Criticizing the Oneness of Transcendental Idealism

#61
Thanks, Raimo, you haven't ceased discussion. And thank you for the links.

Hey buddy you don't get my point, I mean they didn't ask sufficient amount of questions!
Actually, I do get your point, and I understand the need to get verification. However, your demand is not relevant to most of these cases. For example, in reincarnation cases the subjects are typically 2-5 years old when they start to speak about their memories. What meaningful questions could they ask and to whom should they ask them? In the cases of mediumship the sitters usually try to question the ostensible discarnate spirits and to get verification of their identities. Some NDErs acquire veridical perceptions during their experiences. Some of them tell about their perceptions to the medical staff and the researchers can corroborate their stories.

Because your demand that the experiencers themselves should ask questions and investigate their own cases is not realistic/relevant in most of the cases, it gives the impression that you are not familiar with this research. Therefore I questioned your knowledge about this topic. It was not meant as an insult.

Epithet heavy like insane, lie I used are just for causing you guys' attention!
If you call the experiencers insane and liars it makes you look like a troll. I wouldn't recommend using that tactic to get the attention of others. Those accusations are exactly the reason why I thought that you are trolling here.
 
#62
Actually, I do get your point, and I understand the need to get verification. However, your demand is not relevant to most of these cases. For example, in reincarnation cases the subjects are typically 2-5 years old when they start to speak about their memories. What meaningful questions could they ask and to whom should they ask them? In the cases of mediumship the sitters usually try to question the ostensible discarnate spirits and to get verification of their identities. Some NDErs acquire veridical perceptions during their experiences. Some of them tell about their perceptions to the medical staff and the researchers can corroborate their stories.

Because your demand that the experiencers themselves should ask questions and investigate their own cases is not realistic/relevant in most of the cases, it gives the impression that you are not familiar with this research. Therefore I questioned your knowledge about this topic. It was not meant as an insult.



If you call the experiencers insane and liars it makes you look like a troll. I wouldn't recommend using that tactic to get the attention of others. Those accusations are exactly the reason why I thought that you are trolling here.
You said they have various difficulties which hinder their further verification, or there is no constantly opened gate to access the means to verify those things further, right? So? They are actually not sure about anything, I mean, ANY THING, right? But they made irresponsible claims right under the fact that they actually know nothing. A normal person can't immediately recognize a vague lighting image as who who who who, this is a blasphemy to the truth and to the "who". Why they don't recognize a chandelier as Jesus when they look up to the roof?

Hi, Raimo, I have many things to say but now I can't spare time, my job is pushing me like mad and today my team leader is ill and has applied fortnight vacancy, which means higher project and product manager will push my team leader's work partially on my shoulder.

But for now to be quick, I want to say I don't mind you call me troll and you don't need to explain your reason, I never dislike you and I'm not an enemy to you. It is righteous you call me troll and you are right, I'm trolling, you stand by the justice, I don't exactly know the differences amongst trolls, goblins, kobolds, gremlins, leprechauns, troglodytes, if you were to call me anything like those or pig hog boar swine or any other things, I will not dislike you. But hey hey buddy, dear friend, hey hey wake up wake up, listen, listen to me carefully, JUSTICE, POLITENESS, INSULT, WHATEVER are not important in front of what we are talking about here and now, we are talking about TRUTH, remember? We are on the same boat, friend!

I don't call them insane or liar or any other word not that sweet, you decide what that is. I just remind you, they, actually are not sure about anything, but they claimed pretty much about some EXTREMELY BIG THINGS, like, "They know everything", huh? What is "everything"? Do they know what they are talking about? Do they know what the word "everything" means? And they are sure they met who who who who in their experiences while they haven't ever even talked some meaningful things with that "who".

I don't call them insane or liar or something, I don't judge, Raimo, you decide, you tell me what that is. And please you know I'm not irritating you or being an enemy to you, my friend, you know the reason why I'm being impolite, is that POLITENESS is not a THING in front of the urgent and hasty need to seek for the bloodily damn serious thing we call TRUTH. It is the only thing which matters.

