The proof of Metaphysics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

As it was agreed between me and PK, here is the thread.

But, before saying anything, i want to say something about the appropriate section.

I said to PK that i will post his in the R&S section but later i realized that this thread is not going to have anything such that is related to religion/God but focus purely on mental manifestations. So, i chose to go with this section. However, i do not mind if mods find anything that violates the rules of this section and decide to transfer it to more suitable section.

PK,

Before anything else, the first thing to learn is to establish direct interaction between conscious and sunconscious mind. Here is very simple method of it and this will help in many other ways too. I have said this twice before in different threads too.

All you need is 20-25 min in 24 hours for this.

When you go to the bed, do not sleep at once. Devote roughly half an hour to yourself daily. When you go to the bed in the night, after finishing all your work, Just lay down calmly for some seconds there on the bed and close your eyes. Let some breaths go in and out smoothly then try to remember what you did in the whole day from waking up till the bed. Start from the event one, whether important or not. Then try to remember your state of mind while doing different actions, like whether you had a fight with your boss or employees, love or quarrel with you spouse, etc. Go in the details and try to see the motives behind your actions, examine your frame of mind doing a particular action, and, also try to judge whether your actions and intentions were right or not, and then sleep.

That is all you have to do.

But, please understand that though it looks very simple, but it is not. It would be somewhat thrilling for some initial days, but, sooner or later, that moment would come when your mind would refuse to stick to it and tells you quietly that let us bunk it today. And, if you fall in the trap, it would argue more profoundly next day for avoiding it by telling you that you have some more important things to think about, so why engage in this useless exercise. And, if you make a gap of some days, then you have to start all over again.

Just remember two things.
Never open your eyes doing so otherwise that system would not be activated and eat slightly less at dinner to avoid falling asleep immediately.

PK, try it for at least one week and tell me how you feel about it. Then, we will take the next step.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with any religion/God or any kind of faith. It is purely a mental excercise and everyone can do that, whether theist or atheist.

with love,
sanjay

2

I haven’t forgotten about you my friend.

I have printed out your thread and it is on my bed. I get home late from work tonight
around 10:15 or so tonight, so I shall once again look it over and when I go to bed
around 12 or 1, I shall try it. Thank you for your efforts. I will do my best to follow
your instructions.

Kropotkin

3

Really?
Well, I’m impressed.

Although I can already guess what you are going to come back with … :laughing:

4

I am glad to know that you are serious.
That is not a complicated thing to implement at all. All that is required is honesty and continutity.

When you will think about your actions of the day, try to be honest with yourself. Do not try to find excuses and face the reality.

And, keep telling me how you feel about it. That will help me decide the timing of next step.

with love,
sanjay

5

James,

You know that i am an optimist. I never lose hope.

It takes only one incident to create change forever. And, i know that is true.

with love,
sanjay

6

Note sure how this can prove Metaphysics. I understand the essential of Metaphysics as follows;

What is presented in the OP is some sort of mindfulness exercise which in no way will prove the usual claims of metaphysics, i.e. there is an ultimate substance to reality.

A better purpose for mindfulness [Buddhist Vipassana] could be extended to expose and disprove Metaphysical claims.

7

Prism,

A very simple and proven fact is that one cannot climb Mount Everest if he cannot walk some miles in the plains in the first place. So, it would be useless to teach the details of mountaineering to a unfit person. Let him be physically fit first.

The same applies to metaphysics/meditation too. The first thing required is to wake up the unconscious mind and connect it with the conscious one. Other things come later.

One cannot be a graduate if he is not passed high school and one cannot pass even high school if he has not studied in primary classes.

with love,
sanjay

8

I understand your point of starting with the simple stuff re meditation.
However my point is the spiritual experiences and development in meditation do not prove metaphysics.

Perhaps you are approaching metaphysics from the perspective of Vedanta where one is supposed to transcend the illusion of maya to experience Brahman. This principle may be useful in some ways, but ultimately, this does not prove the essence of metaphysics. This is countered by the core Buddhist principles of anatta (non-self) and anicca (no permanence).

According to Kant, metaphysics is an unavoidable impulse by human beings but even then, metaphysics is impossible to ground ultimate reality.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

Perhaps you could research into these counter views of metaphysics and get an idea (not necessary agree) why they view metaphysics is naturally pursued by many but it is not tenable.

9

That depends how far one goes with that. The meaning, implications and purpose of meditation is misunderstood by the intellectuals by and large and that causes the mislead conclusion that you are suggesting.

