Rational Certainty

[Cris]

Ggazoo,

What I take from that is that they want "rational certainty".

No, they simply want rationality. Religions offer ZERO evidence.

This is why many people today won't get married... they want this certainty. They aren't willing to take a risk. Well, the same applies to a relationship with God.

No it is entirely different. In a relationship one has access to significant evidence about the other person that can be used to make an appropriate decision. There is no equivalent with religious assertions where acceptance is expected totally blindly.

For example, if you are interviewing someone for a job, you can do all the research that you want.

Yes, it’s called evidence for the claims being made and if not available then an employer will not likely offer the job.

But, at some point, you're going to have to take a chance on that person; it other words, make a personal commitment to them. It's only then that you will get to certainty.

No, even with all that there is no certainty.

You'll have a chance to see how they perform, and whether or not all of their credentials hold true.

Right, which is not a certainty, but there is evidence.

For Christians, it works the same for a personal relationship with God.

But it is totally different. There is no available evidence to examine.

Rationality will only get you to probability.

You mean a decision based on evidence.

Personal commitment will get you to certainty.

Blind faith is unlikely to get you anything.

 

[Myles]

what practice have you applied to begin discussion of evidence?

I have used my reason.

You seem to be to trying to fudge the issue by suggesting that ,if I have not tried some relevant practices, I will be incapable of understanding your message. You have no objective evidence or you would offer it; you merely wish to preach to the converted or those who are halfway towards sharing your beliefs.

End of discussion.

 

[Myles]

subsist off dry bamboo for three months and get back to us with the results ....

It's still a silly argument but, in light of all the other stuff you believe, it probably makes sense to you.

Case closed

 

[lightgigantic]

I have used my reason.

You seem to be to trying to fudge the issue by suggesting that ,if I have not tried some relevant practices, I will be incapable of understanding your message. You have no objective evidence or you would offer it; you merely wish to preach to the converted or those who are halfway towards sharing your beliefs.

End of discussion.

you're not asking for an understanding (ie willing to discuss things on a conceptual basis)
you're asking for evidence

if you think you have some miraculous capacity to approach evidence without addressing issues of knowledge, you will need to be a little bit more convincing

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sometimes after hearing about the details of spiritual practices people commonly inquire "well how much do I have to do?"
”
Not only that. There is another pressing question - "When can I expect to get some relevant results?"

I guess it kind of depends what one is looking for in the way of relevant results ... but assuming one is looking at the right things ... there is the eg of a fan spinning because it is connected to the power. When you turn off the power it still spins, but eventually it will stop. In the same way, when we take up spiritual practices, our material life still spins on a bit, but it has no power backing it up ... provided we don't flick the switch back on again.

I don't think it is out of line to measure one's practice in terms of relevant results - after all, if one doesn't check what one is doing, whether one is doing it right or not, then one might as well not practice at all.

I agree

“
It kind of reveals that they are working with the idea that the real purpose of life lies in getting some sort of material facility and that spiritual life is a temporary diversion or something.
”
I wish to have a story like this to tell, and soon - "I was really confused and stressed out and troubled and messed up and I had no idea about the meaning of life or what to do. But then I took up meditation/had a revelation/found God, and now I am fine and cured and nothing is wrong."

generally cures are gradual and not over night, although the right medicine properly applied usually bears immediate results. There's even a phenomena in treating illnesses where one must be cautious when recovering since the false sense of vigor that arises makes one over exert oneself and suffer a relapse.

“
So the slow long haul of spiritual life is simply that - working through our issues of attachment in this world.
”
This might be a confused question, but from where I am, it seems perfectly reasonable: Is there such a thing as an "inbetween attitude", and what would such an attitude be? - That is, an attitude that one could have between the time of still being an atheist and the time of coming to firmly believe in God, an attitude that would allow one at least some modicum of happiness and determination despite lacking realization -?
Is there a way a person could think of themselves while they still have uncertainty about God, but have the desire to know the Truth; a way to think of themselves that wouldn't hinder their progress, but also wouldn't make them assume too much?
Something like "I am someone on the path to Liberation" - although this isn't always true.

there's this suggestion

BG 14.6 O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge.

