this is called 'God' or not.
Kant places the Ultimate beyond the categories of thought, which is just where the Perennial philosophy places it. He sees this as a matter of logic, as do I. Thus it is easy, with a few tweaks, to reconcile Kant's analysis in the Critique with the Middle Way doctrine. Both require a particular approach that allows one to transcend the dualism intrinsic to dialectical logic.
The idea that the categories of thought are not fundamental immediately gives rise to the principle of non-duality and the rejection of all dialectically opposed metaphysical positions, I suspect Kant would have seen this if only he'd known something of Buddhist philosophy, . . . . . .
.
.
. . . .
Well, I think materialism (i.e. only 'the material' is real) is a form nondualism.
On the contrary, they preceeded Berkeley by millennia in both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions.
I.e. [s]Descartes[/s] or Spinoza. The scientific description of the latter is embodied cognition (A. Damasio, G. Lakoff, T. Metzinger).
Note that they might be right about the Bible, but wrong in their interpretation of it. Babies and bathwater and all that.
If God exists, then who created the circumstances of your hopelessness in the first place to then look to it for hope? God created childhood cancer, schizophrenia, our bodies that have the capacity to be tortured, etc. I can imagine a more moral universe than the one we live in today, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to live in this one. This one isn't all that bad, so hope isn't necessary for me to continue existing - just the curiosity to continue to see what happens next. As Christopher Hitchens once put it, death is like being told you have to leave the party when the party is still going on.
I think that anti-supernatural is too restrictive. Maybe anti-delusion?
As for absurdism, I believe that meaning/information is the relation between causes and effects, so meaning is everywhere you care to look, hence my claim that information is fundamental, not mind or matter which are complex configurations of information.
What meaning/information is useful at any moment depends on ones present goal in the mind. This is why you may determine that some bit of information is irrelevant to your current goal but that does not mean it is irrelevant in all cases. It depends on what your goal is. Usefulness is a relation between some bit of information and your goal in the moment. One could say that it is process/relations all the way down (Whitehead).
Why do you think so?
The incessant attacks on every living being are inevitable.
In the beginning, when God created the universe, he decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence. What about me? Said the original nothing. Now that the universe exists, I have disappeared. Can I also seek to exist? The universal Lord responded: Yes. There are no exceptions to the law. You have the right to attack and destroy everything that exists in the universe in order to reappear, including every living creature.
The reason why the original nothing has the God-given right to attack and destroy us, is not an injustice. On the contrary, it is the consequence of divine justice. The original nothing is not doing anything illegal. On the contrary, he may be our enemy but he is also a faithful and obedient servant of the universal Lord. God could have chosen to be unjust to the universal nothing but he didn't.
Hence, creating a more moral universe than the one we live in today was not possible. Such universe would have been based on a glaring fundamental injustice.
I could argue that the political parties have become like religions with their faithful followers that believe what their leaders tell them without question. Political parties should be abolished. I am as a-political as I am a-theistic (or anti-group-think).
Citations?
Really though, if God is eternal then there was never nothing to begin with. If nothing can speak, "What about me?" then how can you say that it is nothing as SOMETHING was said, or asked? These are the type of inconsistencies I am talking about. You make a claim without incorporating the other characteristics associated with God, like being eternal. You are compartmentalizing.
This is what I personally believe about it. It is original.
Quoting Harry Hindu
There was no universe. That state is what I mean by "nothing".
Quoting Harry Hindu
Time did not exist at that point. Hence, it wasn't a sequence of sounds.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Time did not exist at that point. All of this took place outside time. Time is just some byproduct of the expansion of the universe. Time is not even universal within the universe itself. It depends on the position and even the speed of the observer. God was there when time did not even exist. God created time as part of the universe.
God exists outside time. Therefore, the term "eternal" confuses the matter, because it implies an arbitrarily long time. How I see it, is that God existed before time and will exist after time, when the universe will be gone. What is even the meaning of "time" at a point in which it does not even exist or no longer exists? Furthermore, time will never become arbitrarily long or "infinite". Time will cease existing when it is still finite.
I (mostly) agree but, since the relevent context of this thread discussion implicitly concerns "religion" (and explicity and more broadly concerns metaphysics), I think anti-supernatural is more precise and specific than "anti-delusional" (or, as you said earlier, "rational/logical").
Oh. Ok. So if one holds with the idea that the categories of thought are fundamental and fundamental necessarily, the principle of non-duality fails.
Quoting PeterJones
What is this Ultimate? By what other (non-Perennial philosophy) conception might it be understood, given that the Kantian categories of thought are the ground always and only for a posteriori cognitions?
It is not my wish to be contentious, but being embedded in Western Enlightenment speculative metaphysics in which rational extravagances are properly cautioned, sorta prejudices one against various and sundry forms of ineffable mystical experiences.