I am well aware of that. Kant was not a spiritual scholar by any stretch of imagination. Like most of the western philosophers, he also comes from the league of pure intellectual philosophers. He was not aware of the exact methodology of the meditation though he tried his best to get the breakthrough during his years of self imposed exile but could not able to pass that threshold, after which proofs start coming. All he was able to realize that there was something there for sure beyond the physical boundaries. That was his limit and he wrongly concluded that is all one can ever get.

Maya/illusion or Brahman are very farfetched things. These are very extreme or higher positions. To get the proof of metaphysics, one does not need to go that far. There is a particular limit or threshold, after crossing which one can experience metaphysical experiences, both mentally and physically too.

As far as Vedanta and Buddhism is concerned, there is not much difference between the two. The difference is only in the literature, not the methodology of the meditations. If you go deep in the Buddhism, you would find that their metaphysical ontology/cosmology is not much different what Vedanta suggests.

with love,
sanjay

10

I have provided a definition of metaphysics above. I wonder how would your ‘going far’ is able to prove metaphysics as defined above. Can you give some points to that effect?

While awaiting your response, what I understand is there is no difference in experience between those experienced by advanced meditators and those by drug users, suffering from mental illness, under stress, brain damage [note Jill Bolte] etc.

The problems start when those (including advance meditators) start to reify their experience as an ontological something-in-itself.

Though Kant was not a recognized spiritual scholar, he was partly a pragmatic spiritual person who managed to maintain his well being and lived to a ripe old age of 80 when the average life-expectancy of the average male was 40+ years.
You’d be surprised Kant practiced some sort of mindfulness [meditation] gleaned from his own intellectual/rational capacity.
Kant recognized that reason and practical must go hand in hand. In addition, reason must be reigned in by itself otherwise there would be an anarchy in thinking leading to the reification of an illusory God or other supernaturals which results from metaphysical quests.
I am very sure Kant did not agree there was ‘something’ beyond the physical boundaries. What he did was merely assuming [this point is critical] there is ‘something’ [noumenon] to set a boundary for the phenomena in the negative sense.

I understand a meditator [being doing that for many years] can have various range of meditative experiences, so can a drug users, mentally ill, brain damage, etc.
But I think your sense of ‘metaphysical’ experiences is difference from the philosophical sense of ‘metaphysics’ as defined above.
It would be more accurate to term such meditative experiences as altered states of consciousness [ASC].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness
Such altered states of consciousness as experienced by advance meditators, drug users, brain damaged, etc can be objectively represented by neural correlates and their activities.

I am not a Buddhist but very inclined towards Buddhist philosophy. There is a big paradigm shift from Vedanta (Vedic) to Buddhist as reflected by the principle of atman[atta] versus anatta [anatman]. Based on anatta, there is no ontology in Buddhism-proper. This lead to difference in emphasis in their meditative techniques in general and psychological outlook of the respective believers. The vedantist in general look forward [some anticipate] to merge with Brahman but the Buddhist merely focus on the ‘now’. I agree overall there is not much difference in experiences of ASC.

11

There is no ultimate or consensual definition of metaphysics in the philosophy. To put simply, or as i see it at least, metaphysics is such a branch of philosophy that deals with the issues which are beyond normal physical reach.

That may be true in some cases but not all. Secondly, there is a very significant difference in between the mental states caused by the drugs and meditation.

Meditation is all about to strengthen the conscious mind. There is no other purpose whatsoever. And, to such extent that it starts imposing itself on the subconscious mind. On the contrary, all drugs mellow down the activity/awareness of the conscious mind. So, we are basically taking about two entirely opposite methodologies.

The impression that people have that drugs and mediation use to cause similar experiences, is because people do not understand/experience what actually happen during serious meditative states. As they experience some new or different mental states than normal during the influence of the drugs, hence they wrongly assume that the same would happen with meditation too.

Yes, during some extreme accidental happenings like NDE, one can certainly experience likewise experiences of meditation.

May i ask you a simple question!

Who can be a better judge of whether something is for real or not, either that one who is experiencing in person or one who has no person experience and merely commenting on what is told by others?

Kant was a genius and very committed person too. He reached to such stages during his investigation, where no other non-religious philosopher has ever reached, but as he was not aware of the precise methodology, hence failed to take the necessary leap. Age does not matter, whether you are 08 or 80, unless and until one is not aware of certain basics, he would never able to go beyond a certain limit, no matter how hard and long he may try.

