Swarm
Actually the first step requires a bit of introspection
”
Lot's of experience with introspection.
o...k...
“
to see what one is already working with when they approach the topic of "real"
”
check, next.
well, what are you working with then (since you have lots of experience on the subject)?
“
I introduce the idea here
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=276
”
"materially reducible phenomena" I'm not a radical material reductionist, next.
"the claim of life being contingent on a soul is baseless" Anatman - no soul, next.
Now might be a good opportunity to explain how you hold an impersonal view of consciousness yet don't subscribe to a reductionist paradigm of life .....
"the primary quality of a soul is desire" no soul, see above. As for desire my partner says I have a good handle on this, but it is slippery so I remain diligent and continue to practice, next.
I guess that leaves you with the question of "what is desire?" then (oh lemme guess, its a materially reducible reaction between matter and chemicals)
"The first thing is develop some sort of control on the instruments (or outlets) of desire. In spiritual affairs, one's first duty is to control one's mind and senses." Been working on this for the last two decades, seems to be coming along fine, next.
what specific means do you adopt to deal with the mind and senses?
"the instrument of "knowing" is ...the self." and when there is no self? What then?
leaves one with the question of what is the self and what is the phenomena of its knowing (once again, chemicals and matter I take it ....)
"the nature of conditioned life that the self is in a such a dysfunctional state that it cannot begin to inquire." Why are religous people alwys so negative?
Or alternatively, why do gross materialists place eternal values on a temporary object?
If one is "functional" enough to to be curious, then one can begin to inquire.
If one is aware enough to recognize being wrong, then one can begin to learn.
With nothing more than that, the rest can be found.
that's the point
conditioned life tends to exclusively harbor curiosity in matters that deal with name, fame, adoration, distinction, etc ... so any sort of discipline of knowledge is subjugated to the demands of the bodily concept of life ....
Even spiritual knowledge can be dressed up like that (what atheistic critique of theism is complete without a didactic dressing of the fallen practitioner?) ...however such sort of spiritual knowledge doesn't deliver the results of course ....
OK, lay out that methodology.
if you think the self and consciousness is materially reducible, you will have severe disagreements with it at the level of theory
“
much like any other knowable claim, right methodology often requires right theory
”
No it doesn't. A good methodology stands on its own. Do this, do that, get such and such result. No theory needed.
hence the "this", "that" and "such and such" become the theory of the methodology.
If you didn't have some theoretical understanding of what water, a jug, a glass and pouring is, you couldn't follow the methodology of "pour the water from the jug into the glass" (then there might be added problems if one wasn't clued into the means of positioning the glass and jug in the right manner)
That is the cool thing about meditation. Do it and it works. You don't have to believe anything, belong to anything, worship anything, make burnt offerings or offer a single tithe. Just follow the method and you arrive at the result. You don't even have to know why.
If you don''t hold any beliefs to the method, you don't have any means to assess whether it works or not.
Of course this type of approach to spiritual life is quite popular since it lets one get down to the real task at hand .... namely cultivating the bodily concept of life