It doesn't fail. It's just that you don't agree with Kant and reject the Perennial philosophy.
This is the question metaphysics has to answer.
In metaphysics it takes the form of a neutral metaphysical theory.
I'm talking about metaphysics. You can believe what you like about ineffable experiences. the logic is inexorable, as Kant shows. As F.H. Bradley puts it, 'metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. This leave just one option, which is a neutral theory. These are demonstrable facts that do not depend on what anyone believes.
It's just a matter of doing the sums. No need to abandon your rationality. I imagine every philosopher discovers the truth of Bradley's remark, which merely restates Kant's conclusion. Do you dispute this fact? Or do you interpret it differently to Kant and Bradley? . .
. ,
I do see the query as to whether materialism is a form of non-dualism, especially as that was my first thought when I became aware of more 'spiritual' forms of non-dualism. The mind-body problem is made so complicated by an apparent duality of mind and body, but a clear connection between the two.
I have read some of Damasio's writing and it is fairly well argued. It may be hard to entangle the underlying basis of the unity and know if there is an primary basis of mind and matter because they emerge together. It may come down to first causes and it is hard to know whether the matter arose from consciousness or vice versa. In a way, it may not be important as a tangent, although it can be seen as of importance in knowing whether there is any 'spirit' involved as an eternal source of consciousness.
Quoting PeterJones
If Kant placed this Ultimate, wouldnt he have already asked and answered as to what it is? Im trying desperately to understand how Kants idealism could be tweaked to a non-dualistic system by placing the Ultimate beyond the categories of thought, when it is the case Kant never placed the Ultimate anywhere, insofar as, to my knowledge, he never mentioned the concept in the first place.
Now, Kant does indeed place the unconditioned beyond the categories of thought, that towards which pure reason always directs itself in its purely metaphysical exploits but for which it never attains an object, but even if this is the case enforced by transcendental logic, it still leaves vacant the notion of non-duality necessarily arising from it. Not that it couldnt so arise, but that it hasnt been explained how it could.
And no, I dont reject perennial philosophy; I simply dont have any use for it, that expositions on critical thought hasnt already sufficiently dismissed.
. For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error .
Seems like Bradleys metaphysics does not endorse a positive result isnt quite right after all. Powerless for harm seems a rather positive endorsement, nest ce pas?
Well, there are a variety of interpretations of Kant's transcendental idealism. I interpret him as saying that the phenomenal world consists of mere appearances. This is Buddhist doctrine. Also, he places the origin of the intellect beyond the categories of thought on which the mind depends. He say that this phenomenon would be the central explanandum for a rational psychology, and no mystic would disagree.
Crucially, Kant realizes that all selective conclusions about the world-as-a-whole are undecidable. This is because all extreme or positive metaphysical positions may be reduced to absurdity. If Kant is right then it would be irrational and perverse to endorse one (as I believe). The only other option is a neutral theory, which is the theory endorsed by the Buddha, as was proved by Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. . . .
I'm not sure I understand your point here but suspect I may have addressed it already. For the non-dual doctrine or a neutral metaphysical theory nothing really exists or ever really happens. So the mind will never achieve the unconditioned as an object. There's no object for it to achieve. For non-dualism one has to look beyond mind to its origin. This cannot be done by the mind, of course,which is why scholars can never hope to understand non-duality in the way meditators and contemplatives come to understand it, as an actual phenomenon. . .
I would say that if you have no use for it then you have rejected it. Perhaps you feel you've done so for good reasons, but clearly you believe it is useless.
{quote] . For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error .
Seems like Bradleys metaphysics does not endorse a positive result isnt quite right after all. Powerless for harm seems a rather positive endorsement, nest ce pas?[/quote]
You've misunderstood Bradley's statement. I should have explained it. A 'positive' metaphysical position is a 'yes' or 'no' answer to a metaphysical question. (EG. To say we have freewill or do not have it to adopt one of two opposed positive metaphysical positions.),Metaphysics, which is to say logic and reason, does not endorse any such position since they may all be reduced to absurdity. ,
To say 'metaphysics does not endorse a positive result 'is to say that it is an immensely valuable and effective discipline. Bradley calls it the 'only effective antidote to dogmatic superstition' (He cites orthodox theology and materialism as paradigm examples of superstitions against which it protects us.)
If we know metaphysics does not endorse a positive result then we know that a neutral metaphysical theory is the is the only one that survives analysis. This is an extremely simple point, but one can only see it if one knows there is such a thing as a neutral theory and this would require knowing something about mysticism. Few do in Kant's tradition, so confusion reigns. He characterises Western metaphysics as an arena for mock fights where nobody ever gains an inch of ground. This, I would suggest, is the price of not studying the Perennial; philosophy.
