Eastern mysticism

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

In fact, you already have all the evidence you need to know that the Eastern Mystical God exists. If you fail to believe in this God it can only be because you don't understand the religion. Because if you did understand the religion you could not deny its God. At least not as the religion defines it.

The tables are turned in Eastern Mysticism. In other words, if you wish to argue for a purely secular materialistic existence, then the burden for that claim is on your shoulders. You'd have to explain how that can be true.

Over to Divine Insight or anyone that can explain it please.

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

[Vango]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Strictly speaking, the current Buddha is not the first ever Buddha but by definition, a Buddha must be self-awakened. He must therefore strive to find the path, he cannot be shown the path. A Buddha therefore cannot arise until the current knowledge of the path has been forgotten in this world (universe/multiverse?). So in fact there have been Buddhas before the current one and there will be Buddhas after the current Buddha only once Buddhism itself dies out.

Also, I didn't say that the path taught by the Buddha is all knowledge. The Buddha only teaches the path to enlightenment because as he says, that is what we need to know - that is to our benefit. I guess you could say we are on a need to know basis. So the Buddha teaches the nature of all things (all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all things are not self) and the path that leads to complete cessation or complete awakening.

[Divine Insight]

Strictly speaking, the current Buddha is not the first ever Buddha but by definition, a Buddha must be self-awakened. He must therefore strive to find the path, he cannot be shown the path. A Buddha therefore cannot arise until the current knowledge of the path has been forgotten in this world (universe/multiverse?). So in fact there have been Buddhas before the current one and there will be Buddhas after the current Buddha only once Buddhism itself dies out.

I have never heard this about Buddhism in my entire life. In fact, it seems to actually be the anti-thesis of Buddhism. You are actually suggesting that a person has a better chance of obtaining enlightenment if they never heard of Buddhism.

Also why in the world would Siddhartha have gone around the countryside teaching people the path to enlightenment if knowledge of that path is actually detrimental to them achieving it?

What you have just said makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Also, I didn't say that the path taught by the Buddha is all knowledge. The Buddha only teaches the path to enlightenment because as he says, that is what we need to know - that is to our benefit. I guess you could say we are on a need to know basis.

But you just said above that teaching the knowledge of the path to enlightenment is futile and that enlightenment can only be attained by someone who is self-awakened. If that's true then there would be no point in trying to teach the path to enlightenment to anyone.

So the Buddha teaches the nature of all things (all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all things are not self) and the path that leads to complete cessation or complete awakening.

Actually the idea that there is a need to escape samsara predates Siddhartha. So it's understandable why he would put things in that context. I'm personally not even convinced that there is a need to escape samsara. It may ultimately be impossible to escape samsara. Samsara itself may be the ultimately truth reality.

In any case, all Buddhists clearly do not believe the version of Buddhism that you favor. I think also that there is most likely even controversy among those who favor Theravadin Buddhism on these concepts.

Those who believed in Theravadin Buddhism often had major disagreements on many fundamental issues, and this disagreement in Buddhism gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism a form of Buddhism that tried to restrain from jumping to conclusions about specific concepts and actually focused on "the path".

In any case, I'm not surprised by your position since it is coming from Theravadin Buddhism. Theravadin Buddhism is kind of a like "Buddhist Fundamentalism".

I actually prefer the views of Mahayana Buddhism myself. And I favor Tantra Buddhism over that.

And in the end, I actually prefer the fundamental ideas of Taoism over Buddhism entirely.

And finally I don't view any of these philosophies as source of truth. They are simply philosophies as far as I'm concerned. Some of them just happen to offer ideas that seem like they could potentially be plausible.

As soon as they try to act like they actually "know" something with certainty they become "Religious Dogma".

For example your following claim sounds like nothing more than a superstitious belief.

Strictly speaking, the current Buddha is not the first ever Buddha but by definition, a Buddha must be self-awakened. He must therefore strive to find the path, he cannot be shown the path. A Buddha therefore cannot arise until the current knowledge of the path has been forgotten in this world (universe/multiverse?). So in fact there have been Buddhas before the current one and there will be Buddhas after the current Buddha only once Buddhism itself dies out.

