The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Nirvana

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7657
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Nirvana

Post by Greta » September 13th, 2018, 5:33 pm

LuckyR wrote:
September 13th, 2018, 3:42 pm
Greta wrote:So they both happened while I was on the upswing, and specifically at a time when I was feeling especially good. With the first there was no choice - it came unexpectedly and was gone just as quickly.

With the second there was a sense of allowing it happen. The words "Why not?" were perhaps most prominent in my mind just as I could feel something quite bizarre and extraordinary coming on. I could have stopped the experience happening if I chose, or if I became negative or cynical and messed it up, but I was in an especially good mood and went with the flow and it worked out. I think I might have killed off a few through over-anticipation since, but it's hard to know if it's imagination or not - or if that even matters!
Thanks for the contextual info. If you don't mind my asking, what sort of real time frame are we talking about, start to finish? Seconds, minutes, hours?

Was there the perception of time expansion?
The first one was about a second long. The second was maybe 15-30 minutes. I don't think there was time dilation.

Some of the less unhinged observations I recorded afterwards:
I was imagining getting into the kind of zone a master musician would experience – to imagine what it would feel like to play it. As Hal Galper says, if you can hear it you can play it. Why not have the audacity to let yourself hear it just like the great artists you hear? I have always been so far from the zone – almost an anti-zone, which really sucks. I feel like I cannot allow myself to succeed. Because I’m not the kind of person who deserves to succeed.

Anyway, I was trying to get my mind to a point where it was entirely still and there would be no thought or emotions or physical movement - only experience. I felt every part of my body – vibrantly alive – the muscles, the bones, the organs, breathing, heartbeat, blood flowing ...

Then I could feel that I could conceivably bring myself so into the moment that I could almost disappear – into the all-pervading field of … being. Absolutely all-pervading, massively and overwhelmingly so. If it was sound it would have had the intensity of deafening white noise – it was THAT all-pervading. It was like an endlessly deep well into which I could fall if I stilled to the point of being 100% in the moment.

I felt like I could almost combust with the intensity of it. I saw death ahead – and it was absolutely [expletive] incredible! It was everything you ever wanted – ultimate peace, ultimate rightness and connection – just there and then … nothingness? A different kind of consciousness?
That just reminded me of an important, probably critical, aspect of inducing the experience that I'd forgotten about - I was going after the present moment very hard, trying to refine it to an ever finer point as opposed to me usual "fuzzy present" that includes past resonances and future anticipation.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2108
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Nirvana

Post by Hereandnow » September 13th, 2018, 10:26 pm

Eduk
Sorry perhaps I'm not being clear. Please give one example (preferably the biggest/best/your personal favourite for whatever reason) of these assumptions which you say are there but then fail to elaborate upon regarding scientific knowledge.
Personally I'm not convinced that the scientific method makes any assumptions. I don't think that the scientific method, for examples, assumes that there is a reality. Of course it does rely on acting like there is a reality, but this is different from an assumption?
Some of the Buddhist philosophy is fine. It fine to consider that there is no you. It's fine to consider if a tree makes a sound if no one hears it falling in a forest. These are good things to think about. Not unique to Buddhism though and certainly not unconsidered (well at least in philosophical circles).
Again we can all agree assumptions are bad and that you shouldn't make them.
This gets complicated in the literature. But it comes down to this: science does not examine the perceptual structures in which observation occurs. It just takes in information and trusts all is well. But perception is, to say the least, complicated, and a good way to express this is to ask a simple question, a favorite of mine as you asked: How is it anything "out there", that is, beyond the subjective contribution to what is seen, heard, and so on, gets "in here", here being inside my, if you will, horizon of experience? I mean this literally: there is something, a couch, there. How does that get in my head? Trace its path and you will find the object itself is left in that mystery land of "out thereness" at the very outset of the analysis.
But the claim,then, science makes is not unlike what those old philosophers talked about in terms of primary and secondary qualities, which is while our contribution gives a thing its sensory aspects, its feel, optics and so on, out there there really is time and space and the object lies there. But does this really take care of the matter? touch the couch: how could anything about the time and space it "occupies" be my time and space? And further, the "thing" traversing through my nervous system (and how do I know about this nervous system save through visual systems that observe nerves?): is the the couch??
A simple argument, really, but ignored because the intuitive sense of the couch being the couch is so strong. But that is the strength of belief, not confirmation in analysis. Knowledge is true justified belief (not to argue this here), and here it is shown that the justification of empirical claims falls apart at first touch, sight, sound. Therefore, science has no knowledge.

It is a down and dirty version. There are others, as there are other assumptions that can be questioned.

Post Reply