You made some good objections, but don't forget that people have been trying to find a telling objection to (what we now call) the Perennial philosophy for thousands of years without success. .
Quoting Jack Cummins
In light of Spinoza's dissolution of the "MBP" derived from the illusion conceptual incoherence of Descartes' substance duality (or Aristotle's substance plurality) which I've previously alluded to here , what actual "problem" remains to be discussed?
Supernatural = over nature
Quoting Harry Hindu
supernatural is only meaningful in the light of the natural, then it would seem that everything is fundamentally natural including God and the domain God resides in.
The conclusions soundness seems to depend on the prefix super-, which of course means over. However, over covers up two distinct concepts. Does it mean above (over and not touching) or on (over and touching)? If it means on/connected to then supernatural just means artificial. Humans trick nature into doing things beyond their natural ends all the time. But at the same time, it is just human nature to do artificial things. Therefore, the difference is just direct and indirect. So, in this sense, we have a mutually arising relationship like the one you described.
On the other hand, Platonic monotheists have actively pushed the unconnected sense. Their God creates ex nihilo and is the unmoved mover. It is the radical other that by definition can not be embraced. It always sits outside any harmonization project like non-dualism.
In short, above all else it rests on over.
If non-dualism is an actual phenomenon, according to meditators, what is it that appears? What is it that physically, quantitatively, exists, as effect on sensibility, which all an appearance was ever meant to indicate? Which sensory device is affected by a non-dual appearance, in order for the scholar or the regular joe to immediately intuit anything with respect to it?
While it is true the mind cannot look beyond itself, it is equally true the mind is that by which everything conceivable is looked for; there is no other irreducible originator of whatever it is that humans do pursuant to their intrinsic intellectual capacities.
If it be granted the human mind is a purely logical system, and as such, for any possible conception the negation of it is given immediately upon the spontaneity of the conception itself, it is then self-contradictory to suggest the origin of non-dualism can only reside beyond the mind, when it is necessarily the case dualism originates within it. If dualism is given, or if not given then at least determinable by the mind, and if the principle of complementarity holds, then it is necessarily the case the concept of non-dualism also originates under the same conditions and therefore from within that same mind.
So it would seem, despite what meditators and contemplatives would have it, the origin of non-dualism must be beyond the mind, or beyond the mind as scholars and regular joes understand it, for no other reason than that form of mind used by other than meditators cannot justify the conception beyond the principle by which it is a valid thought.
And from that arises the notion that the categories of thought, which legislate the speculative methodology of the scholars mind, in which the relation of conception and intuition are determinable, are not necessary functionaries for a mediators/contemplatives notion of mind from which non-dualism would manifest.
Which gets us right smack dab into the phenomenal/noumenal dichotomy, insofar as, while it is irrational to degrade the distinction itself as impossible, re: noumena are conceptually valid but still only intuitively impossible, it remains the fact there is no non-contradictory means of constructing judgements with respect to empirical representations of them.
It follows that a mind predicated on an intrinsic duality cannot possibly originate that which is contradictory to it, but that in itself is not sufficient to prove another kind of mind also cannot, which immediately leaves it possible another kind of mind can originate a non-dualism absent its antecedent complement.
But how would an intrinsically dualistic mind, such as a human mind, which must include the minds of meditators and contemplatives insofar as these are humans, ever even enjoin to that which for it, is impossible?
. From all this it is evident that rational psychology has its origin in a mere misunderstanding. The unity of consciousness, which lies at the basis of the categories, is considered to be an intuition of the subject as an object; and the category of substance is applied to the intuition. But this unity is nothing more than the unity in thought, by which no object is given; to which therefore the category of substancewhich always presupposes a given intuitioncannot be applied. Consequently, the subject cannot be cognized. The subject of the categories cannot, therefore, for the very reason that it cogitates these, frame any conception of itself as an object of the categories; for, to cogitate these, it must lay at the foundation its own pure self-consciousnessthe very thing that it wishes to explain and describe .
On the other hand, of course in one respect you are quite right:
. those who are engaged in metaphysical pursuits are far from being able to agree among themselves, but that, on the contrary, this science appears to furnish an arena specially adapted for the display of skill or the exercise of strength in mock-contestsa field in which no combatant ever yet succeeded in gaining an inch of ground, in which, at least, no victory was ever yet crowned with permanent possession.
Hence the fun in philosophizing well, or, as ol Rene admonishes, rightly conducting reason: display of skill in which no one is embarrassed, and an exercise in strength in which no one gets hurt.
