Some findings trawled when having a look on the other side

Originally posted by bbarr
I agree, in sentiment, but I just don't think there is any meaningful interpretation of the word 'God' that both fits these experiences and tracks common usage. I find joy and contentment within, where I'm not even really there, or am there, but not as me, or as me, but only as that which is the ground of experience, or something like that I can't express (an ...[text shortened]... ous make this or that claim, I function as a philosopher. In that guise, I am an atheist.

When you have experienced joy and contentment without the your ego disturbing or interfering in any way, you have experienced the Antaryami or the Inner Ruler or the Self. The Self is an image of God reflected within yourself. So, how does it matter that there is a need to compress God within the bounds of words or concepts ? That is your ego or your image of yourself as a knowledgeable man which is creeping back to take control. Do not allow ego to stand in the way of Bliss.
Very sorry for the late reply.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b] i)" Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration-courage,
clear thinking, honesty, fairness and above all, love of truth "------H.L.Mencken.

Fair enough (though I certainly don't want to associate myself with his political views, this statement is one I can probably get behind)

ii) " Knowledge is impossible "- a systematic whole "--- F.H.Bradley again

Sounds reasonable.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Very sorry for my late reply.
What is the difference between " Absolute Knowledge " and " Knowledge " ?
The Plato definition which says that " Knowledge is justified true belief " was challenged by Gettier who pointed out that coincidentally correct belief or a belief correct only because of a misunderstanding is not knowledge. This has qualified the Plato definition. Our Adya Shankaracharya says about the same thing, by stating that Knowledge must be free from any superimposition or Adhyas. But what is " Absolute Knowledge " and how does differ from Knowledge ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Very sorry for my late reply.
What is the difference between " Absolute Knowledge " and " Knowledge " ?
The Plato definition which says that " Knowledge is justified true belief " was challenged by Gettier who pointed out that coincidentally correct belief or a belief correct only because of a misunderstanding is not knowledge. This has qualified the Pl ...[text shortened]... ition or Adhyas. But what is " Absolute Knowledge " and how does differ from Knowledge ?

If you require something to be 'known' with Absolute certainty,
ie there is no possible way it can be wrong, then that would be absolute knowledge.

This can be had potentially (arguably) in mathematics, and feilds of logic.

However this can't be had for anything of the world around us due to the evil demon/brain in a vat/we're all in the matrix problem.

You can argue (and this is skepticism taken to its absolute extreme) that because it is possible that your senses deceive you,
that everything you experience is created by some evil demon and isn't actually real, that you can't have absolute certainty about
anything in the world around you, and that the only things you can know for certain are things that you can prove logically in the abstract.


However this isn't particularly useful for dealing with that fact that the world very much behaves like it does exist, actions do have
consequences, and there is no current way of telling apart a real universe we collectively experience or a perfect illusion of one.

Thus most people regard the 'evil demon' problem as pure solipsism and while acknowledging that it might be possible there is no
reason to think it true, no test to tell if it is true, and no gain from accepting it as true, and thus just ignore it and assume the universe
is real.

There are of course real situations where our senses do indeed get deceived, which does have to be taken into account.
However the fact that they are fallible (in predictable and identifiable ways) does not mean that our senses are useless.

So the difference between knowledge and absolute knowledge, is the degree of certainty to which the knowledge claim can be made.
Of course one can argue about what level of certainty should be required for knowledge claims to be justified, but it seems pointless
to require 100% certainty as that is not actually attainable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you require something to be 'known' with Absolute certainty,
ie there is no possible way it can be wrong, then that would be absolute knowledge.

This can be had potentially (arguably) in mathematics, and feilds of logic.

However this can't be had for anything of the world around us due to the evil demon/brain in a vat/we're all in the matrix p ...[text shortened]... , but it seems pointless
to require 100% certainty as that is not actually attainable.

I offer my sincere apologies to you because my late reaction to your posts. Your contributions are valuable to me.
The " Brain-in- a Vat " or " Descartes' Demon " or " living inside a matrix " are rather far-fetched examples of what our ( i.e. ancient Hindu ) philosophers called ADHYAS.
Simpler examples of Adhyas or Superimposition are mistaking a tree stump in the dark for a man or mistaking a rope in the dark for a snake and so on.
Patanjali in his Yog Sutras has described several types of Vrittis or movements of the Mind.
Pramana is one of them. Pramana means Knowledge with a degree of certainty about it. The certainty may be because of perception or because of inference or because the Vedas said so.
Viparyay is another Vritti. Viparyay means Error. Many kinds of Error exist. Simply put,Error means failing to know a thing in its entirety. Or knowing a thing differently than what it is.
Vikalpa is another Vritti. Vikalpa is something that raises in your mind a thought or an idea that you think is a piece of knowledge but for which there is no corresponding object. An example is you saying " I have a headache ". Is " I " having a headache or his head is having an ache ? Another example is " Vandhya-Putra " or " Son of a barren woman ". There can no such thing.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
When you have experienced joy and contentment without the your ego disturbing or interfering in any way, you have experienced the Antaryami or the Inner Ruler or the Self. The Self is an image of God reflected within yourself. So, how does it matter that there is a need to compress God within the bounds of words or concepts ? That is your ego or your imag ...[text shortened]... to take control. Do not allow ego to stand in the way of Bliss.
Very sorry for the late reply.

But is the self merely an image or reflection? I thought the connection between atman and brahman (or between radha and soami, as it is said in the Sant Mat tradition), went deeper than that.

In any case, I may not have been clear before. I feel no need to compress or conceptualize or paint my experiences with words. That's why I almost never talk about this stuff here, and why most know me here as an analytic moral philosopher and atheist. My atheism results from my rejection of attempts to conceptualize what I take to be fundamentally non-dual and accessible solely via direct acquaintance, experientially. The only reason I'm talking about it now is that I think there is space to be both spiritual and an atheist, but this is explored infrequently here. The atheism can consist in a rejection of all those attempts to characterize anami (except, of course, for the poetic, the paradoxical, the ellicitive; those attempts to get out of our own way...)

Originally posted by bbarr
But is the self merely an image or reflection? I thought the connection between atman and brahman (or between radha and soami, as it is said in the Sant Mat tradition), went deeper than that.

In any case, I may not have been clear before. I feel no need to compress or conceptualize or paint my experiences with words. That's why I almost never talk about ...[text shortened]... e poetic, the paradoxical, the ellicitive; those attempts to get out of our own way...)

What does all this have to do with salvation by faith in Christ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What does all this have to do with salvation by faith in Christ?

Hilarious!

Originally posted by bbarr
But is the self merely an image or reflection? I thought the connection between atman and brahman (or between radha and soami, as it is said in the Sant Mat tradition), went deeper than that.

In any case, I may not have been clear before. I feel no need to compress or conceptualize or paint my experiences with words. That's why I almost never talk about ...[text shortened]... e poetic, the paradoxical, the ellicitive; those attempts to get out of our own way...)

Yes, as per non-dualist theory individual soul is a reflection of the Universal Soul. It is a spark from the big fire, destined to plunge back after it goes out. No independent existence. The reflection of the Sun in the mudpot full of water, disappears after the pot breaks. In the Dualist theory, the Santmat or Radha-Swami theory, the individual soul has independent existence.