Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thanks for your response. My replies are between your statements... > > >> I think deep down I am struggling here because I cannot understand how it > is possible > >> to know something without recourse to language. This is basic for me and > I cannot ignore it. > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by " to know " . It seems to me we > are capable of 'knowing' quite a lot without recourse to language. That's > not something peculiar to the spiritual domain, it's part of our everyday > lives. When we are moved by a beautiful sunrise, when we feel the gentle > caress or meet the eyes of someone who loves us... do we need recourse to > language in order to know this is meaningful for us? Lewis Hamilton became > World Champion racing driver yesterday. When asked what it meant for him he > said he couldn't find the words to describe it. The didn't mean he didn't > know it had great significance for him or that he didn't know he had become > world champion. The experience was simply more than words could express and > perhaps so overwhelming for him that no words could do it justice. > > >> I have had experiences during meditation practice (formless meditation) > that I find difficult to describe. > >> However, they need to be described. For my own benefit, it is of no use > to me to have to say that I do > >> not know what I mean; that I cannot describe something. > >> The idea of ineffability is a dead one; it communicates absolutely > nothing and leaves a conversation flat. > >> Conversations of that nature tend to end in a knowing smile, a real > contradiction. > > I'm not sure I am following you.... Are you saying that because you find it > difficult to describe those experiences they are of no use to you?....and if > you can't describe something you therefore don't know what it means? Can > you say a bit more? > > " Ineffability " .....Could it be the way you respond to the idea of > ineffability that makes it a 'dead one communicating absolutely nothing'? > > Ineffability simply means a) no words can do justice to the experience > and/or b) that for the person concerned the experience is too sacred for > them to share with others. When people refer to their 'experience' in such > a way they are telling us (through language) something very important about > that experience. It's certainly not a " dead idea " . Even so, in the > example I gave you, William James referred to three other factors that > accompany spiritual experience. Ineffability is just one aspect of > descriptions of spiritual experiences. (Other researchers refer to many > more.) Why not explore the other aspects rather than dismiss them all on the > basis that just one has no meaning for you? > > I feel we need to be careful not to get in a double bind here. When people > describe spiritual experience or spiritual knowing as beyond concepts you > dismiss it as " communicating absolutely nothing " . Yet when people (eg Jill) > use language to offer you some descriptions you also dismiss these as just > playing with words. What to do? > > >> My contention is that all of these experiences during whatever kind of > meditation we do are conscious > >> manipulations that produce chemical reactions in the body. We are like > vessels that have the potential > >> for many things and we can, once we have come to know our minds, use them > for whatever we want. > > You also said in a previous post: > > >> Everything that happens in our minds is everything that there is and it > is all Ego. > > If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that what people refer to > as spiritual experiences are really just chemical reactions in the body > produced by conscious manipulations of the mind (Ego). That's certainly an > interesting theory. The problem with theories of chemical causation is that > either you apply them to all experience including the explanation of > consciousness itself or they don't really explain anything at all. > > For example - if consciousness in the form of the mind is an independent > agent that can manipulate thought, feelings and produce chemical reactions > in the body then why can't there be other kinds of consciousness and > experiences at that level that are independent of chemical reactions in the > body? Is your sense of being an individual, someone with questions and > doubts, who wants to understand, who responds sensitively to other people - > just to be explained away as the by chemical reactions in the body? > > >> I am a total skeptic.... > > Well, you are not a total sceptic for at least you believe in your own > ideas, that you have a body and that there are people with whom you > disagree. Descartes, in his Meditations, initially assumed the position of > total sceptic and chose to doubt everything of which he could not be > completely certain, whether presented to him by the senses or the mind. This > meant doubting all his experiences, even that he had a body - afterall he > could just be dreaming. He also asked- what if there were an all powerful > being who could make him believe and experience anything? A Great Deceiver. > Of what then could he be really certain? He continues: > > " ... I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, > no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not > exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. > But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and > constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is > deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring > it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after > considering everything very thoroughy, I must finally conclude that the > proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward > by me or conceived in my mind. " (Second Meditation; para 3) with all due respect, mr. descartes, my childhood dictum, confirmed by a lifetime experience, states: " i think therefore i am mistaken " . the inexplicable (yet doubtless!), timeless and omnipresent truth/reality is not personal. though indescribable, it is ever whole, and independent of being or non-being of identity " i " ... > > In other words, only a being who exists can doubt his own existence. > Therefore to doubt one's own existence is to affirm it. > > This brings us to the entrance point of advaita vedanta and to the teachings > of Ramana Maharshi and the reason why experiences are to be noted but not > chased after, whether they be material (of the senses), mental or spiritual. > Hence Ramana (and Advaita Vedanta) states over and over again that the real > quest is to discover the truth of the one named " I " . > > I suspect that I have wandered far away from your questions, so best stop > here. > > Best wishes, > > Peter thank you, peter amigo, for your insightful post. _()_ yosy > > > _____ > > > On Behalf Of james cogdell > 02 November 2008 15:24 > > RE: What happens when the True > Divine Human Nature Reveals! > > > Dear Peter, > Thankyou so much for your post. > I think deep down I am struggling here ... > > <snip> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.