Those who have paid any attention to my posting history should know that I have found a philosophical home in Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching" and R.W. Collingwood's "An Essay on Metaphysics." My responses here will reflect that.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is also true of Taoism as described by Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and others.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Lao Tzu and I see this as an issue that goes beyond spiritual issues of immanence and transcendence to more mundane issues. This from Stephen Mitchell's version of Verse 2 of the "Tao Te Ching."
Quoting Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm more or less in agreement although Taoism takes a kinder, gentler, i.e. less judgmental view.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Here's where I roll out the metaphysics, which everything discussed in your OP is. As Collingwood and I know, we don't have to choose non-dualism, materialism, idealism, atheism, theism, or any other ism. None of them are true or false, right or wrong. They are intellectual tools we use for particular purposes in particular situations. Believing that some metaphysical positions are true and some are false strikes me as dualistic. Hmm...do I really believe that? I'll have to think more. I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. When I do scientific stuff, I'm mostly a materialist, a realist, a dualist I guess. When I do philosophy, I'm always a pragmatist and mostly... what? I guess an idealist, anti-realist, or non-dualist.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Theism is a difficult issue for us metaphysicians. It's kind of a hybrid - half a matter of fact - God either exists or it doesn't - and half metaphysical. I can make what I think is a legitimate metaphysical argument for God. This is not the place to do that. Maybe I'll start a new thread.
Do you believe that one metaphysical position is true and all the others - materialism, realism, anti-realism, idealism, physicalism, existentialism, and so on and so on - are false? You have always struck me as a pragmatist and that idea, to me, is very unpragmatic.
I forgot to respond to this in my last post. As you know, non-dualism goes back much further than the New Age movement. The Vedanta, Buddhism, and Taoism go back as far or further than the earliest Greek philosophers.
I agree with this. I'll have to go back to the "Critique of Pure Reason." I'll also take a look at Bradley.
There is not only one world-theory that works he said definitively. They all work, more or less, for better or worse, sometimes, in certain situations.
I have a strong interest in Taoism and I was surprised, when I finally got around to reading the "Critique of Pure Reason," how much common ground there was.
Is this from Bradley? Do you have a reference?
Do you believe this is true?
Quoting Mww
I think this is right, although I think it's more than just "meditators and contemplatives" who see it that way. I am neither, and I do. I also consider myself a regular Joe. As I see it, Kant's noumena and Lao Tzu's Tao are "beyond the mind."
Quoting Mww
Does this mean you reject noumena as a useful metaphysical concept?
Quoting Mww
An interesting idea. I don't think it's accurate. Wait... maybe I do. I'll think about it more.
Quoting Mww
Where is this quote from? I think it's wrong, or at least misleading.
Thank you for reminding me of Lao Tzu's writings, because they do capture the descriptive issues of Tao. Sometimes, even though the concepts of theism and atheism and other positions are useful as a tool, they can become too rigid as ways of seeing. Indeed, transcendent and imminent can be seen as dualistic, which is the way human thinking involves splitting.
Labels are central to both theories and metaphysics, as ways of trying to analyse the way in which life works, as the aspects beyond physics. For many it may come down to science gradually, with philosophy almost as an apologetic appendage. Even science, founded in empirical knowledge is only descriptive understanding. Science and philosophy can become split, with so much validity being placed on the 'truth' of science when the abstraction of creating scientific theories and models involves the metaphysical and metaphorical imagination.
The idea of a 'neutral theory' is an interesting one as being seen as objective. Kant thought that he was able to establish it by a priori logic. It does come down to the issue of whether there is an absolute 'truth' and the perennial philosophy is an interesting alternative to Kant because it involves pluralistic understanding based on intersubjective common principles.
However, the concept of a neutral theory may be still problematic because it is bound up with meanings and values. For example, the choice of the dual options of theism or atheism may come down to psychological and pragmatic concerns in choices of how to perceive the nature of 'reality'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/914581
Yes, I think human thinking is naturally drawn to dichotomies.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree with this.
I haven't said anything is false - gods, idealism. Just that they haven't been adequately demonstrated. Hence I have no good reason to beleive them. I'm not saying they are not true - that's a positive claim I can't justify. Skepticism rather than pragmatism.
Quoting T Clark
Indeed the source of the new Age movement and some fairly soft core version of the perennial philosophy. I just meant the recent morphing of this.
I guess skepticism says "I don't have enough information to know." Pragmatism says "It doesn't matter, just pick one that works.
But, perhaps, ironically, I can say skepticism 'works' for me - in most cases I can't believe in things for which I have no good evidence.
You have chosen an uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote.
I have been reading about Spinoza's philosophy and as far as I can see there is a lot of ambiguity over how his ideas are interpreted, especially the equation between God and nature and his idea that God was 'nothing other than the whole universe'. As an alternative to atheism it can be viewed as suggesting that 'God' is in every aspect of nature.