I have read Kant a lot. And, the only impression that i got that he felt that something is there for sure, but was unable to comprehend that. That is only reason why he says that logic has its limits too. That is what he calls a priori, something that humans use to have before leaning logic and rationality. But, he was not saying that in any negative sense.

I have already explained that above.

Yes, to some extent, as i mentioned in my definition above.

To me, besides normal philosophical investigations, metaphysics also includes the details and proof of things like consciousness, soul, God etc.

I do not see it as a different subject but very much the part of metaphysics, because all these issues are related and dependent on each other.

[b]The only difference in between Vedanta and Buddhism is in postulations of ultimate destinations, not the findings.

Vedanta is a destination ontology while Buddhism is a process ontology. Vedanta has a partiular goal. On the other hand, Buddhism does not deny that state which Vedanta postulates as an ultimate goal, but says that understanding the process reaching their is the ultimate goal, not that state itself. That is the only difference between Vedanta and Buddhism. Rest is all the same and differences are only linguistic ones[/b].

with love,
sanjay

12

This would be a problem for your OP as ‘to prove’ means proving something.

Perhaps you could agree with this;

Metaphysics is generally term 'beyond physics" but ultimately it is after something, e.g. first cause, ultimate substance, essence, being, matter, etc.

If you specify what metaphysics is aim at, then you may encounter Meno’s paradox.

I agree the general mental states between meditators and non-meditators are different.

What I am pointing out is some of those significant extra-ordinary experiences such as cosmic consciousness, god consciousness, feeling of unity with the universe, the loss of self, and the likes are similar.
I think you are familiar with Jill Bolte’s experience during a serious stroke?
If not,
youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
Somewhere in the middle, she described here ‘nirvana’ experience in the midst of a serious stroke.

The ‘godly’ experiences of certain mystics and prophets could be due to some kind of psychosis, .e.g. that of Jesus, Muhammad, Paul of Damascus, St. Theresa of Avila and others.

This guy experienced godliness and his father send him the Ramachandran the neuroscientist,
youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I agree direct experience is more true to the person than secondary reports by others. However what is true experience to an individual does not necessary imply reality in the general sense.

Actually Kant was not interested in any serious spirituality even though he is aware of it. Kant was never after any methodology related to spiritual realization.
He emphasized (stated very clearly in his book) he prefer to focus on the rational aspect of philosophy rather than the practical aspects. He said he will leave it to others to deal with the practical aspects of philosophy.

Relative to other philosophers, I have spent an extra-ordinary time reading Kant’s major works.
Kant is very certain there is nothing metaphysical and independent beyond the physical.
As I had said, he merely ASSUMED there is something and in a negative sense to maintain some degree of coherence to his theory.

Because,

According to Kant, metaphysics is confined to the quest for only these, i.e.

  1. Total Cosmos,
  2. an independent soul [immortality, absolute freedom] and
  3. God.
    To Kant, these are merely illusions, i.e. pseudo rational objects, i.e.

In a way, Buddhism discounts and do not seek to prove metaphysics [as general defined], whereas Vedanta is metaphysically based.

13

Not at all. The problem is not the proof but the showing proof to others. That is not possible in metaphysics. One can only tell the other the way to find the proof. Seeker has to make efforts in person.

Yes, i can accept that.

I was not aware of her but i saw the clip. Putting all dramatics aside, she was basically describing a mild or incomplete NDE( near death experience) with the hint of some OBE (outside body experience) but all that is not Nirvana. It is far far away. All that is normal procedure that happens to everyone who dies. One has to go this phase during his meditative journey too. This is what i call passing the first threshold.

She may call it Nirvana because it was something very unique and unexplainable to her and she assumed that was it. But, though she was right in her experience but completely wrong in her conclusion of that.

I can tell you that unlike that previous case of that lady, this boy is totally lying. All that story is engineered by the whole group just for some reasons.

it is not only more true to him but he is best judge to decide what is real and what is not, not the other person, unless the listener has not gone through all that too in person.

No. True experiences, if they are not fake or pretended, always are for real. There is either no illusion in this world whatsoever or everything is illusion. If you go by the strict definition of the illusion, all this world around us also an illusion. This sounds a bit absurd but it is true.

If you are a scholar in philosophy, then you must have read Kant more than me for sure.

Kant has two phases of his life, one before his silent decade and the second one is after that. I see true kant in his first part, not the second one, though he is more respected for this second part.

His first part is natural, investigative and enthusiastic. He came across to many new things about mind during his investigations.

