Logocentrism isn't cool for the churchless

Wow, this blog is rocketing upward in philosophical sophistication. After putting up a post where I used the word "deconstruction" as many times as I could, now I've got "logocentrism" in a title.

My inspiration, as before, is a wonderful philosophy comic book by Jim Powell, "Deconstruction for Beginners" (which I surely am).

The basic notion of logocentrism, which is a bad, bad, bad thing to Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, is sort of hard to pin down -- which is to be expected from a philosophical approach that dismantles the foundation of meaning.

Here's a pretty good brief description.

1. Belief that at the origin of the whole existence there are abstract “ truths” which are organized in absolute categories. They exist only in the divine Mind and Word, and we can reach them only using language.

2. Ellis: illusion that the meaning of a word has its origin in very structure of reality and from this reason the truth regarding that structure seems to directly appear in our mind.

So if you're logocentric, you believe that Truth with a capital "T" exists in some elevated realm of the cosmos, and human beings can know this Logos directly, nothing standing in between us and reality pure, plain, and simple.

Religiosity is based on logocentrism. So is fundamentalism.

Ditto for the commenters on this blog who are supremely confident that they know what is metaphysically true, and other deluded souls, such as yours truly, don't. 

It seems then, that churchlessness and logocentrism don't get along very well. Here's some excerpts from Deconstruction from Beginners that cast more light on the subject, in the form of a dialogue between Mark Twain and some other characters.

Twain: Well what is logocentrism?

Uma: It is a term coined by Jacques Derrida. Let me give an example: The Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus, and all of traditional HIndu culture, believes that there is a Divine Word or Logos dwelling at the very Center of the entire Universe!

That word is "Om." He feels certainty because he feels this Divine Word will guarantee the truth of everything he speaks. It's like the Word of the Law in the law books that the traffic cop depends upon when he gives you a ticket for not stopping at the stop sign.

Twain: Well isn't that just like the Christian belief that the Divine Word or Logos dwells at the very basis of creation?

Uma: Yes, so you see, logocentrism exists in both the West and the East.

Twain: What else does a logocentric attitude imply?

Uma: Logocentrism also means that our own consciousness can perceive the world so intimately that there is nothing in between our consciousness and the world.

The Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus: In my infinite awareness I see the world purely. The world is fully present to my infinite consciousness.

Uma: And also, logocentrism implies that awareness can be fully present to itself, can know itself nakedly.

The Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus: In my mystical state of bliss my inner awareness swims within itself -- knowing itself -- and knowing that the mystical vibration of Om dwells at the basis of my entire Universe.

Uma: This type of thinking Derrida calls onto-theology. It is a theology of Being.

The Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus: Out of the full presence of my pure consciousness flow my thoughts. From my thoughts flows my speech. And from my speech flow my writings. (Although I never write, but leave it to my stupid, unenlightened disciples to write down what I say -- because writing is dirty, slimy, and perverted.

Powell goes on to point out that deconstruction "deconstructs notions of an absolute origin -- an origin from which other things are derived."

And that "all these desires for a fixed Center are desires for a secure, stable presence that will form a strong, certain foundation for belief systems."

What I found most interesting about the dialogue above is something I hadn't thought much about before: that Eastern or mystical belief systems which presuppose that human consciousness can merge with a Cosmic Principle are as logocentric as the Western religions which posit God as the rock-solid foundation of creation.

Certainty is the common denominator, a belief that ultimate truth can be known so intimately by a human consciousness, the words of Truth Knowers can be trusted.

Well, maybe. Me, I doubt it. There's no good answer to a question posed in Powell's book.

Twain: So the Centrism part of the phallocentrism thing is as ornery as the Phallo part?

Uma: Absolutely! In fact, people in almost every culture cherish their own idea of a sacred Center to the universe. For the Buddhists, the Buddha is at the Center. For Christians it is the Word of God, Christ. For a Swahili, it is Bumba. But for the Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus, it is the Phallus-Egg itself and the hum of Om!

Coyote: How can Christ, Bumba, Om, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha and Krishna all be the Center of the Universe??!!

Attempted answers welcomed. Believable answer not expected.

Comments

[tAo]

First, I do not think that there is any such center to the universe... unless it is everywhere at all times... and then it would not be a unique solitary "center".

Second, none of those (Christ, Bumba, Om, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha and Krishna) are anything more than words (names) and ideas. I mean, if they are more than just names, then where can any of them be found? Supposedly, in the center of the universe?
Well then, how do we, how can we, know that? Where is this "center of the universe" located? If no one knows where it is, then how can it be said that a Christ, a Bumba, an Om, a Yahweh, an Allah, a Buddha, or a Krishna is actually there?

Is there a "center of the universe"?

How would we know? How could we ever possibly know?

So as I said, I do not think that there is any such "center" to the universe... unless of course it is everywhere (at every infititesimal point) at all times... and then it would not be a one unique solitary "center". It would be in every atom and electron, and in all the space between atoms and electons and so on infinitely.

[George]

Interesting post.

- "So if you're logocentric, you believe that Truth with a capital "T" exists in some elevated realm of the cosmos, and human beings can know this Logos directly, nothing standing in between us and reality pure, plain, and simple."