If those children really reincarnated, you shouldn't treat them as children, they should think and act in the exact same way as an adult no less than who they were in their previous life. And you know that some of they claimed the angel or whatever funny beings they deem they met in their experiences constantly visit them after they returned to earthly life, but, guess what I'm going to say? They never deigned to ask those funny angels any meaningful question. You argued they do not have constant access to opportunities of further investigation, but look, their funny angels constantly visit them but they are happy with not need to deigning to ask any meaningful question. It is not insane or lie, you tell me what it is, wake up buddy. You never make jokes you are right, it is me who makes jokes just want to put the discussion under some relax atmosphere because we are talking about some bloodily damn serious thing we call TRUTH. We are on the same boat friend, manner police patrol anything else is nothing a thing in front of the bloodily damn serious thing we call truth.

Please anyone, face the truth, those paranormal claimers are abnormal I don't exactly know why.

I want you all humans be happy but let us have some time facing to the truth please. Happy is not important in front of the truth.
 
#63
Raimo, you faced to my point and you mentioned what I was yelling and you said your opinions, thank you.

You know why I act that way. I'm mad on that I want the truth. Why those people are that insane or you tell me what that is if it is not insane.
 
#64
But they made irresponsible claims right under the fact that they actually know nothing.

I just remind you, they, actually are not sure about anything, but they claimed pretty much about some EXTREMELY BIG THINGS, like, "They know everything", huh? What is "everything"? Do they know what they are talking about? Do they know what the word "everything" means? And they are sure they met who who who who in their experiences while they haven't ever even talked some meaningful things with that "who".

If those children really reincarnated, you shouldn't treat them as children, they should think and act in the exact same way as an adult no less than who they were in their previous life. And you know that some of they claimed the angel or whatever funny beings they deem they met in their experiences constantly visit them after they returned to earthly life, but, guess what I'm going to say? They never deigned to ask those funny angels any meaningful question. You argued they do not have constant access to opportunities of further investigation, but look, their funny angels constantly visit them but they are happy with not need to deigning to ask any meaningful question.
No.
 
#65
"To “become one with God” is to die."
- Stephen A. McNallen

I agree with this. It is the goal (or sentence) of all paradigms that adhere to a Right Hand Path oriented end game.

It is self annihilation or an acceptance that this will be the eventual result and there's nothing "you" can do about it.

I like (and agree with) many if not all the points made in this thread by Raimo. I also, for the record, enjoy (more than suffer from) my experience as a conscious agent and I hold to the assumption the death of my physical body is not the end of my experience as a conscious agent.
 
#66
Tarantulanebula claims that all the experiencers are insane and all what they said are lies. This proves that he is either trolling, or he has zero knowledge about this topic.

The best cases obviously can't be explained away by claiming that the experiencers are insane or liars.

The Case of Nazih Al-Danaf
EMIL JENSEN
The Case of Runolfur Runolfsson
The Case of Gudni Magnusson
THE CASE OF JAMES LEININGER

Btw, I have never made any jokes in this thread.
I agree with some of his/her assertions. Not all but makes good points
 
#67
"To “become one with God” is to die."
- Stephen A. McNallen
Did he experience it? Because that is not what the people who have experienced it usually say. People from many different religions and cultures all say pretty much the same thing: they didn't lose their individuality and it was a nice experience. One person likened separateness and oneness as two sides to the same coin, another likened it to the teeth on a comb.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
 
#68
Did he experience it? Because that is not what the people who have experienced it usually say. People from many different religions and cultures all say pretty much the same thing: they didn't lose their individuality and it was a nice experience. One person likened separateness and oneness as two sides to the same coin, another likened it to the teeth on a comb.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
@Jim_Smith

I have been preparing a particular document for some time and I see that elements in this document could suffice as a response to your comment/question, Jim, but, for me, there are important underlying matters that need to be addressed.

