[Don Salmon]

I don’t know if Mark is coming back here, but I’d love to here more of his take on Owen Barfield’s critique of materialist science.

I think the opening chapter of “Saving the Appearances” is one of the clearest and most brilliant expositions of the fundamental misunderstanding of materialism.

here’s a lovely short cartoon illustrating the basic view of that chapter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHO1Qgy7C8

[Don Salmon]

hi Mike – sorry I haven’t gotten back to you. been in a meditation retreat, which is over tomorrow. Will reply soon…. thanks a lot, though for your participation, much appreciated.

[Don Salmon]

Mike, I agree for the most part with everything you write. Since I don’t want to get to much into purely intellectual (philosophic) discussions, I’m going to leave aside your comment about Vedanta except to say, if you’re talking about Shankara’s version of Vedanta, I completely agree with you – there are many others that aren’t illusionist at all – in fact, the majority of Vedantic and Tantric texts are not)

*****

I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on this comment. This was the only one I think I didn’t understand at all:

“Physics, comprehensively but not exhaustively, describes phenomenal reality. On this view, it follows that phenomenal reality, largely but not exclusively, behaves as if it were material in nature.”

“Phenomenal reality,” I had always thought, meant the reality that we experience. As physicist Arthur Zajonc (who has spent his life studying the foundations of science) puts it, “Physics is entirely about quantities, and is completely silent on qualities.”

So my understanding is, phenomenal reality is completely absent from physics. No color, sound, etc. Did you watch Bernardo’s video series on analytic idealism? There’s a lot I disagree with in Bernardo’s idealist philosophy ,but his critique and parsing of the limitations of physicalist arguments is quite brilliant. When he explains this point about what physics encompasses, he has a very interesting image:

First, he draws the outlines of a city skyline. He notes that materialist philosophers often tell us that while physics may deal with qualities, it gives us the behavior of the forms.

So in the video, you see a red line drawn around the outer edges of the buildings in the skyline.

Then – in quite a brilliant move – first the outlined buildings disappear, leaving only the red line.

Then the red line disappears, the screen temporarily goes blank and then it is filled up with hundreds of overlapping equations.

This is exactly the point Zajonc makes – what physics gives us is solely purely mathematical quantities, which we then, apply to our phenomenological experience, which is utterly absent from the perspective of pure physics.

Finally, I think the point you and Whit are making about how successful physics is in describing the MEASURABLE BEHAVIOR of our experience (I always prefer to use everyday words if possible, so I’m going to leave aside “phenomenological reality) – is that regularly REQUIRES the assumption of materiality.

Maybe we can go into this further. I suggest the exact opposite. If the universe were actually as materialists claim (I’m also going to use the most commonly used term – “physicalism” is a technical term that I find muddies the water a lot- though technically it’s more accurate), it would be pure chaos. (If you want a deep intellectual discussion of this, Sri Aurobindo devotes a very clear chapter of The Life Divine to this point)

So, let’s see if I can summarize my questions:

1. You say physics comprehensively but not exhaustively describes reality, and you seem to also be seeing this comprehensive description includes our experience.

RESPONSE: Our experience itself is completely absent from physics – even from a “comprehensive” description.

2. You seem to be saying, if I understand it correctly, that the accuracy of physics’ description of the behavior of measurable aspects of our experience implies a material universe.

RESPONSE: it seems to me just the opposite. If the universe were as materialists claim, it would be pure chaos.

[Don Salmon]

I just realized a number of things I’ve left out that may be making this more confusing.

1. I’m not interested in philosophizing about this. I don’t want to compare philosophies, or create a new one, or propose any philosophic ideas. I’m solely interested clarifying what science as method is about (science as method, rather than science as philosophy)

2. I’m solely interested in an agnostic approach. My understanding, having been trained as a research scientist, is that science in itself is completely agnostic with regard to the “nature” of reality.

3. I think I just got something about the way Whit says that physics has been successful by sticking to a materialist view. “Sticking to a materialist view” sounds to me like a philosophic statement, but perhaps I misunderstood.

if you say, “Physics has been extraordinarily successful by sticking to an examination ONLY of the measurable aspects of phenomenal experience” – which is a bit more complex way of saying what perhaps Whit intended – I fully agree.

I just want to be careful. When you say “materialist” you’re speaking of a certain philosophic view, which I’m trying to stay away from.

So yes, physics deals only with extremely limited measurable aspects of experience (that’s the best I can do avoiding overt philosophic statements – it’s just a description of the method used by physicists)

I know I’ve been clumsily inserting philosophic statements myself so i’d like to set those aside and start fresh.

WHAT SCIENCE DOES:

Physics excludes all of phenomenal reality but that which can be measured. It does not require ANY philosophic view to conduct research.