I am currently looking at a chapter by Varadara V. Raman, 'Thoughts on Deism and Pandeism', in , 'Pandeism: An Anthology of the Creative Mind' (ed Mapson and Perry.in which it is argued that, God,
'is there in the heart of grand supernova as in the singularities of dismal black holes. He is mutely present in every breath of Man as in every neuron fired in the brains. The Creator is into the Creation: In creatura creator. A crude analogy would be a playwright who writes a one-hero play and gets into its performance himself: not very common, but not impossible, especially for God. This is the God of pandeism.'
In that respect, the duality of nature and God can be seen as more consistent with non-consistent with spiritual non-dualism as opposed to the materialistic one. The choice of seeing nature/consciousness or God/consciousness may be the duality of choice inherent in human thinking.
All is well if one avoids extreme positions. Non-dualism is not directly opposed to theism or atheism. They are two extreme ideas that oppose each other. Thus folks on both sides of the God debate reject mysticism.
Lao Tzu's remark 'True words seem paradoxical' is better translated (and sometime is) as 'Rigorous words seem paradoxical' - to avoid the idea that they are true as opposed to false in a dialectical sense. If they were true or false in the usual dialect6ical sense then hey wouldn't seem paradoxical. . . .
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. The inherent duality of human thinking is the reason non-duality is such a difficult idea. In metaphysics. For Lao Tzu's position we have to look beyond the categories of thought.
I treat the concept of mind as something everybody knows what is meant by it even if there really isnt any such thing, and from that, I prefer to say pure reason is a purely logical system, but the subject at the time this came up was mind, and the nonsense of getting beyond it, so
Quoting T Clark
Oh absolutely. I treat noumena as the proverbial red-headed stepchild .hes here, by accident, cant pretend he isnt so obligated to set a place at the table for him, but no freakin way hes gonna be included in a will. Noumena in the Kantian sense are born from the faculty of understanding over-extending itself into the forging of general conceptions for which neither the remaining components of this particular type of cognitive system, nor Nature Herself as comprehended by that same system, can obtain an object.
Quoting T Clark
It is Kant, B422, and concerns expositions surrounding the self as a closed, private, all-encompassing concept represented by I think, what Kant calls the unity of consciousness, and how that concept is misused by treating it as an object, which is what I meant by reification of pure conceptions.
Gotta remember the times of the thesis, long before neuroscience and those fancy-assed brain waves the average smuck ..er, sorry, I mean .those of common understanding , re: 99.9% of humanity .couldnt possibly care less about.
-
Quoting T Clark
Kant, Bxxxi, (translator-specific). Yeah, true, huh. Guys every-damn-where. Think of something having to do with theoretical human cognition, pre-quantum physics, morality/religion .plate techtonics, tidal friction, rotational inclination, relativity of space and time (sigh) theres a Kant quote relatable to it.
Hmm. I wonder why you think this. I can state definitively that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible,and can be reduced to absurdity. This is what Bradley means by saying metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. I can also state that a neutral theory, which is the only alternative, cannot be reduced to absurdity. I'm not sure why,. as a fan of Lao Tzu, you would think this doesn't work. After all, there's got to be one theory that works.
.
I did not post this quote. Not sure where it comes from but it sounds like Bradley. .
For sure. But, there would be no fools gold, were there no gold, says Rumi.
Strongly recommend a 1955 book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, T R V Murti, which has extensive comparisons between Kant and Buddhist philosophy. Not well favoured in todays academia, but I recommend it nevertheless.
Non-dualism is a fairly difficult perspective because it involves going beyond splits, or binary divisions. It is a bit like the title of the Waterboys' song, in trying to see, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It involves awareness of partiality in epistemology in trying to be aware of the 'other side' of perception.
I wasn't thinking of any particular metaphysical position when I wrote that, I was thinking that believing any metaphysical position is truth apt, as they say, is dualistic. That was just off the top of my head.
Quoting PeterJones
I'm a fan of R.G. Collingwood's "An Essay on Metaphysics," which gave me words to support my intuitions about metaphysics. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood thought that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, they have no truth value.
So, we agree that metaphysical positions are neither true nor false, but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind your reasons. I think you and I may be kindred spirits when it comes to metaphysics.
Maybe we can talk about this some other time.
Quoting Mww
Well, I disagree with this - strongly. Kant's discussion of noumena is, for me, the most interesting part of "A Critique of Pure Reason." It parallels the thought of Lao Tzu, whom I think highly of.
Quoting Mww
As I've said elsewhere, I need to reread the Critique.
I don't say metaphysical positions are true or false, but they are unavoidable and can be useful at particular times in particular situations. I see them as tools in the philosopher's tool box. You need the right tool for the right job.
Sure. Whatever suits you.