In that case is 'logocentrism' just not a fancy word that encapsulates mystic traditions that try and experience this ultimate reality or Truth directly?

As opposed to mainstream religions, where one believes in the existence of god through faith and revelation, rather than direct experience?

This viewpoint is supported by:
"Logocentrism also means that our own consciousness can perceive the world so intimately that there is nothing in between our consciousness and the world."

- "In my mystical state of bliss my inner awareness swims within itself -- knowing itself -- and knowing that the mystical vibration of Om dwells at the basis of my entire Universe."

Again is this not just an echo of mystic and neoplantic traditions? know thy self, looking for truth within and experiencing a resonating shbad or Om or Tao. Possibly just different manifestations of the same experience?

One area where logocentrism seems different from mysticism, is definition 1 above, which says these absolute truths can only be reached by language, whereas I understood the mystic experience is so profound that language doesn't do it justice at all.

Personally, I don't think there are many, if any, absolute Truths; then again I have not had the mystical experiences of others on here.

[Brian]

George, there is a close connection, from the logocentric perspective, between traditional religious revelation and mystical experience.

Each assumes that a cosmic/divine "Logos" can be known completely and directly by human consciousness, nothing (or barely anything) standing in between.

Religions, as you note, view this sort of revelation as coming through certain people: Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, gurus of one variety or another.

Mystic faiths consider that anyone, or at least many people, can reach a state of oneness with Logos. But both religion and mysticism have the same logocentric perspective -- that a Truth exists at the center of the universe which can be known by humans.

My admittedly incomplete understanding of logocentrism is that it has several aspects to it. Wikipedia and other definition sources emphasize the language aspect, that speaking is preferred to language, being closer to the direct conscious connection with Logos than writing is. Plato had this attitude, and some modern mystics also distrust written communications.

Then there is another aspect: the notion that it is possible to embrace Logos so intimately nothing stands between it and us. The two aspects are linked, obviously, in that speech (or any other sort of communication) about Logos wouldn't be able to be trusted if the communicator wasn't in direct touch with Logos.

Otherwise, why would anyone take religious writings, or mystical talk, seriously? So again, religions and mysticism aren't really so different from the viewpoint of logocentrism, because each assumes the universe has a center, and it can be known.

[George]

Brian,

"But both religion and mysticism have the same logocentric perspective -- that a Truth exists at the center of the universe which can be known by humans."

-- Yip, nicely cleared up. I'd go with this definition.

I agree with you there are many definitions like 'logocentric', 'gnosis', and even 'logos' itself, which seem to have spawned a host of fairly different meanings.

I interepreted it in line with your 'other aspect', i.e. the notion that nothing stands between logos and us. Which sounds like a direct mystical experience, as opposed to through an intemediary source (i.e. guru, prophet or scripture).

[Amaranth]

But Brian, it is Plato's preference of the speaking language which prevents a certain philosophy from becoming fundamentalist. For he never abandons dialogue, which is a crucial part of his method of attaining truth. Dialogos is always connected with logos ( which Plato uses according to the sophist tradition - collecting words for speech ). Yes, Plato presupposes that there is truth, but it is something to come to through reasoning, argumentation. And even then he says that one can never ( in his life ) get to completely know truth. He is aware of the danger of closing oneself from others.

[Roger]

Amaranth,

Nice comment.

I like those technical and regulatory publications that have a definition section at the beginning or end. One can ackknowledge such definitions, while not necessarily agreeing with them. Nothing wrong, imo, with not completely knowing the truth. Likewise, becoming familiar(knowledgeable) with processes and standards
can be very helpfull.

Roger

[Amaranth]

Thanks Roger.
First I apologise if somethings are not clear to understand as english is not my native language so it's hard for me to talk about philosophy in english.
You know about definitions, I also find it very helpful to familiarise myself with them at the beginning, but sometimes they cloud the meaning if taken by themselves. I prefer to see how the author uses a certain word, what it means to him, and try to know where he is coming from. It's the same with philosophical or religious concepts. Like in Plato for example, you can't really know what the word Logos means through definitions, because the meaning can change in different contexts. It's the same when I see simplified definitions/misrepresantations of Plato's Ideas and his concept of the highest idea Goodness ( the first problem is translation as usually translators use but one word - Idea, while originally there were two with different meanings ). These are much more interesting, than popular definitions that say that the world of Ideas is separate from the transient world and that Ideas are real and exist in a world of their own, above this one.

When dealing with texts or concepts it really is easy to dismiss something just because you don't agree with the definition, but I think, that dismissing something because I don't at first sight agree with it and is wrong and through doing that I only hurt myself. If possible I don't try to project my own views ( which is afcourse not fully possible ) on the matter but let the text, the author, speak for themselves. Which is why I was never impressed by reductions of systems of thoughts. When you open yourself to other's insights you can only gain, even if some of your insights will change because of it.
This afcourse is very much related to the concept of truth. Realising that Truth is but an ideal that cannot be achieved by anyone does not imply that there is no such Truth and that there are merely opinions and no knowledge. That is why I find the concept of God to be so important, but only when viewed in the way of the old Delphic inscription:" Know thyself in relation to eternal and unchanging Gods." This knowing of myself starts with the knowledge of Gods being hidden. That is:"what can I say/think about them?" - only that words are not sufficient in describing them, no definition can define them. I'll stop here with a fragment from Empedocles, that for me best summarises my approach to Truth ( it's really hard to translate in english ) "In him is longing, that reminds beyond sight" :)

[tucson]

Ashtana(Ashy) does not like going "round and round in nothingness circles". May I attempt, as I have been doing for a couple of years here, to explain what I mean by there is no "thing", not nothing, rather no-thing. Big difference.

