Perennial philosophy - Atheism and Theism are DEAD

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sir Random's picture
It isint scientifically

It isint scientifically confirmed until you have 75% concurrence the world over.

Rek Init's picture
That's simply according to

That's simply according to your own standard. You can deny the existence of the "mystical experience" all you'd like, but the fact of the matter still remains that this experience is something any human being can potentially experience. I mean, if you went by this 75% rule, then that'd mean you'd have to believe in religion, since you have over 75% concurrence all over the world.

Sir Random's picture
There's no science in

There's no science in religion. So, no, that's not true. And I'm not denying squat. You don't have enough to call this "scientifically" anything. You need a lot more than what you have. This needs to be field tested. Independently verified. Verified by multiple reaserchers from multiple country's. It has to become internationally recognized. And then, just maybe, you will have the right to call it proven. But not yet.

Rek Init's picture
It has been field tested. I

It has been field tested. I mean, I haven't just referred to a single study, but a myriad of 'em which all have yielded similar results. "Mystical experience" is nothing new to science.

Sir Random's picture
So, if I go to a scientific

So, if I go to a scientific community in the UK, they will tell me this is proven? If I go to one in India, they will tell me it is proven? If I go to Brazil, they will tell me it is proven? If I go to (put country's name here), they will ALL tell me it is proven? Im willing to guess that answer is no. And, until the answer becomes yes, It. Is Not. Proven. No matter what kind of crap you try to pull to make it look like it is.

Rek Init's picture
Actually, the answer would be

Actually, the answer would be a resounding "yes." At this point, no one in the scientific community is arguing whether mystical experiences exist. So, like I said, you can deny it all you like, but the mystical experience has already been long since established. Even Freud wrote about this phenomenon. You seem to be the only one in denial in this thread. Everyone else seems up-to-date.

Sir Random's picture
Really? So you can prove that

Really? So you can prove that all 300+ country's of the world recognize it. Please, produce the proof of that claim.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

- "The mystical experience is something that most people feel (who've had such an experience) is something you should experience for yourself..."
- "...that no amount of words will suffice to be transmitted to another to even know what this thing is about. Nevertheless, people will attempt to articulate it."
- "That direct experience is necessary for understanding..."

Your point being that it's hard to transfer the "mystical experience" through words, so you need to sharpen your ability to speak about it?

What do you mean? Speak about the actual "mystical experience" or to promote the idea to trip on DMT?

Sir Random's picture
You know what, forget it. I'm

You know what, forget it. I'm just filing this under Alternative Religion, since even you have said it produces things akin to religious "revelation". I don't care if its a natural alters state of mind or not, if it makes me think of anything " higher", or anything on those lines, I'm calling bullshit on it. I'll keep my feet in the dirt and my head 6 feet above the ground.

Rek Init's picture
Your opinion about it doesn't

Your opinion about it doesn't change the fact of its existence. This is not alternative religion, by the way, even I could tell you that. I've left plenty of links so that you could inform yourself as to what is being discussed here, because if you think this is about " alternative religion," then I'd say you're thoroughly confused as to what is being addressed.

Sir Random's picture
I'm not calling bullshit on

I'm not calling bullshit on its existence. I'm calling bullshit on the act of pursuing the experience.

Rek Init's picture
@Tieler Like I said, you can

@Tieler Like I said, you can call bullshit all you'd like, that won't make this extant phenomenon in consciousness disappear.

@The Pragmatic Speak about the actual "mystical experience" or to promote the idea to trip on DMT?

These two may be essentially the same thing. There's a lot of speculation that the naturally occurring mystical experience may be mediated by a release of endogenous N,N-DMT. Most people don't have time or patience for disciplines such as meditation that would induce mystical experience, let alone most people don't even know what meditation involves. So, they may journey to places like Peru or Brazil in search of ayahuasca. I'd definitely call that an "act of pursuing the experience." Terence McKenna promoted the responsible use of psychedelics, but I'm not doing that here. If anyone decides to take up this endeavor, that's on them. All I'd say is proceed with caution and use the internet to inform yourself as much as possible.

Sir Random's picture
So, you are essentially

So, you are essentially telling us to trip out on drugs. What, do you live in a dark alley way too?

Sir Random's picture
Yes, I'm stereotypeing the

Yes, I'm stereotypeing the shit out of you right now.

