Mod+ 256. DR. DONALD DEGRACIA, WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Good post Michael.

It's interesting to compare and contrast interior and exterior science, in that both rely on the idea that if you followed the instructions you would get some results. Both also seem to take regularities in data and extrapolate them into exclusionary certainties.

Materialists make a mistake in assuming the laws of nature have any coercive power that can be used for a priori exclusion of anomalous phenomena. But it seems to me immaterialists make a similar mistake in assuming that the apparent revelations of particular practices are definitive.

I may be wrong, but AFAIK the conclusions of those who practiced the Eleusian Mysteries seem to be different than those of practicing yoga, which in turn seem to be different than those of various shamanic traditions, which seem to differ from at least some magickal and occult practices.

Beyond that, it's not clear to me what separates that which is Maya from that which isn't. How does a Whole like Brahman become the Many, the various individual (and apparently illusory) subjective perspectives existing in this world (or beyond)?
 
Talk about ironic! Consider the vibe of your post.
I think my post would only have been ironic if I had intended any kindness by writing it, but I assure you I did not. The deliciousness of the irony doesn't stem from your delusion, which you share with every man and which is as common as dirt. The delight is in pure appreciation of the genius of maya.
 
I think my post would only have been ironic if I had intended any kindness by writing it, but I assure you I did not. The deliciousness of the irony doesn't stem from your delusion, which you share with every man and which is as common as dirt. The delight is in pure appreciation of the genius of maya.

I think you meant unkindness?

But how exactly was Alex deceived by Maya?
 
Very perceptive! Yes, I would say you were able to decode exactly what I was saying. If, by any chance you are interested in an elaboration of this exact point, I just completed and released a new ebook called Experience that can be gotten from here.

http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/experience-is-now-a-free-ebook/

(P.S. Hi Alex, hope its okay to post links like this)

Best wishes,

Don DeGracia
Thanks for visiting us here in the forum. :)

I was very interested in your comments on parapsychology. I've had some dealings with parapsychology, and it really does seem like it has reached something of a dead end. It can be a place to start when it comes to understanding unusual experiences. It can give you some sense that "scientists" are on the case, so we'll have our answers someday. And it can reassure you that anomalous experiences are still normal human experiences. But it can only take you a very short way into the journey.
 
Good post Michael.

Thanks.

I may be wrong, but AFAIK the conclusions of those who practiced the Eleusian Mysteries seem to be different than those of practicing yoga, which in turn seem to be different than those of various shamanic traditions, which seem to differ from at least some magickal and occult practices.

I think this touches on previous discussions about the varying nature of NDE experiences. Nobody has it completely correct; reality presents itself in all sorts of ways to incarnated beings.

How does a Whole like Brahman become the Many, the various individual (and apparently illusory) subjective perspectives existing in this world (or beyond)?

I don't think they're illusory per se: I think they are very real, but perceived and interpreted in different ways. As to how Brahman, or mind-at-large (MAL) in Bernardo's terms, is one but manifests as many, I believe I've recently posted an opinion about that somewhere, either here or on Bernardo's forum. To reiterate, MAL is the one and only consciousness there is. Each of us is a process in MAL that in and of itself has no consciousness, though it's often good enough for government work to think in such terms.

A given process (what we think of as soul or essence) allows for a more or less restricted viewpoint of that one consciousness, so there are a multiplicity of possible viewpoints. We can't (ordinarily at least) multitask like MAL can, and have difficulties imagining how "the one can be many". We identify ourselves with the process we are, which seems independently unitary. Which could just as well be rephrased by saying that MAL simultaneously identifies itself with each of the processes that that we think of as ourselves.

You're a process in MAL; so am I, and so is everyone else. There's just the one consciousness, but a multiplicity of processes, and it is the processes that can evolve. MAL consciousness is and always has been the same and unchanging. Evolution just brings the viewpoint of processes closer into resonance with the consciousness of MAL. We are the ways that MAL/Brahman can come to experience itself in the great game of existence, or Lila (playground of God), which Don Salmon informed me is the Hindu name for the game.
 
Last edited:
You must figure out the second question for your self.

Well [AFAICTell] it can't be due to Alex's questioning of determinism, since even the Dalai Lama got tripped up by that:

The Buddhism practiced by the Dalai Lama embraces an unbroken chain of cause and effect. How did he respond when you explained the random nature of quantum events?


This was something he didn’t like. He said, “You have to look closely, you have to find the cause.” And then he said something interesting: “If this is really true and you can convince us, then we have to change our teaching.” That is a flexibility which not every religion has.