Quoting T Clark
Yeah, I get that a lot. But I dont mind; it merely exemplifies the earlier blurb .
. those who are engaged in metaphysical pursuits are far from being able to agree among themselves
.in Bxv, and this in Bxxxiv:
. useful truths make just as little impression ( ) as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths
And while no metaphysical theory is properly judged by its true/false quality, none of them should be judged absurd, merely from disregard of that relative attribute, but from each ones internal logical consistency and each ones non-self-contradictory construction.
I would judge them based on usefulness.
Ok, but how would you recognize usefulness? What does a metaphysical theory do, such that it is useful for that thing?
There is a strong revival of classical philosophy around right now. Im subscribing to a couple of feeds on Medium and Substack about stoicism and other schools of ancient philosophy. All of them concern the transformation of perspective, it is fundamental to philosophy as a way of life that they were concerned with. The required change in perspective is more than conceptual or hypothetical, which is what makes it so hard to communicate or discuss. A term Ive learned from those sources I mentioned is anagoge. In ancient philosophy, the term "anagoge" (from the Greek "???????") refers to a process of spiritual or intellectual ascent. It signifies the act of rising or leading upward, often used to describe the movement from a lower, more material or literal understanding to a higher, more abstract or spiritual comprehension.
In particular, "anagoge" has been employed in various philosophical and theological contexts to indicate spiritual elevation and the soul's journey towards a higher state of knowledge or insight beyond the mundane. It also refers to an allegorical or mystical interpretation of sacred texts, where the reader is led from the literal or historical meaning to understanding a deeper perspective.
This is not so much discussed as assumed in classical schools of Indian philosophy including Advaita (non-dualism). It is understood and expected that the student (chela) will maintain high moral standards in the pursuit of philosophical insight, under the direction of a spiritual preceptor (guru).
As I understand metaphysics, it consists of the underlying assumptions, what Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions," that provide the foundation for our understanding of the world, reality. As a possible example - Science, at least as it is commonly understood, operates in a material universe. One of the absolute presuppositions of science and materialism is that the world is lawful and that those laws apply everywhere and at all times. That's impossible to verify, it has no truth value, but without it, science can't work.
Another - Taoism works on the assumption that the fundamental ground of reality is unnamable - it can't be conceptualized or understood. This formless entity is known as the "Tao." Lao Tzu fully recognizes the irony of giving a name to the unnamable.This from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching.
Quoting Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching
Particular things, which Lao Tzu sometimes calls the 10,000 things, represent the objects, ideas, things, that exist in our world, including horses, wavefunctions, love, 1040 forms, Immanuel Kant, i.e. all of reality. This is from Verse 40.
Quoting Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching
Being is the world of the 10,000 things. Non-being is the Tao. I am oversimplifying. In a sense, the world we know doesn't exist until it is named. This way of seeing things was revolutionary for me. It brings together ideas that I had been thinking about for a long time. What we learn empirically, what we can know and understand, includes factors that we, human beings, provide as we name, conceptualize, things in the world. That means that materialism's objective reality is not the only way of seeing things.
These two perspectives seem to contradict each other and to a certain extent they do. But they also can work together to temper each other. Materialism is useful for methodological purposes. Taoism is useful for showing us that we need to take human understanding in to account too.
If I may go to the source and read Ethics (Edwin Curley's translation); however, if you must read secondary literature, I recommend Spinoza by Stuart Hampshire. Careful reading of either book should clear up (most of) this "ambiguity" you're finding.
Spinoza does not argue this. Regardless of the laziness of centuries of academic fashion, Spinoza is an acosmist¹, not a "pantheist" or "atheist".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/528116 [1]
I don't think so. "The playwrite" would have to transform himself into "the play itself" (analogously) that's pandeism².
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [2]
Quoting Wayfarer
A modern expression of this process ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_ladder
Quoting T Clark
Akin to atoms swirling swerving & recombing (in) void ...
Yes, ³it's the least rational and pragmatic "way of seeing things" except for all the others tried so far.
[naturalism [physicalism [ materialism ]]] [3]
I have gone back to reading Spinoza(not sure which translation on my Kindle), although I am finding it 'heavy weather). It may be that Spinoza was challenging the theism with which he was familiar. However, it still has to be recognised that he was writing in a historical period so different from the current one. This makes his correspondence with current thinking, such as neuroscience, mere speculation. Of course, it is possible to reframe his writings in such a way but that does mean acknowledging that it is interpretation, as is any use of a historic philosopher in thinking about issues of the current time.
I guess it is very different when one is reading books, such as ones on non-dualism in the pursuit of philosophy as opposed to under the guidance of a 'guru'. It is important to remember the context, and how it was connected to ideas for application in spiritual searching and living as opposed to simply being about analytical issues.
