You are hereForums / Duality / Ockham's Razor

Ockham's Razor


34 replies [Last post]
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:

I really like this concept in philosophy, and it is used quite often to trim the fat and get to the gut/core of a dialog/dialectic. I am posting this for sharing; not interested in debating this or anything like that, just thought it was a fine tool for sharing, and/or possibly working in your personal process of sadhana - if you see a way that 'this somehow does something for you' - as Richard says often (or something like that). Here is a long quote about Ockham's Razor, and it is sourced from my philosophy master. Yes, I have a master (guru if you like) for study in dialog and dialectic (Paul Newall - owner of "The Galilean Library"). It pays to develop ones 'skill' in the articulation of our Heart, and all the ways it loves to communicate through us. By the way, my name at the linked forum is "Da Fire". Enjoy and God bless.

=====================================================================================
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/...
QUOTE FROM LINK ABOVE

Ockham’s Razor, otherwise called the principle of the economy of thought, is invoked often in debate, usually to discount one or more theories on the basis that another exists which is simpler or more parsimonious. In this essay we shall consider this principle, its domain of application and some associated philosophical concerns, using examples from the history of science to illustrate some of the points at issue.

The Simplest Explanation

The principle of parsimony is typically stated as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ("Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"). Although referred to as Ockham’s Razor after William of Ockham, a Franciscan living at the turn of the fourteenth century, this version has not be found in any of his extant works. The closest match (Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora or "It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer") may have been written in quoting others, and indeed the general principle was common among Aristotelians. In brief, the advice is that we should not invoke entities in explaining a phenomenon or developing a theory that are not necessary to do so.

For example, some people suspect that crop circles are due in some way to extraterrestrial influence, whether directly or otherwise. Others suggest that the patterns are the work of dedicated artists or hoaxers and very much an earthly occurrence. On the face of it, then, especially given that the latter group have been able to demonstrate the construction of a crop circle, there is no need to posit aliens to account for why farmer’s fields are routinely invaded in this fashion. If we wish to hold to economy of thought, we should pick the simpler explanation.

Ockham’s Razor is a principle; that is, it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true (or what there is); but instead that we ought to prefer it on methodological grounds. We are counselled to adopt theories which are minimally efficient, insofar as they can do the same with less. Note that there is apparently no reason why we should do so: a direct route to a destination is neither better nor worse than a diversion unless we include the criterion that we wish to get there by the most direct route (and even then it may not be, so we will return to this analogy later.) Nevertheless, it seems plain enough that we are inclined to favour the simpler explanation, other things being equal. It is this assumption that we shall now examine.

Applying Ockham’s Razor

Perhaps the best-known example of two competing theories between which a decision had to be made was the seventeenth century controversy over astronomical systems. The long-standing Ptolemaic/Aristotelian model of the heavens was challenged by the Copernicans, who insisted that heliocentrism was simpler than geocentrism. (Note that the question of geostaticism – or the fixed (or otherwise) nature of the Earth itself – was a separate issue.) Since that time much effort has gone into demonstrating (or refuting) the claim that either system was more parsimonious than the other.

Although Copernicus had believed that a sun-centred universe consisting in circular orbits was the most beautiful that could be created, he did so on the basis of thematic assumptions derived from his neo-platonic influences and not as a result of any new observations, of which there were none until some years later. (Max Jammer has shown that Copernicus’ reasoning resulted in his being faced with having to reject either geocentrism or the Aristotelian conception of space. Having no metaphysical substitute for the latter, he was forced to dispense with the former. Ptolemy had actually considered the possibility of circular motion but dismissed it precisely because it did not agree with what was seen in the night sky.) On making the change to heliocentrism, Copernicus found that he still required the assistance of devices like epicycles to save the phenomenon; that is, to make the predictions of his theory agree with what was actually discerned by astronomers. The issue of comparative simplicity has subsequently been reduced by some commentators to counting epicycles but for our purposes this is beside the point: neither the Ptolemaic nor Copernican system was empirically adequate, leading Kepler to produce another.

