Psience Quest

(2022-08-12, 03:42 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]What if we say another level of reality rather than an illusion?

I wonder if words get us lost, and also if the complexity of ultimate reality is just beyond our understanding.

Edit: I hate to bring her up all the time, but on the topic of levels of reality or perspectives or understandings, NDEr Nanci Danison distinguishes, from what she allegedly learned (or rather remembered) and experienced during her NDE, human perspective from Light Being perspective from Source perspective, and it kind of fits in somewhat with this view.

It would seem that some NDEs, and also some Spiritualist mediumistic communications, infer that Sankara's "empirical" but ultimately illusory realm of reality (of which our material physical world is the lowest level) itself is complicated and has multiple levels such as the "summerland" so often described by discarnates, in addition to both higher and lower levels of the spiritual subreality.

(2022-08-12, 04:27 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the Richard King commentary seems to "nail it" so to speak (I assume his interpretation is correct).

Does this mean it's possible some kind of interactive modified Cartesian dualism is true, but acting within some Advaita Vedanta-like framework? Surely many (Eastern and Western) philosophers' heads would explode!

(2022-08-12, 03:42 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]What if we say another level of reality rather than an illusion?

I wonder if words get us lost, and also if the complexity of ultimate reality is just beyond our understanding.

Edit: I hate to bring her up all the time, but on the topic of levels of reality or perspectives or understandings, NDEr Nanci Danison distinguishes, from what she allegedly learned (or rather remembered) and experienced during her NDE, human perspective from Light Being perspective from Source perspective, and it kind of fits in somewhat with this view.

I think to some degree one can talk about levels of reality, but it still remains unclear to me why we would think there is a level of reality that is apparently much simpler than the perceived reality...possibly to the point that this higher reality kinda-sorta makes the "lower" levels illusory?

I understand the basic Idealist / Cosmo-Panpsychist / Neutral Monist / Subtle-Materialist position that all realities would be made from a singular stuff at the level of fundamental Ground. This is of course appealing in some sense. But it seems to me this is possibly a desire for a simplicity that cannot be drawn from the paranormal data, which gives us minds that can do physical stuff (PK), spirits that can be seen and sometimes make contact with the physical (ghosts, OOBErs), physical stuff that can affect minds if not spirits (DMT/Ayahuasca + other substances used by shamans to alter their mental state), even seemingly physical entities for whom physics can be at times ignored (aliens). Even stuff that seems outright physical can serve a spiritual purpose, such as when Rolling Thunder is witnessed to transfer sickness from a boy into a pair of steaks. Add to this that everything "physical" is observed within the phenomenal...

So we cannot easily differentiate substance along causal axes, because there seems to be selective causal participation where the "physical" and "mental" overlap yet also instances where they seem to maintain their distinction. For this reason I have trouble thinking there is a fundamental Dualism. I realize the Idealist can say all of these disparate phenomena are ultimately mental, but this IMO seems to make too much light of the causal rules we see - in some sense Idealism's inability to be falsified works against it in the same way that one can always find a way to justify the Simulation Hypothesis. It's also not clear if Idealism can work when it comes to giving a full accounting for the stability in, at least, our consensus mundane "physical" reality - is there One True Subject, a God that thinks up the stabilization, or is consensus maintained through Inter-Subjectivity?

So setting aside Dualism and Monism (Idealism or otherwise)...Could there be multiple substances with certain axes of causal interaction that challenge Dualism's claim of a clear distinction between mental/spiritual & physical...but not a complete unity that would entail any of the aforementioned Monisms? This is sort of where I lean to, but it also isn't fully convincing and doesn't quite fit the claims of unity we see in some mysticism + (iirc) NDEs where everything is ultimately made by Light, or God, or Mind@Large, or...

(2022-08-12, 06:54 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]is there One True Subject, a God that thinks up the stabilization, or is consensus maintained through Inter-Subjectivity?

Good points to ponder, Sci.

Regarding just this one point: if we envision a OTS or God that creates the universe or reality through the unfolding of itself - like a carpet that is unfolded but that remains the carpet using one classic Hindu analogy I'm reading about - couldn't part of that creation be Subjects that through their intersubjectivity/consensus create realities within that Reality? So that "they" create the sub-realities, but at the same time "they" remain characters within God's ultimate play/reality and/or part of that God/Source?

I don't know if that contradicts the arguments you're making.

(2022-08-12, 12:18 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Just going back a second to the parenthetical topic I posted about earlier of Advaita Vedanda (according to Sankara) envisioning a continuation of the subtle body (or bodymind) after the death of the physical body (and not just dissolving into cosmic oneness - although that is already the case at an underlying ontological level, so it says)...

I'm just listening to this exchange between Rupert Spira and a questioner. It's not about this topic specifically, it's about how trauma subsists as a reality (in the localized bodymind) even in a non-dualist perspective (or the one Spira espouses). Spira is not a pure Advaita Vedantist, but Advaita Vendata is at the core of the Direct Approach he (and others who follow this approach) teach.