This isn't a philosophy. This is a very specific claim. It's a claim that has no evidence. Where did this knowledge come from? What human actually knows that this claim is true?

These kinds of claims fall under the category of "unwarranted superstitions" as far as I'm concerned.

This is not something that could be arrived at from pure philosophy. This is claiming to have very specific knowledge of something that is obviously beyond the human experience.

[ttruscott]

...

Actually the mystics have that covered very well in great detail. I'm not going to bother trying to explain it here,

Actually I would disagree with you on this completely. Free will does not explain why people suffer in this life. ....

Free will certainly does explain why people suffer in this life, but I won't bother to try to explain that here....again.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

...

Actually the mystics have that covered very well in great detail. I'm not going to bother trying to explain it here,

Actually I would disagree with you on this completely. Free will does not explain why people suffer in this life. ....

Free will certainly does explain why people suffer in this life, but I won't bother to try to explain that here....again.

Peace, Ted

Free will by itself does not explain it. By the way people have free will in the mystical religions too.

Also, your form of "Christianity" actually uses a concept of reincarnation. You have claimed many times that the people who are born on earth had already sinned before they were born. So I think the Mystics have you beat on that one. They just don't call it "sin", they simply call it karma. It may be good karma or bad karma. Clearly some people are not suffering in this life. How do you explain that if all are sinners?

If all are sinners, then why are some people suffering and others not?

[Vango]

Strictly speaking, the current Buddha is not the first ever Buddha but by definition, a Buddha must be self-awakened. He must therefore strive to find the path, he cannot be shown the path. A Buddha therefore cannot arise until the current knowledge of the path has been forgotten in this world (universe/multiverse?). So in fact there have been Buddhas before the current one and there will be Buddhas after the current Buddha only once Buddhism itself dies out.

I have never heard this about Buddhism in my entire life. In fact, it seems to actually be the anti-thesis of Buddhism. You are actually suggesting that a person has a better chance of obtaining enlightenment if they never heard of Buddhism.

Also why in the world would Siddhartha have gone around the countryside teaching people the path to enlightenment if knowledge of that path is actually detrimental to them achieving it?

What you have just said makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Oh dear. I haven't explained this well at all because I have made certain assumptions. You are of course more familiar with Mahayana Buddhism which considers a Buddha to be anyone that has attained full awakening. This is not the case for Theravadin Buddhism. A Buddha is a self-awakened being and therefore by definition cannot arise while knowledge of the path still exists in the world. Whilst a fully awakened being is called an Arahant (ar Arahat in Mahayana Buddhism).

Also, I didn't say that the path taught by the Buddha is all knowledge. The Buddha only teaches the path to enlightenment because as he says, that is what we need to know - that is to our benefit. I guess you could say we are on a need to know basis.

But you just said above that teaching the knowledge of the path to enlightenment is futile and that enlightenment can only be attained by someone who is self-awakened. If that's true then there would be no point in trying to teach the path to enlightenment to anyone.

Hopefully I've cleared that up.

So the Buddha teaches the nature of all things (all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all things are not self) and the path that leads to complete cessation or complete awakening.

Actually the idea that there is a need to escape samsara predates Siddhartha. So it's understandable why he would put things in that context. I'm personally not even convinced that there is a need to escape samsara. It may ultimately be impossible to escape samsara. Samsara itself may be the ultimately truth reality.

In any case, all Buddhists clearly do not believe the version of Buddhism that you favor. I think also that there is most likely even controversy among those who favor Theravadin Buddhism on these concepts.

I don't think so. http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_s.htm

Those who believed in Theravadin Buddhism often had major disagreements on many fundamental issues, and this disagreement in Buddhism gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism a form of Buddhism that tried to restrain from jumping to conclusions about specific concepts and actually focused on "the path".

