|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 20, 2019 9:15:14 GMT -5
I say no, but I would be curious about any counterexamples.
Seems to me that despite the fact that SR is beyond concepts and requires the mind to effectively stop, at least momentarily, it nevertheless shows certain philosophies like materialism to be dead wrong. Which is interesting -- what about it does so?
Because as it does so, it suggests that metaphysics -- that is, correct philosophy -- I believe what Buddhists call "right view" -- is actually critical to SR. It is in fact the destruction of wrong view that is SR. That's ignorance. And that wrong view can come in the form of an incorrect metaphysics.
This explains the position of jnana yoga in the Vedantic system. It is pure correction of incorrect thought. It is a logic-aided looking that cancels out other, prior, wrong and unexamined beliefs. It is held that for the mature aspirant, that is all that is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2019 9:55:14 GMT -5
'Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.'
Is that an adequate definition? If so, I would also say no.
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 20, 2019 10:48:13 GMT -5
'Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.' Is that an adequate definition? If so, I would also say no. Yup, that's an adequate definition |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 12:41:25 GMT -5
'Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.' Is that an adequate definition? If so, I would also say no. Yup, that's an adequate definition While those who are insisting that every appearing thing is alive, conscious, is perceiving, is experiencing, are not going that far, they do go 'part-way.'
In maintaining that every arising form/thing that appears within experience is conscious, alive, etc, they are attributing aliveness, perception, experiencing, to the arising/appearing form, itself. Thus, the moment a cloud appears in the sky, by virtue of that 'form' they say they now know 'aliveness, conscious awareness, perception, expereince' is happening in conjunction with that appearing cloud.
These folks though will also say that they understand that Being is the foundation to all arising form, but they also say that that foundation 'infuses' all that arises of it, with itself "Being."
However, if we look at the way in which thingness appears, lets say 'a cloud' for example, what these folks are saying then, is that prior to the appearing cloud, there is no being 'there'...no aliveness....no perceiving...experiencing, but the moment that cloud forms and becomes apparent, NOW there is. Which actually does imply that the form itself gives rise to the aliveness, perception, experiencing....because according to these folks, the moment the cloud dissipates and no longer appears as a 'form,' is the moment the aliveness, perception, being, OF the cloud, would disappear.
It's sort of like saying that the moment a cloud forms, it ceases to be transient, it ceases to be that which comes and goes, but the moment it disappears, it once again becomes transient, that which changes.
A cloud, like any other appears, has a beginning and an end. And if 'Being' is attributed to the cloud, they are therefore saying that Being also has a beginning and an end.
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 20, 2019 12:47:24 GMT -5
Yup, that's an adequate definition These folks though will also say that they understand that Being is the foundation to all arising form, but they also say that that foundation 'infuses' all that arises of it, with itself "Being." Yeah, definitely agreed that one cannot say that Being infuses things with itself. That's how you get ridiculous ideas like this one from Eckart Tolle: "As there is more consciousness in the body, its molecular structure actually becomes less dense. More consciousness means a lessening of the illusion of materiality." Though by materialism in this thread I really meant the idea that everything is matter... which to be fair I believe both the infusers and non-infusers would generally agree is wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 13:08:30 GMT -5
Yeah, definitely agreed that one cannot say that Being infuses things with itself. That's how you get ridiculous ideas like this one from Eckart Tolle: "As there is more consciousness in the body, its molecular structure actually becomes less dense. More consciousness means a lessening of the illusion of materiality." Oh My!  Talk about a context mix. Gotcha. Yeah, I think so too. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2019 13:24:19 GMT -5
These folks though will also say that they understand that Being is the foundation to all arising form, but they also say that that foundation 'infuses' all that arises of it, with itself "Being." Yeah, definitely agreed that one cannot say that Being infuses things with itself. That's how you get ridiculous ideas like this one from Eckart Tolle: "As there is more consciousness in the body, its molecular structure actually becomes less dense. More consciousness means a lessening of the illusion of materiality." Though by materialism in this thread I really meant the idea that everything is matter... which to be fair I believe both the infusers and non-infusers would generally agree is wrong.  how dare you disparage my guru? The gnome is infallible. You. Are wrong!  |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 20, 2019 13:57:07 GMT -5
Yeah, definitely agreed that one cannot say that Being infuses things with itself. That's how you get ridiculous ideas like this one from Eckart Tolle: "As there is more consciousness in the body, its molecular structure actually becomes less dense. More consciousness means a lessening of the illusion of materiality." Though by materialism in this thread I really meant the idea that everything is matter... which to be fair I believe both the infusers and non-infusers would generally agree is wrong. how dare you disparage my guru? The gnome is infallible. You. Are wrong!  Be careful. All that indignation is making your body sweat out its consciousness! If you lose it all you end up looking like this:  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 15:39:00 GMT -5
how dare you disparage my guru? The gnome is infallible. You. Are wrong! Be careful. All that indignation is making your body sweat out its consciousness! If you lose it all you end up looking like this: Good one!
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 20, 2019 16:42:24 GMT -5
I say no, but I would be curious about any counterexamples. Seems to me that despite the fact that SR is beyond concepts and requires the mind to effectively stop, at least momentarily, it nevertheless shows certain philosophies like materialism to be dead wrong. Which is interesting -- what about it does so? Because as it does so, it suggests that metaphysics -- that is, correct philosophy -- I believe what Buddhists call "right view" -- is actually critical to SR. It is in fact the destruction of wrong view that is SR. That's ignorance. And that wrong view can come in the form of an incorrect metaphysics. This explains the position of jnana yoga in the Vedantic system. It is pure correction of incorrect thought. It is a logic-aided looking that cancels out other, prior, wrong and unexamined beliefs. It is held that for the mature aspirant, that is all that is required. To the thread title, no. |
|
how dare you disparage my guru? The gnome is infallible. You. Are wrong! 
Be careful. All that indignation is making your body sweat out its consciousness! If you lose it all you end up looking like this: