Ask a nondual "person"

[Aupmanyav]

This can be divided into two, One is "Presence of God", and Second is "Creation of universe, creation of living things, etc.".
One, Scriptures really gives Evidence for "Presence of God", but it says that you have to cultivate only One thing - "Belief".
About the Second, You have understood Advaita Vedanta. What more evidence do you seek, when there is no real creation at all?
Would you like to speak about this? How you came to this conclusion?

Ah! First believe what we say 'without our providing any evidence'. - Not done.
First have your nose cut, before you can see the Emperors New Clothes.
I used to have a belief in God's existence at one time.
I understand Advaita very clearly. Advaita asks you not to believe in any second entity, therefore no God. Advaita is very atheistic. Sankara accepted Ishvara only in Vyavaharika, which is not the reality.
I came to this conclusion by analysis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Language, with its inherent ambiguity, is failing us here. Let me try to clarify the meaning that I am attributing to words. When I say “illusion” pertaining to Vyavaharika, I mean the misperception of something actually present. An illusion in Vyavaharika is a misperception of an emanation of Brahman. The dream figures are not this, but rather are mere experiences involving the apparent perception of something not present.

Yes, than makes sense as a cognitive abstract, but yet Braham is beyond that. I get that, the problem is that if I am wrong in how I understand that, am I then really wrong and what is the ontological status of being really wrong?
We are doing rationalistic ontology for the really being. I get that, yet you apparently act as if not real means something and thus it is something, but it can't be that.
The problem is that if you talk about the real nothing, then there is nothing to talk about at all, other than we can't talk about it, because we always talk about something.

I am doing Western skepticism on you, btw.
So let me do a classical one in ontology. How does something present cause the apparent perception of something not present?
How does that work?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you ever suspect that you're indulging in self-deception or doubt that you have really arrived at knowledge of your true nature?

Have I ever? Yes. Do I? No.

 

[Viswa]

Ah! First believe what we say 'without our providing any evidence'. - Not done.
First have your nose cut, before you can see the Emperors New Clothes.
I used to have a belief in God's existence at one time.
I understand Advaita very clearly. Advaita asks you not to believe in any second entity, therefore no God. Advaita is very atheistic. Sankara accepted Ishvara only in Vyavaharika, which is not the reality.
I came to this conclusion by analysis.

Well, if you accept that there is You and I different in Vyavaharika, why not God in Vyavaharika like Shankara?
I was not saying Presence of God in Paramarthika, but only the One who looks after every actions (or in any personal God one may have belief upon).

So, you weren't talking about that God(in Vyavaharika)?

It's not first you have your nose cut, it's like "First you should have a belief that there is Emperor", only then you can see the Emperor. If you don't have a Belief that there is Emperor, then whatever way Emperor stand before you by any clothes, you will reject.
Even if you enter the Palace, and say to the Guards "See, I don't have belief that there is an Emperor present in this Castle. I want Evidence whether he is really alive or not. Only then I wish to see what kind of Clothes he is wearing", then the Guards won't allow you and never you can see God.

 

[Viswa]

Ah! First believe what we say 'without our providing any evidence'. - Not done.
First have your nose cut, before you can see the Emperors New Clothes.
I used to have a belief in God's existence at one time.
I understand Advaita very clearly. Advaita asks you not to believe in any second entity, therefore no God. Advaita is very atheistic. Sankara accepted Ishvara only in Vyavaharika, which is not the reality.
I came to this conclusion by analysis.

And, why did you bring the concept of "Sacrifice" (like Nose cut)? Did any such asked? Do you think "Belief" as a Sacrifice? What will you Sacrifice by just "Belief"? Your Life? Loved Ones? People,etc.? Materials? What do you think you will "Sacrifice" (like nose cut), if you have to cultivate "Belief"?

 

[Zwing]

Trees, Es, and lightening bolts are appearances. They appear in Paramartika, just as a dream appears in one's mind. Trees, etc. are no more 'manifestations' of Brahman than a dream is an 'manifestation' of you. These things appear as a result of time/space/causation (Maya) and are as 'real' from the perspective of Paramartika as a dream is 'real' from the perspective of vyavaharika.

This is not my understanding. Nothing appears because of space, which is mere dimensional extent, and time is unreal…a mere conception of the human mind in its struggle to order and make sense of the endless succession of events in Vyavaharika. You mention, as well, causation; here we have something meaningful. What is the meaning that it holds?. If a thing…let’s call it an appearance, in Vyavaharika is the result of causation, then what is the cause? If Salixincendium “appears” to me in Vyavaharika, then is his appearance based upon nothing? What is the cause of it? I say that the cause of Salixincendium appearing to me in Vyavaharika is that there is some emanation of ultimate reality within Paramartika which manifests to me as Salixincendium within Vyavaharika. The very durability of the appearances that we see in Vyavaharika seem to attest to this, for if Salixincendium were an appearance based upon nothing, then I could not reproduce that appearance at my own will, such as by getting into my car and driving to Chicago to see him. If the appearances within Vyavaharika were based upon nothing at all, then they would not be so subject to our will, and would appear and disappear at random, in much the same way that dream figures do.

