Cris
”
Dream on. The issue is really extremely simple –
We live in a material world and the material state is well known.
on the contrary the material state is
partially known.
problems ensue when you extrapolate on this partial knowledge as sufficient for all knowable claims.
(such as the notion "empiricism has the monopoly on all knowable claims", ironically, being impossible to prove empirically)
The immaterial is unknown outside of human imagination.
so says you ... or more specifically, so says your values
You are not in any position to argue that I do not have any basis when you are in a far worse position. You have nothing, not even meaningful inductive data to point to the existence of anything immaterial.
actually I was granting that even if your argument that there is no methodology to spiritual claims is valid, you are stigmatized by the same criticism that you hold over theism and the nature of life.
IOW if the singular issue for you is "what evidence do I have at hand?", you don't have the means to subscribe to either material reductionism or some sort of spiritual duality.
This is why its obvious that something else is at work in your system.
“
From your references to your previous brush with theism, I would say bitterness.
”
LOL, no just very enlightening; one of the most useful lessons of my life so far.
hehe
You think that when bitterness manifests it doesn't take a position on the mantel piece?
“
the primary quality of a soul is desire ... and its the nature of existence that it finds its expression in a variety of transparent and clouded mediums
”
Yes, human imagination.
On the contrary, desire is manifest in all life
But beyond that, I fully appreciate the overwhelming power that emotions can exert on an individual. Controlling them, being free to openly experience them, and to have the discipline to work with them, are the marks of enlightenment and wisdom. We are emotional beings and we must accept that, these are essential powerful phenomena that make us human. But I have no reason to believe these are anything other than features generated by the human brain. There is no evidence of anything else and no need to look elsewhere until we have fully analyzed how the brain operates.
There is a wider aspect to desire apart from emotions (which merely adhere to the phenomena of desire in order to lend direction)
IOW its the nature of "being" or existing as life that desire be manifest. Whether one is happy/distressed about it is merely a detail.
“
“ And how do you know? ”
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.
IOW the instrument of "knowing" is not a microscope or a telescope. It's the self. It’s the nature of conditioned life that the self is in a such a dysfunctional state that it cannot begin to inquire.
Empiricism has no such requirement of course ...
”
I do really understand your position, although since the Maharishi died at a relatively young age I have lost most of any appeal I once had for that style of spiritual mysticism.
Interesting
At the core of Maharishi's teachings is the idea that the self is an illusion.
This is one of the reasons his teachings are popularly rejected, mainly because it doesn't lead the practitioner towards any alternative outside of the bodily concept of life.
IOW raising the stakes to "the self doesn't exist" simply lands one more solidly into the material concept of self ... after all how long can one go about combing one's non-hair in the non-mirror and opening the non-door and go into the non-world without doing non-sense?
Desire screams for attention and pretending that one doesn't have it simply hands the reins over to the bodily concept of life, by default.
Your suggestion that his teachings would be more valid if he lived longer exemplifies this.
In short, there's a big difference between tailoring spiritual discipline for spiritual ends as opposed to tailoring spiritual discipline for material ends.
However, I do recognize the phenomenal power I can experience in the form of my own mind and the wonderful experiences it has presented me. But none of that in the least leads me to believe that there is anything more to my mind than a very wonderful organ we know as the brain.
The mind is just as fallible vessel for self as the body.
Just as it would be absurd to suggest you possess the same body as you did 50 years ago, it is also equally absurd to suggest you possess the same mind.
Nevertheless, you still operate out of the same selfhood.
You will need to do much more than appeal to our emotions and potential absence of self-control if you are to convince anyone that anything immaterial is possible.
I am simply stating the basis of the methodology.
Like any methodology, it has the requirement of being applied properly in order to convince. Its clear to me in this regard, your lack of conviction can be traced to your improper application (ie Maharishi).
Of course there is the issue of whether one is convinced that a methodology is actually worthwhile or not.
This, I think, is very much an issue of one's emotional response to it.