In any case, I'm not surprised by your position since it is coming from Theravadin Buddhism. Theravadin Buddhism is kind of a like "Buddhist Fundamentalism".

Indeed it is. That is the reason I chose it. It is the oldest form of Buddhism extant in the world today.

I actually prefer the views of Mahayana Buddhism myself. And I favor Tantra Buddhism over that.

And in the end, I actually prefer the fundamental ideas of Taoism over Buddhism entirely.

And your preference is your right.

And finally I don't view any of these philosophies as source of truth. They are simply philosophies as far as I'm concerned. Some of them just happen to offer ideas that seem like they could potentially be plausible.

As soon as they try to act like they actually "know" something with certainty they become "Religious Dogma".

For example your following claim sounds like nothing more than a superstitious belief.

Strictly speaking, the current Buddha is not the first ever Buddha but by definition, a Buddha must be self-awakened. He must therefore strive to find the path, he cannot be shown the path. A Buddha therefore cannot arise until the current knowledge of the path has been forgotten in this world (universe/multiverse?). So in fact there have been Buddhas before the current one and there will be Buddhas after the current Buddha only once Buddhism itself dies out.

This isn't a philosophy. This is a very specific claim. It's a claim that has no evidence. Where did this knowledge come from? What human actually knows that this claim is true?

These kinds of claims fall under the category of "unwarranted superstitions" as far as I'm concerned.

This is not something that could be arrived at from pure philosophy. This is claiming to have very specific knowledge of something that is obviously beyond the human experience.

Totally agree. However, when I make comments like this it is because these "claims" are in the sutta texts. Of course they cannot be proven one way or the other. Claims of jhana attainments and the paths, however, can be proven one way or the other so it is far more important to focus on the path factors than any other side issues.

[Divine Insight]

Totally agree. However, when I make comments like this it is because these "claims" are in the sutta texts. Of course they cannot be proven one way or the other. Claims of jhana attainments and the paths, however, can be proven one way or the other so it is far more important to focus on the path factors than any other side issues.

The question I have it so ask precisely what "claims" are being made?

In terms of the many philosophical claims that are being made I'll agree that these claims can be "proven" at least in terms of subjective realizations whether through paths of meditation, or even via intellectual enlightenment where a person simply recognizes the intellectual truths of many of these things in an "Ah ha", moment.

But many of those realizations can be attained via pure secular philosophies.

So what can a person actually "know" via Buddhism or techniques of Buddhism about reality that a pure secular atheist cannot know?

Also pure secular atheists can use meditation techniques as well, if they want to. There is nothing that states the Buddhism owns the patent rights on mediation.

In fact, pure secular atheism seems to have a very good handle on the concept of emptiness. They actually prefer to embrace that concept directly without expecting anything more from it. But Buddhism seems to want to imagine that there can be something more than this. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a glorified form of pure secular atheism.

[Vango]

Totally agree. However, when I make comments like this it is because these "claims" are in the sutta texts. Of course they cannot be proven one way or the other. Claims of jhana attainments and the paths, however, can be proven one way or the other so it is far more important to focus on the path factors than any other side issues.

The question I have it so ask precisely what "claims" are being made?

In terms of the many philosophical claims that are being made I'll agree that these claims can be "proven" at least in terms of subjective realizations whether through paths of meditation, or even via intellectual enlightenment where a person simply recognizes the intellectual truths of many of these things in an "Ah ha", moment.

Whilst there is some benefit in intellectual understanding of the concepts, the real benefit is from experiential understanding. Many of these concepts are even difficult to explain with words - one needs to experience them.

But many of those realizations can be attained via pure secular philosophies.

So what can a person actually "know" via Buddhism or techniques of Buddhism about reality that a pure secular atheist cannot know?

Also pure secular atheists can use meditation techniques as well, if they want to. There is nothing that states the Buddhism owns the patent rights on mediation.