The basic error inherent in the counting approach is to consider theories in isolation. A theory includes a host of ancillary presuppositions and exists within a metaphysical system. A comparison with an alternative implicitly or otherwise assumes that all other things are equal (called a ceteris paribus clause in Latin) when they are not (or, at the very least, no attempt is made to show that this requirement is satisfied). Copernicus himself was wary of asserting the truth of his system and only received a copy of his De revolutionibus orbium celestium on his deathbed. When the issue was forced during the so-called "Galileo Affair", a judgement was sought between two systems whose empirical base was the same and whose practical utility was identical at that time. Galileo sought to delay any choice by invoking the Augustinian principle that it would be folly to ground theological certainties on physical propositions that may subsequently be shown to be false, but his pleas were not heard.

There are several lessons to take from this historical episode. In the first place, we have two competing theories with the same content, and thus a prime candidate for the application of Ockham’s razor. Upon consideration, however, we immediately note that the ceteris paribus clause was not satisfied, and for many reasons. The theological consequences were (ostensibly) very different; the political outcome moreso, particularly against the backdrop of the Reformation; the implications for morality were easy to predict but harder to judge; and the metaphysical fallout was just beginning to be investigated. The decision made on this basis did not count the number of postulated entities (which were the same to all intents and purposes) and did not include a conclusion on the relative economies of each theory, since they were also equivalent. In any event, Copernicanism was rejected with scarcely a mention of William of Ockham.

We know now, of course, that a variant of heliocentrism eventually won the day. Galileo’s warning to the Church was not heeded and its choice to assert the reality of geocentrism had catastrophic results for its authority and – later - its credibility. Nevertheless, the history of this change is also illustrative: at no time was there an invocation of the "decisive experiment" of myth, dreamt of by many a philosopher of science. When Foucault’s experiments with his pendulum showed the movement of the Earth, confidence in geocentrism had already been slowly eroded over the years. At the only stage in this entire episode that a comparison between rival theories had been insisted upon, the question was decided by "non-scientific" means (notwithstanding the anachronism implying the inverted commas) with Ockham’s Razor playing no part.

The general point raised by this brief study is that Copernicanism required time to develop. Attempting to make a straightforward comparison was disastrous for the Church and for astronomy (and subsequently science) in Italy. Kepler was able to refine the basic Copernican insight because the theory was not limited to the narrow domain in which it was judged.
=====================================================================================

0
Your rating: None

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
in practice

Please bare with me it can take some time and writing to convey this idea properly for some people. The reason is the way language is used in this is not common. The words may sometimes seem big and obscure, but that is because when using this (ockham's razor) in practice words that carry precision and technical accuracy are required.

I decided to use something that has already been worked on. This is my philosophical attempt to present a transcendent reality of consciousness in logic (using Ockham's Razor to clean it down to the bare bones). The link to see the thread is below.
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/topic/3551-transcendent-n...

This is one of the most prestigious philosophy forums on line, and you can see my thread is so clear and precise that no one can really touch it.

Here are some definitions of what I call the three big ideas of philosophy, which ultimately renders a philosophical source for all moral and practical purposes, and they find clear expressions in the following method, but first here are some general definitions of the 'big three' that will help those unfamiliar.

all wiki sources - I would give Standford Encyclopedia versions that is probably way to wordy.

Ontology =(from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: "of that which is", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Epistemology =( pronunciation (help·info)) (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

Metaphysics = is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
"What is there?"
"What is it like?"

Now I have the three big ideas organized into a logical following. The reason I placed the words ontology - epistemology - metaphysics at the end of each sentence is because each sentence is also geared to fulfill these three requirements for complete precision, and clarity.

1: There is an ontological reality (that does not change) transcendent of all change. (ontology)
2: Humans have a transcendent quality (or ontology) of consciousness that does not change. (epistemology)
3: Reality (the whole cosmos/existence) is both changing and unchanging. (metaphysics)

The use of the word transcendent provides me with something that can be explained in terms of a reality that (apparently Must) exist. I do not use the word God (fully loaded word with tons of tangents), thus, it gets Ockham's Razor. I do not use spirit or any other common term here; because a transcendent reality is as simple as you get, and still pull off the human form as the source for such knowledge. Let me explain further.

1: Existence exist.
2: Existence exists right now.
3: Existence exists transcendent of all appearances.