It's interesting listening to this exchange because at 14 minutes the discussion leads to talking about how the finite mind is beyond what goes on in the waking state, which Spira says is called the "soul" in the Christian tradition, and then he goes to speak of a realm, after the death of the body, where this finite, personal mind continues to exist. It does not directly dissolve or go back to "infinite consciousness or God's infinite being". (Nice bit afterwards also about the interconnectedness of the localized minds.)



So another caveat at equating non-dualist teachings (or some of them) with dissolving into oneness at death.

Just quoting myself because I came upon this thread from January 2021 where Kamarling wrote:

(2021-01-02, 03:33 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I have similar trouble with Spira who tends to agree with his good friend Kastrup. I would describe myself as an idealist and in broad agreement with them but I think they jump ahead too far and too quickly. I do think that we are all fragments of the same consciousness and therefore reality is ultimately non-dual. However, I also think that the fragmentary nature of consciousness which is responsible for our individual personalities does not dissolve at death or shortly thereafter. I think that we go on developing as individual souls or as gestalt souls over a great span of time (which is part of the illusion of separation too). I think that we evolve from and into different forms, both physical and spiritual.

Just to say this video I posted maybe puts another spin on this understanding of where Spira specifically is at.

I'm also hoping that by posting this I'm *pinging Kamarling to come join this thread from wherever he is. Hope you're well David.

I also want to add this. Just because Spira and Kastrup are friends and share similar views, doesn't mean they'd agree on everything.

I don't know if Kastrup would entirely buy into Shankara's Advaita Vedanta as it's been elucidated here. (I've seen him in a video say from what he knows about AV, it's probably close to his views, but he doesn't know that much about it). (And of course, there are different AV's. I'll maybe post about this later, but later Indian religious philosophers in the AV tradition went beyond Shankara and changed the definition of "maya" so that metaphysical realism no longer held, whereas it did with Shankara. An important distinction.)

Coming back to Kastrup. Again not to defend his views, but I did find a statement of his on NDEs that make it sound like he is perhaps open to the notion of the survival of localized consciousnesses after bodily death (in other words, the survival of the personality after death, albeit enlarged).
 
In a 2016 essay called "The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death", published in an issue of the Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research dedicated to "Theories of Consciousness and Death", he wrote

Quote:The hallmark of dissociation is “a disruption of and/or discontinuity in the normal
integration of consciousness, memory, identity [and] emotion” (Black & Grant,
2014, p. 191). Therefore, the end of dissociation can only entail a reintegration of
“memory, identity [and] emotion” lost at birth. This means that bodily death,
under idealism, must correlate with an expansion of our felt sense of identity,
access to a broader set of memories and enrichment of our emotional inner life.

This conclusion is the exact opposite of what our mainstream physicalist
ontology asserts. Moreover, there is nothing in the popular dualist alternative—
mainly found in religious circles—that requires it either. So idealism is not only
unique in its ability to explain reality more parsimoniously and completely than
physicalism and dualism, it also offers a unique perspective on death.

Circumstantially but significantly, much of the literature regarding near-death
experiences (NDEs) seems to corroborate this prediction of idealism (Kelly et al.,
2009). To mention only one recent example, Anita Moorjani (2012) wrote of her
felt sense of identity during her NDE: “I certainly don’t feel reduced or smaller in
any way. On the contrary, I haven’t ever been this huge, this powerful, or this all-
encompassing. ... [I] felt greater and more intense and expansive than my
physical being” (p. 69). It’s hard to conceive of a more unambiguous
confirmation of idealism’s prediction than this passage, although Moorjani’s
entire NDE report echoes the prediction precisely.

(2022-08-12, 06:34 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Does this mean it's possible some kind of interactive modified Cartesian dualism is true, but acting within some Advaita Vedanta-like framework? Surely many (Eastern and Western) philosophers' heads would explode!

Exactly. Of course I don't want for their heads to explode, but they need to open up their mental bounds of possibility.

(2022-08-12, 08:14 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]In a 2016 essay called "The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death", published in an issue of the Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research dedicated to "Theories of Consciousness and Death", he wrote


The hallmark of dissociation is “a disruption of and/or discontinuity in the normal
integration of consciousness, memory, identity [and] emotion” (Black & Grant,
2014, p. 191). Therefore, the end of dissociation can only entail a reintegration of
“memory, identity [and] emotion” lost at birth. This means that bodily death,
under idealism, must correlate with an expansion of our felt sense of identity,
access to a broader set of memories and enrichment of our emotional inner life.

This conclusion is the exact opposite of what our mainstream physicalist
ontology asserts. Moreover, there is nothing in the popular dualist alternative—
mainly found in religious circles—that requires it either. So idealism is not only
unique in its ability to explain reality more parsimoniously and completely than
physicalism and dualism, it also offers a unique perspective on death.