To me there need be no other teaching or understanding than the obvious...that what I am here now is no object.

If I am no objective 'thing' I am not subject either because a subject is also a perceived object.

Anything other but this direct understanding implies an entity that conceptualizes 'views'.

THIS to which I am pointing can be conceptualized into an objective 'thing'. But as what IT really is IT can't be thought because what IT is is unconscious of being conscious.

When we understand (recognize) THIS we can think about what IT really is or write about IT as I am doing now, but this is only an objectivization of the recognition, but not the recognition itself.

IT is not 'a' no-object but rather a total objective absence which is total subjective presence, unaware of absence and presence.

So, I (anyone can say this) therefore am not, but at the same time I AM, I who am every and no-thing and neither any nor no thing.

This is what is meant by non-duality or no-thing.

[Amaranth]

Tucson I like how you are always straight to the point.
I would say that non-duality is not an intellectual position, but what is left when you abandon concepts about reality. Eventhough one may realise it through the use of intellect and talk about it using concepts. But I don't think of it as an anti-intellectual position. In fact I would say that it is the basis of any honest intellectual system as it clearly defines the limits of thought - words divide reality into concepts of reality, but they are not reality itself. Yes it is a cliche, but it is so easily forgotten.

Tucson, I have a question, how do you relate non-duality with living an ethical life?

[George]

Amaranth,

Also an interesting post, your english is very good. What is your first language?

I agree with the limits of language and definitions, but definitions are often needed to try and get the very meaning that the author is trying to convey, to crystallise what is being discussed.

On another point, you stated:
"This afcourse is very much related to the concept of truth. Realising that Truth is but an ideal that cannot be achieved by anyone does not imply that there is no such Truth and that there are merely opinions and no knowledge."

-- I agree with you that absolute Truth is an idea, and that one cannot say that it does not exist, nor can one say God or Santa Clause exists, since its impossible to prove something that does not exist. But I would also say that just cause one does not believe in absolute Truth, does not mean that 'there are merely opinions and no knowledge' as you put it. Rather, I personally believe there are degrees of truth, which form different standards of objective knowledge, not mere subjective opinion.

[Ned]

Kudos for the deep philosophic angle.

I would like to pose a different definition of logocentrism.

If you take any idea or object as *a priori* and proceed to establish axioms based from that idea or object, you get a hierarchical lattice of thought that can be traced back to the original assumption.

What the deconstructionists said was that since whatever the original base assumption is can not be proven without resorting to further assumption, all of these lattices could not be considered absolute Truth. Plato's truth was Plato's truth and Kant's truth was Kant's truth. There is no over-arcing Truth that we are all looking at.

A derivative of deconstructionism is Politically Correct language: the idea being that there is certain language that is logocentric (ie totalitarian).

This is not to say Truth cannot be apprehended, just that it cannot be apprehended through language. This is where the inquiry into Being goes ala Heidegger and Zen Buddhism.

An argument against deconstructionism would be that the lattices of thought (and the base assumptions) are not willy-nilly. That is, they exist in a larger organized entity that is the Logos. No single lattice apprehends the Truth in absolute, but the over all act of apprehension is the Truth. Nicolas of Cusa called this "hypothesizing the greater hypothesis."

[Roger]

Amaranth, Tucson and George,

All good points made above.

One can embrace non-dualism, and also engage in dualist activity. Engaging in conversation with others, language and definitions have value. Blogging is a dualist activity, no harm done. And, yes, there are degrees of truth (non-absolute), which form different standards of objective knowledge.

[tucson]

Amaranth said: "Eventhough one may realise it through the use of intellect and talk about it using concepts."

--My view is that intellect is useful for eliminating itself which is recognizing concepts as a barrier to "understanding". Whatever Truth is, it is not an idea or philosophical construct. Once one arrives at the point where they can say "I know nothing" then maybe there will be a recognition of THIS as it is which occurs when mind "fasts". Hence, the long hours of sitting in Zen Buddhism for example. It is not that there is anything to achieve or anywhere to go. It is that by just being present now one eventually sees the immensity of it.

Amaranth asked, "Tucson, I have a question, how do you relate non-duality with living an ethical life?"

--In the realization of non-duality others are seen as self. There is a feeling and attitude of beneficence towards others and life in general. Why would one want to do harm to themselves? The thought does not even occur.

[Ashtana]

Firstly beneficence does not end with man, it extends to all of creation so if you are truly beneficent to life you would not harm any of it, nor partake of any of it for your sustenance.

Also there are no relative degrees of truth. Truth is truth, no such thing as subjective truths, only truth and lack of truth.

Thirdly semantics are semantics, intellect is intellect, and words are words, none of which relate to truth in any way whatsoever.