EDIT: In addition, illusions which are mere hallucinations are a private, personal experience not shared by others. If Salixincendium were a mere hallucination of my mind, then others such as @Aupmanyav would not be able to share the experience of perceiving Salixincendium with any degree of simultaneity. That we both can perceive Salix simultaneously at our will, by both going to see him, lends credence to the idea that Salixincendium is an appearance based upon an underlying reality.

 

[Zwing]

How does something present cause the apparent perception of something not present?

It doesn’t. It causes the misperception of the thing present. (Actually, the cause of the misperception is not Brahman, but rather a fault in our nature as subjective beings, but close enough for the present argument.) Nothing in Vyavaharika is not present. All things in Vyavaharika are misperceptions of emanations of a reality actually present. When I see Mikkel (we have the same name, by the way, as I am Michael), I am not seeing a ghost or hallucination based upon nothing, I am seeing an appearance based upon the reality of Brahman. Such is my understanding.

 

[Viswa]

So let me do a classical one in ontology. How does something present cause the apparent perception of something not present?
How does that work?

It doesn’t. It causes the misperception of the thing present. Nothing in Vyavaharika is not present. All things in Vyavaharika are misperceptions of emanations of a reality actually present. This is my understanding.

Oops, Sorry. Vedanta says, Something present never caused anything. IT doesn't caused apparent perception. Also, it doesn't caused Misperception.

The Truth is, the Misperception/Ignorance is never caused by Presence/Brahman.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn’t. It causes the misperception of the thing present. Nothing in Vyavaharika is not present. All things in Vyavaharika are misperceptions of emanations of a reality actually present. This is my understanding.

So how does a misperception really work as from the real. I mean it can't be really unreal if it is from the real. Or the real causes the unreal, but then how does that work?
We are playing words, because we are doing this in our mind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The ultimate question. I can’t answer “why”, and perhaps there is no answer to that question. To ask “why” is to demand an underlying purpose, and I personally understand ultimate reality (“Brahman”) there probably is no purpose. I do not conceive of Brahman as a “god”, but rather as the truth of all things…as “ultimate, absolute reality”. To my understanding, Brahman is mindless, and so can and does not formulate aim, design, purpose, or intent. A more theistic Advaitin might disagree with this, in conceiving of Brahman as God or a god.

That having been said, I think that the illusiory way that things in Vyavaharika, in the subjective “world”, appear to us at least partially derives from a fault within our physiology of perception. The fact that we perceive things in an illusory manner is readily known. When I look at you, I see you as a thing of great physical substance, has a “solid” being. This is an illusion. Your body is composed of atoms of various types. The chemists have informed us that atoms, on average, are 99.9999999999996% empty space. So why, when I see you, do I not “see right through you”? Why do I see you as a solid substance if you are mostly empty space? It is a fault in my ability to perceive which causes this. We cannot readily “see” or otherwise sensibly experience Brahman partly (or mostly?) because of the limitations of our perceptive anatomy.

The reason you can’t see through me has to do with the way photons of light interact with the atoms of which I am comprised. Of more philosophical interest is how and why your mind interprets the information your senses bring to it, when those photons of light make contact with your retina.

Many would argue that the image of me you hold in your mind is entirely reducible to material phenomena - electrical impulses registering in the brain etc. But that does not explain why it is that you are having this conscious experience, why you are aware and seemingly watching this movie of your life. This is known in philosophy as the Hard Problem of Consciousness;

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oops, Sorry. Vedanta says, Something present never caused anything. IT doesn't caused apparent perception. Also, it doesn't caused Misperception.

The Truth is, the Misperception/Ignorance is never caused by Presence/Brahman.

Okay, so it is caused by nothing out of nothing and is really actually nothing and not just the word nothing. Got it.

 

[Zwing]

The reason you can’t see through me has to do with the way photons of light interact with the atoms of which I am comprised. Of more philosophical interest is how and why your mind interprets the information your senses bring to it, when those photons of light make contact with your retina.

Yes, but the point is that our senses deceive us in Vyavaharika.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The reason you can’t see through me has to do with the way photons of light interact with the atoms of which I am comprised. Of more philosophical interest is how and why your mind interprets the information your senses bring to it, when those photons of light make contact with your retina.

Many would argue that the image of me you hold in your mind is entirely reducible to material phenomena - electrical impulses registering in the brain etc. But that does not explain why it is that you are having this conscious experience, why you are aware and seemingly watching this movie of your life. This is known in philosophy as the Hard Problem of Consciousness;

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

And it connects to the Is-Ought Problem. Or the problem of "das Ding an sich". Or the problem of the Evil Demon or any other variant of that.

I once wrote it by a scientist described rather matter of fact - humans experience the world as a cognitive bubble.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but the point is that our senses deceive us in Vyavaharika.