Rek Init's picture
I believe I've made it clear

I believe I've made it clear in my previous post that I'm NOT promoting the use of psychedelics.

Sir Random's picture
I didn't say psychedelics.

I didn't say psychedelics.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

- "Terence McKenna promoted the responsible use of psychedelics, but I'm not doing that here. If anyone decides to take up this endeavor, that's on them. All I'd say is proceed with caution and use the internet to inform yourself as much as possible."

Okay, message received.
Was that it? Was that the purpose of this topic?

Rek Init's picture
@The Pragmatic Was that it?

@The Pragmatic Was that it? Was that the purpose of this topic?

Basically to introduce the concept of Perennial philosophy as an alternative perspective on religion, not necessarily an alternative religion. Perennial philosophy says that at the core of all major religion, you'll find individuals engaging mystical experience. I basically distill this in the original post. So, that Jesus (if he was a real person), Gautama, Muhammad, etc. were simply mortal men who sometime in their lifetime had a mystical experience or even perhaps several mystical experiences, and this is basically what prompted these individuals to each found a religion.

@Tieler I didn't say psychedelics.

Well, by "drugs," I figured you were trying to imply the substances I've mentioned here so far which have been psilocybin and N,N-DMT, to compounds that share a very similar structural affinity to each other. If you weren't implying psychedelics by "drugs," then what were implying? N,N-DMT, by the way, is produced in the human body naturally despite the fact that it's one of the world's most powerful entheogens.

Sir Random's picture
By "Drugs" I mean anything

By "Drugs" I mean anything that can induce what modern slang calls "Tripping".

Rek Init's picture
Well, that slang usually

Well, that slang usually refers to the psychedelic experience. No one drinks alcohol or shoots up heroin to "trip." That's what 'shrooms are for. The doses used in the Johns Hopkins study go well beyond the slang you hear of "tripping balls." But what's important to emphasize here is that it's necessary to use such doses to induce mystical experience. What's amazing is our bodies can have this experience naturally, of course you have to engage in a discipline like meditation or asceticism, but in order for Johns Hopkins to mimic the naturally occurring mystical experience, they must use what Terence McKenna called the "heroic dose." They're still recruiting volunteers, as I mentioned before, and they're using slightly higher doses this time around. You could sign up, if you wanted to, and have a mystical experience for yourself.

Sir Random's picture
I think I'll pass. Not for

I think I'll pass. Not for being rude, but because its just not something I'm interested in.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

- "Basically to introduce the concept of Perennial philosophy... ...Perennial philosophy says that at the core of all major religion, you'll find individuals engaging mystical experience."

Well, I agree in general. Especially when it comes to tribalism, shamanism. Personally, I doubt that this was the case with Christianity and Islam. I would say it's a higher probability that these religions were constructed by multiple parties after the death of the alleged prophet, than created by a single prophet who was "tripping".

But even if the assumption of "mystical experiences" was the basis of all religion, it's hardly a new idea. So I'm still trying to get the point. Each of these mystical experiences become strictly personal and each experience will be different.

"what the studies have shown is the underlying characteristics of mystical experience are universal to any individual who has such an experience."

Really, so by doing this one can tap into some cosmic truth or something divine? Is that it?

Rek Init's picture
The Pragmatic: Well, I agree

The Pragmatic: Well, I agree in general. Especially when it comes to tribalism, shamanism. Personally, I doubt that this was the case with Christianity and Islam. I would say it's a higher probability that these religions were constructed by multiple parties after the death of the alleged prophet, than created by a single prophet who was "tripping".

Sure, I agree that Christianity and Islam were heavily contorted after their prophets died, but I'm not referring to the editing and re-editing of these religions, but the original claims as much as we can discern them. So, concepts like the Beatific vision or the agapé in Christianity resonate with the characteristics of the mystical experience.

The Pragmatic: But even if the assumption of "mystical experiences" was the basis of all religion, it's hardly a new idea. So I'm still trying to get the point. Each of these mystical experiences become strictly personal and each experience will be different.

The characteristics of this experience are essentially universal, but the mystical experience itself will be filtered through the individuals personality, cultural background, religious influence, etc. So that, for instance, Gautama because he lived in India, and because he was influenced by Hinduism, I believe he may have interpreted his mystical experience through the lens of Hinduism, and so founded Buddhism.

