Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

[Ninshub]

Re: Realism and Advaita. I forgot to reference this very philosophically rich (Western and Eastern tradition) series of essays by Chittaranjan Naik that I perused on the website advaita.org called A Realist View of Advaita.

I'm still unconvinced that Dualism - or even my conjecture of Pluralism - is any better for paranormal data.

It really depends on what one is talking about. For example when I speak of Pluralism it's less about different substances in the sense of a "mental" substance or a "physical" substance. Rather I think the "physical" contains qualia and the "spiritual" worlds have empirical solidity & their own extended space. It's more that it seems these different realities have some kind of somewhat consistent rule-sets and in intersections between these realities we get the anomalies we witness in parapsychology.

But if Dualism is about two actually distinct substances, and the argument is there is some Designer that set things up so these two substances can "fake" interaction....that seems to suggest some kind of Monism the Designer(s) worked with.

Do the experiences during NDEs of leaving the brain and body to hover above at the ceiling of the emergency room, and the open brain epilepsy operation observations of neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, and the free will and "free won't" experiments of Benjamin Libet, better fit the "two substances" model, or the sometimes intersecting separate worlds or realms model? It seems to me that either model will do, but if just one has to be chosen the "two substances" model is a better fit to the experiences mentioned. These seem to clearly indicate the existence of a mobile immaterial center of consciousness that can as normally in life inhabit the brain and body through a very complex interactional mechanism, during which the human self is a complex entity of both brain-produced mental elements and immaterial spirit-produced (higher) mental elements, and also can separate from the body temporarily, go to the other realm, and then rejoin, or separate permanently. It actually seems from this sort of data that the best model needs to have features of both suggested models, that is, both two substances, and two sometimes intersecting realms.

Do the experiences during NDEs of leaving the brain and body to hover above at the ceiling of the emergency room, and the open brain epilepsy operation observations of neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, and the free will and "free won't" experiments of Benjamin Libet, better fit the "two substances" model, or the sometimes intersecting separate worlds or realms model? It seems to me that both models will do, but if just one has to be chosen the "two substances" model is a better fit to the experiences mentioned. These seem to clearly indicate the existence of a mobile immaterial center of consciousness that can as normally in life inhabit the brain and body through a very complex interactional mechanism, during which the human self is a complex entity of both brain-produced mental elements and immaterial spirit-produced (higher) mental elements, and also can separate from the body temporarily, go to the other realm, and then rejoin, or separate permanently. It actually seems from this sort of data that the best model needs to have features of both suggested models, that is, both two substances, and two sometimes intersecting realms.

It just seems to me if both of these realms are spatially extended, and say the hyper-green grass seen in certain "heavens" of an NDE is actually grass...then that is already a world that is "physical" in some way.

I think the key here is more challenging the notion there is "physical" stuff that is devoid of qualia. We seem to believe that because one person's green can be some other color, like how some color-blind people have issues distinguishing red & green. The conclusion of the physicalist is this is because colors are merely in the brain.

But if the brain is a filter in some capacity then I'd think it just as possible that, as certain teachings suggest, the grass is actually "luminous", holding multiple (infinite?) colors of which most of our brains pick the green option. And of course it could be this way for other quales like sound, taste, etc. Even our understanding of space begins in the phenomenal. It seems the "physical" is what we refer to regarding the world - including our bodies - that are subject to certain rules that align with our understanding of physics.

In fact if we look closely at the NDE we can see this bears out when comparing to other phenomena. To have any veridical information about the mundane, "physical" world requires some causal participation in that world. And this is akin to the Psi phenomena of long distance sensory power like clairvoyance. But the NDEr also is not subject to the rules our regular bodies are, one of the most obvious being gravity - something shared by apparitions and arguably at least some "aliens" in the reports collected by Vallee. There's arguably PK involved here but I think this lumps t[w]o different phenomena into one. The floating/flying capacity of the NDEr/OOBEr seems to be a natural capacity whereas PK seems to be an "imposition" in the regular causal flow given the strained effort it seems to often require. But if PK is of the same "mental" realm of the NDE, it means there has to be something in the physical that is receptive to being pushed by thought.

Even in the mundane this seems to bear out - a mother fearing for her child's safety seems to at least get a burst of energy if not strength, someone who is depressed feels their body is heavier, a person who is drunk has impaired access to the logical part of the mind, etc. In fact it would be quite odd for the physical body to utilize qualia such as itchiness, pain, and hunger to inform us of varied concerns if these realms were so disparate.

So it seems to me it would be quite odd to think there was a division of substances. There could be some kind of intersection but this also, upon reflection, seems to make it difficult to explain why the physical body makes use of qualia to such a degree. Unless being in an intersection of two realities means creating a new kind of reality that draws from both the "physical" and the "phenomenal"/"mental"/"spirit".

[Ninshub]

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.

although that is already the case at an underlying ontological level, so it says

Could you elaborate about this part?

[Ninshub]

Could you elaborate about this part?

I'll do my best!

This refers to how, in my original post on the topic, I wrote:

The view has two levels of reality, the empirical and the absolute. Both co-exist and the empirical doesn't collapse into the absolute, even if the absolute is at a more fundamental level "more real".