In fact, pure secular atheism seems to have a very good handle on the concept of emptiness. They actually prefer to embrace that concept directly without expecting anything more from it. But Buddhism seems to want to imagine that there can be something more than this. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a glorified form of pure secular atheism.

Secular Buddhism is an invention of the west. Frankly, without samsara, there is no need for Buddhism. So the west is better off just taking some meditation techniques and practicing them in this lifetime so they can feel better about their highly materialistic lives. And we see this in the adoption of Buddhist meditation techniques in clinical psychiatry.

[Divine Insight]

Frankly, without samsara, there is no need for Buddhism.

I agree. But therein lies the problem. Samsara is a fundamental faith of Buddhism. It's not something that can be known. On the contrary it's something that must be accepted on faith. Of course, in the East many mystics accept it as being a "self-evident" truth. But the problem is that there is no evidence for samsara in terms of the mind, or consciousness, or awareness.

So it is on that very point that it becomes an unprovable philosophy.

You could never convince me that you can know the truth of samsara through mediation or experience. How could you possibly know this to be true? You can't. Unless you are able to know something that is far beyond what most humans know. But I don't believe that any mystic can know any such thing.

I believe it makes far more sense that they are deluding themselves just as much as the Christians are if they believe that they can "know" this with any kind of certainty.

I confess that I have intuitively felt that I have always existed. I feel like there was never a time when I was not and there will never be a time when I will cease to exist. I've had these feelings since early childhood and I still have them today (no meditation or Buddhist philosophy even required).

The problem remains however: How can you be sure that your intuitive "experience" is actually reflecting reality?

After all, it necessarily must be samsara of conscious awareness. Otherwise it's just pure secular atheism. Atheists will grant that all the energy of existence continues on after we die. But if our conscious awareness is not specifically carried on, then Buddhism is doing nothing more than agreeing with secular atheism.

[Vango]

Nice meaty response that we can have fun discussing!

Frankly, without samsara, there is no need for Buddhism.

I agree. But therein lies the problem. Samsara is a fundamental faith of Buddhism. It's not something that can be known. On the contrary it's something that must be accepted on faith. Of course, in the East many mystics accept it as being a "self-evident" truth. But the problem is that there is no evidence for samsara in terms of the mind, or consciousness, or awareness.

So it is on that very point that it becomes an unprovable philosophy.

You could never convince me that you can know the truth of samsara through mediation or experience. How could you possibly know this to be true? You can't. Unless you are able to know something that is far beyond what most humans know. But I don't believe that any mystic can know any such thing.

I believe it makes far more sense that they are deluding themselves just as much as the Christians are if they believe that they can "know" this with any kind of certainty.

Well obviously it is far beyond what most humans know otherwise the vast majority of humans would be awakened and that is clearly not the case.
So, I have just one question to ask you. How long does a thought last - in a permanent, unchanging single thought state? It would be good to be able to measure it but suffice it to say (yes, for brevity's sake I will answer the question) it lasts but a moment. So clearly the mind itself dies off moment by moment and is regenerated moment by moment. In fact, in the first jhana, it is easy to see the mental thoughts as they arise, as they are sustained and as they cease. Then there are vast time periods between when the next thought arises and the whole process repeats itself with seemingly nothing connecting the two thoughts. So there is one example of how we arise and cease in samsara all the time. Physically the body is also doing this all the time especially on the subatomic level.

I confess that I have intuitively felt that I have always existed. I feel like there was never a time when I was not and there will never be a time when I will cease to exist. I've had these feelings since early childhood and I still have them today (no meditation or Buddhist philosophy even required).

Yes, the mind it funny like that. It gets itself into habits which are then what form one's "personality", "memories", "feelings", etc.

The problem remains however: How can you be sure that your intuitive "experience" is actually reflecting reality?

Very tricky one! The mind is trying to trick itself all the time. Only after many years/decades/lifetimes of noticing can one start to awaken to reality.

After all, it necessarily must be samsara of conscious awareness. Otherwise it's just pure secular atheism. Atheists will grant that all the energy of existence continues on after we die. But if our conscious awareness is not specifically carried on, then Buddhism is doing nothing more than agreeing with secular atheism.

