Yet another thread about the 'Self'

[Nearly Sane]

That's what the 'spiritual' transcending practices are about - ceasing to identify with the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history and identifying with the 'Self' which is revealed.

This seems, as does much of Sriram's posting on heter, a claim to something objectively true in that something is portrayed as a false perception, the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history', and something as true, that which is revealed. That then seems to be overlayed with statements that all of this is 'subject's while again claiming that one, or indeed large groups of people such as Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience.

This then rejects other experiences as somehow false and would seem to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, in that while creating a view that experience can establish correctness, it's only that experience that is acceptable that is defined as valid.

Further it rejects anything that might established via intersubjective  methods as worthless if it contradicts that idea of 'correctness'.

[Sriram]

We don't see christians and muslims, let alone atheists, 'vouching for the correctness' of the view that the self is some reincarnated being that lived previously inside other people.  I think you are muddying the distinction between belief/interpretation, and experience.  I can experience nothing in my self to suggest I was once someone else; rather the opposite is the case, all aspects of my self seem derived from the particularities of this body with its particular history, and I can see nothing that is independent of these formative factors.

Yes....the exoteric teachings in other traditions don't say anything about all this but the esoteric teachings do.  That is why they are secret teachings.

Even within Hinduism it was not always taught to everyone. Most of the popular teachings involved mythological analogies and allegories that only indirectly hinted at the reality.  In recent years it has become more  popular and widespread. 

There is no reason why this should not happen in other communities as well.

You cannot experience any of this in normal life.  That is why this requires some special and involved methods to be followed. But then, the push or this has to come from within. If your cup is too full such that you don't feel the need to know anything more than what your senses tell you...nothing can be done.

[Sriram]

Further to the above....

I was actually wrong in saying that all this cannot be experienced in normal life.  It can be experienced in subtle ways, which we need to be sensitive enough to recognize.  Series of such experiences  will create an inner need to know more...which is what will drive us to take up more serious efforts to understand.   

[ekim]

This seems, as does much of Sriram's posting on heter, a claim to something objectively true in that something is portrayed as a false perception, the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history', and something as true, that which is revealed. That then seems to be overlayed with statements that all of this is 'subject's while again claiming that one, or indeed large groups of people such as Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience.

This then rejects other experiences as somehow false and would seem to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, in that while creating a view that experience can establish correctness, it's only that experience that is acceptable that is defined as valid.

Further it rejects anything that might established via intersubjective  methods as worthless if it contradicts that idea of 'correctness'.

I think that you are reading too much into that sentence of mine but I'll try to comment on the points you make, if I am understanding them correctly.
I don't think the 'spiritual' practices mentioned are about establishing 'something objectively true' but more about the truth or otherwise of the subject 'I'.  During the process, which is often directed towards inner stillness, there is a tendency to recognise that the subjective content of what goes to make up the self/ego is a false identity.  As regards 'Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience' I think what Hinduism and its derivative religions have are a variety of well established methods which is claimed to assist the initiates in discovering the 'correctness' of the experience for themselves.  As the self/ego's dominance is threatened during the process there is often an inner struggle (which is what jihad really is) and there is also the danger of a superior (religious) ego supplanting the previous one. 

[Nearly Sane]

I think that you are reading too much into that sentence of mine but I'll try to comment on the points you make, if I am understanding them correctly.
I don't think the 'spiritual' practices mentioned are about establishing 'something objectively true' but more about the truth or otherwise of the subject 'I'.  During the process, which is often directed towards inner stillness, there is a tendency to recognise that the subjective content of what goes to make up the self/ego is a false identity.  As regards 'Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience' I think what Hinduism and its derivative religions have are a variety of well established methods which is claimed to assist the initiates in discovering the 'correctness' of the experience for themselves.  As the self/ego's dominance is threatened during the process there is often an inner struggle (which is what jihad really is) and there is also the danger of a superior (religious) ego supplanting the previous one.

Truth is an objective not subjective claim. As are claims of correctness. The entirety of the language you presented such as 'well established methods' dresses up your statements that it is subjective in the clothes of objectivity.

[ekim]

(1) Truth is an objective not subjective claim. As are claims of correctness. (2)The entirety of the language you presented such as 'well established methods' dresses up your statements that it is subjective in the clothes of objectivity.

(1)Truth is truth and a claim is a claim.  They are not identical.  The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective claim or an objective 'me'.
(2)That's the nature of language in these circumstances.  It has its limitations especially when trying to convey a method towards inner stillness to a mind which thrives on inner activity.

[Nearly Sane]

(1)Truth is truth and a claim is a claim.  They are not identical.  The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective claim or an objective 'me'.
(2)That's the nature of language in these circumstances.  It has its limitations especially when trying to convey a method towards inner stillness to a mind which thrives on inner activity.

Who said they were identical? Seems to me by using such terms that is you, and to an extent Sriram.

And yes language is limited, perhaps you need to examine the confusion in your use of it? Because your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.

[Sriram]

Many people still confuse religion with spirituality and personal experience with blind beliefs.

Try this ....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/

[ippy]

Many people still confuse religion with spirituality and personal experience with blind beliefs.