The philosophy of Sankara (or of which he is a major representative) has two levels of truth. I'll quote Richard King in his book Indian Philosophy that I've referenced in this thread a few times already:

Sankara clearly propounds a realist theory of perception and attacks the Yogacara position in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya for their apparent denial of the reality of the external world of objects existing independently of our experience of them. In that sense one can describe his position as a form of empirical realism. However, he maintains a distinction between two levels of truth and believes that our ordinary perception of reality is faulty*, being based upon own ignorance. His final position then is that the empirical world is an illusion (maya). The world is empirically real but not absolutely real. Although one can talk of the world as an effect of brahman, it is really just brahman... Our experience of a world of separate things, therefore, must be 'sublated', that is, overturned by the higher knowledge of brahman.

(Richard King, Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, Georgetown University Press, 1999, p. 156.)

*Please remember, as I posted earlier, that this so-called "faulty perception of reality" continues after the death of the physical body. We continues on as souls or subtle bodies on that empirical level, but at a deeper level of reality this is all Brahman.

It's not easy for me to wrap my own head around this topic. It's funny that you pick up on this because I was rereading a few pages of this book, at this very point, and was earlier today wondering if I should share it privately with you, nbtruthman, Valmar, whoever is interested, to help make sense of it, if you can. (It's copyrighted so I don't want to share it on the forum.)

[Ninshub]

Or better yet.

Go this webpage:

At the "Ontology, Levels of Reality, Truths" section, you can get a very clear breakdown of what's involved.

Here's an excerpt:

Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the ontological criterion:

• [i]Pāramārthika[/i] (paramartha, absolute), the Reality that is metaphysically true and ontologically accurate. It is the state of experiencing that “which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved”. This reality is the highest, it can’t be sublated (assimilated) by any other.
  
• [i]Vyāvahārika[/i] (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya, consisting of the empirical or pragmatical reality. It is ever changing over time, thus empirically true at a given time and context but not metaphysically true. It is “our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake”. It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true but this is incomplete reality and is sublatable.
  
• [i]Prāthibhāsika[/i] (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), “reality based on imagination alone”. It is the level of experience in which the mind constructs its own reality. Well-known examples of pratibhasika is the imaginary reality such as the “roaring of a lion” fabricated in dreams during one’s sleep, and the perception of a rope in the dark as being a snake.
  

Advaita Vedanta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical perspective there are numerous distinctions. It states that everything and each reality has multiple perspectives, both absolute and relative. All these are valid and true in their respective contexts, states Advaita, but only from their respective particular perspectives. This “absolute and relative truths” explanation, Advaitins call as the “two truths” doctrine. John Grimes, a professor of Indian Religions specializing on Vedanta, explains this Advaita doctrine with the example of light and darkness. From the sun’s perspective, it neither rises nor sets, there is no darkness, and “all is light”. From the perspective of a person on earth, sun does rise and set, there is both light and darkness, not “all is light”, there are relative shades of light and darkness. Both are valid realities and truths, given their perspectives. Yet, they are contradictory. What is true from one point of view, states Grimes, is not from another. To Advaita Vedanta, this does not mean there are two truths and two realities, but it only means that the same one Reality and one Truth is explained or experienced from two different perspectives.

Interesting stuff...but I'm quite wary of the idea that the experienced reality is kinda-illusory in comparison to a higher reality that seems to, at best, be briefly experienced in this life in certain mystic visions.

Perhaps if every NDEr and medium communication told us this was the case, but even there we don't seem to get much confirmation.

I'll have to look deeper into the historical nature - is it high castes enjoying the fruits of lower castes while waxing on about the illusory nature of the exploited people's suffering?

[Ninshub]

I'll have to look deeper into the historical nature - is it high castes enjoying the fruits of lower castes while waxing on about the illusory nature of the exploited people's suffering?

If you do, consider this though, again from the website I just quoted:

Elsewhere, in verses 1.26–1.28, the Advaita text Upadesasahasri states the ethical premise of equality of all beings. Any Bheda (discrimination), states Shankara, based on class or caste or parentage is a mark of inner error and lack of liberating knowledge. This text states that the fully liberated person understands and practices the ethics of non-difference.

One, who is eager to realize this highest truth spoken of in the Sruti, should rise above the fivefold form of desire: for a son, for wealth, for this world and the next, and are the outcome of a false reference to the Self of Varna (castes, colors, classes) and orders of life. These references are contradictory to right knowledge, and reasons are given by the Srutis regarding the prohibition of the acceptance of difference. For when the knowledge that the one non-dual Atman (Self) is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist a knowledge side by side that is contradictory or contrary to it.
— Adi Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri 1.44,

https://slife.org/advaita-vedanta/

[Ninshub]

Interesting stuff...but I'm quite wary of the idea that the experienced reality is kinda-illusory in comparison to a higher reality that seems to, at best, be briefly experienced in this life in certain mystic visions.

Perhaps if every NDEr and medium communication told us this was the case, but even there we don't seem to get much confirmation.

If this model is true, we shouldn't expect, however, bodyminds to have crossed over to be necessarily fully "enlightened". Therefore we shouldn't expect most NDEs and mediumistic communications to have this knowledge. (I'm speculating, of course, but according to the logic of the model.)

There are some NDEs, channels, mediumistic communications, it seems to me, that speak of different levels of reality. (Spiritualism - see planes of reality, summerland, etc, the higher mental spheres, I forget the classifications!)