Prerequisites for Spiritual Knowledge

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore there are existential conditions that have to be fulfilled to partake of the full fruits of reason
”
Yes. As an exercise in self-analysis, perception, and completely internally generated states with no demonstrable source other than brain chemistry. I totally agree.

these things cannot be objectively verified?

“
SB 11.25.2-5: Mind and sense control, tolerance, discrimination, sticking to one's prescribed duty, truthfulness, mercy, careful study of the past and future, satisfaction in any condition, generosity, renunciation of sense gratification, faith in the spiritual master, being embarrassed at improper action, charity, simplicity, humbleness and satisfaction within oneself are qualities of the mode of goodness. Material desire, great endeavor, audacity, dissatisfaction even in gain, false pride, praying for material advancement, considering oneself different and better than others, sense gratification, rash eagerness to fight, a fondness for hearing oneself praised, the tendency to ridicule others, advertising one's own prowess and justifying one's actions by one's strength are qualities of the mode of passion. Intolerant anger, stinginess, speaking without scriptural authority, violent hatred, living as a parasite, hypocrisy, chronic fatigue, quarrel, lamentation, delusion, unhappiness, depression, sleeping too much, false expectations, fear and laziness constitute the major qualities of the mode of ignorance. Now please hear about the combination of these three modes.

 

[superluminal]

Sorry LG. While that passage has much to say about facets of human nature and behavior, we are, as usual, addressing completely different things.

My only point in all of this is that while you and others (even me!?!?) experience what you would call "spiritual" states, they are in no way due to anything but self-reflection on the external observations and experiences we've incorporated into our brains.

These states and experiences are in no way categorically the same as the shock you recieve from an exposed wire. Even if you insist that all reality is nothing more than a simulation based on our perceptions (which I tend to agree with, but what of it?) what you can prove as a common "objective" phenomenon is categorically different from what you experience spiritually.

I am open to there being an external cause (god?) for these things. But the only way to show this is with something measurable. Surely this is not unobvious?

What, categorically, is the difference between your internal spiritual experiences and revelations and, say, the experiences of a delusional paranoid schitzophrenic? No offense meant at all, but how can you give differing weights to one set of mental experiences vs another without some way of objectively verifying their source?

Either they are a product of brain chemistry, or they are induced and percipitated by some external "power". If your answer is the latter, then objectively demonstrate this source otherwise we have no way of distinguishing your claims from delusion.

See?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry LG. While that passage has much to say about facets of human nature and behavior, we are, as usual, addressing completely different things.

I was addressing facets of human behaviour that are prerquisites/disqualifcations for applying processes that enable direct perception of spiritual truths

My only point in all of this is that while you and others (even me!?!?) experience what you would call "spiritual" states, they are in no way due to anything but self-reflection on the external observations and experiences we've incorporated into our brains.

These states and experiences are in no way categorically the same as the shock you recieve from an exposed wire. Even if you insist that all reality is nothing more than a simulation based on our perceptions (which I tend to agree with, but what of it?) what you can prove as a common "objective" phenomenon is categorically different from what you experience spiritually.

is your angle that there is no means to determine objective reality? (like for instance I may touch an electric wire and only be pretending to wiggle in agony, or any number of things to falsely present the idea that electricity delivers uncomfortable levels of voltage)..... whch would ultimately bring us down to the "I think therefore I am" - ie I can doubt absolutely everything but I cannot doubt my sense of self since that is the very vehicle that doubt operates out of .....

Or alternatively, do you have a general principle that you apply to determine whether something is objective or not (you appear to go into some detail with this later option down below but if you want to ride with it it requires a bit more clarification)

I am open to there being an external cause (god?) for these things. But the only way to show this is with something measurable. Surely this is not unobvious?

so how do you propose that someone measures the constant of electricity? In other words before coming to the position of measuring (or evidencing) important scientific truths, doesn't the prerequisite of training have to be met?

What, categorically, is the difference between your internal spiritual experiences and revelations and, say, the experiences of a delusional paranoid schitzophrenic? No offense meant at all, but how can you give differing weights to one set of mental experiences vs another without some way of objectively verifying their source?

one is valid and the other is not - like for instance if a person says that the constant of electricity is 8.854187817 x10 (-12) F m(-1) can invalidate the claim that the constant is 2.5 (-12) F m(-1) by dint of applying proceedures and qualification.
Similarly if a person says that they are god or that god says it is okay to systematically destroy all people from a particular country or culture in all time places and circumstances it raises issues of the credibility of the source

Either they are a product of brain chemistry, or they are induced and percipitated by some external "power". If your answer is the latter, then objectively demonstrate this source otherwise we have no way of distinguishing your claims from delusion.