Purport -

The living entities conditioned by material nature are of various types. One is happy, another is very active, and another is helpless. All these types of psychological manifestations are causes of the entities' conditioned status in nature. How they are differently conditioned is explained in this section of Bhagavad-gītā. The mode of goodness is first considered. The effect of developing the mode of goodness in the material world is that one becomes wiser than those otherwise conditioned. A man in the mode of goodness is not so much affected by material miseries, and he has a sense of advancement in material knowledge. .....

The difficulty here is that when a living entity is situated in the mode of goodness he becomes conditioned to feel that he is advanced in knowledge and is better than others. In this way he becomes conditioned. The best examples are the scientist and the philosopher. Each is very proud of his knowledge, and because they generally improve their living conditions, they feel a sort of material happiness. This sense of advanced happiness in conditioned life makes them bound by the mode of goodness of material nature. As such, they are attracted toward working in the mode of goodness, and, as long as they have an attraction for working in that way, they have to take some type of body in the modes of nature. Thus there is no likelihood of liberation, or of being transferred to the spiritual world. Repeatedly one may become a philosopher, a scientist or a poet, and repeatedly become entangled in the same disadvantages of birth and death. But, due to the illusion of the material energy, one thinks that that sort of life is pleasant.

 

[Cris]

Greenberg,

This might be a confused question, but from where I am, it seems perfectly reasonable: Is there such a thing as an "inbetween attitude", and what would such an attitude be? - That is, an attitude that one could have between the time of still being an atheist and the time of coming to firmly believe in God, an attitude that would allow one at least some modicum of happiness and determination despite lacking realization -?
Is there a way a person could think of themselves while they still have uncertainty about God, but have the desire to know the Truth; a way to think of themselves that wouldn't hinder their progress, but also wouldn't make them assume too much?
Something like "I am someone on the path to Liberation" - although this isn't always true.

What you seek is called wisdom. I do not claim to be wise but I know I am wiser than I was some 40 years ago. Wisdom comes from the ability to learn from experiences and to apply that knowledge to new situations. Wisdom isn’t knowledge but knowledge is necessary for wisdom. Many people learn little and are doomed to repeat mistakes. Others are doomed to continue to absorb facts like a sponge but never learn how to apply that knowledge.

The BG and LGs perspective is that there is an essential separateness between the material world and the spiritual world. The assumption is that there is a goal of achieving a spiritual awareness and to grow that awareness and only through that process can one achieve true happiness. But there is no separateness, there aren’t two separate domains. Spiritual awareness is partly wisdom dressed up in a mystical wrapper, and the other part is emotional contentedness that comes from a sense of freedom from material demands. It is simply an emotional and intellectual state biased towards a disregard of the material world.

There is virtually nothing in life that is clear-cut or can be seen as black and white alternatives. Having doubts about something is one of those grey areas where the means to choose clearly is absent. The wise will not let that issue daunt them but will accept that there are some things where doubt might persist forever. Trying to condition your-self to erase a doubt leads to a false condition.

Wisdom comes from comprehending the necessary balance between material awareness, its place and needs in real life, and a significant degree of conscious satisfaction that comes through accepting the many things you cannot know or can influence; and a healthy curiosity that there is much more to learn and discover, i.e. balanced humility.

Your problem lies in attempting to achieve something imposed on you by others, i.e. an irrational desire to achieve certainty about God’s existence. You should already know by now there is no material proof or evidence for such a thing, and that alone should tell you that a doubt should always be present; accept it.

 

[greenberg]

Cris,


Why should I believe you, on what grounds? Should I be swayed by your confidence?

 

[Cris]

greenberg,

Why should I believe you, on what grounds? Should I be swayed by your confidence?

Use your own ability to think objectively and analyze my statements. If you know for certain that any of them are patently false then disregard all of them. If on the other hand some have a ring of truth then use them as food for thought.