[Roger]

"Also there are no relative degrees of truth. Truth is truth, no such thing as subjective truths, only truth and lack of truth."

---Within dualism, there can be relative degrees of truth. No big deal here.
---Truth is truth. Ok, so whats the big deal?
---There can be examples of subjective truth. Think subjectively, and One can create one.
---There can be a particular truth, as well as the lack of a particular truth. So, whats the big deal?

[tucson]

Ashy,

You said, "Truth is truth, no such thing as subjective truths, only truth and lack of truth."

--How about neither Truth nor not Truth? Just THIS as it is and no One to think about it.

What would Truth be? What could contain it? Who would do it? Where would it be done?

Even Sant Mat mentions this...Alakh, Agam, Anami. Formless, Unknowable, Nameless.

[Ashtana]

If you wish to take your 'self' out of the equation, then who is it that is contemplating the Formless, Nameless, Unknowable reality?

Such concepts are beautiful to consider yet concepts they remain nevertheless until the contemplator becomes the contemplated

Become who you always were or ARE, but it is not 'thinking' that will shed the sheath that protects the 'I'

Truth is simple it has no form or name or knowledge, yet it would still need be caught, never thought or taught.

[tucson]

Ashtana wrote: "If you wish to take your 'self' out of the equation, then who is it that is contemplating the Formless, Nameless, Unknowable reality?"

--No one because it is not a thing that can be contemplated without objectivising itself. It can only BE itself. IT is being you now. Right now.

"Such concepts are beautiful to consider yet concepts they remain nevertheless until the contemplator becomes the contemplated"

--Yes, but to my thinking the contemplator never actually existed in the first place.

"Become who you always were or ARE,.."

--I think there is no becoming what you are because you already are what you are which when objectivised you are not.

".. but it is not 'thinking' that will shed the sheath that protects the 'I'"

--The 'I' is the sheath that conceals or obscures THIS which is but can't be known. That is, any idea of IT is not IT.

"Truth is simple it has no form or name or knowledge, yet it would still need be caught, never thought or taught."

--I think as soon as it is caught, IT is lost as well as never being some 'thing' that can be taught or thought.

[tAo]

Truth is only a word. The word "truth" refers only to an idea. Words are merely symbols for ideas, thoughts. So all there is is the word "truth", and the idea that the word "truth" refers to.

The idea of "truth" indicates an attribute of fact or reality. But is "truth" a 'thing' in itself, an object? There is no actual thing or object that is "truth". Truth is not a 'something'. Truth is not a thing, not an object... truth only a quality or a comparison.

When one seeks to find or to locate this supposed 'thing' called "truth", no thing is ever found.

So there is no thing, no object that is "truth". Thus, there is no actual "truth" as an object. This "truth" is merely an idea that is symbolized by a word.

Hence, no search for an absolute "truth" will ever be fruitful. Why? Because this so-called "truth", is only an idea.

There is no actual absolute "truth". So all forms of seeking for a supposed thing or entity referred to as "truth" or "absolute truth" or "God", and so on, are unnecessary and futile. There is no 'thing' that is the One Absolute "Truth".

There are only relative truths... such as the laws of physics, the existance and dimensions of objects in space, time (such as day vs night, youth vs old age, etc), or the senses (such as physical pain or pleasure), and so on and so forth.

There is no thing, there is only THIS.

[the elephant]

"-I think as soon as it is caught, IT is lost as well as never being some 'thing' that can be taught or thought."

These kinds of naive remarks are always amusing to read. A natural reaction of man's imagination to the ambiguous idea and reality that non-duality is. Idiots were already blaberring the same narrative 300 years ago as this sarcastic retort from Hakui is evidence of

(These idiots say) "Don't introspect koans. Koans are quagmires. They will suck your self-nature under. Have nothing to do with the written words either. Those are complicated tangle of vines that will grab hold of your vital spirit and choke the life from it."

(Hakuin replies) "Dont believe that for a minute! What kind of "self-nature" [elephant: or IT] is it that can be "sucked under" [elephant: or be caught, and not caught, and lost and not lost]? ...

(The essential Teachings of Zen master Hakuin p.24)

Human naivity has not changed much since then ...

[tucson]

Elephant,

Glad to have provided some amusement, and hopefully this will elicit more hilarity...

There has never been a man who had a laugh, but vast numbers of laughs have been chuckled.

;)

[the elephant]

I wonder why determinations such as 'laugh', 'vast', 'chuckles' are freely admitted and affirmed while that of 'man' denied? what is so scary about the latter?

[tucson]

The Elephant wrote: "I wonder why determinations such as 'laugh', 'vast', 'chuckles' are freely admitted and affirmed while that of 'man' denied? what is so scary about the latter?"

--Nothing.

To clarify...

There has never been a hen who laid an egg, but vast numbers of eggs have been laid by hens.

There has never been a woman who rode a horse, but many horses have been ridden by women.

Nobody has ever done anything, but innumerable actions have been performed.

What's the difference you say?

In physics there is none, but metaphysically there is absolute difference, the difference between subject and object. The universe is not the subject of God.

You might then say, "Then the universe is both God and you?"

No: it may be both God and 'I'. (please excuse the pronoun 'I'. It is there for the sake of completing the sentence. More correctly I would omit 'I'.)