See?

I don't know if I have raised the issue of the limits of logic in approaching the transcendental
I go into detail with it here
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1244346&postcount=58
but in short, the problem is that you can not approach skill based knowledge by theory (if you could there would be no distinction between theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge)

In other words you cannot even demonstrate by logic how a car in a car sales yard runs okay - the way to determine it however is to inspect its motor, take it for a drive, check it for under body rust etc etc -

similarly one cannot examine the fruit of theistic knowledge (direct perception of god) by theory - one can however examine the processes advocated to enable such direct perception (ie logic can only bring one to the point of applying the processes for direct perception - logic is necessary but not sufficient)

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

You will note that rather than an "existential platform" for reason, it is rather like "reason, when self-deceptive, ceases to be reason". To falsify "if A = B and B = C than A = C" is to circumvent the reasoning process. However, it is impossible to falsify certain things. For instance, even a pathological liar would have to agree that contradictions falsify a belief and that A = A.

 

[S.A.M.]

For instance, even a pathological liar would have to agree that contradictions falsify a belief and that A = A.

Not necessarily, it could be a biphasic response.

 

[Sauna]

One prerequisite is to amused when a well trained dog walks in its two hind legs, but without the sense of guilt about the uselessness of it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There are much better constructs of human behaviour than memes. Memes by themselves generate no new understanding or information than those generated by other more layered constructs that define human behaviour.

Memes describe a specific effect of information on human behavior and these effects resemble the behavior of viruses. I find that very important.

Like the link says, if memes are the answer, what is the problem?

I found that point of criticism as being an invention of conclusion and asking a rhetorical question which assumes the reader has accepted the conclusion as not being invented by the criticizer but rather being an assertion of the article.

 

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

Well let me be more specific: Nothing can contradict itself at the same time and in the same manner.

 

[S.A.M.]

Memes describe a specific effect of information on human behavior and these effects resemble the behavior of viruses. I find that very important.
.

That is exactly what I don't like about memes. They ascribe physical properties to philosophical constructs. Misleading and specious.

 

[superluminal]

so how do you propose that someone measures the constant of electricity? In other words before coming to the position of measuring (or evidencing) important scientific truths, doesn't the prerequisite of training have to be met?

Yes. But once met, I can demonstrate electricity to anyone. And they don't need any training to fully experience electricity in all of its wonderous glory.

Similarly if a person says that they are god or that god says it is okay to systematically destroy all people from a particular country or culture in all time places and circumstances it raises issues of the credibility of the source

Why? You claim all sorts of things for god. How do I know you are not a complete loon?

If I say "here, grab this wire and thus and such will happen", it will. What do you offer as equivalent proof of your enlightenment and training in spiritual matters?

In other words you cannot even demonstrate by logic how a car in a car sales yard runs okay - the way to determine it however is to inspect its motor, take it for a drive, check it for under body rust etc etc -

Sounds like a good objectiv approach to me.

similarly one cannot examine the fruit of theistic knowledge (direct perception of god) by theory - one can however examine the processes advocated to enable such direct perception (ie logic can only bring one to the point of applying the processes for direct perception - logic is necessary but not sufficient)

"Processes for direct perception..."

What process is required for you to directly percieve 10,000 volts? You again have skirted the point. Yes, it takes training to understand the nature of electricity or your spiritual equivalent, but once grasped, I can demonstrate the reality of electricity to anyone. You cannot demonstrate the object of your spiritual perception (god) to any one. Can you not see the difference here?

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

You will note that rather than an "existential platform" for reason, it is rather like "reason, when self-deceptive, ceases to be reason". To falsify "if A = B and B = C than A = C" is to circumvent the reasoning process. However, it is impossible to falsify certain things. For instance, even a pathological liar would have to agree that contradictions falsify a belief and that A = A.

the problem is that without meeting the necessary criteria for sound reasoning, B may be perceived as Z (due to fault), thus A=B can become A = Z giving an error which is carried onwards, regardless how correct the reasoning continues to be

for example a lusty lech may enter a room and be delighted thinking how everyone wants him to have sex with them

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so how do you propose that someone measures the constant of electricity? In other words before coming to the position of measuring (or evidencing) important scientific truths, doesn't the prerequisite of training have to be met?
”
Yes. But once met, I can demonstrate electricity to anyone. And they don't need any training to fully experience electricity in all of its wonderous glory.