I don't know your age or your level of life experience so if you are very young then some of what I have said will not register. Only time will help in that regard. I'm in my mid 50s and much of what I have said does register with that age group. Age is not the only factor but life experiences do require time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris,


Why should I believe you, on what grounds? Should I be swayed by your confidence?

basically you have to choose your assumptions ... at least initially

1 - The BG and LGs perspective is that there is an essential separateness between the material world and the spiritual world.
(actually he didn't get that quite right - the assumption is that on the unconditioned platform there is no distinction ... but in conditioned life it certainly holds true)

or

2 a - Spiritual awareness is partly wisdom dressed up in a mystical wrapper, and the other part is emotional contentedness that comes from a sense of freedom from material demands.

b - It is simply an emotional and intellectual state biased towards a disregard of the material world.

c - There is virtually nothing in life that is clear-cut or can be seen as black and white alternatives. Having doubts about something is one of those grey areas where the means to choose clearly is absent. The wise will not let that issue daunt them but will accept that there are some things where doubt might persist forever. Trying to condition your-self to erase a doubt leads to a false condition.

d - (actually this one falls in with spiritual life) Wisdom comes from comprehending the necessary balance between material awareness, its place and needs in real life, and a significant degree of conscious satisfaction that comes through accepting the many things you cannot know or can influence; and a healthy curiosity that there is much more to learn and discover, i.e. balanced humility.

and the final imposition being ....... Your problem lies in attempting to achieve something imposed on you by others, i.e. an irrational desire to achieve certainty about God’s existence. You should already know by now there is no material proof or evidence for such a thing, and that alone should tell you that a doubt should always be present; accept it.

Basically there is no avoiding assumptions or impositions ... even the argument that there is no assumptions or impositions relies on them.

Once you have chosen your assumptions, you can begin the issue of practical application (which basically boils down to the pursuit of happiness)

 

[greenberg]

basically you have to choose your assumptions ... at least initially

But how can one choose one's assumptions? In my mind, it looks like anything could go. Christianity in all its variations, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Spiritual Universalism, Beatnik philosophy, Consumerism, Satanism ... - anything could be the right thing. Not that I equally like all of them - but my liking or disliking a particular philosophy doesn't affect whether it is the right one or not.
I am risk-averse and don't want to make a mistake.

 

[Cris]

greenberg,

I am risk-averse and don't want to make a mistake.

An early good example then. Become comfortable with the certainty that you will make mistakes. It is how you deal with mistakes that can shape your approach to greater issues.

Fear of making mistakes or taking risks is perhaps the greatest deterrent to people making progress and enjoying life to the full.

 

[greenberg]

Become comfortable with the certainty that you will make mistakes.

On the grounds of what should I become comfortable with this certainty?
On the grounds of what should I think that no mistakes are fatal?

 

[greenberg]

I guess it kind of depends what one is looking for in the way of relevant results ...

Yes, this is an additional problem: at least in the beginning, one doesn't know what a relevant result would be.

Whether, as a consequence of certain actions, one suffers or not might ideally be a good measure, but realistically, it is not always. Because there are some activities that in the long run, do bear positive results, but those activities in the short run are sometimes full of strife. - And one doesn't know in advance whether an activity will indeed bring positive results or not.

There's even a phenomena in treating illnesses where one must be cautious when recovering since the false sense of vigor that arises makes one over exert oneself and suffer a relapse.

This is something I know quite well.

there's this suggestion

BG 14.6 O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge.

I know this might sound like a strange question, but I do have it and from my Christian background, it makes perfect sense:
Would it be enough, would it "make God happy" if one would strive to act in the mode of goodness, while not specifically thinking of God (at least not for as long as one doesn't have the according realization of God)?

 

[lightgigantic]

But how can one choose one's assumptions? In my mind, it looks like anything could go. Christianity in all its variations, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Spiritual Universalism, Beatnik philosophy, Consumerism, Satanism ... - anything could be the right thing. Not that I equally like all of them - but my liking or disliking a particular philosophy doesn't affect whether it is the right one or not.
I am risk-averse and don't want to make a mistake.

BG 3.5 Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

Sometimes samsara is described like a fire.
If you try to extinguish it, you are warranted a reaction.
If you try to feed it, you are warranted a reaction.
If you try to do nothing, you are warranted a reaction.

Basically existence doesn't afford one the opportunity to sit back as some sort of disembodied eye that sees phenomena yet remains unaffected.

Changing our approach to action in this world is basically about changing our assumptions. Perhaps a good way to catalyze such a transformation would be to examine what assumptions one is already working out of and also scrutinize what others offer (this can also help one reduce the number of categories - for instance maybe there is not a whole lot of difference between consumerism, beatnik philosophy, satanism, etc .... or even christianity, buddhism, islam, etc ).