Another example

1: Reality exist right now.
2: Reality must always exist.
3: Reality is all existence.

There are no limits to the transcendent reality of existence, and that reality is all existence (regardless of appearance), following this; humans and their consciousness is sourced in that reality only. Thus, human consciousness is inherently bound to that reality.

So, how can this be used in a spiritual dialog. We can certainly get rid of the word God, spirit and any term that has local cultural influences tied up in the definition. When we take our conversation and start with the bare minimum we can always start on common ground. Hope this helps, if anyone has more questions or whatever, I will be happy to do my best to clear that up.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Mukti Da's Ockham's Razor Transcendent Reality Thread

Mukti Da--

When you described your metaphysical thread, based on Ockham's Principle of Parsimony, that description made me curious about it. But the link that you gave doesn't link to a thread.

Would you be willing to just give an outline of your parsimonious metaphysical explanation?

If it's really parsimonious, then it won't take up much writing-space or writing-time anyway. Besides, you could just copy and paste it, without spending any additional writing-time.

Yes, that would be best--Just copy and paste it into a post here.

So, instead of linking to it, would you just post it here, in this thread?

Or maybe, if you prefer, start another thread in this same sub-forum, with a subject-title that clearly identifies it as the parsimonious metaphysical explanation to which you referred.

Michael Ossipoff

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Thank you Siddha Buddha for

Thank you Siddha Buddha for your so carefully exhaustive reply.

I agree this is indeed the classical common ground of this bare minimum of statements.

Isn`t it fascinating that a so extremely thiny stuff can give rise to tons of discussions during human History?
And the stuff is itself both fascinating and impossible to grasp, yet the discussions will go on in infinity between sceptics and believers.

I wonder about the second of the three big ideas:
"Humans have a transcendent quality (or ontology) of consciousness that does not change.(epistemology)

How do we know or prove it?

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
esoteric anatomy

Our universal esoteric anatomy is the source of the evidence, that is Our Proof. The same anatomy of consciousness is found in all people. Thus, Every human can directly experience the transcendent presence of consciousness. The anatomy of esoteric consciousness is the same for everyone. We all have a kundalini; we all share the same centers of consciousness along that structure, and we all share the same path ways of the flow of consciousness through that anatomy. The Divine Current follows a path down along the front of the body, and ascending along the spinal into the eye and crown. There are other dynamics relative to the Way the Divine works within and through the body/mind. The fundamental truth is that regardless of the individual experience (and interpretation) of the esoteric anatomy the structure and dynamics experienced from the body/mind perspective all use the same anatomical structures of consciousness.

The Realized understand that everyone can live and breath the Heart~Fire and that feeling, regardless of the individual's interpretation of that experience, appears in the same region on every person. We all share the same anatomy of God-Realization. This is how we prove It. Over our history many people across the globe have independently verified subjectively certain parts of this anatomy of esoteric consciousness. Thus, you see the vast array of spiritual traditions and religions, yet, they all are communicating their unique revelation(s) through this anatomical structure of consciousness. The individual interpretations and the cultural teachings that have been passed down over the ages have, in a way, kept the universal understanding of this anatomy tied down.

So, when a person within a Christian tradition experiences the Heart~Fire they attach their local cultural standards and beliefs to that experience and lose the universal. When a person in Buddhism has an experience of the Heart~Fire they attach their local cultural standards and beliefs to that and lose the universal communication. If we step back and approach this from a universal transcendent consciousness we can apply our local cultural experiences, and merge those with the universal qualities. We have to treat the anatomical structural presence of esoteric consciousness like a science in the midst of our personal interpretations. Our inborn/innate humanity is the resource for our evidence of a universal transcendent reality of consciousness. By using Ockham's Razor to cut out the God idea, and all loaded words like that, and replace them with a universal word that is beyond cultural and individual interpretations we can move forward as a global community working together for one Universal Realization of Reality via our common humanity; via our common and shared esoteric anatomy of consciousness. It is not necessary for everyone on Earth to follow one specific religion/tradition. Yet, our specific and unique traditions have value and teachings that guide us to realizing certain parts of our common esoteric anatomy. With the Awakening of the whole anatomy, and the free flow of the transcendent consciousness of reality in, as and through that anatomy of consciousness, we transcend the unique cultural limitations, while inherently not denying them. Some traditions have only learned and taught about certain aspects of the esoteric consciousness. These traditions become bound and limited to those communications. There are some yoga traditions that focus primarily on the ascending of the kundalini. But, this is not the full revelation of the 'whole' anatomy of esoteric consciousness. So, there may be traditions that are focused on certain aspects of the anatomy of esoteric consciousness, but that does not mean they have a monopoly on the kundalini, or the inter-active dynamics that correlate with a genuine awakening of the kundalini.