True you could zap someone, but your knowledge base does not get transmitted to your victim - for instance suppose I say "prove to me there is electricity" and you electrocute me and I respond "that was merely excrutiating pain - I said prove to me there is electricity" it could go on and on (I am sure you would like to perform an experiment like this, wouldn't you)- in other words you may know something and you may know how to harness it to deliver a result, but delivering that result on them doesn't necessarily confer your knowledge base

“
Similarly if a person says that they are god or that god says it is okay to systematically destroy all people from a particular country or culture in all time places and circumstances it raises issues of the credibility of the source
”
Why? You claim all sorts of things for god. How do I know you are not a complete loon?

these claims about god violate basic fundamental truths about the definition of th eterm - for eg if god is the seed giving father of all living entities and omnipotent and omniscient, why does he give the thumbs up for killing anyone and everyone anytime of a particular creed?
and if we are god and god is the most powerful and opulent thing in the universe, how the hell did we come to be checking our bank balance on the net at work to see how much we can spend for lunch?

If I say "here, grab this wire and thus and such will happen", it will. What do you offer as equivalent proof of your enlightenment and training in spiritual matters?

in short, give up one's sinful activities, chant god's names with humility and attention and associate with saintly people, or if one cannot manage all three at least endeavour for the last (although it requires a bit of careful examination of scripture to determine who is and who is not a saintly person)

“
In other words you cannot even demonstrate by logic how a car in a car sales yard runs okay - the way to determine it however is to inspect its motor, take it for a drive, check it for under body rust etc etc -
”
Sounds like a good objectiv approach to me.

the pointis that logic (theory) was not sufficient to deliver an objective result - applied knowledge (skills) delivers the sufficiency

“
similarly one cannot examine the fruit of theistic knowledge (direct perception of god) by theory - one can however examine the processes advocated to enable such direct perception (ie logic can only bring one to the point of applying the processes for direct perception - logic is necessary but not sufficient)
”
"Processes for direct perception..."

What process is required for you to directly percieve 10,000 volts? You again have skirted the point. Yes, it takes training to understand the nature of electricity or your spiritual equivalent, but once grasped, I can demonstrate the reality of electricity to anyone. You cannot demonstrate the object of your spiritual perception (god) to any one. Can you not see the difference here?

I addressed this earlier - you are not actually making me perceive electricity when you electrocute me - even though I may experience great pain (if I don't die before hand) by such an experience, I do not actually gather any substantial knowledge about electricity ( I don't know how it is generated, if I am completely new too it you could dupe me by holding an insulated cord and say that you are a powerful god that cannot be affected by electricity etc etc) - in other words the experience does not allow me to validate or invalidate future experiences of electricity (I may shriek in terror at the sight of an idle wire that is not hooked up to any main supply - or i may not be able to determine the distinction between insulated and stripped electrical cable)

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

That is quite true. Character flaws can sorely destroy our capacity to make reasonable judgement about every day reality.

 

[superluminal]

So, what you are saying LG, PJ (I'm not sure what you think) and others, is that you can not and will not use reason and simple observation to make reasonable judgements about the world. Ok. Or , you will rely on philosophy to yield your answers. And therefore, the debates.

I addressed this earlier - you are not actually making me perceive electricity when you electrocute me - even though I may experience great pain (if I don't die before hand) by such an experience, I do not actually gather any substantial knowledge about electricity

Can anyone support me on this? I'm not particularly stupid. Is this some kind of linguistic free-for-all? We can assign (or deny) meaning to any words we like just to suit our argumant?

So, without knowledge of physics you are not percieving the wind? The sunshine? Why are we associating simple perception with the gathering of "substantial knowledge"?

Can you percieve sunshine without knowledge of photons? It's just called sunshine because we need a label. It has some distinct characteristics.

Can you percieve the phenomenon known as "wind" without knowledge of molecules?

Can you percieve the pain-causing phenomenon I choose to call "electricity" without knowledge of electrons?

Yes.

I can make you feel the same painful sensations in exact degrees everytime I apply my "electricity" to your arm. You will (I assume) eventually come to accept that I have some real, predictable powers under my control. Based purely on your empirical experiences.

Let me anticipate your argument that I might have duped or hypnotized you into only "thinking" you're feeling this pain. If this is the case, then there is nothing to discuss because every argument about the reality of anything (existnce itself) can be ended by this device. Let's not. Fair enough?

So, can we agree that I can demonstrate the existence of some pain causing phenomenon I call "electricity" that causes a sensation distinctly different from most other phenomena? One that I can control precisely and predictably based on the position of my "knob of pain"?