Once that is over, and some sort of conclusion is reached, its simply an issue of practical application.

Kind of like suppose we were talking about the taste of honey - we could describe it in pages and pages, but after all is said and done, the best way is to taste it ..... which involves more than licking the outside of the jar.

as for making mistakes the best way to avoid that is to hear from others who are suitably experienced. Next, one can learn from seeing others make mistakes. And if that fails, one can then learn from one's own mistakes.
Its not that one has to be run over by a bull to know what pain is.

 

[lightgigantic]

Greemberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I guess it kind of depends what one is looking for in the way of relevant results ...
”
Yes, this is an additional problem: at least in the beginning, one doesn't know what a relevant result would be.

Whether, as a consequence of certain actions, one suffers or not might ideally be a good measure, but realistically, it is not always. Because there are some activities that in the long run, do bear positive results, but those activities in the short run are sometimes full of strife. - And one doesn't know in advance whether an activity will indeed bring positive results or not.

wisdom is basically the ability to distinguish between long term and short term happiness. Inversely, the examination of different standards of happiness is also a good way to become wise.
Generally most people conceive of happiness in relation to their body ..... since the body has a predictable course of events, books of wisdom do not glorify such an approach

“
There's even a phenomena in treating illnesses where one must be cautious when recovering since the false sense of vigor that arises makes one over exert oneself and suffer a relapse.
”
This is something I know quite well.

really?
you have some experience with chronic illness ... or is it more to do with what the analogy was illustrating?

“
there's this suggestion

BG 14.6 O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge.
”
I know this might sound like a strange question, but I do have it and from my Christian background, it makes perfect sense:
Would it be enough, would it "make God happy" if one would strive to act in the mode of goodness, while not specifically thinking of God (at least not for as long as one doesn't have the according realization of God)?

even though it is the best platform of material existence, the mode of goodness is still part of the package of avidya or ignorance. The mode of goodness offers rewards in material existence *ie reduced suffering* but the material world still remains an abode of suffering, since it is constructed on a false idea of ego (namely the body).

SB 11.13.1 Purport - Goodness in the material world never exists in a pure form. Therefore, it is common knowledge that on the material platform no one is working without personal motivation. In the material world goodness is always mixed with some amount of passion and ignorance, whereas spiritual, or purified, goodness (viśuddha-sattva) represents the liberated platform of perfection. Materially, one is proud to be an honest, compassionate man, but unless one is fully Kṛṣṇa conscious one will speak truths that are not ultimately significant, and one will give mercy that is ultimately useless. Because the onward march of material time removes all situations and persons from the material stage, our so-called mercy and truth apply to situations that shortly will not exist. Real truth is eternal, and real mercy means to situate people in eternal truth. Still, for an ordinary person, cultivation of material goodness may be a preliminary stage on the road to Kṛṣṇa consciousness.


IOW the real problem with trying to seek some stable platform in the material world (in either goodness, passion or ignorance) is that there is no stable platform - the body and the environment the body exists in is always changing. So what is in goodness in one moment is in passion the next etc etc.
What makes god "happy" is the cultivation of one's actual spiritual identity, since it is completely removed from the sphere of transience.

 

[greenberg]

BG 3.5 Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

It seems so. And it seems like a hopeless outlook!
(Yes, and I do notice I use "seems" a lot.)

Sometimes samsara is described like a fire.
If you try to extinguish it, you are warranted a reaction.
If you try to feed it, you are warranted a reaction.
If you try to do nothing, you are warranted a reaction.

Absolutely.

Basically existence doesn't afford one the opportunity to sit back as some sort of disembodied eye that sees phenomena yet remains unaffected.

Agreed. It would be nice if it would be otherwise, but it apparently isn't otherwise.

Changing our approach to action in this world is basically about changing our assumptions.

But this means that one would have to outwit this principle -

BG 3.5 Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

- !!

Perhaps a good way to catalyze such a transformation would be to examine what assumptions one is already working out of and also scrutinize what others offer (this can also help one reduce the number of categories - for instance maybe there is not a whole lot of difference between consumerism, beatnik philosophy, satanism, etc .... or even christianity, buddhism, islam, etc ).

I think I've been doing this for quite some time.