Yeah, all fair and well, but how do you know that AND how come you can then answer this?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Inspired by @VoidCat's Ask a nonbinary person thread. Ask me anything nondual (or about nonduality of you so wish). Keep in mind I'm only speaking from my own experience and no one else's and I don't speak on behalf of any religion or philosophy. Flood the thread with any argument you wish. I'm game. If you want to attack me or my view, I won't put you on ignore, but I will ignore you. However, I won't ignore you if you tell me I (mind and body) don't exist. I might even agree with you.

Dear @SalixIncendium,
I feel a fool, but “nondual” in which respect? I’ve tried to understand the context by reading the posts in this thread but I don’t think it’s clear to me and I’m now feeling most confused. Have you got the space to explain in your own words?
I ask genuinely with no agenda but to understand what your thread is about.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[RestlessSoul]

And it connects to the Is-Ought Problem. Or the problem of "das Ding an sich". Or the problem of the Evil Demon or any other variant of that.

I once wrote it by a scientist described rather matter of fact - humans experience the world as a cognitive bubble.

Is-Ought is David Hume isn’t it? I still find it difficult to articulate the Induction Problem, but this seems to be related in some way; that we unconsciously arrive at conclusions which don’t logically follow from the premises?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If a thing…let’s call it an appearance, in Vyavaharika is the result of causation, then what is the cause? If Salixincendium “appears” to me in Vyavaharika, then is his appearance based upon nothing? What is the cause of it?

The question is a bad one. Cause is equivalent to 'why.' This is like asking, "Why why?"

I say that the cause of Salixincendium appearing to me in Vyavaharika is that there is some emanation of ultimate reality within Paramartika which manifests to me as Salixincendium within Vyavaharika.

This is duality.

The very durability of the appearances that we see in Vyavaharika seem to attest to this, for if Salixincendium were an appearance based upon nothing, then I could not reproduce that appearance at my own will, such as by getting into my car and driving to Chicago to see him. If the appearances within Vyavaharika were based upon nothing at all, then they would not be so subject to our will, and would appear and disappear at random, in much the same way that dream figures do.

The argument of durability. This is also addressed in the Mandukya Karika.

Do dream figures appear and reappear from the perspective of your dream character in your dream? From the perspective of your dream-self, the dreams features the same durability as the perspective of your dream self in vyavaharika. It is only when you awaken from the dream does that durability fall away. This is also the case when one 'awakens' from vyavaharika to Paramartika.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Dear @SalixIncendium,
I feel a fool, but “nondual” in which respect? I’ve tried to understand the context by reading the posts in this thread but I don’t think it’s clear to me and I’m now feeling most confused. Have you got the space to explain in your own words?
I ask genuinely with no agenda but to understand what your thread is about.

Humbly,
Hermit

So I know what to address when answering your question, what is your current working understanding of nonduality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is-Ought is David Hume isn’t it? I still find it difficult to articulate the Induction Problem, but this seems to be related in some way; that we unconsciously arrive at conclusions which don’t logically follow from the premises?

Well, yes.
It is an invalid deduction, for which the conclusion is not true as per observational evidence and even runs into the induction problem.

I will make a simple formal example.

X is Y, thus Y is Z or even X is Y, thus X is Z.
Example:
There is only subjective evidence for God, thus there is no objectively existing God.
That is an invalid deduction, because you simplify it as
T is S Ev for G -> T is non-O Ex G.
The trick that only subjective evidence says nothing about objective existence. What is missing is that only subjective evidence is equal to no objective existence for all time.

The problem is that the bold is equal to, is cognitive as a process in the mind and not objective outside the mind and for all time runs into the induction problem. The last one is the only as the induction problem for all time.

So it is in effect a common way of making an argument and is a form of a "lazy" short cut in thinking.

And then the ought. There is no objective evidence for God, therefore we ought not believe in God. That doesn't follow and the second one is not even descriptive as an "is", it is a norm and not a description.
The trick is, that "is" has 2 meanings, descriptive and normative for the same words - That is wrong can mean 2 things. It is not so versus you ought not do it.

Now that is it for a skeptic like me. And I accept that other people understand it different and I may even be normatively wrong or even think in a wrong manner, but I still act on it. Just as other people act differently than me. That is how an illusion is unreal, yet it has real consequences in the everyday world. We all act on our individual understanding even if it the latter is really unreal and thus our acting is real if it can be observed.
The Thomas theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

The absurd version. Even if really unreal, there still seem to be consequences. You can observe that one in not just this thread.

Hope it helps.

 

[Zwing]

The question is a bad one. Cause is equivalent to 'why.' This is like asking, "Why why?"

Only ultimate causal interrogatives are pointless. Causal interrogatives pertaining to method are appropriate and generally bear fruit. Asking, “why do I perceive Salixincendium?” is a reasonable question. Asking “why is Vyavaharika related to Paramartika as it is?” Would seem to be a pointless exercise.