It has taken our collective history and collaborative effort to slowly reveal and come to awareness of the fullness of the esoteric anatomy of consciousness. Our common anatomy of consciousness is how we prove It. Thanks for your question Anna, and I hope this adds to the conversation.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Thank you Siddha for your

Thank you Siddha for your thoroughly elaborate answer which I tried to examine in detail.

The problem has been to understand the epistemological statement in your previous post and I must admit that it hasn`t become more clear to me now.

The key-words that need to be clarified before one can understand what we mean - if it is possible at all are:

Consciousness
Experience/Individual experience
Interpretation

Do we scientifically exactly know what consciousness is? If not, which it is the case, how can we maintain that it is transcendent?

The experience we have in different situations, as you are also explaining, is variable in different persons.

If we interpret one and the same experiance differently, how can we maintain that we all use the same anatomical structure of consciousness?

Of course I must admit it is easy to get confused in trying to intellectually understand spiritual stuff, but in the same way it is not easy to treat esoteric consciousness like science.

Anyhow, even it is challenging and quite crazy to question that which can`t even be spoken about, most often we can`t help doing it.

Thank you for your patience and care.

Anna

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Hey hey

Epistemology is concerned with the faculty of knowledge. For example, we learn about smell through the nose. The nose is our universal faculty of smell knowledge.

So, with this in mind lets move on. Consciousness has been discovered in Quantum theory to have an interaction with reality beyond the body/mind complex. The most common reference to this is the two slit theory. Not going into all the details here, simply in an experiment human consciousness determines the out come of an event by simply turning ones attention to the event (the electron is not a conscious being/person - but apparently it is exists in a state of consciousness - it is in a conscious state of relationship with the human condition). Reality is literally transformed/changed with the interaction of human consciousness. And this interaction does not require one to do more than think. The electron changes from a wave pattern into a particle interaction.

In other experiments, a scientist has shown that two people can share the same brain wave patterns without being submitted to the same stimulus. Example; two people sit together and meditate on communicating transcendent of time and space. These two are then separated, one in one room and another close by, but in an isolated room separate from the other person. One person is given a visual stimulus and both show the same brain activity even though they are separate and not experiencing the same things, they show the same brain activity simultaneously. This shows that science is aware of these capacities of consciousness.

Amit Goswami is someone I highly recommend for learning about some of the advances in science regarding some of the ideas I mentioned above. Also, watch – ‘Quantum Activists’

Getting to the idea of experience... Experience is always in reference to something having the experience. In other words, experience is something that happens to someone or something. Yet, from the above science we can see that experience can be shared transcendent of time and space. The body/mind does not limit consciousness. So, if a person wants, philosophically, you can step outside of the body/mind and claim that the universe is made of consciousness. Instead of the old idea, which says the body/mind forms the conditions that support consciousness, which says that the animals are not as evolved as us, therefore, their body/mind is not as conscious as the human. Another way of thinking about this says that the universe is absent of consciousness until humans evolved a body that somehow rendered the conditions that allowed consciousness to become a reality.

In contrast, we can say that the universe is consciousness, and the body/mind is a functioning point of view of consciousness (and science is now beginning to back these ideas up) - water and whirlpool. One can see that instead of consciousness evolving from the inanimate (unconscious universe), rather, consciousness is the universe - the universe is made of consciousness, thus, we appear in the midst of consciousness, and the body/mind is just one way that universal consciousness manifest through point of view, but 'point of view' consciousness is not separate or other than the universal consciousness. Whirlpools in water are still just water contracted into points of interaction. This explains the transcendent reality of consciousness, and the reason for both, individual experience and universal experience. Both the universal and individual experience are valid. It is the interpretation that causes all the issues.