If we can just get clear about this, I’d be interested at the conclusion of our discussion to start another group where we can explore whether it makes more sense, as a philosophic view, to assume a primarily material (ie unconscious, non living) universe or a conscious one. Whether that’s Vedantic, Greek Orthodox, Hasidic/Kabbalistic, Tantric, process philosophy, or another view, would be a discussion for yet a different group.

[Don Salmon]

Hi again: Literally seconds after posting the previous comment, I got this in my inbox, from meditation teacher Chris Willard. It speaks to exactly the points about practice:

Can I Be A Mindful Parent, Without Meditating Every Day?

It was about nine years ago that I went to the meditation center to ask my teacher how I could possibly practice once I had started a family. Her answer was simple and surprising, and in many ways the basis of my new course.

“You don’t!”

I was stunned! Everything I thought I’d learned from my teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh, Jack Kornfield, Tara Brach and others made me think that if I wasn’t meditating, I was somehow doing it wrong!

“Your practice is now off the cushion,” she explained.

“This is the real practice, real life, dealing with change, and there’s nothing more real, and nothing that changes your world and you faster than kids. What you want to practice now”, she explained, “is cultivating in yourself and your family qualities like generosity, equanimity, wisdom, ethics and so much more.”

After my teacher threw down that gauntlet, I began studying the neuroscience behind mindfulness, child development research, as well as the spiritual wisdom from around the world, all to create The Science and Spirit of Mindful Parenting/Caregiving.

This is a ten week, twenty hour, course that can stand alone or supplement my previous course: Growing Up Mindful.

Graduates are calling it deeper and more profound than my other offerings, and I can’t wait to have you join and learn in community with other parents and caregivers, as we learn to embody and cultivate generosity, wisdom, honesty, ethics, hard work, equanimity, and ten spiritual values that we can all agree on.

Click through to see how the program works, get the early bird price, register today before it fills up!

Yours in mindfulness,
Chris Willard

[Don Salmon]

Hi Joseph:

You make such interesting points. The one that moved me most was the insight that it’s not techniques per se that lead to the shift in attention; that ANYTHING can serve as an inspiration to open to a new way of seeing, of being, being with God, or Brahman, or the Tao, or what you wish.

I notice in much of the discussions on this channel, there’s a lot of ambivalence about techniques. And in many modern circles (without being aware how much this ambivalence owes to the Protestant Reformation!), there is a similar ambivalence.

I myself felt this for about 6 years when I first came across contemplative practices. Finally, in 1976, I said to myself, “just do it.”

As far as I’m aware, even including Krishnamurti, perhaps the most radical anti-practice speaker of the modern age, there isn’t a single genuine contemplative – from the most ancient Vedic sages to Christians, Jews, Sufis, etc – who hasn’t at some point engaged in practices.

In our modern LH age, practice is seen as somehow mechanical, artificial.

But even basic breath watching (Thich Nhat Hanh teaches it this way) can be a celebration of the Divine, of a sacred all pervading reality.

it’s not the technique but the attitude we bring to it. No doubt, all techniques are left behind ultimately, but as a meditation teacher friend of mine said to a student who decided to give up all techniques – my friend responding in a thoroughly non intellectual, “Dr. Phil” kind of way: “how’s that workin’ out for you?”

Not so well, it turns out. For me personally, the struggle between effort/techniques and surrender/grace has been one of the most fruitful of my life. Once you get it, you can use any technique as a means of surrender, letting go, no techniques. This goes so far beyond the LH/RH distinction, too.

[Don Salmon]

Hi Rodney:

I hope you’ll forgive me if I dodge the “right or wrong” question. My motto is, if we’re talking about spiritual matters and we begin to argue right or wrong, we’re already off track.

You’re right, I’m right, and we’re both “wrong” if we think words can bring us any finality in regard to anything about an infinite, boundless, ineffable, trans-conceptual reality (ie God:>)

As far as specifics, I like Marilynn Robinson’s take-down of positivism; and the view of Buddhism she describes is one version of the Theravada school (there are others which accept individuality and rebirth, etc).

But this post I just wrote in response to Mike might be helpful:

Very interesting discussion. I personally have no idea what idea is correct or not, but I just wanted to add to Mike’s comment, there have been discussions of individuality vs no-individuality in Eastern and Western contemplative traditions for thousands of years, so I’m guessing we won’t reach any resolution here!

I just wanted to share two views that are different from Ramana Maharshi’s (David Godman, who Mike linked to, was a disciple of the Maharshi)

SRI AUROBINDO

The Aurobindo Ashram is about 3 hours down the road from Maharshi’s Ashram in South India. The Mother (Mirra Alfassa, Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual partner) used to joke with disciples, saying, “If you want peace, drop by Maharshi’s Ashram, if you want to work for evolution, you’re welcome to stay here.”

The Aurobindo folks around the world tend to set up a conflict with Maharshi, saying he’s “part of the old yoga” and claiming they are practicing “at the edge of evolution.”

