We are Brahman, but we are not Parabrahman. We are Atman, but we are not Paratman. There's a Supreme Mind underlying our minds. — Dharmi

I don't follow the Hindu religion, but I do occasionally refer to some sublime Indian Philosophical concepts in describing my own worldview. For example, what I call "G*D", or the "Programmer" in my modernized philosophy, is similar to the abstract notion of Brahman : "creative principle which is realized in the whole world". Unfortunately, the Hindu religion has dumbed-down (anthropomorphized) that abstraction into a mere god among gods -- to make it palatable for the masses. Likewise, Hindu "Atman", and Christian "Soul", is what I call in my non-religious worldview : the human Self-image. :smile:

When it comes ot everyday matters you can often find out what is the case for yourself but it's not always possible. It's not even possible to know whether there really are true gurus (enlightened beings) at all. — Janus

That's just something you claim. Why is your opinion the one I should take?

Anyone who believes themselves to be enlightened and able to pass on their knowledge to others could well be deceiving themselves. But if going down such a path makes you happy, then why not, eh? — Janus

You can say that about anyone or anything. But if you're a reasonable person, then you keep an open mind and you try to find the truth as best you can, rather than just saying "I can't know anything, it's all an illusion, everything is just a deception in my head." That's laziness.

Programmer is roughly what we call God. The Supreme Controller.

Unfortunately, the Hindu religion has dumbed-down (anthropomorphized) that abstraction into a mere god among gods — Gnomon

I don't see what you mean. I don't think any of it has been dumbed down at all.

That's just something you claim. Why is your opinion the one I should take? — Dharmi

I didn't say you should take my opinion, I said there is no way of knowing whether there are true gurus. If there were such a way you could demonstrate that there are or are not true gurus. So it remains
a question of faith like any other religious belief.

You can say that about anyone or anything. But if you're a reasonable person, then you keep an open mind and you try to find the truth as best you can, rather than just saying "I can't know anything, it's all an illusion, everything is just a deception in my head." That's laziness. — Dharmi

I don't think that applies to anyone or anything. If someone claims to be a master musician, mathematician or athlete etc., whether or not they are deluding themselves is pretty much demonstrable. Life is short, so avoiding any path the verity of which is not at all demonstrable is simply being prudent, not being lazy.

Unless of course I find great joy or comfort in pursuing such a path, in which case my pursuing it would be based simply on my good feeling about it; which is fine. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledgement that it remains a question of faith, not of knowledge.

I didn't say you should take my opinion, I said there is no way of knowing whether there are true gurus. If there were such a way you could demonstrate that there are or are not true gurus. So it remains — Janus

There is a way you can demonstrate it. You do the experiment, and you attain self-realization and God-realization.

I don't think that applies to anyone or anything. If someone claims to be a master musician, mathematician or athlete etc., whether or not they are deluding themselves is pretty much demonstrable. Life is short, so avoiding any path the verity of which is not at all demonstrable is simply being prudent, not being lazy. — Janus

All of this is just supposition.

comfort — Janus

Unless of course I find great joy or comfort in pursuing such a path, in which case my pursuing it would be based simply on my good feeling about it; which is fine. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledgement that it remains a question of faith, not of knowledge. — Janus

No, it's 100% a question of experiential knowledge. If you do the experiment and it works, then it works. If it does not, then it does not. Blind faith has nothing to do with it.

Lord Brahma is not the same as the philosophical conception of Brahman. The correct personage who is the embodiment of Brahman is Lord Krishna.

The seat of Narayana is the lotus of the heart. The knowledge of Narayana alone is the highest form of wisdom. Sri Krishna, the son of Devaki, who is the vanquisher of Madhu is the ultimate Brahman. He alone resides in all beings. He is both the causeless and the cause of everything. — Narayana Upanishad

I don't see what you mean. I don't think any of it has been dumbed down at all. — Dharmi

Don't worry about it. Religious Thinkers and Philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool:

Talk Past Each Other : Talking past each other is an English phrase describing the situation where two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_past_each_other

Don't worry about it. religious thinkers and philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool: — Gnomon

No, true philosophy is mystical union with the Absolute. As it was with all of the ancient philosophers, those we have records of, and those we do not. Modern philosophy is nothing more than philodoxy, different opinions clashing with other opinions.

