There are no material objects

[Sideroxylon]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

Which is impossible because we only have access to existence through a limited perspective.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.

What a load of rubbish. Or can you support that?

They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.
The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

Well, yes.

I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

I think a lot of people on this forum are quite content to say "I don't know" in the face of insufficient evidence rather than just make things up.

Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

Its not hard, is it.

 

[punshhh]

I do Hatha yoga every day. But Siddhis, Chakras and all the Nirvana crap, nah. Fantasies.

Here are some Siddhis

Doorshravan: to hear, sitting at one place, speech from however distant a place.
Dudarshan: to see simultaneously events and things in all the realms.
Manojava: the body can travel at the speed of thought to any place.
Kaamaroopa: to assume any form. Shapeshifting.
Parakayapravesh: ability to enter into another's body, whether they are dead or alive.
Swachchandamrutyu: to die at one's own will, death having no control over one.
Sahakridanudarshanam: to see the sports of gods in heaven and have capacity and prowess to participate in it.
Yathaasamkalpa samsiddhi: to attain whatever is desired.
Ajnaapratihataagatih: whereby one's command and movement have no obstruction
Anima: the reduction of one's form to one atom. Invisibility
Mahima/Garima: the body can be made to be very heavy.
Laghima: the body can be made to be extremely light
Prapti: abilty to acquire objects of sense pertaining to the respective organs.
Prakaashya: to see invisible things in other realms.
Ishitaa: to stimulate bodies and creatures Control of forces of nature.
Vashita: to have control or dominion over the senses.
Yatkamastadavasyati: To obtain joy by willing it so. The cessation of misery and desire. This is considered to be the highest state of bliss

They forgot Conmanama: The ability to get sums of money out of gullible Westerners.

Don't tell me you were a Harri Krishna? and I bet you don't know the remarkable thing about Hatha yoga.

 

[punshhh]

So the truth is what is true? Why do so many people think tautologies are profound?

I am not concerned with profundities, unfortunately when delving into these topics tautologies keep cropping up.

Doing yoga is fine. Thinking you are straightening out your chakras or unblocking your chi, not so much.

It works for me, I wouldn't be without it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And so, whats the difference between you, and an inquisitor?

I have no idea because I don't know the rules to "Meaningless wall of text doublespeak word salad posing as some kind of deep philosphy" and I doubt I would enjoying playing it if I did.

 

[dafydd]

Don't tell me you were a Harri Krishna? and I bet you don't know the remarkable thing about Hatha yoga.

It's Hare Krishna, can't you get anything right?. You practice yoga to unblock your 'chakras' and you can't even spell Hare Krishna? Come off it. Why should I have been a Hare Krishna just because I do a bit of yoga each day to keep in trim? Hare Krishnas are not noted for practicing Hatha Yoga. I know about siddhis because I have read about them. I try to learn something about a subject before I comment on it. You should try that someday. How old are you and what is your IQ? No,I don't know whatever 'fact' you are about to make up regarding Hatha yoga.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.

They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.
The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

To be close in nature to what actually exists.
My approach which is the only approach not entirely confined to the mind is that the true ontology is nature itself.

Nature is a perfect expression of the true ontology, one need only open ones eyes.

Woo spoiler alert!

Or to use a theological analogy, only heaven exists, we are already in this heaven and dwelling in paradise. But blind to the truth as our eyes are as yet closed to reality we stumble around tripping over perfection and gorging ourselves on reflections of our own inadequacies.

Woo spoiler alert!

Sorry but no. This is why some members are naive materialists, they are completely woo, and what makes it interesting, is that they believe they are skeptics and all... nope.. they are believers, in a particular ontology called materialism.

No ontology is possible, and truth is relative to the observer, to the theory at hand, to the world view we use to "determine" what is "truth".

 

[yy2bggggs]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

But a description of a thing isn't the thing. It's just a description. No matter how I describe a cup of water, I'm only describing it.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.

That it is the cornerstone of your brand of quest does not entail it's possible. Good luck with your quest; though I've a feeling that luck might be inadequate for pulling off this particular trick.

They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.

Or perhaps at a third even deeper level, there is no difference. I don't think I'm going to buy the "you're not thinking deep enough" line.

The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

The human mind is capable of believing things that are not true. This pretty much robs you of the ability to claim knowledge in many situations where you simply believe in something on a non intellectual level.

I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

What are they seeking?

Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

Does the water know? If you don't know, and the water doesn't know, then where do I find its true nature?

 

[punshhh]

It's Hare Krishna, can't you get anything right?. You practice yoga to unblock your 'chakras' and you can't even spell Hare Krishna? Come off it. Why should I have been a Hare Krishna just because I do a bit of yoga each day to keep in trim? Hare Krishnas are not noted for practicing Hatha Yoga. I know about siddhis because I have read about them. I try to learn something about a subject before I comment on it. You should try that someday. How old are you and what is your IQ? No,I don't know whatever 'fact' you are about to make up regarding Hatha yoga.

Dafydd practices woo every day

 

[punshhh]

Which is impossible because we only have access to existence through a limited perspective.

I'm not referring to a human ontology, rather a hypothetical ontology, or one used by a more advanced intelligence(the nature of which we cannot comment on through our limited perspective).

What a load of rubbish. Or can you support that?

Yes I can understand your response. I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind, or more precisely the contents of what I regard as the lower mind.
The tools with which to achieve this are everything which exists around us in our world. It is quite possible to experience existence while bypassing the lower mind and to realise aspects of existence free of the rose tinted glasses of the lower mind.

Well, yes.

I think a lot of people on this forum are quite content to say "I don't know" in the face of insufficient evidence rather than just make things up.

This may be so and I join them in not knowing most things. However You won't find me making anything up. It is almost impossible to do.