Here’s a draft of part of this document incorporated into the framework of your post -

Regarding the specific blog post you provided. - I believe (recall) you have featured this before in a different post on the Skeptiko forum. I read many of the accounts and enjoyed the post. Each and every one expresses various experiences or views which can be plotted on what I refer to as the "pathway of point of view."

How I describe this approach considers a starting point which I have chosen (for myself) to be, the point of view of myself and that which I experience as an individuated being at what Alex calls, my "ordinary consciousness" experience of being. As I travel the path, whether experimentally or imaginatively, I can and and have experienced "no-self/no-Self" which I refer to as the Absolute (whereby there is no further one can go).

In the blog post, There is this specific passage (J. J. van Der Leeuw, an advanced meditator, wrote in The Conquest of Illusion: -
In that experience [of the Absolute] we are no longer the separate self, we are no longer what we call 'we' in our daily life. Not only are we our entire being, past and future, in that sublime experience of eternity, but we are the reality of all that is, was, or shall be, we are That.
I have encountered a book (which I will share in the next paragraph) that assists one in apprehending the difference between the Absolute and "Consciousness" (the Self); has clearly delineated between the two, that they are not the same whereas one could infer from this quote that they are. It appears to me that J. J. van Der Leeuw is close, but misses the final piece of the puzzle. In fact, in the quote, he ends with the word "That" which suggests the following has possibly or partially informed his views - a well known book, a compilation of talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj entitled, I Am That.

This same sage was also the respondent of the final book of the Q/A style of dialogues with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, the compilation of talks entitled, Consciousness and the Absolute. Over the course of the years of experiencing my own contemplative practice, for much of that time I wasn't "there yet" where I (could) intellectually grasp the difference... where I was able to reflectively recognize I seemed to know the difference... where eventually I have concluded (maybe rightly, maybe not) that I have experienced each.

So, I now must emphasize I am only typing words which, at best, are pointers to something which, paradoxically, can have no point of view and which I feel I know, which I feel is and which is the "beginingless non-begining" metaphorically but impossibly prior to Self, or certainly understood as not-Self - the Absolute. Some (myself as one) say that consciousness is fundamental, but this is within a framework of experiential reality whereas the Absolute stands alone as it only can and could be viewed as Reality when understood. One might wish to view consciousness (or the deified "Consciousness") as Reality but the implication of "ultimate reality" in the usage of the term Reality is underpinned by the property, changeless, as a pointer to what is considered the Absolute.

Consciousness (Big C) is the Self. Conscious agency is the arising of a nexus of self-reflectiveness which is the experience of identity within the Identity (the Self).

Again I emphasize that the words I just wrote are poor "pointers" and sadly, inadequate on their own, lest a reader feels they have taken a leap in reading them... only then can the words be considered worthwhile and only to that reader... even if the realization comes years later or whenever beyond this life.

So, now I will strive to bring this back to why I appreciate Raimo's quote (and forum signature) and it is all about my interpretation and contemplation upon that interpretation and then agreement to take on the conclusion I arrive at through that process.

Realize, I have been framing my recent posts in this thread within the dynamic of Right Hand Path and Left Hand Path. To do so requires that I have adopted an understanding of what each of those terms mean. Based on what the term Right Hand Path means to me, I place "God" at the "pinnacle" of a framework that resembles a hierarchy. Based on that which I have accepted as the history of the creation and development of that term, "God" and "Nature" can be understood to be the same from the perspective (point of view) of a individuated conscious agent (yes, redundant but written this way to emphasize "individual") in that the specific conscious agent is ultimately subject to "God" or "Nature." In fact, the reason for the name is that the practice of the inventors of the terms would face east in their prayer rituals and the sun would pass to their right. Right Hand Path adherents subject themselves to the results of a cycle (represented by the earth revolving around the sun) which has a beginning and an end (a year). A great example of the development of this type of Right Hand Path framework is the concept of Yugas. The out breath and in breath of Brahma. The end result of Right Hand Path is "self-annihilation" which renders you, as an individuated being, as finite.