There is a way you can demonstrate it. You do the experiment, and you attain self-realization and God-realization. — Dharmi

The point is that it cannot be demonstrated to any one else. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like.

All of this is just supposition. — Dharmi

It's not supposition; expertise or lack of it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open mind in many, many fields, such that it would be clear if someone were deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others. This is simply not the case with so-called spiritual teachers.

No, it's 100% a question of experiential knowledge. If you do the experiment and it works, then it works. If it does not, then it does not. Blind faith has nothing to do with it. — Dharmi

You might become convinced that the spiritual experiment has worked and you have become enlightened. But you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, and it is always possible that you could be deceiving yourself.

The very idea that there is "experiential knowledge" of the type you are claiming cannot be demonstrated in any way that an unbiased person would have to accept, so it remains a matter of faith. But as I said, there's no shame in that provided you are intellectually honest enough to admit it.

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

I wonder if we really need a key. What if everything is already unlocked?

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.

Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

What does any of this actually mean, or how is it useful? What does it mean for the parts or the whole to be primary? What would the differences imply?

By saying one is primary, you seem to be projecting some sort of preference, or value of parts over wholes or vice versa, but preferences and values only exist in your mind and are not qualities of parts, nor wholes. Primary and secondary are ideas in the mind based on relevance, not properties of wholes or parts.

Parts or the whole is relevent to whatever goal is in the mind at some moment. So the answer is, parts or wholes are primary or not depending on what your goal is at any moment. Is your goal to tell time or to fix the watch? The whole is primary for the former, while the parts are primary for the latter.

The point is that it cannot be demonstrated to any one else. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like. — Janus

Of course it can. You do the experiment yourself.

It's not supposition; expertise or lack of it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open mind in many, many fields, such that it would be clear if someone were deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others. This is simply not the case with so-called spiritual teachers. — Janus

Exactly. It's supposition. If you do the experiment, you'll find out for yourself. You're just rejecting it out of hand, based on ad hoc assertions and supposition.

You might become convinced that the spiritual experiment has worked and you have become enlightened. But you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, and it is always possible that you could be deceiving yourself. — Janus

I haven't said I'm enlightened. And you can do the experiment yourself.

The very idea that there is "experiential knowledge" of the type you are claiming cannot be demonstrated in any way that an unbiased person would have to accept, so it remains a matter of faith. But as I said, there's no shame in that provided you are intellectually honest enough to admit it. — Janus

You need to be intellectually honest to realize that an experiment that anyone can perform is as objective as you can get, and is the total opposite of blind faith. It's more objective than many sciences, which cannot be done by anyone.

Of course it can. You do the experiment yourself. — Dharmi

Right, so I have been saying that a Guru's "expertise" or lack of cannot be demonstrated in a way that a musician's, artist's, engineer's, doctor's, etc can; such that an unbiased observer would have to acknowledge the expertise or lack of. You haven't said anything that demonstrates this is wrong, you have just argued against a claim that you wouldn't be able to test it yourself over a period of many years or a lifetime, which is a claim I haven't made.

So, if the only way to test a guru's expertise would be to do the experiment yourself, then you stand to waste a lot of time, perhaps your whole life, which no doubt many many acolytes have.

And even then, if you have only your own experience to measure against, you might be deceiving yourself. It's always going to be matter of faith, that is inescapable. Ultimately everything, even trust in science and inter-subjectively testable knowledge is a matter of faith to some degree.

