Back to the beginning: the cave

[bennyboy]

I agree, theists are trapped in a cave of sorts. Some more than others.

Escaping that cave still leaves us in a larger cave, one from which I can never see any way out. We can't directly experience reality, because any information we get must go through at least one filter, most likely several, before we can interpret it. At most we can model our observations of reality as accurately as possible.

I'd wonder, if in escaping that larger cave, you'd have to leave behind all vestiges of humanity, including all the senses and the way we organize their input, and arrive at some more elemental truth.

It seems to me the goal of some branches of meditative Bhuddism could be described as an attempt to step out of the cave in that way.  (and please note that I'm referring to philosophical and meditative practices, not institutional Buddhism with temples and prayer wheels and all that)

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose it could be seen that way..though that makes it as much of a snake oil sell as institutional buddhism, since we're not actually capable of doing that. Meditation..if it does anything at all, steps you further in, not out.

[bennyboy]

I suppose it could be seen that way..though that makes it as much of a snake oil sell as institutional buddhism, since we're not actually capable of doing that.  Meditation..if it does anything at all, steps you further in, not out.

I can't speak to its actual effects, but I've read an interesting little book

https://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Medit...153740900X

The format is quite educational.  Each unit describes a school of buddhism, and its take on what does / doesn't constitute a substantial reality.  It then describes a process of meditation-- which is described as the act of realizing the philosophical idea experientially-- i.e. taking it from word to an actual moment of mental realization.  It mentions Buddha and other religious institutions only in the context of this or that visualization practice.

The stages are organized in layers, starting with the illusion of abstract ideas which cause us stress, moving through the idea of non-self, and arriving at the most extreme position-- that all of existence is empty, and that in order to arrive at truth, we have to abandon essentially ALL ideas and experiences.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a very thorough and intricate philosophy.  To their credit, buddhists did a bit more than jerk off to a magic book.

[vulcanlogician]

Fun fact: I dabbled in Hinduism for a couple years. I credit the corresponding meditation practice for bringing me the clarity to realize that I was drawn to the religion more for its symbolism and philosophical elements than actual belief in the deities I was supposed to be worshipping. I guess it's one of the rare cases where chanting a god's name leads to disbelief in that god.

[brewer]

A cave is what you make of it. Ask my friend, his name is Dave.

[robvalue]

I agree, theists are trapped in a cave of sorts. Some more than others.

Escaping that cave still leaves us in a larger cave, one from which I can never see any way out. We can't directly experience reality, because any information we get must go through at least one filter, most likely several, before we can interpret it. At most we can model our observations of reality as accurately as possible.

I'd wonder, if in escaping that larger cave, you'd have to leave behind all vestiges of humanity, including all the senses and the way we organize their input, and arrive at some more elemental truth.

It seems to me the goal of some branches of meditative Bhuddism could be described as an attempt to step out of the cave in that way.  (and please note that I'm referring to philosophical and meditative practices, not institutional Buddhism with temples and prayer wheels and all that)

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure how that could work. The "leaving behind" you describe sounds like becoming dead! I'm not trying to be flippant; just trying to figure out what it means. Even if we manage to develop some "other" sense by which we can experience reality, I don't see how it gets around the problem.

I agree that some religious stuff does indeed sound like it's trying to escape the bounds of our human form. The results always sound like utter made up shit to me though (I know you weren't saying their attempts are valid so far). It seem impossible that we could ever "know" anything objectively about reality, because it would always require some sort of frame of reference; some way in which the knowledge has been organized or filtered.

The problem with religion trying to get around this stuff is that we end up with loads of people all claiming to have all these "truths", yet they generally contradict each other and none of them have any way to demonstrate them to anyone else.

---

I guess we can just turn into this kind of ethereal mind that God is always described as being, which somehow directly knows things about reality. The problem is that if we return to our human bodies after doing so, we then have to filter what we supposedly know in the same way using our human brain.

[bennyboy]

I think the idea is that through total surrender of the self, one comes into contact with all of existence in some way.

One way I've heard it described is that all the stuff we sense is a painting-- but under it lies the canvas.

[Angrboda]

I think the idea is that through total surrender of the self, one comes into contact with all of existence in some way.

One way I've heard it described is that all the stuff we sense is a painting-- but under it lies the canvas.

Many religions have neat sounding ideas. Having neat sounding ideas is hardly remarkable if those neat sounding ideas don't correspond with reality. In Buddhism there is the concept of Makyo, being an illusion or attachment one encounters during meditation. How do you determine whether a meditative experience is makyo or not? Well you appeal to the ideas of those more experienced than you. And where did they get their ideas from? Other, supposedly more experienced teachers. And so a chain exists between the present and teachers long ago who were, at best, making guesses about the nature of their meditational experience. Meditation preceded Buddha and his interpretation of it. It was an ascetic practice long before the Buddhists adopted it. All they have done is overlay it with their dogma about reality, which is, not surprisingly, very similar to the orthodox Hindu beliefs that existed in the culture at the time. Buddhist doctrine about meditation is invention, not truth.

[robvalue]

I think the idea is that through total surrender of the self, one comes into contact with all of existence in some way.

One way I've heard it described is that all the stuff we sense is a painting-- but under it lies the canvas.

The "self" is a very nebulous concept to begin with. I don't know what it would mean to surrender it, or how it would aid the situation. It sounds like either delusion or trance-like meditation. I expect some/most animals aren't even capable of having a concept of "the self" but I doubt that helps them in this regard.

I am part of reality though, after all. My real constituent parts interact with reality. But my mind, and the concepts within it, seem to be a kind of emergent property of those parts; and as such they will always have some sort of disconnect. I'm not even aware of most of what my body is doing, on a general level.