And you're right, it definitely isn't a new idea. Perennial philosophy goes all the way back to Neoplatonism, and even then you'll find the legendary Greek philosophers engaging in contemplative techniques to induce mystical experience. These practices influenced Christianity, consider Hesychasm or the practice of quietism by Christian mystics which involved the cessation of volition. The Christian mystics that lived c. 100 A.D. did refer to this state as "Christ consciousness." I believe they realized that what they were tapping into was precisely the same state that Jesus may have experienced. These techniques are quite akin to what is practiced in Zen Buddhism, techniques of quieting the mind, silencing the chatter of the ego, and the complete cessation of volition. Dr. Rick Strassman speculates that this is possibly a method of releasing one's own endogenous N,N-DMT.

So, why doesn't it happen today? Perhaps it does, but one reason it's not happening as seemingly frequent as it has in the past may be because most people imbibe many sources of food and drink that is contaminated with chemicals that calcify the pineal gland. That might inhibit your ability to have this experience naturally. So, what's the alternative? Is there an external source you could draw from to mimic the experience? Well, that's what I believe the Johns Hopkins study has shown, that you can, in fact, use psychedelics to induce mystical experience.

The Pragmatic: Really, so by doing this one can tap into some cosmic truth or something divine? Is that it?

That's basically it in a nutshell. What Perennial philosophy is saying is that within the major religions, the names such as "God, Brahman, nirvana, satori, etc." are simply metaphors that were enunciated to describe the inner experiential impression of the mystical experience.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

- "The characteristics of this experience are essentially universal..."

- "The Pragmatic: Really, so by doing this one can tap into some cosmic truth or something divine? Is that it?
That's basically it in a nutshell. What Perennial philosophy is saying is that within the major religions, the names such as "God, Brahman, nirvana, satori, etc." are simply metaphors that were enunciated to describe the inner experiential impression of the mystical experience."

So what you are saying is that there is a Universal truth, that can be tapped into by achieving these "mystical experiences".

"Universal" sounds like it's something out there, everywhere in some sense.
Does that "Universal truth" refer to realizations about oneself and how one interprets the world, or does it mean something beyond ourselves?

Rek Init's picture
Pragmatic: So what you are

Pragmatic: So what you are saying is that there is a Universal truth, that can be tapped into by achieving these "mystical experiences."

Well, yes, that is basically the claim of Perennial philosophy, and it is based in mystical experiences. What the scientific studies have shown is that there are universal characteristics within the mystical experience. The implication from there is a Perennial philosophy. People in the past may have started off in a religion, engaged in such techniques, and usually developed views that contradicted the mainstream religious views. Some mystics were careful about how they used their language, but others were burned at the stake for expressing such views, consider Giordano Bruno or they were excommunicated (Meister Eckhart). But they thought of themselves as Ficino who,and I quote,"saw his thought as part of a long development of philosophical truth, of ancient pre-Platonic philosophers (including Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Aglaophemus and Pythagoras) who reached their peak in Plato. The Prisca theologia, or venerable and ancient theology, which embodied the truth and could be found in all ages, was a vitally important idea for Ficino." They held latitudinarian views and held tolerance for other religions, and felt that this experience was at the basis of all the major religions.

The Pragmatic: "Universal" sounds like it's something out there, everywhere in some sense. Does that "Universal truth" refer to realizations about oneself and how one interprets the world, or does it mean something beyond ourselves?

It's the former, I believe. There's lots of rhetoric in eastern philosophy surrounded by this notion which I believe is simply just a stylized form of Perennial philosophy. Some people think that Tibetan monks are just sitting there not really doing anything, like it's all just anti-intellectual nothingness that one dwells on. Well, they're entering into mystical experience, of course, not all of them, just the ones who've mastered it. And they call this, depending on the sect of Hinduism or Buddhism; samadhi, moksha, nirvana, satori, etc. but all sects in eastern religion are simply various paths to the same goal. So, I don't think it's anything "out there." There's a story that Jung spoke about of a man in search for truth, and travels the entire world only to return home and eventually find it within himself. Perahps you've heard of Tat Tvam Asi, "Thou Art That." You are what you seek. And there's lots of eastern rhetoric revolving around the "the trap of seeking." Because you still have the notion of "you" that needs to "find" something. As Ramesh Balsekar once pointed out, and I quote, "The joke is even the surrendering is not in your control. Why? Because so long as there is an individual who says "I surrender" there is a surrenderer, an individual ego... What I'm saying is that even the surrendering is not in [your] hands."