So, what I would say has been implied by all the testimonies or statements in the blog post is that these are excellent descriptions of experience whereby individuation is maintained within a grander framework which is fundamentally consciousness whereby one can choose to consider oneself subject to "it" and then deify "it" as "It" or "That" and what is not considered is the ultimate underlying reality (Reality), the Absolute. And what also is not considered is that a conscious agent could choose, instead, to explore consciousness as a conscious agent with an intent to retain individuation for as long as one may wish, and this could be forever theoretically (Left Hand Path). Of course, this view also assumes one can shed their individuation but if so, this is done by the will of the conscious agent and not determined by an exterior or hierarchically placed "third party" such as God or Nature (or any paradigm that promotes that dynamic as "what is").

So, the way I interpret the words in the quote in Raimo's signature is that "to become one with God" is to achieve the "end game" of the Right Hand Path in permanency. All those writers quoted in the blog post may have experienced that "oneness" (I have) yet none of them rested solely, permanently in it. And so, of course, in their experiences in extended consciousness (a journey through "It" and to "It") they are describing the journey where 'point of view' is less and less embraced and where, ultimately... as van Der Leeuw describes (which I will adjust for my point) - not only does one experience the relinquishment of individuated point of view in a sea of others who experience individuation, one "becomes one" whereby they experience All, "the entire being" - the eternal now moment as that being (the Self, Consciousness... "God" if you like), "the reality of all that is, was, or shall be" (thus still an expression that holds the property of form, albeit form theoretically without boundaries). Yet what I can point out about each of these experiences and each of these descriptions is that they hold or point to "things" (even concepts) and as long as one is wading in those waters, one is dealing with the Self (I am) and not the Absolute. And van Der Leeuw conflates the two.

By knowing this, one (as a conscious agent) can choose whether to rest or not within any point of view along the pathway of point of view, even if that resting place is final "self annihilation" but if one does rest in that place, they have chosen a Right Hand Path trajectory, thus result.

Even for those who experience extended consciousness with retention of individuation, they could still be choosing the Right Hand Path by holding the view that a third party conscious agent, even if that third party conscious agent is "God" (or "The All that Is" or the Self or consciousness and, if they would rather express it, Consciousness) is the determiner of your ultimate fate. Right Hand Path adherents (whether they are consciously aware of this or not) operate that they are ultimately subject to that God (and that fate), and this is where the difference lies for Left Hand Path oriented individuals, which I would classify myself as being. It is not that I don't hold reverence for consciousness, for the experiential realms ("God's creation" or the creation of nature - in the minds of Right Hand Pathers)... it is that I allow myself to view myself as each of these locations along the pathway of point of view whereby I then take on the responsibility to recognize from which of these am I dominated by at any particular moment of my individuated experience. This includes when I "die of the self," embrace Self and the ultimate Witness to all and then, return to the aspect of my being where individuation is a property and, most often, to the intensity of this physical reality. But I hold onto the memory of them all and that is why i think I am able to express this as well as one might, in words.

In summation, I see myself within the grand "frameless" framework alluded to in the above words. I then adopt assumptions knowing (accepting) they are assumptions like, 'consciousness is fundamental' within the grand Game-Scape where individuated beings play hide and seek with love or perhaps reach the pinnacle of a Right Hand Path trajectory where they find themselves sitting with God playing a harp for the rest of eternity (what I would describe as a metaphor for "self-annihilation") - not for me. So I chose to hold onto the available view point that "form is illusion," thus, the illusion of individuated identity within the grand Illusion of the Self (consciousness) and strive to experience love as a gift I might, by my very being, be "giving" to others and whereby I might experience love as received and have the goal of maintaining this experience for as long as I wish, not subject to an external third party or paradigm that promotes such. And what may be will always be regardless of what views I hold, what I believe, assume, etc. Yet by operating with the primary operational protocol within a Left Hand Path framework whereby I am solely and wholly 100% personally (individuation) responsible for every single thing I choose to own as a thought, everything I speak and write and every act I commit.