A very interesting story – Kapali Sastry was a disciple of Maharshi’s in the early 1900s. Around 1920 or so, he left and became a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. A few years after that, he wrote a commentary on one of Maharshi’s writings (Maharshi didn’t actually write – people took notes on what he spoke, but that’s a small side matter).

The interesting thing is, Sastry’s commentary celebrates the soul, describes it as persisting from life to life, and there are numerous other aspects of the commentary that are almost completely in line with Sri Aurobindo and what David Godman would think of as radically opposed to what Maharshi taught.

Yet the Maharshi went over Sastry’s commentary line by line (it was a LONG commentary) and said he fully approved of every sentence.

Just something to ponder.

MARK VERNON AND OWEN BARFIELD

I don’t know if Mark is stopping by here. I just saw a wonderful interview he did with the “Transcendent Psychotherapist” https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=Kxt8jBYWwoU

He speaks of Owen Barfield’s view of the fundamental importance of the individuated “I AM” not only for humans but in relationship to the very purpose of the existence of the universe.

No right or wrong intended here – just sharing that some of the greatest contemplatives in history have had radically different views (despite the Sastry story, Sri Aurobindo himself stated numerous times his radically different views from those of the Maharshi)

Meanwhile, I’m hear enjoying the gently moving branches of the trees outside my window, the dance of light on the leaves, the sweet interplay of the chorus of birds, the hum of my Time Machine backup, and the reflection of light on the timer on my iPad which is keeping track of my steps on the mini trampoline. Am about to heat up the ginger drink for my wife, Jan and make my own iced coffee, after which I’ll be editing several audio tracks for videos we’ll be uploading in a while.

Radiant, luminous, divine play continues timelessly, from timeless moment to dynamically moving moment.

[Don Salmon]

Hi Mike and Sjahari:

Very interesting discussion. I personally have no idea what idea is correct or not, but I just wanted to add to Mike’s comment, there have been discussions of individuality vs no-individuality in Eastern and Western contemplative traditions for thousands of years, so I’m guessing we won’t reach any resolution here!

I just wanted to share two views that are different from Ramana Maharshi’s (David Godman, who Mike linked to, was a disciple of the Maharshi)

SRI AUROBINDO

The Aurobindo Ashram is about 3 hours down the road from Maharshi’s Ashram in South India. The Mother (Mirra Alfassa, Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual partner) used to joke with disciples, saying, “If you want peace, drop by Maharshi’s Ashram, if you want to work for evolution, you’re welcome to stay here.”

The Aurobindo folks around the world tend to set up a conflict with Maharshi, saying he’s “part of the old yoga” and claiming they are practicing “at the edge of evolution.”

A very interesting story – Kapali Sastry was a disciple of Maharshi’s in the early 1900s. Around 1920 or so, he left and became a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. A few years after that, he wrote a commentary on one of Maharshi’s writings (Maharshi didn’t actually write – people took notes on what he spoke, but that’s a small side matter).

The interesting thing is, Sastry’s commentary celebrates the soul, describes it as persisting from life to life, and there are numerous other aspects of the commentary that are almost completely in line with Sri Aurobindo and what David Godman would think of as radically opposed to what Maharshi taught.

Yet the Maharshi went over Sastry’s commentary line by line (it was a LONG commentary) and said he fully approved of every sentence.

Just something to ponder.

MARK VERNON AND OWEN BARFIELD

I don’t know if Mark is stopping by here. I just saw a wonderful interview he did with the “Transcendent Psychotherapist” https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=Kxt8jBYWwoU

He speaks of Owen Barfield’s view of the fundamental importance of the individuated “I AM” not only for humans but in relationship to the very purpose of the existence of the universe.

No right or wrong intended here – just sharing that some of the greatest contemplatives in history have had radically different views (despite the Sastry story, Sri Aurobindo himself stated numerous times his radically different views from those of the Maharshi)

Meanwhile, I’m hear enjoying the gently moving branches of the trees outside my window, the dance of light on the leaves, the sweet interplay of the chorus of birds, the hum of my Time Machine backup, and the reflection of light on the timer on my iPad which is keeping track of my steps on the mini trampoline. Am about to heat up the ginger drink for my wife, Jan and make my own iced coffee, after which I’ll be editing several audio tracks for videos we’ll be uploading in a while.

Radiant, luminous, divine play continues timelessly, from timeless moment to dynamically moving moment.

[Don Salmon]

Thanks Joseph, much appreciated.

[Don Salmon]

hi Sjahari, great question.

If “soul” means a focus of one infinite ocean of consciousness, it has a whole different feel than the idea of a “soul-entity,” which so much of Buddhism takes great pains to deny.

In a way, there’s no more such a thing as a tree-entity or “rock-entity” than a soul-entity. But we don’t say “trees don’t exist” or “rocks don’t exist.”

