An Odd Argument

[Preetom]

Guys let me know what you think about this. It's about who should really carry the burden of proof.

1) A realized nondualist says that only the Self exists. Self/Consciousness is not produced or limited by the brain. He declares it without shadow of a doubt and even provides the systematic methodology to come to the same conclusion for those who want to verify it. On the other hand, the materialist scientist thinks/assumes that brain produces Consciousness but CANNOT prove it. So whose burden is it to prove? 

2) Same thing goes with the material, objective, outside world. The nondualist denies such a thing. The materialist scientist believes in it but cannot prove it. So whose burden is it to prove?

So my question is, is it really legitimate to bother a nondualist about proofs and assumed scientific stuff when he denies these things from the get go? Is it legitimate to bring him into an assumed paradigm and argue in order to validate that paradigm when such a paradigm just is not there?

Isn't it kind of an odd, fruitless argument?

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Preetom

[Aimblack]

I disagree with the notion of burden of proof in general. No matter what situation I'm in the burden of proof is always on me. 

[Rilles]

The question is; why do you want to prove something to someone else? If you have the experience that the subjective world is all that there is then isnt that enough for you? Sometimes when we want to convince someone else of something it is because we ourselves arent really sure so we want to validate it. 

[Preetom]

Just now, Aimblack said:

I disagree with the notion of burden of proof in general. No matter what situation I'm in the burden of proof is always on me. 

But most people delegate that burden of proof on the nondualist teacher.

''Show me the Self like the external world, then I'll follow your teaching''- that sorta dumb argument.

He doesn't consider that if he really did 'see' the Self, then there wouldn't be any brain or external world   

[Preetom]

Just now, Rilles said:

The question is; why do you want to prove something to someone else? If you have the experience that the subjective world is all that there is then isnt that enough for you? Sometimes when we want to convince someone else of something it is because we ourselves arent really sure so we want to validate it. 

I totally understand what you're saying. I personally am not in a mission to prove or convince anyone anything. I just brought this topic up because I've been seeing this trend everywhere from this forum to any place.

It's like I'm urging you constantly about showing me the favorite food of Santa Clause. There is no such thing, let alone it's favorite food 

How would you deal such a deluded fella?

[Flammable]

4 minutes ago, Preetom said:

How would you deal such a deluded fella?

 

People can't be talked out of illusions. If a person believes that the earth is flat, you can't talk him out of that, he knows that it's flat. He'll go down to the window and see that its obvious, it looks flat. So the only way to convince him that it isn't is to say, "Well let's go and find the edge”. And in order to find the edge, you've got to be very careful not to walk in circles, you'll never find it that way. So we've got to go consistently in a straight line due west along the same line of latitude, and eventually when we get back to where we started from, you've convinced the guy that the world is round. That's the only way that will teach him. Because people can't be talked out of illusions. You just let them persist in their own illusions until they are no longer bearable.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Alan Watts

Edited November 12, 2018 by Flammable

[Preetom]

1 minute ago, Flammable said:

Alan Watts: 

People can't be talked out of illusions. If a person believes that the earth is flat, you can't talk him out of that, he knows that it's flat. He'll go down to the window and see that its obvious, it looks flat. So the only way to convince him that it isn't is to say, "Well let's go and find the edge”. You force him to persist in his illusion until it starts breaking down and he sees its absurdity.

GOLD  

Now the question is, how long will materialist scientists continue to persist on their folly? 

[Rilles]

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

I totally understand what you're saying. I personally am not in a mission to prove or convince anyone anything. I just brought this topic up because I've been seeing this trend everywhere from this forum to any place.

It's like I'm urging you constantly about showing me the favorite food of Santa Clause. There is no such thing, let alone it's favorite food 

How would you deal such a deluded fella?

It feels good to try to convince, its part of human nature, thats why I think direct experience is so key when you are discussing with someone. If you go up to a mainstream scientist and just spout I AM GOD OBVIOUSLY! thats not direct enough for them... you need to be at at the persons level. 

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, Rilles said:

It feels good to try to convince, its part of human nature, thats why I think direct experience is so key when you are discussing with someone. If you go up to a mainstream scientist and just spout I AM GOD OBVIOUSLY! thats not direct enough for them... you need to be at at the persons level. 