But we don't need the potentially refutable quantum randomness to note we don't have an explanation for causality - even the skeptic Massimo accepts that, along with noting causality plays little to no role at the QM level. We know the laws of physics don't make things happen, which [AFAICTell] doesn't leave us with many good candidates for explanation unless we allow for some kind of teleology...

And the above is only the mystery of physical causation. Given that mental causation, which we accept by rejecting epiphenomenalism, requires something unextended in space to influence that which is extended in space, we're entering into even more mysterious territory. Then consider what happens if everything in space & time, including space & time, arise from a Mind we're all part of. Is Mind then the driver of causality? If so, then why is Whitehead wrong to suggest the Freedom enjoyed by the Divine is gifted to the conscious entities within it?

If the answer to my questions lie in the gnosis that comes from the practice of yoga, then it seems to me this only takes us back to my previous post where I noted there are a variety of disciplines that [seemingly] yield different revelations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well [AFAICTell] it can't be due to Alex's questioning of determinism, since even the Dalai Lama got tripped up by that:
Well. I'm not going to touch the Lama with a ten foot pole.

I can give you a method but you won't like it. Take every single idea in your head. Every conception. Every single belief. And throw them away. Go Clockwork Orange on every thing you ever thought you were. Everything you ever learned. Everything you think is true or sacred. Burn every single thing. Keep going until there is nothing left. Until you don't even think you are a human being standing on planet Earth. Until you don't know even one thing for sure. Nothing. Go until nothing is sacred. You must slay every one of your gods and you must eat every one of your children. Then you may begin to have an idea of what maya really is.

You are probably asking, why in the hell would I ever want to do that? And you would be right to ask that question.
 
I think my post would only have been ironic if I had intended any kindness by writing it, but I assure you I did not. The deliciousness of the irony doesn't stem from your delusion, which you share with every man and which is as common as dirt. The delight is in pure appreciation of the genius of maya.

Anon, you are capable on occasion of great clarity of expression. It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between laconism and, forgive me, laziness or reluctance to justify an opinion because one has belatedly realised one said something that doesn't make sense. It'd help if you'd either explain or resist the temptation to be inscrutable.
 
Anon, you are capable on occasion of great clarity of expression. It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between laconism and, forgive me, laziness or reluctance to justify an opinion because one has belatedly realised one said something that doesn't make sense. It'd help if you'd either explain or resist the temptation to be inscrutable.

Well I don't believe there was anything inscrutable about my first post. It seemed clear enough. Then Alex wrote this:
Talk about ironic! Consider the vibe of your post.
I thought for a bit what could have been ironic about what I had written, or about the vibe of my post. And in the end I decided that it could only have been considered ironic by someone who assumed that we are all "spiritual" people who dance about the forum sprinkling each other with the pixie dust of love and cosmic consciousness. I no longer believe any of that claptrap.

The vibe of my post was clarity, not kindness. I don't see anything ironic in that.
 
Well I don't believe there was anything inscrutable about my first post. It seemed clear enough. Then Alex wrote this:

I thought for a bit what could have been ironic about what I had written, or about the vibe of my post. And in the end I decided that it could only have been considered ironic by someone who assumed that we are all "spiritual" people who dance about the forum sprinkling each other with the pixie dust of love and cosmic consciousness. I no longer believe any of that claptrap.

The vibe of my post was clarity, not kindness. I don't see anything ironic in that.

Maybe clear to you: I for one still have no clue what you were trying to get at. You can either explain or not, that's your prerogative, but if you don't, you're not only wasting my time, but your own. You come here to communicate, I suppose? Very well: please communicate, and please respond appropriately to requests to clarify. Things will go so much more convivially if you do.
 
Maybe clear to you: I for one still have no clue what you were trying to get at. You can either explain or not, that's your prerogative, but if you don't, you're not only wasting my time, but your own. You come here to communicate, I suppose? Very well: please communicate, and please respond appropriately to requests to clarify. Things will go so much more convivially if you do.

What exactly is unclear to you, Michael? Spell it out for me.
 
Alex's question at the end of the Podcast:

Western science is steeped in untruths these days, and the system is gamed so that the promulgation of untruth is actively rewarded.
.

Hi Michael

Thank you for the perceptive comments! Man, don't get me started on the corruption of modern science! Luckily I don't have to say too much. Henry Bauer wrote a book "Dogmatism in Science and Medicine" that spells out a lot of this. I recently reviewed the book for the Journal of Scientific Exploration and have attached it if you are interested. Thanks,
Don
 

Attachments

  • 2014A JSE 281 DeGracia.pdf
    70.5 KB · Views: 13
Don, many thanks for popping in and taking part in the discussion: that only happens rarely, and is much appreciated.