Its not hard, is it.

who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

 

[dafydd]

Dafydd practices woo every day

Pathetic. Not true. Not funny. How old are you? You're not even ashamed that you can't spell Hare Krishna or brake. I do a little physical exercise every day. Perhaps you should try some mental exercise every day.

who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

You did. Or have you changed your mind again. How old are you? My guess is around fifteen.

I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind,

You are a master at bypassing thinking, that is obvious.

You won't find me making anything up

You do nothing else.

 

[punshhh]

Sorry but no. This is why some members are naive materialists, they are completely woo, and what makes it interesting, is that they believe they are skeptics and all... nope.. they are believers, in a particular ontology called materialism.

No ontology is possible, and truth is relative to the observer, to the theory at hand, to the world view we use to "determine" what is "truth".

Talk about naive, you appear to be falling into your own trap of naive materialism.

I have already explained to you the difference between "truth" in the mind, or in common discourse. As apposed to "the truth of what actually exists", a phrase referring to what exists, rather than notions of what exists.

Are you going to accept this distinction or deny that anything exists?

 

[dafydd]

Talk about naive, you appear to be falling into your own trap of naive materialism.

I have already explained to you the difference between "truth" in the mind, or in common discourse. As apposed to "the truth of what actually exists", a phrase referring to what exists, rather than notions of what exists. Are you going to accept this distinction or deny that anything exists?

Look up the meaning of 'explained' in a dictionary. The highlighted part is yet more classic punshhh gibberish. Notions of what exists, that is priceless, although I can see why you think it makes sense. Keep on amusing us. Harri Krishna, Barri Krishna.....

 

[punshhh]

But a description of a thing isn't the thing. It's just a description. No matter how I describe a cup of water, I'm only describing it.
That it is the cornerstone of your brand of quest does not entail it's possible. Good luck with your quest; though I've a feeling that luck might be inadequate for pulling off this particular trick.
Or perhaps at a third even deeper level, there is no difference. I don't think I'm going to buy the "you're not thinking deep enough" line.The human mind is capable of believing things that are not true. This pretty much robs you of the ability to claim knowledge in many situations where you simply believe in something on a non intellectual level.
What are they seeking?

Does the water know? If you don't know, and the water doesn't know, then where do I find its true nature?

I respect your comments on most issues, but I do find you can go into a lot of detail in your explanations, which can be a head ache sometimes, especially when I'm pressed for time. I would appreciate it if we can try to be concise here.

Yes I'm well aware that a description is not a thing, it is a symbol for a thing.

Ref' my post to Syderoxylon, it is possible to know and experience things without the use of the thinking mind.

Regarding knowledge it is well documented that during epiphany, hallucination, along with various experiences in life people have come to know something, which cannot be imparted intellectually.

The true nature of water is what it is wether the water or anything else knows what it is or not. It is a part of what truly exists.

 

[dafydd]

The true nature of water is what it is wether the water or anything else knows what it is or not. It is a part of what truly exists.

And how would the water 'know'? You really are in a world of your own. And the word is spelled 'whether'. We know what exists. You are always banging on about things that don't exist.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm not referring to a human ontology, rather a hypothetical ontology, or one used by a more advanced intelligence(the nature of which we cannot comment on through our limited perspective).

Special pleading is a nice way of avoiding having to support a claim, isn't it.

Yes I can understand your response. I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind, or more precisely the contents of what I regard as the lower mind.
The tools with which to achieve this are everything which exists around us in our world. It is quite possible to experience existence while bypassing the lower mind and to realise aspects of existence free of the rose tinted glasses of the lower mind.

Start another thread to explain and support that claim if you like.

This may be so and I join them in not knowing most things. However You won't find me making anything up. It is almost impossible to do.

At the very least you make bold claims without supporting them.

who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

Don't know but do like Otto Neurath's, “We are like sailors who must rebuild the ship on the open sea, never able to dismantle it in dry-dock and to reconstruct it there out of the best materials.”

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's simple.

Punshhh can post up all the wall of text world salad ramblings he wants to.

He can pontificate all he wants about "Oh you're a materialist. Oh you're not taking into account the ontological metaphysical difference between the truth outside and the truth inside your head on a Thursday when the moon is waxing and you had scrambled eggs for breakfast."

He can sit there with the Thesaraus open to the word "philosphy" and just post up every word that essentially means the same thing over and over.

And it doesn't change a thing.

It's simple. This whole "Wise on Man on the Mountain" act is total BS and not only can I prove it, I can prove they know it as well.

If you throw a rock a solipist's head, they are still gonna duck.

If you tell a woo-slinger that you have a mystical paranormal supernatural rock that's invisible but still solid and you pretend to throw it at their head, they ain't gonna duck.

Reality is not as easy to pretend isn't there and things that aren't there aren't as easy to pretend really are there as people make it seem like when they want to play this semantic, pseudo-philosphical, childish crap.

You can sit here and split metaphysical hairs about how reality might be an illusion or how there could be some shadowy netherworld of mysterious crap just outside our current perception... but no one really believes that.

 

[dafydd]

Dafydd practices woo every day

So you don't know what Hatha Yoga is.

 

[dafydd]

If I electrolyze water do the two resulting gasses 'know' that they were once water?

 

[dafydd]

If you throw a rock a solipist's head, they are still gonna duck.

.

I did once ask punshhh what he would do if he glanced up and saw a piano plummeting down on course for his head. The 'mystics' would jump out of the way just like the rest of us.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

If I electrolyze water do the two resulting gasses 'know' that they were once water?

If you invoke the power of homoeopathy, they will.

But, since we are somewhat rational human beings, we won't (invoke the power of homoeopathy).