And this leaves me at a point of decision whereby I can choose a solipsistic operational view point or I can recognize others who appear as conscious agents in that they are, at that fundamental level, a conscious agent! This has been my choice and this choice makes the Grand Game incredibly challenging, wonderful, intense, exciting, interesting, captivating and... for me, as of this moment, something I wish to continue to experience. I am as a god - as a Left Hand Pather might say but which can be ignorantly interpreted to imply one saying they are God or that others are not, at their core, a god... so I hold the operational assumption that others are no more or no less a conscious agent with the same potential as any conscious agent and also, with the same personal responsibility for what they do with their opportunity to experience individuation.

And this is what makes "Earth Game" level of the Grand Game so interesting because each of us are constantly faced with the reality that at this level of our experiential being, some of us have greater capacity to survive and thrive than others. And this produces the challenge of selfishness vs selflessness. And how I have been dealing with that as I get older is by striving to make decisions from the level of my being I choose to believe (assume) continues beyond the death of my physical body, from the container of my individuation I choose to call, my soul. All of these decisions of mine are more and more informed by these assumptions based operational protocols instead of physical/material concerns relative to how I operated earlier in this life. Could I do better maybe? I believe so, I believe so absolutely. Yet I sleep better now than I ever have in my life.

To wrap up (and regurgitate once more) -

I see myself as many points of view, one of them being "one with God" yet I don't rest there, thus I never, "forever die of the self" though I have (and can) bring myself into that experience. I interpreted Raimo's words to imply permanence and thus imply "recommending otherwise."

And so ultimately, it appears to me that everything boils down to interpretation of words and/or experiences which are confined by the limits of one's open-mindedness.
 
Last edited:
#69
Did he experience it? Because that is not what the people who have experienced it usually say. People from many different religions and cultures all say pretty much the same thing: they didn't lose their individuality and it was a nice experience. One person likened separateness and oneness as two sides to the same coin, another likened it to the teeth on a comb.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html

That quotation is very short, because longer signatures are not allowed. Here it is in its real context:
From Buddhism to Christianity to New Age pabulum, just about everybody was saying that individuality was bad, and that the only remedy for the human condition was to blend into “God,” by whatever name. This viewpoint wasn’t limited to religion and spirituality, but underlay a great deal of political philosophy, as well. Marxism in particular, and various state socialisms in general, were manifestations on the Earthly plane of the same idea.
I didn’t buy it, and still don’t. To “become one with God” is to die. The deniers of self, in all their forms, constitute a fog - amorphous, drifting, surrounding, non-human. Like the fog, this mass-mentality is made up of a multitude of insignificant particles moving not of their own volition, but rather, powerless before the breeze and the rules that govern chaos.
Fire and the Fog

I agree that the NDERs who experience "oneness" still retain their identities. I have no problem with beliefs that at some level everything is interconnected but we retain our individual selves. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with beliefs that the ultimate goal of spiritual development is some kind of merging with the light/source/god etc. When David Sunfellow was guest on Skeptiko, he answered to a question about oneness. I quote his answer here, because I agree with it, and because it clarifies my position on this matter:
On the question of individuality, yes, we have individual souls and they are evolving; they are becoming increasingly individuated as spectacularly unique expressions of the Divine. And, on the other hand, yes, there are also primordial non-dual states that we can experience where our individuality is lost and we merge with God no longer able to perceive ourselves as individuals anymore. My current understanding is that non-dual states are more primitive forms of expression. They exist. They can be experienced by all of us. That's where we all come from. But we've been there and done that. This world is about becoming individuals, not merging back into the primordial soup that we came from.
One of the great dangers associated with classic eastern perspectives that thumb their noses at this world and focus mainly on leaving it is that if we do manage to experience non-dual states, those states tend to turn us into zombies. We can loose ourselves in the primordial soup.
David Sunfellow, Can the Scientific Study of NDEs Reveal the Purpose of Life? |413|
 
#70
One of the great dangers associated with classic eastern perspectives that thumb their noses at this world and focus mainly on leaving it is that if we do manage to experience non-dual states, those states tend to turn us into zombies. We can loose ourselves in the primordial soup.
Hi Raimo,

Thanks for clarifying the quote.