You then might ask, "So you are God?"

No. 'God' is an object, your concept, and so are 'you'. As for me, this which 'I' am is not any 'thing' at all.

You may say, "Then God is not a thing either?"

Every concept is a 'thing', but as such, is not. Neither 'God' nor 'I' is as an object.

You then say, "How do you know the universe is you?"

I said the universe is 'I'. You can say it. Every bird, every conscious being can say it. What else is there that it could be? Where else is there for it to be? Movement, space and time are only concepts. There can only be- leave this space blank - because 'I' and 'you' are not, no matter who says it.

The Elephant or someone inquires, "Then why are the bird, the bug, you and I different?"

We are not different. We only appear to be different, but primordially, noumenally we are one. As phenomena, as one anothers objects, we sensorially perceive and interpret one another as the bird, you and I. But as what we are, we are not.

Next question, "So we are not either phenomenally or noumenally?

Phenomenally we are not as entities, noumenally we are not as concepts which are also objects. What we are is not entity or concept, objectivity of any kind. So, we can't either think or say that we are any thing, for that is what we are not.

"So we can't know ourselves at all?"

We can't know ourselves at all because we are not any thing to be known. We can only BE what we are.

"How is that to be done?"

It is not to be done. It is. Everything is as it is.

"How do we see this?"

Cease regarding the universe as an object and cease regarding objects as entities for there are none. Look in the right direction where there is no direction, where there is no thing to be measured from any where.

"Is that enlightenment or liberation?"

Liberation for whom? From what? There has never been either. It is as it is. That is all you can say.

"Which means that there is no entity or object at all as such, not even ourselves, not even 'I'?"

Not even, 'Not-I'! How could there be? Does not thought unite with intuition at this point?

"Ha-ha-ha!"

That is the answer, the answer that dualistic language can't give, which can only be apperceived intuitively.

So you see why I am pleased when you laugh?

[Smack]

Brian,

Your two faces vs cup photo reminds of the right brain vs left brain test using a 3D model of a dancer.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=25642

Apparently if you see the dancer rotating clockwise you are more right brained (creative). If she rotates counter-clockwise you are more left brained (logical).

Try to see her her rotate the opposite direction you initially saw her. To do this, only look at her feet (cover up her top half). For some reason it's easier to have her switch directions when I only see her feet.

[tAo]

Here is some interesting and inspirational viewing entertainment for the enjoyment of our Churchless brethern...

Video: The Simple Temple

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3085872670599696508

for... "It is as it is"

[George]

Ashtana,

Well what would you define as truth in that case?

Newtonian physics is a pretty good model of reality, but einsteinian physics is an even more accurate model of reality. thus, einstein's model would seem more true than newtons, which in turn is more true then those before him.

If on the other hand truth has nothing to do with objective intellectual reasoning, but rather all to do with a subjective experience - then how do we know the insane man locked in an asylum claiming to be the next messiah is not the Truth; and which of the gurus and priestless of the countless religions are telling the truth; and which of the countless mystic experiences (seeminly different) are telling the truth?

In short, if intellectual reasoning and questioning cannot be applied to discern the truth, just exactly which version of the truth is True?

[Ashtana]

Einstein or Newton did not in any way discover or prove truth in any way at all. All they did is ratify certain physical dimensional attributes of nature at work, so all they did is project some frame of intellectual hypothesis to that which IS and formulated a theory around it, and in so doing verified such to be in their terms of reference 'true principles of nature'.

However Nature has been true all along, before Newton and before Einstein, and so this feeble intellect goes on ratifying and proving that which has always been true, sometimes accurately and other times less so.

The difference between that which is uncovered or discerned through greater means of perception than by the limitations the materialist is able to ratify with, is that which is ineffable and absolute is witnessed first hand and not by means of formulated scientific models.

So effectively this great balance of seeing and calculating nature which we verify and conclude by means of utilizing the scientific model is in fact inaccurate, almost like a 'veritable' truth but not the truth itself.

One would have to become a part of the experience of the 'real world' in order to see it and acknowledge it, in effect what we see and believe to be so fundamentally true and permanent is actually the opposite of permanence it is non substantial, it is ephemeral and subject to mutation and dissolution, hence it is as a mirage, untrue if you will, hardly real, an illusion, if one is capable to see through its mirage,.

Hence the Hindu scripture term it Maya, governed by time and by space it is the fabric and illusory curtain of this cosmic play, it is not True at all. A beautifully created mirage of stepped down resonances of pure spirit, enveloped by mind and encrusted into matter, it is the 'play of nature at work', and so it is but relatively true to that degree of sight the voyeur is able to awaken his or her consciousness to witness and experience IT.

Some here are correct in saying it simply IS, however it is one thing to project a conceptual intellectual reasoning to acknowledging the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent IT, quite another thing altogether to truly 'Know' IT.

[George]

Ashtana,

Thats a pretty eloquent well made post.

However, if your viewpoint is accepted that science is a distinct entity from nature and as such cannot be used to discern truth, i would argue the same applies to a spiritual or mystical experience, since this too does not seem to form part of nature.