A great deal of confusion arises over this issue. It is not difficult to prove that most presuppositions are rejected by analysis, but when we say an extreme view is false we usually mean that the opposite view is true, (eg theism vs atheism). This is the A/not-A logic of the dialectic.
For the Middle Way 'view' we have to reject both A and not-A,but both would normally contain something of the truth. On this view our presuppositions do have a truth-value, but their value is partial. It is therefore better to say they are wrong or unrigorous rather than strictly true or false in a dialectical sense. But if we presuppose that the Middle Way doctrine is true no problems arise.
This issue deserves a thread of its own. I see what Collingwood is saying, but the reason metaphysical problems arise is that we can, in fact, decide that most presuppositions do not make sense and don't work. Hence, for instance, Nagarjuna argues that all positive positions (presuppositions) are logically indefensible, rather than strictly true or false. That is to say, theism and atheism would be wrong, but neither would be false in the sense that the opposite view would be true. Both would describe an aspect of the truth, or contain some truth, and both would be wrong. .
To sort this one out would require going back to Aristotle and his laws of logic. I'd say Collingwood 's view (as stated) is roughly correct but rather misleading . . .
.
I'd be happy to dive into the logic if you want to go down that rabbit-hole. I feel that one reason metaphysicians struggle with metaphysics is that they don't pay enough attention to the rules for the dialectic and often violate them. .
It certainly seems we're on the same wavelength, which is a happy situation.. . . . .
Yes. It requires seeing the unavoidable divisiveness of our perceptual/cognitive system, as noted by Kant, thus the need to look beyond perception and cognition for the eternal Tao. . .
Fair synopsis, yes.
One mans absolute presupposition is another mans principle?
Quoting T Clark
Ok, I can live with that, as long as the world (as it is) and the world (as we know it), are taken as two very different things.
-
Quoting T Clark
Agreed, in principle, but with two distinct and separate paradigmatic conditions, re:
..first, whether or not the senses are involved on the one hand, and way of seeing things is a mere euphemism for understanding, on the other. Understanding a material thing is possible without that which is objectively real, but for knowledge of that which is material, the objective reality of it is a necessary condition;
..from which follows the second, insofar as for humans generally, materialism, being a monistic ontology, is necessarily conjoined with some form of epistemological foundational procedure, in order for the intellect, as such, to function.
Does your Taoist metaphysical theory satisfy these conditions? And if not, how does it get around them and still maintain its usefulness?
But if neither is true and either false, there is no problem.
Quoting PeterJones
Again, I favor the neither true nor false position. Again, no problems arise.
Quoting PeterJones
I have started three or four discussions on this and similar subjects over the years and I mention Collingwood in almost every thread I don't mention Lao Tzu.
Quoting PeterJones
As I wrote in a recent post to Mww, metaphysical positions don't have to be true or false and they don't have to "work," they only have to be useful.
Quoting PeterJones
It strikes me, ironically enough, that Collingwood's view is neither correct nor misleading, it's metaphysics.
Quoting PeterJones
Now that would be a good subject for a new discussion - I've never understood the value of the dialectic or what it even means. I'm all for moderation in all things, but it feels pretty namby-pamby. It seems more complicated than Collingwood's formula.
I guess the world as it is would be the Tao and the world as we know it would be the 10,000 things in your formulation, similar to Kant's noumena and phenomena.
Quoting Mww
I probably don't agree with this. When I wrote "way of seeing things" here, I'm talking about metaphysics. Also, I don't understand what you mean by putting "knowledge" in opposition to "understanding."
Quoting Mww
I don't understand this.
Quoting Mww
I have three possible responses 1) No, 2) I don't know, and 3) I don't understand.
It seems we are far from kindred spirits after all. If I held your view I'd abandon philosophy immediately.as a waste of time. A theory that doesn't work would be completely useless. I'm very confident that a neutral theory works and that all others do not. How would you go about proving otherwise?. .
II wondering why you bother with metaphysics if this is your opinion. What would be the point in talking about it? Do you really believe that the Perennial philosophy has a metaphysical foundation that doesn't work and is incorrect? Wow.
You've just made my point for me. If you haven't studied the dialectic then metaphysics will be incomprehensible and you won't understand what I have to say about it, or indeed what anyone who endorses the nondual doctrine has to say about it. I see metaphysics as a science of logic, and I can't see any way to reach an understanding of it without having a clear grasp of the rules.
Only if one knows the rules can one see the mistake that most philosophers make and avoid making it, I'm,gobsmacked by your approach. If you're right then what would be the point of doing philosophy?
.
Not in opposition, as a consequence. Understanding is means, knowledge is ends, in accordance with Kantian theoretical metaphysics.