Interpretation is explicitly entangled with experience. Experience is entangled with 'point of view'. Our interpretation of reality is not necessarily based on experience. I can (falsely) believe that we are all ruled by invisible pink elephants. The sentence contains a contradiction, and something that does not follow experience. Something cannot simultaneously be invisible and pink. We can apply all sorts of interpretations for believing such and such, but these interpretations do not follow reality, necessarily. If a person is cut and bleeding, our interpretation of this experience may or may not help the individual heal. The experience of the body/mind being cut is undeniable, but, interpretation is another matter. This leads to the understanding of anatomy. We all have a heart, brain and spine. If you remove someones heart the experience can be interpreted many ways, but the actual injury remains regardless of what we say about it. The anatomy remains regardless if we are aware of it or not, regardless if we know how to heal someone from injury or not. This applies to the esoteric anatomy of consciousness. We all have the same structural anatomy of consciousness, and our interpretation of that anatomy does not necessarily follow the fundamental reality of the presence of that anatomy. We can say that the heart is the source of all bone marrow, but that does not mean we got it right. We can be aware of these anatomical similarities found in all people, but, even our awareness of these things does not mean our interpretation of these things is correct.

In conclusion, the human form is all we need for the evidence of the universal - it is our epistemological tool of God Realization. It is our science, and it is our spirit - neither contradict or jockey for the position of truth - which is transcendent of both because of the limitations of interpretation. The word heart is not an actual heart.

The great reality of all sharing the same esoteric anatomy is that interpretation of that anatomy does not stop it from functioning. God works through that anatomy regardless of your interpretation. The realized understanding that concepts are not the source of consciousness, or a conscious awareness says that they are whirlpools in water; concepts only come from the substance of consciousness, and can never be isolated from consciousness. You can't pick a whirlpool from water, or water from a whirlpool. The whirlpool can be viewed as interpretation, and experience, and neither limit or change the fact it is all happening in water. I hope this brought us further in the dialectic/dialog.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Replying to this post I`ll

Replying to this post I`ll try to also keep in mind Dana`s comment here below.

Everything you said Siddha and Dana, sounds beautiful and true yet to me it has validity only in the relative domain of personal experience and interpretation, meaning it hasn`t strictly scientific reliability.

Why? Because we are using theories from interiors (our consciousness)as being objectively observable exteriors.

Even in science Quantum theory is still a theory and the experiments with telepathic meditating people aren`t convalidated yet. They have to be first repeated more times with the same outcome by different scientists to get a consensus.
This is also true for Amit Goswami.

Intuitively, metaphoricaly, spiritualy, as an interior experience the esoteric anatomy of consciousness gives a wonderful feeling but this realization cannot be translated into science as we conceive it today.

The statements "...we can say that the universe is consciousness" or "Both the universal and individual experience are valid" are only human interpretations of the Mystery.
The only phenomenon we know is our own consciousness, it is all we`ve got.

So my epistemological quest remains still a quest, but the mind will never stop asking.

Btw: M-theory could mean Mystery-theory, I wonder when it will be proved...

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Theory?

Theory is the highest form of knowledge we can learn from empirical evidence. Theory is not 'just' theory.

Regarding the esoteric anatomy of consciousness, that is both subjective and an objective form of knowledge. I have a heart and it is in my body, you can't see it but I can describe many interpretations of my experience regarding the heart. The reality is that the heart is both subjective and objective. I have heart~fire, and it will always appear in the chest region of the body. If you come and meditate with me, and you are able to tangibly feel the heart~fire in your chest, that makes the esoteric anatomy both subjective and objective. The kundalini runs along the spine, and if you practice communion with me eventually that structural anatomy will come to life, and demonstrate the same structural presence in you as it does in me; your interpretation of what it means, how it affects you, and its relationship to bodily realization are up for interpretation. The structural presence does not change based on your interpretation, nor does it change because you have a different religion, or philosophical stance.

Science has been learning ways to verify the presence of this anatomy (still a new science). Just because science has not caught up with spirituality does not make it non-scientific. Remember that we can be aware of something, and still not get the functional properties of that thing right, we can still interpret the functions of the heart wrongly - until someone gets it right, and we can all verify the facts. But, if someone independently is studying the heart there may be differences between our theory or understanding of the heart and theirs, yet, we are both studying the same thing.