It is only a select few mystics who have supposedly achieved tbese subjective experiences of the truth, supposedly by training their mind to tune into something which most of humanity does not appear to have the ability to do. So it would appear not to be natural at all, rather quite unnatural to have such an ability.

Also, these experiences appear to differ, so what exactly is the Truth?

I mean even if there is only one absolute truth why all these different religions and mystic traditions? They might all be manifestations of the same Truth, but that does not account for why they are expressed in such different and often conflicting ways. As such, they cant all be right, and therefore can only be versions approximating the truth, but never the Truth itself.

[Roger]

Are we talking in circles here?

A dualistic truth is a dualistic truth. Nothing more. A dualistic truth is not trying to enter a dualistic interpretation of non-dualism. True, someone may try. Sounds like a blogging duel between non-dualism and a relative truth derivied from Dualism. Why the continued confusion? These are separate blogging issues.

[Brian]

George, nicely said. Ashtana/Ashy simply is repeating traditional Hindu theology, as he admitted himself. Actually, there's no evidence of "Maya," no evidence of "illusion," no evidence of a "real world" apart from the natural world.

These are concepts, which are the stock-in-trade of religious belief. Now, there's nothing wrong with concepts. We all use them to function as human beings.

But they should relate to something real, observable, demonstrable. Not just to other concepts, rotating endlessly in an intellectual vortex that goes round and round but doesn't lead anywhere.

As tAo said in a comment recently, "truth" is just a word. For it to mean something, a person needs to point at something real, something non-conceptual, something that has real effects.

I didn't hear any mention of that in Ashtana's/Ashy's comment. Many words. No pointing to anything real.

Further, George makes an excellent point: if the universe is an illusion, and truth resides in some divine realm, why is it that religions disagree so heartily about what this godly truth is like? And given that fact, how does one choose among all the competing truth claims?

Yes, it sure sounds like religious belief is as Maya-stricken as science is. Personally, I think Buddhism is closer to reality than Hinduism and other dualistic religions are.

Namely, the mistaken belief that there are two levels of reality -- "maya" and "truth" -- is the real illusion. So those who seek something other than what what is right before their consciousness are engaging in a futile exercise.

[Ashtana]

There is plenty evidence if they open their eyes, problem is the materialists do not know how to see it, effectively they are blind.

The mystics come here to open their eyes but they prefer to remain blind and to look for this 'evidence' where it will never be found.

Brian and George and Roger are simply blind, beat about the intellectual bush as long as you like you will find no evidence here.

If any of you reckon you can reason out 'Truth' you are absolutely deluding yourselves. If you think you can uncover truth in the test tubes of your materialist laboratories you are deluding yourselves even as much.

Brian reckons the illusory nature of this material realm is a make believe fairy story, how little does he know that the very existing building blocks of his material universe are shifting under his illusory feet as he breathes and speaks, he reckons all this materialist scientifically verified grand illusion is so permanent, so real, yet he cannot for an instant recognize reality as it stares him in the face.

You got the entire rigmarole fairy story back to front, upside down, cart before the horse. You reckon this is reality, while you stroke and preen your deluded attached physical ego into 'believing' such importance about that which is merely a figment of your imagination.

This is the image, this is the duality, this is the illusion, this is the false premise of reality, this is not real at all, this is Maya, and the further you get away from the truth, from reality, the more blatantly deluded and indoctrinated into false reason you get.

[George]

lol, i might be blind, but how the hell do we know who can see?

i mean there's no point in one person jumping up and down and shouting everyone else is blind, but offers no evidence that he can see.

[Brian]

Ashtana/Ashy: once again you've said nothing, except expressed some religious concepts. A Christian claims, "Jesus saves." You say, "The universe is maya."

In each case, mere concepts. No evidence. Just thoughts wandering in a mental wilderness.

Thanks for demonstrating the vacuity of metaphysical speculation. You're doing a great job encouraging churchlessness. Most people want to live in a real world, not a realm of abstract speculation.

[Ashtana]

[From Brian: As noted before, I usually delete Ashy's rants because they are almost completely content-less, being filled only with boringly repetitive fundamentalist dogma. But once in a while I like to leave up some of his rants, to illustrate how meaningless abstract metaphysical speculation can be. Can anybody else figure out what Ashy is trying to say here? I can't get an ounce of meaning out of this comment.]

There is no 'other divine realm'

It is all one immense 'Divine Realm' as it is here as it is there, those of you purporting to 'know' what 'realm' exists other side of deaths curtain, again your denial speaks volumes about your delusion.

You have no inkling of what 'is' and what is not, you have not an iota of an inkling in fact of who in God's universe 'you' actually are.

You 'believe' yourself to be this finite collection of sympathetically coagulated particles of matter brought together by some energetic force, of 'Whom' or 'What' you have not an iota of an inkling, yet you deny it in all your intellectually driven fragmented hypothesis, that this crust is the be all and end all of who 'you', or this universe is/are.

So you revert back into your cave of unknowing, of your skeptical deluded daydream and attach your conceptual realities to isms and creeds that died out with the crystallization of their teachings.

So in effect you uphold death, you uphold crystallized non free materially fictitious reasoning as your God, as your elevation of consciousness, and still within all of it you remain emphatically blind to any vague remnant of truth that you have cast into the coffin of your deluded mind, and buried it deep within the bowls of the earth of your dead, materially blinded consciousness.