Try this ....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/

I don't have any trouble with confusing everyday feelings with religion I note whoever it was that wrote this trip over their own words article has far more problems than I have, nor is that due to me being over simplistic, most people with an average amount of intelligence can recognise the words of someone with an overworked sense of imagination.

Why would spirituality be confused with religion as religion only exists in the minds of those so inclined to want to accept it.

It's more about the difficulty people have trying to explain these feelings not that spirituality's a particularly good word to use for describing these feelings, finding the exact word is probably akin to chasing the end of a rainbow.

When relating the spiritual, (using spiritual as the right word for the moment even though it's not that precise), to others we all understand these experiences without a need for some, usually self appointed, teacher or guru to explain.

There's no need for any of us to have super brains tuned to genius like levels as is often implied by lots of exponents of this idea that have convinced themselves they have some kind of superior knowledge about these feelings, these feelings are easily understood by most of us something like you Sriram with your feelings of wonder at the new discoveries when you read about them within your science paper or magazine the one you often refer to and good for you too.

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/

So spirituality is basically being overly credulous and superstitious.

[ekim]

(1) Who said they were identical? Seems to me by using such terms that is you, and to an extent Sriram.

(2)And yes language is limited, perhaps you need to examine the confusion in your use of it? Because your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.

(1)You said 'Truth is an objective claim'
(2) I'm sure all of us need to seek improvement in linguistic expression.  Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by 'your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.'

[Nearly Sane]

(1)You said 'Truth is an objective claim'
(2) I'm sure all of us need to seek improvement in linguistic expression.  Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by 'your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.'

a claim that something is the truth, is a claim about something being objectively correct.


And I meant that your point about a 'method towards inner stillness' reads as if you are again making a claim that something is objectively true, despite your idea that it is about something subjective. It's the difference between 'I like Marmite' (subjective), and 'Marmite is good' (objective)

[ekim]

a claim that something is the truth, is a claim about something being objectively correct.


And I meant that your point about a 'method towards inner stillness' reads as if you are again making a claim that something is objectively true, despite your idea that it is about something subjective. It's the difference between 'I like Marmite' (subjective), and 'Marmite is good' (objective)

OK, using  your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'.  The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, using  your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'.  The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.

But that then puts certain 'experiences' as somehow more correct than others. I think the whole idea is difficult to express not only because the language is problematic but that the wooliness of the concepts is used to avoid examination.

[Enki]

OK, using  your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'.  The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.

I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.

We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me.  Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it's a successful meme.

Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert

[Stranger]

Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert

So, in the context, you would seem to be denying that some ideas spread though populations or 'catch on' and that not all such ideas catch on because they have merit? Rather paradoxically, if you disagree that a meme is a useful idea, then the fact that it is popular means that it must be an example of such an idea and wouldn't it be a good idea to have a word for it....?

ETA: Just to be clear (Sriram, take note) a meme is a general term for ideas that 'catch on', not only those without merit.

[Sriram]

I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.

We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me.  Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.

The point is that such personal experiences also have a degree of objectivity, in the sense that they can be shared and a common interpretation can be arrived at as also a specific technique by which they can be repeated and developed.  They are not entirely personal personal experiences that are unknowable to others. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if you disagree that a meme is a useful idea,

And there we have it in a nutshell. A meme is an idea. In other words there are other perfectly serviceable words to use other than meme.


Are you just using it because of the weight and halo effect it's use by antitheism's patron saint, Richard Dawkins adds to it? If you are looking for a word which carries scientific clout....then I suggest 'meme' is not that word.

[Stranger]

And there we have it in a nutshell. A meme is an idea. In other words there are other perfectly serviceable words to use other than meme.

No a meme isn't just an idea, it's an idea that catches on and spreads through a population.

Are you just using it because of the weight and halo effect it's use by antitheism's patron saint, Richard Dawkins adds to it?

 

If you are looking for a word which carries scientific clout....then I suggest 'meme' is not that word.

You being the recognised expert in these matters....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No a meme isn't just an idea, it's an idea that catches on and spreads through a population.

As if no one had spotted that Before the sainted Dawkins, Dennett and Blackmore came on the scene.

[ekim]

I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.

We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me.  Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.

I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it.  The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word.  I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise.  However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves.  Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it.  The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word.  I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise.  However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves.  Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.

'Analogical' language is exactly a language based on conceptualization. The idea that there is a way of communicating anything  valid and in any sense claimed to be similar without conceptualizing is flummery.

[ekim]

'Analogical' language is exactly a language based on conceptualization. The idea that there is a way of communicating anything  valid and in any sense claimed to be similar without conceptualizing is flummery.

Quite so.  Flummery was perhaps a good analogical word.

[Enki]

I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it.  The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word.  I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise.  However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves.  Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.

The trouble is that there can be such a wide range of attitudes and emotional interpretations towards our experiences that to say that one has achieved some inner 'truth' is really saying very little, except to oneself and people of like mind.
Consider, for instance, Wordsworth's attitude towards nature, fashioned by his childhood experiences in particular. He saw his links with nature as exhilarating, beneficent, awe inspiring and comforting experiences. Now consider Tennyson's attitude towards nature, especially in the poem 'In Memoriam'. which illustrates his doubts and fears and his confusion with a loving god and an impersonal nature.  I just don't think that 'truth' is a particularly appropriate word in this context.