It does not serve this conversation to revert back into, 'well truth is impossible to speak anyways, so forget it', or 'it is just mystery, we'll never really know'. Personal experience does not change or re-structure the esoteric anatomy of consciousness. Can you say it is all mystery about the equation "E=MC2"? The equation is not located in time and space, the actual formula was not found, picked up and then used. The equation is completely abstract, it has no actual occupancy in time/space, it does not occupy any volume of existence. Consequently, the equation is a stunning revelation of how the universe transmutes energy, and I challenge anyone to find a fallacy in the equation. This also points to another issue most like to ignore. In science a person studying quantum theory has all the proper academic support to analyze and make advances in the theory. A person that has never studied quantum theory will fall flat on their face if they randomly try to claim that the theory is wrong, or find errors within the theory. People are not going to realize the esoteric anatomy by sitting back and playing arm-chair quarter back. You either get into the actual practices of study of the esoteric anatomy or you are just playing arm-chair guru with no real Realization.

We can claim the heart does all sorts of things, but after many people have studied the heart, and many people have learned what it does, and how it works, we can heal the heart when it is damaged. That is the result of science. Even our interpretation of how the healing takes place can be up for scrutiny, but the healing occurs regardless of interpretation. Look at the 4 noble truths given to us from the Buddha. He has shown us even then that it is a science first, and realization does not require interpretation; realization transcends interpretation, but can be shared amongst us all.

You talk about 'objectively observable exteriors'. This assertion can be immediately undone. What is objective without including your self - or interpretation, what is considered observable without including your interpretation - or point of view, and what is this 'exterior' idea and where does interior become exterior? I think your reaching with that comment. Furthermore, if you like we can explore the fallacies of 'objectively observable exterior'.

The esoteric anatomy of consciousness is objective, in the way that it is functioning in 'other' people. We can't pull out the anatomy and 'objectively' handle it and touch it, but that says nothing about the actual presence of it in the body, and its relationship within consciousness (remember E=MC2). The anatomy is structurally observable from 'personal' point of view, and these affects can be measured as brain activity - replicated and mapped out. There are ways for us to move forward with the scientific exploration of the esoteric anatomy. It is not clear why people think their interpretation somehow blocks or undermines the heart~fire. Heart~fire does not appear in the calf muscle in the leg. The place of heart~fire is in the chest region of the human body, that is why it is called heart~fire not calf~fire. There might be correlating experiences regarding the heart~fire, but none of those experiences undermine the location of the heart~fire in the chest region of the body.

The esoteric anatomy is far more scientific then people want to allow. There is a fear there, that some one might try and lock down God realization through that, or that someone will claim rights and/or a monopoly on God realization. This is far from the truth of the matter. The more scientific we can make the anatomy of esoteric consciousness, the further we move away from the lies and darkness of religion, and false/wrong interpretation. So, I do not agree with your 'objectively observable exterior' as a requirement for science, or for the study of the esoteric anatomy of consciousness.

Big smiles :D

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Having reflected for a while

Having reflected for a while over your comment I`ll try to reply as clearly as I can, since the subject is getting quite complicated for my not so bright intellect.
Honestly I have to recognize that I am not a good philosopher and concerning science even worse, so it is difficult to be on the level footing with you.

Mostly I rely upon my common sense which can also be wrong and it is also true that I can`t have any opinions on e.g. the esoteric anatomy of consciousness if I haven`t studied it.
Moreover I should have defined what I meant with science, it hasn`t been so clear. For instance, there are different scientific fields: math, physic, etc but even humaniora, psychology, economics, religion etc.
There is a difference if we say: water boils at 10 degree C or neurosis must always be treated with cognitive methods.

But anyhow, all I wanted to put in question was how we can be sure that our consciousness is transcendent and above all how we can maintain that the universe is consciousness, since we don`t know what consciousness is or how it is functioning in us humans.
That was quite outside the esoteric sphere so that too has been out of place.

It was not my intention to spoil the conversation "hiding" behind the mystery which is mostly the stop point rather than the start.