Although my own assumptions seem to be especially hopeless - my open-mindedness is a hindrance.
From where I am, many other people seem to have it a lot better than I do.

Once that is over, and some sort of conclusion is reached, its simply an issue of practical application.

Yes, I've been waiting for such a conclusion.
I actually wrote a note in my notebook a while back - "I am looking for a stance, a view, a conclusion that will enable me to work and to move on with my life."

as for making mistakes the best way to avoid that is to hear from others who are suitably experienced. Next, one can learn from seeing others make mistakes. And if that fails, one can then learn from one's own mistakes.

Agreed.

Its not that one has to be run over by a bull to know what pain is.

No. But one has to develop the conviction somehow that pain isn't something one should simply "live with it" for all eternity.

 

[greenberg]

really?
you have some experience with chronic illness ... or is it more to do with what the analogy was illustrating?

Both.
I have two chronic conditions, one for eight years (thyroid complications), the other in a mild form my whole life, but worst for the last two years (chronic rhinitis).
The rhinitis itself isn't so bad, I got used to having a runny nose all the time. But because of it, I have to breathe through my mouth a lot, which is a problem when I am trying to sleep; breathing through my mouth, the mouth gets dry, I automatically swallow - and wake up. So my sleep is constantly interrupted, I don't sleep much and I am tired a lot. I do know a thing or two about sleep deprivation.
I have prescription medications for the rhinitis, but they have bad side-effects (steorids compromise the immune system) and are even contraindicated for my other condition. So I don't take those medications much, other when it gets really bad. Otherwise, I occasionally make intense courses with home remedies. They almost completely reduce the rhinitis - but here goes my overacting on the false sense of vigor: with my nose clear, I throw myself into work and exercise, overdo everything, and then I get a real cold that binds me to the bed for a week or even two. And then it goes back to the rhinitis, the tiredness - which, in and of themselves, sometimes lead to a real cold as well.
And the thyroid complications only make everything worse.
I am seeing doctors, but it doesn't really help.

I also have a history of overdoing work, sports and spiritual practices, with damages to show.
Although for the last six months or so, I have mellowed a bit, taken it more easy than I otherwise do.

What makes god "happy" is the cultivation of one's actual spiritual identity, since it is completely removed from the sphere of transience.

But how can one in advance know what one's actual spiritual identity is? How can one cultivate something that one doesn't yet know what it is?

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg
“

What makes god "happy" is the cultivation of one's actual spiritual identity, since it is completely removed from the sphere of transience.
”
But how can one in advance know what one's actual spiritual identity is? How can one cultivate something that one doesn't yet know what it is?

basically knowledge (any type of knowledge) has three components

theory
practical
conclusion

To really know something, you have to land at the conclusion. We get a hint of that in theory and we get a taste of that in practice.

If a person is endeavoring to act in obedience to god (make god "happy") already they approaching issues of their spiritual identity - namely that of a humble service attitude towards god

 

[greenberg]

basically knowledge (any type of knowledge) has three components

theory
practical
conclusion

To really know something, you have to land at the conclusion. We get a hint of that in theory and we get a taste of that in practice.

So basically it is about setting oneself a working hypothesis?

This seems reasonable. But saying My hypothesis is that if I dilligently practice for this whole lifetime, I will become liberated. So I'll start today, now, and not give up until the day this body dies. After that, depending on the results, I will see what to do next. - this is a bit much to take upon oneself! I'd be making a vow to keep a committment for some forty years!

I wish there was a way to make such periods of testing hypotheses shorter.

If a person is endeavoring to act in obedience to god (make god "happy") already they approaching issues of their spiritual identity - namely that of a humble service attitude towards god

Allright. You said earlier elsewhere that it is possible for some time to also serve God without specifically knowing that one is serving God - which seems to suggest that one needn't push oneself into doing something in blind faith, pretending one has the according realization.
For example, serving God in blind faith would be that one would say "I am cleaning the house in service of God" while one doesn't actually believe in God.


My fear is that I owe it to God (or someone or something else) to become liberated, and to do so within the shortest possible time. So as far as God is concerned, I am not driven by the desire to be liberated or by the desire to serve God; but instead, I am driven by the obligation to be liberated or to serve. And this obligation is unilaterally imposed, and I don't see how I could fulfill it.