In meditation, what is involved is the cessation of volition, and so consciousness is often likened to a pond of water. The ripples in the water represent your thought. In order for the pond to become still, it must be left alone. So, that if you attempted to straighten the ripples with a flat iron, you'd only create more ripples. That'd be like attempting to rid of your ego with your ego. Ego in eastern philosophy is associated with "doership." The act of volition or exercising your will. Of course, all that is easier said than done, but the speculation behind this is that we already do this every single night. It's called sleep. However, the conjecture in sleep is that subconscious thoughts take over during REM, and this is where N,N-DMT is speculated to occur. One guru said of meditation that it is a 'conscious sleep,' and sleep an 'unconscious meditation.'

It does elicit a different perspective, I believe. Because you return to ordinary consciousness with a new perspective. For instance, there is a common western misinterpretation of reincarnation where it's thought to be the transmigration of the soul from body to body. I might have trouble textualizing this metaphor, but I'll give it a shot. If you imagine a pool of water, and you throw a pebble at the center, and you see the concentric waves go outward. Pay attention to a single wave as it moves outward. Now, I ask you... Does it contain at every single moment the same body of water as it moves outward to the edges of the pool or is it simply a motion over the water while the wave at every instant to instant never contains the same body of water as when people in a large audience sitting across benches perform "the wave," as people raise their hands up across "the wave," this "wave" never contains the same people as it moves across? Perhaps you've thought about this before, and already know the answer. Well, that is the eastern view of reincarnation. It is the substance or as we say, atoms that move through us like the wave, but of course, it's a process that happens much slower in comparison to the wave of water in a pool. The ego is then seen as an illusion perpetuated by memory. So, when you ask, Does "universal truth" refer to realizations about oneself, and how one interprets the world... then I'd say yes. It even transforms how the very "self" is viewed and that drastically alters how one interprets the world.

I wanted to say one last thing, and I'm sorry for this running so long, but you said "cosmic truth" or "something divine." I really like "cosmic truth," because divinity has been tainted. I think it is something that perhaps could be inherent to the cosmos, but I enjoy how Hindus treat it. They know that it is ultimately nameless, but because communication requires that we transmute experiences into concepts, and concepts into words so that they can be communicated, we have to give "it" a name. That's why lots of eastern transcripts are written in dialectic form. But the "divine something" is essentially the "cosmic truth" from the Perennialist perspective, but of course, at the same time I wouldn't say that this is a theistic point-of-view nor truly atheist, it's a different view altogether in that it's a philosophical perspective on religion in general that regards "God" as something other than what the atheist is rejecting (hence, the thread title). But I like Cosmic Truth. Ramesh Balsekar would often have atheists attend his satsangs, and he'd adjust his vocabulary to appease them and say instead of "The Will of God," he had no problem replacing that phrase with "Cosmic Law." However, he was agreement with the atheist that "God" wasn't some huge computer in the sky keeping track of everything and everyone, and that punished or rewarded people when they die. He used "God" as source or "consciousness," anyway, I could go on but I don't want to leave a daunting wall of text that no one will ever read. So, I'll leave it here, and elaborate on another post based on any feedback, but I do enjoy all the feed back here.

Rek Init's picture
I suppose there's no one

I suppose there's no one aside from Pragmatic that actually can engage in a constructive discussion on this topic which I feel is at the edge of dialogue on atheism/theism, etc. because of the very recent research that has taken place just in the past few decades, and that most people, theists and atheists, seem ignorant of. I hope that I'm not visiting a forum where the trolling denizens such as Nyarlathotep and Tieler are the only ones here to greet your posts.

Sir Random's picture
I think the authority to

I think the authority to decide who is a "trolling denizen" lies with CyberLN, the forum moderator. Please, don't overstep your boundaries.

Rek Init's picture
You've got to be kidding me.

You've got to be kidding me. Well, I don't believe I've overstepped my boundaries. I believe I'm spot on with my troll detector. If anyone's going to examine your past posts here, it should be moderators so it could be made clear.

Sir Random's picture
I'm quite certain the

I'm quite certain the moderator has looked at all of these posts many times already. So far, I seem to have been declared not guilty.

Rek Init's picture
Or it may be a moderator hasn

Or it may be a moderator hasn't gone through this thread, and so you're basically a loose troll free to roam Atheist Republic. Obviously, you overlooked this possibility.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.