Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, you do not concede the possibility that God might not exist? You are claiming that it is a truth in which you are 100% certain with no wriggle room?
You know, Scotty, I have to admit the possibility that what I call the supernatural category might represent a real domain. Nevertheless, it remains for me an unnecessary metaphysical leap.
The power of the mind—either of itself or in response to environmental stimulus—seems eminently capable of projecting an illusive sensory experience (with or without strong emotional content) in such a way that it seems to represent an external reality. For a mundane example: Is that an oasis over there or a mirage? Neither the force of the experience nor its specific content is decisive. Just because it really, really seems to be an oasis (and I happen to be lost in the desert) doesn’t make it so.
The same for mystical experiences, and the records and conclusions of those who have had them in the past, and who recorded the same. After all, such experiences are not consistent in content across religions (theistic or non-theistic), nor are the various conclusions drawn from them (Judaism versus Christianity versus Islam versus Hinduism versus Buddhism, etc.).
Therefore, interpretations of such events and records in terms of the supernatural are just that: interpretations. Once one makes the leap to a supernatural interpretation, one’s theology may or may not be, in itself, internally consistent. Nevertheless, it is a leap; and the theology drawn therefrom depends upon it axiomatically. It is an axiom of theological discourse. And I think that needs to be straightforwardly admitted. Some theists are quite willing to, others may not be.
I have no problem with the idea that the “syntax of the cosmos” may not all be accessible to the “grammar of our consciousness”—there may always remain mystery (especially when one considers that that grammar is itself part of, and inseparable from, the larger syntax). Also, the simple non-conceptual state of being aware (perceptually) before adding any conceptual content to the experience is properly ineffable—we can only communicate, or even think about it, in terms of concepts; and that comes after, or else muddles the clarity of the experience itself.* Those concepts may or may not accurately reflect the underlying reality; they are not it. In Zen terminology, what we say about non-conceptual reality are “fingers pointing to the moon”; one should not confuse the conceptual content of the gesture with what is being pointed to.
Again, I see no reason to make the leap from the non-conceptual experience of what I call
tathata—the just-so-suchness, of which I also inseparably am—to the supernatural concept/category. Parsimony is one reason; willingness to let the ineffable remain ineffable is another (and anything that I say about it should also be taken as “fingers pointing to the moon”, nothing more).
I really can’t say what I would judge to be sufficient justifying evidence for the supernatural category. I haven’t come across it yet. It would certainly be interesting, and I have no reason to be closed to it.
___________________________________________
* As a
karate-ka, I suspect that you have some idea of what I’m talking about, whether you do any kind of meditation or not.
17 Dec '07 01:41
Who's game?
Back to Top