I shouldnt have to explain this.

What I am trying to get at here is the simple recognition that there are no requirements of advanced knowledge of many phenomena to percieve their basic existence. Is this in any way disputed?

I know this is not about science (although science is the application of natural philosophy right?). But the discoveries of science do not just pop-up from pure introspection. One of the most famous examples is Einstien's special relativity. Most people think he sat around conducting gedanken. This he did, but they were based on the results of the invariance of the speed of light, independent of the motion of the observer. He had a demonstrable reason to think the way he did in order to reconcile observations.

Now. Let us assume there are "prerequisites" to spiritual knowledge. What is the empirical reason that drives you to the gedankens of spirituality? Is it simply that you cannot believe in a universe that works on demonstrable, physical processes and must rationalize this in your mind?

So. Can you give me an experience of "spirituality", like my "electricity" that would cause me to want to investigate it further? To gain the advanced spiritual knowledge, equivalent to becoming an electrical engineer?

Your argument that to percieve the effects of god requires advanced spiritual knowledge is exactly the same as saying that unless you are a physicist or engineer, you will not feel anything by touching a live wire. Only with "engineering enlightenment" will you recieve a shock.

This appears to be the basis of all spiritual belief, which thoroughly insulates it from investigation from first principles.

Back to you, billy bob.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are confusing the perception with the knowledge.

i.e. do you perceive the sky is blue? Is it blue? Is there a sky?

 

[superluminal]

You are confusing the perception with the knowledge.

i.e. do you perceive the sky is blue? Is it blue? Is there a sky?

Sam.

Right now I think you are maliciously detracting from the ability to achieve anything here.

Instead of posting leading qusetions on top of questions, explain to me what made no sense in my post and we'll clarify. Why do you insist on destroying and interchanging the definitions of knowledge and perception?

Let us agree that perception is the sensory input from a stimulus. Let us further agree that knowledge is the mental construct we use to organize and lend "meaning" to our perceptions. Ok?

From this, I percieve that there is a region over my head that is different from the ground. And that this region is the color I call "blue". I now have the distinct knowledge that there was a sky and I labelled it "blue" during my last perception. I open my eyes and again percieve this region with the semantic label "blue".

This confirms my "knowledge" from my previous session of observing and "percieving".

You (and others) are confusing almost everything here in order to defend the validity of your "spiritual" approach to things.

I percieve (an immediate and real-time experience) the warmth of the sun on my skin. This becomes incorporated as knowledged that the sun provides warmth.

I wish to percieve some simple effect (X) of the existence of god or the spiritual realm and then incorporate it as knowledge that god provides (X) as the only rational explanation.

Shine the warmth of god onto me. Give me a reason to become a physicist of god that I might discover the underlying knowledge of his structure.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're confusing philosophy and spirituality with religion.

PS Religion is a matter of faith.

 

[superluminal]

You're confusing philosophy and spirituality with religion.

PS Religion is a matter of faith.

This is a religion sub and we are discussing spiritual knowledge.

You are confusing productive debate with mindless chit-chat to fill in the hours in your dorm room.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is a religion sub and we are discussing spiritual knowledge.

You are confusing productive debate with mindless chit-chat to fill in the hours in your dorm room.

I'm trying to help you here babe.

And I have an apartment now.

Ok religion = there is a God/gods

spirituality = there is a soul

Philosophy = what does "god" mean?

what does "soul" mean?

 

[superluminal]

I'm trying to help you here babe.

And I have an apartment now.

Ok religion = there is a God/gods

spirituality = there is a soul

Philosophy = what does "god" mean?

what does "soul" mean?

Yeah, apartments are better than dorms. My dorm was like an air force barracks. Just like the one I was in diuring my short air force career. Ugh.

Ok. Religion = presupposition of a god.

Spirituality = presupposition of a soul.

If philosophy (at least the kind we're using here) is the "study" of what these presupposed and unsupported concepts "mean", then no wonder I'm having a hard time with it. You see, I'm the kind of guy who likes to establish the reality of a thing before devoting serious time to the ramifications and properties of a thing. Like my toaster.

If my toaster only existed in a philosophical state of subjective reality, why would I bother postulating the possible features of something I like to call "bread" after it has been subjected to the as-yet unverified effects of the process I will call "toasting"?

I'll leave you fine folks to the business of clarifying the epistemological status of the ontological metaconcepts and pseudofunctionality of my toaster and it's effect on the object of the "toasting". I've got better things to do. Like eating some warm toast with orange marmalade. Yum.