Circumstantially but significantly, much of the literature regarding near-death
experiences (NDEs) seems to corroborate this prediction of idealism (Kelly et al.,
2009). To mention only one recent example, Anita Moorjani (2012) wrote of her
felt sense of identity during her NDE: “I certainly don’t feel reduced or smaller in
any way. On the contrary, I haven’t ever been this huge, this powerful, or this all-
encompassing. ... [I] felt greater and more intense and expansive than my
physical being” (p. 69). It’s hard to conceive of a more unambiguous
confirmation of idealism’s prediction than this passage, although Moorjani’s
entire NDE report echoes the prediction precisely.

I would completely disagree with Kastrup on this. Spiritualist, Theosophical and other Dualistic Western esoteric thought clearly expects that after physical death, consciousness (after a period varying with the personality) may expand greatly to assume the grandeur of soul consciousness, or it may more typically stall in a place nicknamed the Summerland, or it may go on further, and it may or may not choose to go back into another round of incarnation. And Kastrup doesn't even hint of the obvious complications of the actual mechanism that must underly the sort of transformation Moorjani described, under Idealism.

(2022-08-12, 07:09 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Good points to ponder, Sci.

Regarding just this one point: if we envision a OTS or God that creates the universe or reality through the unfolding of itself - like a carpet that is unfolded but that remains the carpet using one classic Hindu analogy I'm reading about - couldn't part of that creation be Subjects that through their intersubjectivity/consensus create realities within that Reality? So that "they" create the sub-realities, but at the same time "they" remain characters within God's ultimate play/reality and/or part of that God/Source?

I don't know if that contradicts the arguments you're making.

This idea is reminiscent of a number of Spiritualist and New Age teachings, that our physical Universe and Reality's actual creator was not God directly, but through the vastly intelligent creative activity of extremely powerful spiritual beings that were directly created by God, termed archangels in the Catholic tradition. And that there exists a hierarchy of such beings, in charge of various aspects or elements in our Reality, such as evolution, for example. Such beings would be the very high intelligences responsible for the creative innovation of Life's evolution. Such beings would also be the agents responsible for the fine tuning of the laws of physics.

(2022-08-12, 07:57 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Just quoting myself because I came upon this thread from January 2021 where Kamarling wrote:

Just to say this video I posted maybe puts another spin on this understanding of where Spira specifically is at.

I'm also hoping that by posting this I'm *pinging Kamarling to come join this thread from wherever he is. Hope you're well David.

If I happen to, on rare occasions, come out of my self-imposed exile it is becuase my lurking here has highlighted something that has been, through some synchronicity, at the forefront of my recent thinking and I will allow myself an occasional comment.

I do listen to Rupert Spira although I find it a frustrating experience because I feel he deliberately avoids addressing the points people in his sessions bring up in the hope of a direct answer. The video posted by you here is yet another example of that and I am left with the question - what is he saying about the possibility and nature of the afterlife (which I think, by her mention of Anita Moorjani, the questioner was hoping to have answered)?

I have just finished a book by William Buhlman who does address this point directly and, like other sources before him such as NDE accounts, channeled  material and mediums, we are looking at a more philosophically developed afterlife landscape than we had, say 100 years ago from books such a "Life in the World Unseen". So these sources, like Spira and Kastrup, point to an idealistic understanding of reality extended into the spiritual realms. Those realms appear to be created and maintained by conscious beings who reside at various levels - often referred to as vibrational levels - reflecting their individual and collective spiritual evolution.

Coming back to Spira - I still get the impression, despite his talk of the soul finding itself in a different reality at death, that he considers this to be a fleeting experience before the ultimate dissolution of the personality into the single, ubiquitous consciousness. I've also been listening to some YouTube videos produced by a Buddhist monk who tries to answer similar questions to those posed to Spira and, of course, a lot of the answers are similar. Again, I have problems with the Buddhist view because it also seems to affirm that the purpose of reincarnation is to attain enlightenment (which I have no problem with) and that enlightenment is when all thoughts, feelings, purpose and identity have been eliminated. Nirvana, according to him, is the complete dissolution of the soul into the whole (which I do have a problem with). Also, as a side note: Buddhists seem preoccupied with suffering as much as Christians are preoccupied with sin.

So it has become difficult for me to offer a point of view that is at once substantially in agreement with and, at the same time, profundly in opposition to the views of reality offered by Spira, Kastrup, Buddhists, etc.  I find myself forced to bang a familiar (to those who remember some of my posts) drum: the sub-title of "Seth Speaks" is "The Eternal Validity of the Soul." Even if our individuality is not eternal, I believe there is a long process of soul evolution covering perhaps thousands of lifetimes here in the physical realms (and perhaps prolonged afterlife intervals) followed by graduation through higher levels to what is perhaps an assimilation rather than a dissolution.

So, with thanks to Ian for the *ping*, I'll retire to the lurk-o-sphere and watch with interest how the discussion develops.