Thank you again for an interesting debate and for you patience.

Anna

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
I understand

I knew this conversation could become a little specific for some people. I am surprised we made it this far without someone high-jacking the thread, and/or someone trying to ruin the flow. I will leave what I posted as my response, and if other ideas or questions come up share them here.

One thing, the two slit experiment demonstrates that consciousness is universal, and the question, 'what' is consciousness, can be turned around and asked... 'what' is consciousness not? In other words, where does consciousness end and the inanimate universe begin? Or in a much easier analogy ask, 'where does the nose end and the rest of the face begin?'

Thanks for all the great questions. I hope my responses were gentle and easy. Look forward to more discussions with all of you.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Well said

All valid and very perceptive points Anna. Indeed, what would be the purpose of the individual persona and its mind, if not to discover for herself the true nature of the trance state, and how one may transcend it? Nobody's answers will ever suffice, but your own. You're wise to not take anyone's word for it.

After all, it seems that one can’t escape or transcend the trance state, without first realizing for one's self what it actually is. Hence the personal quest.

Poet at heart

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
P.S. And thank you Siddha for

P.S. And thank you Siddha for the Galileian-library link,very interesting!

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Thanks Siddha. I`ll be back

Thanks Siddha. I`ll be back soon with a reply.
Anna

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Also to you, Dana.

Also to you, Dana.

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Interpretation

Siddha is making a very important point above. We must not mistake our perceptions, interpretations, concepts, labels, beliefs, etc, for the transcendent reality that underlies those interpretations. To put it in a simple metaphorical way, we must not mistake the map for the territory.

Creation and perception are intimately linked, far more than most realize. Our physical senses create the reality that they perceive. For example, a tree is not perceived the same way by a bacteria, a bird, an insect, and a human who experience it. To each of these individualized expressions of consciousness, not only does the tree appear different, it IS different. We perceive its reality through our own highly specialized senses. But the perceived reality of the bacteria, the insect, and the bird, although very different, is equally as valid, and each one cannot perceive the valid reality of the tree in any context but its own. This applies to everything within the space-time world that we we perceive.

Our senses and our very existence as physical beings pre-program us to perceive the universe in our unique human way. The space-time world as we know it is our interpretation of events as they intrude upon our three-dimensional reality. The events themselves are consciousness in action, inter-acting with our own consciousness, each affecting, changing and informing the other. This is how consciousness creates as ever-evolving novelty and diversity.

Poet at heart

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Nicely stated danalomas.

Nicely stated danalomas. Sometimes it helps me know that the way explained something is understood by another. And, the way you re-word this in your own way yet, still expressing the same thing.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Nature

Quote: "Our inborn/innate humanity is the resource for our evidence of a universal transcendent reality of consciousness."

I resonate deeply with this approach to understanding. I have always intuited that inherent within our own Nature, and within Nature at large, are all the resources one needs to 'discover' the meaning of our being/becoming. In other words, Consciousness provides the answer; we need look no further beyond that which is already given to us. IMHO, any Realization/understanding/philosophy of transcendent consciousness that does not take the natural world into account, that does not put it into an evolutionary context, and/or denies our physical humanity, or dismisses it as mere illusion, is only a partial understanding at best, and a metaphysical cop out.

Once Realization happens, the next step of this seemingly never-ending journey into the ever-new, ever-unfolding mystery begins.

Happy trails, until we meet again

Poet at heart

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
P.S.

Hey Siddha .. I've borrowed your Ockham's Razor to update my poem "Certainty."

Originally, I had written "The dream undeniably exists"-- but was never quite content with it, because "dream" is another one of those 'loaded' words -- and now it reads: "existence undeniably exists."

So thanks for the belated inspiration ... you see, even poems must continue to evolve ;-)

Poet at heart

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Free pick'ins

Please use this idea freely and in any way you feel it might add/help a conversation. It is nice to hear good feedback on this idea. Have fun with it....

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Thanks kind sir

As they say, the best thinks in life are free!

Likewise my positive feedback. No doubt you get your share of the negative too -- but as you say, contributing to the discussion is what counts. All the conceptual gamesmanship is just a way of exploring/expanding the limitations of one's conceptual/cultural framework.