I am sympathetic to his feeling that the pablum that "individuality is bad" is a harmful doctrine. I don't buy it either. I believe in free markets not Marxism.

But I don't agree when he says, "our individuality is lost and we merge with God no longer able to perceive ourselves as individuals anymore" As I said earlier, my understanding is that people maintain both an individual and a non-dual existence. Does he give any specific cases that can be verified to support this contention? I would like to know if there is something I am unaware of.

I would also be interested in the evidence that it turns people into zombies, does he provide any? I assume he does not mean literal zombies, walking dead. What does he really mean when he uses the word zombie?

I would agree that a lot of meditation can take away ambition and have other unexpected effects, I warn people about that on my web site. If that is all he is talking about I think zombie is an exaggeration. And it is a matter of opinion whether it is good or bad. Some people think a lot of the suffering in the world is caused by greedy, money grubbing, power hungry people who have too much ambition. These are materialist zombies who's only thought is to amass greater and greater wealth and power.

On the other hand I am the first person to admit that if everyone had as little ambition as I do the world economy would collapse. I lived frugally all my life and continue to do so since I was able to retire at a relatively young age. But I am not a zombie. The people I admire most are not the people who have the most money. The people I admire most are those who can be happy while being poor. (I am not glorifying poverty, I am admiring people who do not need $$$ to be happy).

If he is talking about psychedelic drug use then I would not care to dispute the matter.

Can you say more specifically what he is referring to with regard to the evidence that it produces zombies and what he means by zombie? If he is talking about people like me who don't measure success by personal net worth or personal power, then I think society at the present moment needs more of them not fewer.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
#71
Can you say more specifically what he is referring to with regard to the evidence that it produces zombies and what he means by zombie? If he is talking about people like me who don't measure success by personal net worth or personal power, then I think society at the present moment needs more of them not fewer.

No. Unfortunately I can't answer to your questions. I don't know anything about Sunfellow's thoughts about this matter beyond what he told in this thread:
David Sunfellow, Can the Scientific Study of NDEs Reveal the Purpose of Life? |413|
 
#72
If the purpose of life is externally determined for a specific individual, then that individual has relinquished that aspect of their responsibility of their individuation.

I came up with my own answer as to the purpose of life. Ready?

To live

Once I answered that simple question for myself, I only then had to ask myself, what does it mean, to live?

Which, of course, would be answered in a myriad number of ways by each of us who at least chose to answer that first question as I have.

My answer to the second question required that I ask myself, what is life? And my answer to that has become -

Life is an unbroken, continuous observation of and participation in contrast.

Which is to experience that which one perceives outside of oneself from the perspective of what one considers one self (as an individauted being), to be.

And so then you can ask yourself, "What is required for "me" (as an individuated being) for me to appreciate this thing I call life, for me to want the experience to continue?"

And my answer to that is to feel secure, to have reasonable "room" (freedom) to experience as I wish and, depending on which zone my operational point of view is primarily anchored as to what reasonable limits might we agree to whereby one person's desires do not harm another's.

It is all really that simple.

And you don't need a third party "God" of which you are subject to or inferior to to be able to do that. You can, if you wish (hold in your heart "God") and if you do, and you are able to feel "merged" with that God yet retain your individuation, then your definition of God is likely not the same as what I have in mind and what Raimo may have in mind.

All the above is just my own "journey" in asking questions, trying on assumptive answers and a few opinions thrown in.

I actually know just about nothing (maybe nothing).
 
#73
Alex's Skeptiko episodes are the primary reason I no longer need "to believe in" a third party "God" yet I can discuss all types of spiritual, metaphysical subjects with anyone, including an evangelical or an atheist and speak with them within their framework. So I could say, I merged with God already albeit from an understanding as to how I would define God in consideration of whom I am speaking with while also considering the framework they hold to.

I don't always operate within certain zones with the fact of this "merging" in the forefront of my mind as that mind is experienced in that zone's experiential offering.

Blame Alex :) !
 
Top