What is the feeling “I am.” what is the feeling “I am” that feels the “same” when it looked out through 7 year old eyes and 70 year old eyes.

What is the feeling “I am” that maintains awareness from the waking into dreaming into the sleep state?

Those who have remained stably awake to this I am say that it remains similarly aware through the end of the body into other subtler states, and back into another body.

[Don Salmon]

Hi Lucy – do you know Robert Thurman? He is the first American, I believe, to become a monk in a Tibetan Buddhist order, and was chair of the Dept of Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia U (I saw this not to say he’s right about anything in particular, just that he may be worth listening to:>))

He speaks of a “Self of Selflessness,” referring to a commonality in the Tibetan and Vedic traditions. I think someone else here, I don’t recall who, referred to the ocean and the waves. Knowing myself as the ocean of infinite consciousness doesn’t negate the value of myself as a wave; in fact, there’s a continuity of shape and form of a wave, and knowing my connection to the ocean may even be considered as giving me more value.

But the above paragraph is conceptual. I can analyze the Buddhist vs Vedic traditions, yet there’s a feeling, in spite of anything I think or read, of individuality. So right now, if I let the verbal thoughts fade away into complete silence, there’s a sense of the “same” vibration animating all, yet the trees and the cat next to me shine with their own brilliant, radiant luminosity while at the same time shining with the same vibration.

I don’t know if that makes any sense. This is only recently becoming clear – experientially – and I suppose I could say it in Buddhist or Christian or even scientific language, I’m trying to learn to write in more childlike language. Hope it makes a little sense.

[Don Salmon]

hi, still on retreat, sorry haven’t gotten back to you – I appreciate your comments, will reply when the retreat is over…

[Don Salmon]

Hey Mike, all great stuff. Don’t have time to respond in any detail now – Jan and I are on a 3 day home/Zoom meditation retreat with Craig Holliday.

A suggestion to think about – I’ve done doctoral level research and incorporated postmodern philosophy, phenomenology, sweated through Heidegger, Aquinas, Abhinavagupta, and much else.

Maybe it’s my age (soon to be 71) but my aim these days is writing in a way that a 13 year old utterly unfamiliar with any of these topics would have no problem understanding.

I always start with:

What is it that is aware of all this?

I find that quite easily, in simple everyday language (for that 13 year old kid:>)) all of science and philosophy can be gotten from that starting point.

I love what you wrote and with very few exceptions agree (and really, not disagreements just maybe a slight shift of emphasis)

When I get back to this Monday, i’ll see if I can be any clearer. I think in my responses to you and white I’ve covered a whole bunch of different areas and have failed to make clear what my main aim is. Let’s see if the retreat helps me toward simplification and clarity!:>))

[Don Salmon]

Hi Mike:

This is really really REALLY good – you sound intimately familiar with the issues and have articulated them extremely well.

I never got to creating that group I mentioned earlier. I’d much rather start over with this comment of yours – it outlines the issues better than anything I’ve seen in a long time.

I think we’re actually – you may be surprised, in fundamental agreement, except for one major point which I’ll go into in the new group.

I’ll call it “FREEING SCIENCE FROM PHYSICALISM”

[Don Salmon]

Or as short as possible:

Every time you see the words “matter” or “mind” or “energy” or “physical” or “consciousness” (this would even include our previous discussion about Tao)

Ask yourself:

Are you reading the word through an analytic lens, taking it to be an identifiable object or subject?

Or are you “reading” the word through an intuitive lens, BEGINNING with lived experience?

For example, from an analytic lens, of course it makes no sense to say “Consciousness is everything” – but that statement is not meant to be seen through an analytic lens – which doesn’t mean you can’t analyze the experience, but if you don’t START with the lived experience, the analysis won’t make sense. Indian and pre-Socratic philosophy always worked this way, starting on a basis of lived experience (Parmenides is rarely understood, because his writings are taking to be pure analysis, whereas they are USING analysis to undo analytic presuppositions in order to open to lived experience, much like Nagarjuna and Shankara, and to a much lesser extent, Heidegger and some of the post modern philosophers – though the latter have only a weak vague connection to lived experience)

The confusion between these two lenses is why when I get time later this year, I’m going to do little or no writing about this. I find it usually takes anywhere from two to 6 months to shift people out of analytic/objectivist thinking into direct experience. So I’ll be doing almost entirely videos, with music, poetry, animation and SOME analysis but always on the basis of lived experience.

It took me 6 months with a brilliant STEM student for him to suddenly write and exclaim how astonished he was that it took him that long to see that in a physicalist framework, assuming laws of nature as “causative factors” is completely meaningless.

Similarly, it took around the same period of time with a philosophy professor from a major university to get to the point where he saw what it meant that the word “physicalism” is completely meaningless.