Perhaps one could say the usefulness of this theory is the explanation for how knowledge is possible.
-
Quoting T Clark
I think to be useful is to explain something I want to know. But youre right; some things can be explained quite well, without the possibility of ever being proven right or wrong. Admittedly, I dont have enough experience with Taoism to know whether it explains anything or not, but I suspect that theory relies less on pure logical constructs than does speculative idealism, and because of that, is more susceptible to self-contradiction when reduced to principles, which may happen when one asks of it .well, just how does that come about?
Anyway .to each his own?
Sure. This has been a good conversation.
Don't limit yourself.
Is it not relevant in a thread discussing religion and metaphysics to assert that religion is a type of delusion? And does this assertion provide a non-dual "bridging" between theism and atheism in showing that applying logic to all beliefs, not just religious ones, is a monistic solution to the duality of faith vs. reason, and an attempt to get at the inconsistent (dual) application of logic/reason to some beliefs and not others (faith)?
Would the answer to the thread's question not provide some useful implications for other types of beliefs, like in unicorns, dragons, aliens, mutants, dark matter and energy, etc.?
The only relationship between supernatural and natural I'm interested in is causal. It doesn't matter where God is relative to it's creation. God is the cause, the universe is the effect. Our actions in the natural determine where we end up in the supernatural after we die. It's all causal and temporal. Whether it be indirect or direct, it's all part of the same reality.
Using a more precise and specific term "anti-supernatural" in this case is no more limiting (imo) than using a better, perhaps the best, tool for the job.
I didn't say or imply "delusional" is not "relevant" in this context but that it's too broad and psychologistic rather than a precise and metaphysical term like supernaturalistic.
No. Atheism, as I've pointed out up-thread (p. 2), implies nonduality by rejecting theism which consists of (e.g. creator-creation, spirit-flesh, supernatural-nature) duality.
I suppose that depends on how one answers ... which thread question? :chin:
.
From my point of view non-duality means monism (there is only one substance) and duality means dualism (two substances). But I am not a substantialist. Substance means that which is absolute, exempt from relation that conditions its existence or its being.
For me the classical concept of God is framed in substantialism and dualism. So the only way that atheism can be closer to theism is to the extent that such atheism is substantialist and such theism is not dualist. Therefore the first meeting point is monistic pantheism.
If dualism refers to the mental thing and the material thing, the classical theism of a personal God cannot be in agreement with a monistic pantheism, since it starts from the distinction between spirit and matter, etc.
I studied non-dualism (actually Advaita) as a unit in comparative religion, and one of the first things we were taught is that non-dualism is *not* monism. Im now vague on exactly what was said, but it was along the lines that, in order for there to be one, there has to be another in order to be aware of it. Non-dualism means, rather, not-divided or not-two - actually the meaning of Advaita is literally that, as a- is the negative particle in Sanskrit (equivalent to un- in English) and dvai is dual or divided. So the meaning of Advaita is really undivided or not two, and what it really means, is overcoming or dissolving the sense of otherness that normally pervades all of mundane existence. As such its dangerous to make a theory or hypothesis out of it, as it is not a matter of propositional knowledge, but a state of being (designated sat-chit-ananda, being-knowing-bliss.)
As I remember, advaita philosophy resorts to a process of identification just like monism. As I understand it, there are three metaphysical realities that identify themselves: Brahman the Absolute, j?v?tman as individual sentient entities, Jagat as the physical universe. It is hard to not understand this as classic monism. Also I don't think that the via negativa (such as negative theology, "neti-neti") is enough for exclude advaita from monism since there is such identification in metaphysical realities.
I wonder how different the atheism of substance dualism is from theism. I know that there have been threads on substance dualism and that I have engaged with you on the topic many times. At one point, I remember you comparing it with the difference between an Afro hairstyle and a bald head, an interesting analogy but I am not sure if it is that clearcut.
The difference may be theism often speaks of God as a being and nondualism with Being itself as the foundation of everything. I wonder about how different this really is and such theism and atheism as a different linguistic stance as opposed to an entire difference in metaphysics. In particular, even though Buddhism doesn't portray a specific 'God' the understanding of consciousness may be similar to ones that speak of the 'divine'. Ancient thinkers, such as Stoicism, thought in such a way rather than the dichotomy between theism and atheism which arises in the phllosophy of religion as it stands presently.
The division between matter and spirit is an interesting one. It may involve the visible and invisible and it may not be completely distinct, with quantum physics showing this to be a fuzzy area, such as Davis Bohm' s idea of the indifference between the implicate and replicate order. It may be about processes itself in the nature of manifestation in nature and life.
Bald is not a hair color; there is no "dichotomy" between bald (atheism) & blonde (theism). I can't follow the rest of your post, Jack.