[Roger]

"If any of you reckon you can reason out 'Truth' you are absolutely deluding yourselves. If you think you can uncover truth in the test tubes of your materialist laboratories you are deluding yourselves even as much."

---Well, the 'Truth' as mentioned must be an Absolute Truth, as supposedly stated.

So, who is trying to reason an Absolute Truth through a materialist laboratory? Now, One can reason a dualistic scientific truth, using the scientific method. However, this is nothing more than that. While this Reality can be an illusion, one can engage the scientific method to investigate and study such.

"This is the image, this is the duality, this is the illusion, this is the false premise of reality, this is not real at all, this is Maya, and the further you get away from the truth, from reality, the more blatantly deluded and indoctrinated into false reason you get."

"The mystics come here to open their eyes but they prefer to remain blind and to look for this 'evidence' where it will never be found."

---So, what is this 'reality' and it's truth, that the mystics are here to open our eyes to?
---Is this a nondualistic Absolute Truth reality, that you are referring to?
---So, a particular mystic can unblind a blinded person to this type of dualisticly described truth?

Tell me more, I'm all ears and eyes.

Roger

[George]

LOL Ashtana, well it sounds like you are suggesting that the only way ppl cannot be blind is if they have the mystical experience itself, but how come only a few ppl have this experience and are thus deserving of the Truth?

What have the intellectual wranglers done to deserve to be blinded?

Just what is the Truth, is it expounded by Moses, JC, Mohammed, Budhha, Zoroaster, Zao Tzu, the satgurus. All of their revelations are different, so at best they can only be describing versions of the truth.

Devoted satsangis sit meditating for 30 years and they get nothing of this truth. Others dont follow any path and yet claim to have a transcental experience overnight providing a direct recognition of the Truth.

So now you tell me, for a neutral person trying very honestly and sincerely to see, just which of these seers should he believe and more importantly, why?

[tAo]

Ashtana says:

"There is plenty evidence if they open their eyes, problem is the materialists do not know how to see it, effectively they are blind."

-- Evidence is not just merely seeing something, or positing concepts. Also, you have not indicated what it is that the "blind" folks are not seeing. What is this "evidence" that you say others don't see. All you do is complain that others don't see, but you never tell what it is that they supposedly fail to see.

"The mystics come here to open their eyes but they prefer to remain blind and to look for this 'evidence' where it will never be found."

-- That is only assuming that "their eyes" are not open. Perhaps their eyes ARE open, and yours are not. And what is is that these "mystics" supposedly see that others do not see? And if "they" (the bind) are not looking in the reight place, then where or what is the "right place"? Moreover, just because you say this (or so-called 'mystics' say this), does not mean that you are right. In fact you may be very mistaken, deluded and believing in illusions. So you must prove that you are not, if your claims are to be believed.

"you like you will find no evidence here."

-- Then where IS this "evidence" that you speak if? If it is not "here", then where is it? Show us where it is, or tell us where it is, or produce it. Merely saying that something exists 'somewhere', but never showing where and what that supposed something is, does not make it true.

"If any of you reckon you can reason out 'Truth' you are absolutely deluding yourselves."

-- If this "truth" that you speak of, cannot be found through reason, then show and tell us what it is, how it can be found, and exactly where it can be found. If you cannnot do that, then you cannot say that reason is not effective in the search for truth. If this "truth" exists, as you say and imply, then what is it and where is it?

"little does he know that the very existing building blocks of his material universe are shifting under his illusory feet as he breathes and speaks, he reckons all this materialist scientifically verified grand illusion is so permanent, so real, yet he cannot for an instant recognize reality as it stares him in the face."

-- Then WHAT IS this unrecognised "reality" that "stares him in the face"?? If the "material universe" is a "grand illusion", then there is no "reality".

"You reckon this is reality, [...] that which is merely a figment of your imagination."

-- Then the supossed "reality" that YOU speak of, that "is merely a figmannt of YOUR imagination", is therefore also an illusion as well.

"this is not real at all, this is Maya, and the further you get away from the truth, from reality, the more blatantly deluded and indoctrinated into false reason you get."

-- Then where and what IS this "truth" and "reality"?

"There is no 'other divine realm'"

-- Then THIS, IS IT... which is more or less what we have been saying all along.

"It is all one immense 'Divine Realm' as it is here as it is there"

-- OK, that may very well be.

"those of you purporting to 'know' what 'realm' exists other side of deaths curtain, again your denial speaks volumes"

-- No one here has said anything conclusive about "what 'realm' exists other side of deaths curtain". It is a mystery. So you are putting words and purports into other peoples mouths that they have not said.

"You have no inkling of what 'is' and what is not, you have not an iota of an inkling in fact of who in God's universe 'you' actually are."

-- Wrong. YOU, simply do not know that. YOU cannot know that. YOU cannot know what other people know about themselves.

"You 'believe' yourself to be this finite collection of sympathetically coagulated particles of matter brought together by some energetic force"

-- That is YOUR idea, not mine. I do not "believe" that at all.... any of that.

"you deny it in all your intellectually driven fragmented hypothesis, that this crust is the be all and end all of who 'you', or this universe is/are."