That's the issue here!

How can you dive into an assumed paradigm and expect to find something Truthful out of it, when you already know that this paradigm is a groundless assumption..

[Rilles]

4 minutes ago, Preetom said:

That's the issue here!

How can you dive into an assumed paradigm and expect to find something Truthful out of it, when you already know that this paradigm is a groundless assumption..

The difference is... Self being the only thing that exists can actually be entertained with the right amount of proof and charisma in a debate, but the word God is so loaded that it wont mean anything when you use it so it will just fall flat, the scientist will think you mean you are Zeus and not Absolute Infinity. ?

[Preetom]

@Rilles

I was thinking about this. The argument is either there is or isn't such a thing called an external, objective world.

Do you see the magnitude and finality of such a claim?

How can we come to the final Truth if our starting point is on an assumption?

[Flammable]

@Preetom  In the scientist's direct experience (stage Orange lets say on any of the developmental theories such as SP) signifiers such as 'God' or 'absolute infinity' do not point to the intended signified by a sage (stage Turquoise/Indigo on those same theories). Thus, they will gravely misinterpret those words even without their conscious effort because those signifiers simply do not exist in their worldspace. 

You need to explain to a scientist how he can arrive at such a conclusion by showing him which perspective it is being looked from and how to get there (in a few months or years through meditative or contemplative practices). Then it is up to them to decide whether they want to undertake that experiment and see for themselves.

It is just like going to a tribe in Africa (stage Purple) and talking about human rights/absolute infinity - they will just reinterpret anything given to them according to their developmental stage. Even though they might be aware of 'Oneness'/'Absolute Infinity', they might have re-contextualized it as an animal spirit due to their developmental stage. So, in their worldspace, the signifiers point to different signifieds than in yours - for them it is merely impossible to perceive your 'direct experience' of 'Oneness'.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Flammable

[Preetom]

1 minute ago, Flammable said:

You need to explain to a scientist how he can arrive at such a conclusion by showing him which perspective it is being looked from and how to get there (in a few months or years). Then it is up to them to decide whether they want to undertake that experiment and see for themselves.

Exactly! but how many people really wanna do that? Almost noone.

Mostly we always project our own limitations and consider those limitations to be the Truth!

[Rilles]

Just now, Preetom said:

Exactly! but how many people really wanna do that? Almost noone.

Mostly we always project our own limitations and consider those limitations to be the Truth!

Some things take time... I would have never believed my present self If I talked to myself in 2013 now. I would have called myself a nut LOL!

[Flammable]

@Preetom  Those people who do not want to do it just have not yet grasped the intersubjectivity of relative existence. Then you can just assume it is not their time and, as Alan pointed out, let them persist in their folly 

 

After all, everything is precisely where it should be.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Flammable

[Preetom]

Just now, Rilles said:

Some things take time... I would have never believed my present self If I talked to myself in 2013 now. I would have called myself a nut LOL!

Maybe few years down the line, this present Rilles would be known as a non-existent nut... 

[Preetom]

13 minutes ago, Flammable said:

It is just like going to a tribe in Africa (stage Purple) and talking about human rights/absolute infinity - they will just reinterpret anything given to them according to their developmental stage. Even though they might be aware of 'Oneness'/'Absolute Infinity', they might have re-contextualized it as an animal spirit due to their developmental stage. So, in their worldspace, the signifiers point to different signifieds than in yours - for them it is merely impossible to perceive your 'direct experience' of 'Oneness'.

This is good. Thank you!

[Rilles]

8 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Maybe few years down the line, this present Rilles would be known as a non-existent nut... 

Yes. Only nuts can crack their shell to see there is nothing inside. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Rilles

[Aimblack]

@Preetom Well that is how all our beliefs operate if we don't check them.

[Preetom]

11 minutes ago, Aimblack said:

@Preetom Well that is how all our beliefs operate if we don't check them.

haha thanks  

Thought: Why is this statement true?

Thought: Because I say it is!

Thought: But...that sounds so hollow..and stupid

Thought: Don't worry, I'll just forget that I did it (gulp)

Thought: So you're saying I'm not the guilty party here?  

Thought: Nope. It never happened

Thought: Cool! What's next??

......

......

......

Edited November 12, 2018 by Preetom