Atheists will not grant that "energy" does anything of the sort. Atheists are mostly materialists and state that nothing lives on after death. But then the Buddha also categorically states according to the suttas that nothing lives on after death. In fact in one of the suttas he rebuked one of his monks for stating otherwise. But this has nothing to do with atheism as atheism is strictly the non belief of gods. That is why any Buddhist is also an atheist. No gods, no worship, no supplication required. In fact, I often refer to myself as an atheist. Atheists do also tend to be skeptics and that is where their materialism beliefs come in. I have been sin-binned in an atheist forum for daring to declare the the mind and body and be separate. C'est la vie.

[Divine Insight]

Well obviously it is far beyond what most humans know otherwise the vast majority of humans would be awakened and that is clearly not the case.
So, I have just one question to ask you. How long does a thought last - in a permanent, unchanging single thought state? It would be good to be able to measure it but suffice it to say (yes, for brevity's sake I will answer the question) it lasts but a moment. So clearly the mind itself dies off moment by moment and is regenerated moment by moment. In fact, in the first jhana, it is easy to see the mental thoughts as they arise, as they are sustained and as they cease. Then there are vast time periods between when the next thought arises and the whole process repeats itself with seemingly nothing connecting the two thoughts. So there is one example of how we arise and cease in samsara all the time. Physically the body is also doing this all the time especially on the subatomic level.

You are talking about concepts here that I have considered many times from many different angles. Actually you're asking the wrong question when you ask how long a moment last. Time is totally irrelevant. The question isn't a question about time or duration, but rather the question is to simply ask, "What is it that is having this experience?"

That is the important question. The duration which the experience lasts is irrelevant. The fact that experiences are in a constant state of change is also irrelevant. The fact is that my experience is only (and always) associated with what's going on in my brain (including any sensory input that my brain may be processing). My thoughts have "continuity" in this way.

For example, I don't experience really from the perspective of my brain one moment, and then experience reality from the perspective of your brain the next. Every single experience I have is from the perspective of my brain. So the duration of these experiences or how they change over time is not nearly as important as the fact that all of these experiences are tied directly to the perspective of a single brain.

So the question of how long these experiences last, or whether or not they change is basically irrelevant. The real question is "What is it that is actually having this experience?"

Can you answer that question?

And also, why and how are my experiences apparently totally separate and disconnected from yours" (unless of course we are interacting and thus sharing common stimuli), but that still wouldn't be the same experiences, it would just be a sharing of stimuli which our brains translate into experiences.

I confess that I have intuitively felt that I have always existed. I feel like there was never a time when I was not and there will never be a time when I will cease to exist. I've had these feelings since early childhood and I still have them today (no meditation or Buddhist philosophy even required).

Yes, the mind it funny like that. It gets itself into habits which are then what form one's "personality", "memories", "feelings", etc.

Well, ironically my mind seems to have gotten itself in a habit early in in childhood that many Buddhist seem to think should require a lifetime of mediation.

The problem remains however: How can you be sure that your intuitive "experience" is actually reflecting reality?

Very tricky one! The mind is trying to trick itself all the time. Only after many years/decades/lifetimes of noticing can one start to awaken to reality.

But what is reality then?

Are you the being that is aware? If so why are you trying to trick yourself?

Is the "mind" something different from you? And if so, then what exactly do you believe you are?

After all, it necessarily must be samsara of conscious awareness. Otherwise it's just pure secular atheism. Atheists will grant that all the energy of existence continues on after we die. But if our conscious awareness is not specifically carried on, then Buddhism is doing nothing more than agreeing with secular atheism.

Atheists will not grant that "energy" does anything of the sort. Atheists are mostly materialists and state that nothing lives on after death.

I would disagree with you are on that point. I've been a scientist my entire life and I think it's safe to say that all secular scientists believe that everything that constituted your existence will live on after your death. The only question that remain is whether or not the experience of the whole affair is itself material.