Poet at heart

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
the market

My experience with all these wanna be teachers is that they are trying to claim Realization with a metaphysical cop-out (as danalomas said), using circular logic as their cop-out. The 'theres nothing to do, cause there is no one to do it' and/or any variation of this...

The west loves to snatch up the concepts without any further Realization or Understanding. They would rather go to the lecture than awaken to the reality. These robots, claiming to be Gurus, are not mature enough in realization to change their own diaper, much more, serve in the true function of Guru. Tons of chiefs and hardly any indians (using an old metaphor). That is why so many people get duped and abused by wanna be gurus with ONLY conceptual realization, and nothing more; and even that conceptual realization is incomplete, but complete enough to lure unsuspecting students of life.

Yeah, there are some of you here on this site...

[EDIT]
Even though some of these people are out for their-selves, hoping someone will relate to them as 'God' or Guru, the students of life, can learn from these kinds of people and move on. A person can grow beyond the relationship one may have with a wanna-be guru. Never mind the wanna-be teacher, they have built a cage to live in. Take care of your self by learning before hand about the teacher/guru you are attracted to, and learn about the way they teach.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Thank you ...

Once again, Siddha, you've eloquently stated the case for a new understanding of the human story. And once again, you've left us with much to ponder. One will have marinate within it, for a while.

But for now I will just add this. When all of the labeling and finger-pointing ends, the truth begins.

Poet at heart

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Busy with family

I have been really busy with my family. After this weekend I will finally get some time to respond properly. Thanks for your patience.

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
maybe tomorrow

I will have some more time to get into your question tomorrow.
Thanks Anna for your kind comments.

:]

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
My goodness!

And I thought that I was obsessive/compulsive about this!

One always wonders if it is even possible to logically convey the Non-dual/non-conceptual using language that is inherently dualistic/conceptual. The minute we open our mouths and speak, or put finger to keyboard, the world of dualities appears and is open to interpretation through the filter of all of those culturally embedded conditions, personal beliefs and expectations -- not to mention our genetically pre-programmed operating systems.

For what it's worth, I think you can come as close as humanly possible under the circumstances. Love the choice of 'transcendent' btw. Somehow such beautiful words say it more eloquently. But that could just be my own poetic bias/filter coming into play.

But you're still ripping off the Tao-Te-Ching :]]

Another example:

1: Tao exists

2: Tao exists right now

3: Tao exists transcendent of all appearances

Poet at heart

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
Posts:
siddha.... I request you to

siddha....

I request you to apply the razor theory on the life of an enlightened being...

it could be any one , Buddha ?...you know how (supposing BUddha or any enlightened being did apply the theory...to two equally valid concepts( vedic brahman on one hand....No self on the other) etc etc and liberated his self.

i think it could be a brilliant contribution....

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
not sure

This is not totally clear for me. Are asking if I would apply this theory in a critique of one of these masters?

S.B.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
Posts:
I am asking you to apply on

I am asking you to apply on the question who/what am I

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Me too, thanks!

Me too, thanks!

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Hi again

Welcome back Anna ... you've been missed :]]

Poet at heart

User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Thank you Dana, how nice of

Thank you Dana, how nice of you...

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Oh, Oh

Here we go again ...Who the f**K am I?

I thought we already went through this pointless exercise?

I am ... f**k the who.

There ... are you satisfied.

Poet at heart

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
Posts:
Its very easy saying F**K the

Its very easy saying F**K the who ,even a baby can say it.... but very few people can do it right. in your case though you , did not get it up , not atleast up enough to F**K it....

if there is only "I AM" and away with the "WHO".....

why do you ask If I was satisfied or not? You and I should be the same "I AM" and no "who" and you should have had no doubt whether I was satisfied or not!

as I say very easy saying F**K it , but how can one when he cant get it up in the first place...?

pssssst.... are there any problems you want to share..?

danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011
Posts:
Are you playing with yourself again?

I'm happy you can still get IT up. It must be very satisfying for your spiritual masturbation ... sorry I meant to say "maturation" ;]]

Such worldly corporeal ego-gratifying concerns no longer interest me.

Poet at heart

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 5 guests online.