You need to be intellectually honest to realize that an experiment that anyone can perform is as objective as you can get, and is the total opposite of blind faith. It's more objective than many sciences, which cannot be done by anyone. — Dharmi

No, I think you need to be intellectually honest and admit that as fallible humans we are all capable of deceiving ourselves about almost anything. The only thing which "keeps us honest" is inter-subjective feedback and agreement, which is impossible in the context we are discussing. The "expertise" or lack of it of so-called gurus simply cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated as it can with other professions.

Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth? — Dharmi

Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of thought. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability. :cool:

Modern philosophy is nothing more than philodoxy, different opinions clashing with other opinions. — Dharmi

Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile:

Right, so I have been saying that a Guru's "expertise" or lack of cannot be demonstrated in a way that a musician's, artist's, engineer's, doctor's, etc can; such that an unbiased observer would have to acknowledge the expertise or lack of. You haven't said anything that demonstrates this is wrong, you have just argued against a claim that you wouldn't be able to test it yourself over a period of many years or a lifetime, which is a claim I haven't made. — Janus

Sigh. That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying. And you're unable, or unwilling to understand or listen. Hence, this conversation is over.

Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile: — Gnomon

You are a sophist.

Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of though:cool: — Gnomon

No, actually they didn't. Because various religions and philosophies deviated significantly from the organic root, it appears that way to someone unlearned. In reality, all civilizations had the exact same understanding and the exact same truth. They all had means, bonified and true means, to experience mystical union with the Divine. Then, various factions, such as Zoroastrianism, Abrahamism and Buddhism, broke away and ever since that point more and more fools and rascals have deviated from that path. Modernists and Postmodernists are just the latest iteration of the bunch.

Your opinion is as irrelevant to me as anyone else's, there's no meaning and purpose in life by your worldview, so there's meaning or purpose to anything you say. So quit wasting my time, quit wasting your time.

t. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability.

Nobody said you should shut your reasoning off. And you're not getting along fine at all, your whole worldview is a massive self-contradiction. If you were truly interested in the truth, you'd actually be listening to what I've been saying. But you're not. You're already convinced in what you already want to believe.

Having said that, it's clear from this dialogue you've already shut your reasoning off without my external intervention or the intervention of any guru.

And even then, if you have only your own experience to measure against, you might be deceiving yourself. It's always going to be matter of faith, that is inescapable. Ultimately everything, even trust in science and inter-subjectively testable knowledge is a matter of faith to some degree.

Right, so this is just skepticism. Which I reject. If it's all subjectivity, then my subjectivity rejects yours. This is just foolishness. You're correct, everything requires some degree of faith. This is the basic problem that Agrippa's Trilemma points out. You either have to accept an infinite series, or you need to accept arbitrariness or circularity. There is no escape from the contingency of our beliefs. That doesn't mean we just go into pure skepticism because the question is difficult for you. That's laziness.

No, I think you need to be intellectually honest and admit that as fallible humans we are all capable of deceiving ourselves about almost anything. The only thing which "keeps us honest" is inter-subjective feedback and agreement, which is impossible in the context we are discussing. The "expertise" or lack of it of so-called gurus simply cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated as it can with other professions. — Janus

Already answered. If you're playing the skeptic game, then there's no debate or dialogue. It's just a waste of time.

If you're playing the skeptic game, then there's no debate or dialogue. — Dharmi

I'm not "playing the skeptic game"; I allow that we have knowledge. For me knowledge is defined as what we are reasonably entitled to claim based on inter-subjective corroboration. Direct knowing, intellectual intuition, what gurus claim to know, etc., aint it simply because of the lack of the possibility of inter-subjective corroboration.

If you experience what is generally called within the gnostic spiritual traditions direct knowing (and I know because I have) it consists in a feeling of absolute certainty. There is literally nothing to measure that feeling against, which doesn't mean it is not a good reason for you to believe whatever it is you are certain of based on that ineffable feeling of certainty, but it cannot constitute a reason for others to believe anything. Your believing, though, still remains a matter of faith; you could still be wrong about whatever it is you are certain of. That's all I'm saying. Nothing to do with skepticism.