Ironically materialists don't believe that you "mind" (or awareness) is material at all. On the contrary they see this a being some sort of feedback loop that occurs due to the function of your biological analog computer that we call a "brain".

There is no reason to believe that this "configuration" lives on after it ceases. The energy can continue on, but the energy is no longer in the configuration required to have an experience.

But then the Buddha also categorically states according to the suttas that nothing lives on after death. In fact in one of the suttas he rebuked one of his monks for stating otherwise.

Sounds like pure secular materialism to me.

But this has nothing to do with atheism as atheism is strictly the non belief of gods. That is why any Buddhist is also an atheist. No gods, no worship, no supplication required.

I think it's pretty fair to use the terms "Pure secular atheist" and "Pure secular materialist" interchangeably. I don't think that secular materialists believe in any Gods. And I think that most pure secular atheists have not much choice left but to believe in a purely materialistic world.

In fact, I often refer to myself as an atheist. Atheists do also tend to be skeptics and that is where their materialism beliefs come in. I have been sin-binned in an atheist forum for daring to declare the the mind and body and be separate. C'est la vie.

Well, to make such a claim does suggest that you should have evidence to back it up.

I personally don't think of the mystical views in that way. I would never claim that mind and body are separate. On the contrary I would claim that they are inseparable. And this included being separated in the way that pure secular materialism attempts to do.

My argument goes as follows:

1. Somethings exists. (that should be accepted as self-evident)
2. Something is having an experience (again this should be self-evident to anyone who experiences reading these words)
3. I conclude that whatever exists is having this experience.

I make no separation between the two partly because I see no reason to do so, and also because I can't personally understand what would be having an experience if not the something that exists.

So this would hardly require a separation of mind and body. Neither can exist without the other. It's a holistic view of reality that requires no separation between anything.

I confess that it is problematic. Because even though I just said that it requires no separation between things, in a way it actually does. For example, you experience is separate from my experience. Why is that?

Well, actually secular materialism explains precisely what that is. Each experience is due to individual feedback loops in individual biological computers, and this is why experiences are separate.

To stick with the holistic picture I need to imagine a single cosmic mind that simply allows for many different facets of experience to be taking place within it simultaneously. And that's what I then try to imagine. Actually in our modern day of computers, and with my deep understanding of how computers work (not just digital computers, but analog computers too) I can understand how a cosmic mind could potentially pull this off. It also makes sense why it would want to play this game.

This leave the Eastern mystical philosophies "open" to me. In the sense that I cannot rule them out, and I can even imagine ways in which they can be plausibly implemented.

But I confess too that the pure secular materialists might be onto something as well.

The only real problem that I have with the pure secular materialistic view of reality is that not only does all the material need to exist "magically". But it also needs to coincidentally be of the form that it can actually evolved into biological computers that can self-construct feedback loops in order to somehow magically created an experience as an "emergent property" of this basically innate material. Innate in the sense that this material has no ability to experience anything.

So for me, the "emergent property" theory of pure materialism seems to be at lease as absurd and magical as the mystical picture.

So as far as I can see either reality is equally absurd, and potentially equally plausible.

~~~~

But here's the bottom line. You seem to be suggesting that if we mediate and quite our minds enough we can actually have an experience that will allow us to differentiate between these two possible realities.

I just can't see that.

What could you possibly "experience" that would convince you that you are not just a feedback loop in an analog brain?

It seems to me that to actually realize that you are something more than this you would need to have a seriously profound "enlightenment" that would somehow convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that you are something more than this.

But what could such an experience be?

The only way I would be convinced of something like that is if I could mediate, see into the future and know what tomorrow's lottery number will be, then go out and play it and have it actually come up. Now that would be a convincing experience that my mind must be something more than just a feedback loop in my brain.

But I don't see any evidence that any Buddhists were ever able to mediate and come back with any information they couldn't obtain with the analog computer of their very own isolated brain.