-- I don't say that at all. And I don't say anything like that. So your judgement about what others think and say is faulty.

"you revert back into your cave of unknowing, of your skeptical deluded daydream and attach your conceptual realities to isms and creeds that died out"

-- What "conceptual realities"? I don' hold or adhere to any such "conceptual realities". These are entirely YOUR ideas.

"you remain emphatically blind to any vague remnant of truth"

-- Then do tell... WHAT, IS, THE, TRUTH? Let's hear it. Let's see it. If you have it, if you know it, then just WHAT is it? Don't say that others are blind and do not know the truth and do not have the truth... unless you have it and can show it and prove it. It's as simple as that. You have yet to produce anything.

So go ahead... everyone is willing to look and see what you got.

[Jayme]

Hi Folks,

I've briefly looked through this blog stream. Very interesting and refreshing to come back into clearer waters. For those who do not know, I am a Sant Mat "satsangi" (whatever than means). However, I am not fixated with the concept and am beginning to better understand that each truth is Truth (provided it is now). I suppose I could as easily say I am Zen or Taoist or Muslim with the right meaning of words but I'm afraid I don't know any of the rituals associated with the religious aspects of these disciplines and so would probably not fit based on the ideas of those who practice faithfully.

Anyway, after learning more about hallucinations and mystical experiences, the whole notion of "Truth" as a logocentric knowledge seems bizarre to me. There seem to be archetypes within the fields of experience which have some memetic basis but it seems that these archetypes are as dynamic as the living systems in which they live. That is, they change and hence are not Truth, imo. One can define truth (small 't') from a perspective of "knowledge," which is perfectly rational but there is always at least one axiomatic statement upon which all other "logisms" unfold and categorialize into this "tree of knowledge." There may be "Truth" but it isn't anything we define objectively through mechanism. Legalisms and ethics seem to me to be an attempt at formalization of axiomatic logocentric forms but somehow lose their life (Truth) as soon as they are codified. The ethical life is simply an inter-relationship with yourself. Treat others as if they are you - because they are. Only in the non-dual state (now) can this be realized fully.

Logocentrism and experience based reality are not Truth any more than a wisp of smoke. The same goes for these mystical experiences. It all comes and goes... but from what to to what we cannot know.

Respects,

[Roger]

Jayme,

You stated,

"Logocentrism and experience based reality are not Truth any more than a wisp of smoke. The same goes for these mystical experiences. It all comes and goes... but from what to to what we cannot know."

"There may be "Truth" but it isn't anything we define objectively through mechanism."

---Truth is nothing but a word. Being a word, it can be defined. Truth can be defined objectively or mystically. Hopefully, the person giving the definition, will state where they are coming from. In addition, hopefully, that person will acknowledge the dualism that their definition resides in. With that said, One can make up their own mind, any value in that particular specific 'truth' definition.

Roger

[Jayme]

Roger,

Yes. I think I agree. Words are often central to any cult of reason. Logocentrism keeps the mind spinning in trying to find these truths.

Truth implies fallacy and entwines the mind in an endless dualistic argument.

"You never find happiness (Truth) until you stop looking for it"
- Thomas Merton, The Way Chuang Tzu.

I think Brian is right in that Logocentrism is anti-churchless.

[Roger]

"You never find happiness (Truth) until you stop looking for it"

---Well, happiness is in the mind, and just another word. Surely, there is an example of someone finding a happiness, thru searching. This happiness may be temporary and definied differently than yours and mine, however, it can occur.
---In addition, One can find a happiness, when One stops looking for it too. Again, its in the mind and just a word.
---Lastly, I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me. One should approach words and definitions, how they choose.

Roger

[Jayme]

Roger,

Yes - happiness is in the mind. I find that I am clumsy with words (which is probably an indication of the order of my mind). I suppose peace may be more accurate but still is just a word with a lot of mental baggage associated with it. I mean, one can find peace in the middle of a battle or in the final dieing fits before death. By looking, seeking, following a path, we thing in our mind that we are missing something but will one day find it. This is still not being happy or at peace. We may find some comfort or happiness in the idea that we are walking the spiritual path but the Great Comforter is in having the wisdom to know that you are already where you should be and that there is no place where it is not.

Words and definitions are dead on arrival as best as I can tell. To speak of personal, subjective experience is not in any way going to help another have the experience themselves except perhaps indirectly through assistance of an external teacher. Some need this external crutch and some do not. Eventually, however, it has to be the student's own experience that teaches the student, not the outer words spoken by the teacher. I think this is why it is important not to get too hung up on believing the words spoken by another person (say a master) when in fact, it is my own definitions of my own experiences which matter most to my own understanding of any of this happiness or peace or whatever notion I wish to affix to the underlying thing in itself.

Interpretation of words can be very imprecise if definitions are not explicitly bounded. Words have a great deal of metaphorical power which tends to cross link and confuse their definitions within different minds. I don't think anyone interprets exactly the same content in a given string of words. "Double think" is a pure form of hypocrisy which is often used by political leaders or spiritual leaders, or corporate leaders or anyone who wishes to use these tools of persuasion to take advantage of others. I think this can be reinterpreted in the framework of "categorial relativity" but I won't try to do so here.

Respects,