This is precisely i was talking about. He was dead right in his observation but as he tried to progress further on this issue during his silent decade, he failed and thus rejected is earlier views and falls in the line of other pure intellectual philosophers.

It is merely a misunderstanding within the most intellectuals that Buddhism is not based on metaphysics and does not believe in deities or higher spiritual entities and realms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_c … _cosmology

You must read this page.

with love,
sanjay

14

My main interest is in Eastern philosophies, thus I am very familiar with where the above stand within Buddhist philosophy proper.

Here is note on Buddhist metaphysics;

It is a common understanding that the Buddha avoided metaphysical questions and on this issue the more credible stance is that of early Buddhism which is nearer to the time of the Buddha.
Nevertheless when rationalized ultimately with the core principles of Buddhism, ultimately metaphysics cannot be within the essence of Buddhist philosophy proper. In addition, one can rely on Kantian philosophy to support this point.

According to Kant, humans cannot ignore metaphysics which to him is as close as to the human need for breathing. The point is one must recognize and understand its illusory character, psychological basis and various limits.

ps. accidentally deleted the earlier part of my reply … to follow later.

15

The furthest one can go in terms of objective knowledge with personal conviction is merely that of a belief. This is what is going on with theology and theism.
The danger of such is its very dangerous extremism, i.e. ISIS and all other evils that SOME believers has committed since history and at present. This is why it is so critical to put metaphysics in its proper perspective and limits.
IMO, to associate metaphysics with ‘proof’ is exceeding the limits of metaphysics.

Jill Bolte is a neuroscientist. It is not Nirvana per se, but such experiences are associated with people who has claimed to be in a state of Nirvana proper.

It is probable his experience is true as there are tons of research on such godly divine experiences by the mentally ill. As such, it is very likely that some of the famous mystics and religious leaders could be mentally sick, Muhammad’s case is very likely to be such a case.
Btw V S Ramanchandran is a world famous neuroscientist. It is not likely he will risk his credibility on such a well researched issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran

There is the concept of illusion, re Maya. There are many perspectives to the concept of illusion, i.e. sense, logical and the more complicated transcendental illusions of metaphysics.

I am not an academic scholar of Kant. However I have spent two years of a three years full time project to study Kantian philosophy. I am not an expert on Kant [yet].

It is not easy to understand Kant, even when one has put in a lot of time.

The fact is Kant fell into a decade of silence because he met a dead end with metaphysics.
Kant was with Leibniz and Christian Wolff on dogmatic metaphysics, and that is how he was awoken from his ‘dogmatic’ slumber by Hume.
In his metaphysical days, he even wrote a book on how to prove the existence of God.

Upon his waking up, he discarded metaphysics totally as possible knowledge and went on to reconcile the extremes of metaphysics [rationalism] with empiricism.
This is inline with Buddha’s middle path.
Whilst Kant was never into the practice of spirituality, his critical philosophy provides are very logical, sound and rational framework to support the spiritual practices [not metaphysics] of Eastern philosophies.

16

I know what you’re going with here, and I can definitely say that you are spot on, in my book, in devising a method to connect the conscious with the sub-conscious. There is a very deep connection between the states of cognition/consciousness (not confusing the two, by the way) and comprehending a larger metaphysical picture. It’s how so many great philosophers, from both East and West, have comprehended a ‘larger reality’, to say the least.

17

I know what you’re going with here, and I can definitely say that you are spot on, in my book, in devising a method to connect the conscious with the sub-conscious. There is a very deep connection between the states of cognition/consciousness (not confusing the two, by the way) and comprehending a larger metaphysical picture. It’s how so many great philosophers, from both East and West, have comprehended a ‘larger reality’, to say the least.

18

I know what you’re going with here, and I can definitely say that you are spot on, in my book, in devising a method to connect the conscious with the sub-conscious. There is a very deep connection between the states of cognition/consciousness (not confusing the two, by the way) and comprehending a larger metaphysical picture. It’s how so many great philosophers, from both East and West, have comprehended a ‘larger reality’, to say the least.

19

By the way, please excuse the duplication of my post. My computer was slow in posting it.

20

Vipassana or really the tradition around it makes metaphysical claims about the nature of reality - for example that all phenomena are transient. There is no evading metaphysics or metaphysical claims, explicit or implicit. One simply tends to think of one’s own as fact based or empircally based or right and other people’s are speculative or hallucinations. But this tendency of thinking that one’s own metaphysics is correct does not change the fact that it is metaphysics, even if it is correct.