Only one thing, really, bothered me: at one point, you seemed to be conflating idealism with post-modern social constructivism.

A number of us on this forum are Idealists with a capital "I", and I for one can tell you that I'm not at all a fan of social constructivism. Yes, it exists and is a favoured tool of politicians, polemicists, and even some scientists, and in that sense has great importance and significance. However, Idealism as a philosophy isn't constructivist. If you have the time, I'd recommend paying a visit to Bernardo Kastrup's site here:

.

Hi again, Michael

I'm happy to pop in a participate. It's kind of like a YouTube video: all the fun happens in the comments section! More seriously, I am new to what Alex is doing and am very impressed. I just listened to the Pat Churchland "interview" last night and wow! As for this discussion board, just from the few posts I've seen here, it seems to be overall a smart crowd of people and it is always a pleasure to interact.

Like the question you raised, for example. Yes, you are correct that I glossed over the nuances. I agree with you that post-modernism is not classical idealism, say of Berkeley. However, I think the argument can be made that it is an off-shoot or branch that stemmed from idealism in the lineage of Western philosophy; however the history is contorted and not linear by any means. The whole Wittgenstein and language games thing leading to Foucault and those people ('those people' said in an especially derogatory way). Now I would also argue post-modernism is a massive degeneration of the classical idealism and you are correct that they should not be thought of as the same. Unfortunately, even in What is Science? I don't split these hairs: I gloss over a lot of these nuances so I can get to the good stuff, which are the yoga ideas.

One appeal of the yogic/Hindu thinking is they have a way to resolve the idealism/materialism dichotomy (I know that sounds unsophisticated from a Western philosophy viewpoint, but again: shorthand to get to the good stuff), which is via the complementary notions of "vrittis" and "gunas". Vrittis are the contents of our minds (e.g. idealism). Gunas, roughly speaking, are nature (e.g. materialism). They are both the same -just patterns of movement. So yoga/Hinduism never constructed a dualism of these facts of experience in the first place. Further, yoga techniques are practical applications of these ideas: the idea of yoga chitta vritti nirodha, or silencing the movements of the mind. Again, the idea of contrast: compare this approach to what the West has evolved since Descartes.

Thank you for pointing out Kastrup's web site. I will check out his material, it sounds interesting.

Best wishes,

Don
 
the genius of maya.

Wow! Talk about playing with fire! :) In the new book, Experience, I keep using the term "inscrutable". In a way, it is the most fascinating of all possible topics because it is directly responsible for our existence. At least our existence in the form we are in at present.

I've thought a lot about the concept/process and think I came up with a clever way to describe it in Experience. It's really the core idea of the book. Maya is the inscrutable process where the infinite Brahman tries to become the finite us ("us" meaning all of Nature).
I cite mainly Swami Krishnananda, who has a lot of interesting, and practical ideas on this issue. Because it is a practical matter, and not merely some philosophical idea, when attempting yoga. Part of yoga is to "unwind" the effect of maya. Actually "part" is the wrong word...it is most of the practice of yoga. Almost the whole of the 8 stages Patanjali described is dedicated to this.

If the word "delicious" is appropriate, it comes in when one reads the yogic solution to escaping the maya, which is aphorism 4.33 of the Yoga Sutras: one jumps out of time! At least metaphorically. The process is a little more complicated (deadpan understatement).

Glad you are focused on this idea. I wholeheartedly agree that, in some ways, it's the most important thing to think about.

Best wishes,

Don
 
I think you meant unkindness?

But how exactly was Alex deceived by Maya?

This was a subtle exchange in our discussion. I think Alex and I both got what each other was saying very nicely and is a great example of very subtle communication. ananoymous caught this quite well. I had gone in one direction, a very "big picture" direction. Alex caught this and brought the discussion back to a more practical level. I think it was wholly appropriate as Alex knows his audience and was gearing the discussion the way he thought best in that context (I gather, don't want to assume I know for sure). I think anonymous is quite perceptive for catching this and pointing it out. I think anonymous is saying (he/she can correct me if I am wrong) that the level Alex brought it back to can be considered as discussing things that happen in the Maya. I was also talking about things what happens in the Maya, but from perhaps the largest possible scale, where everything is all just one interlinked pattern in which everything defines everything else. So, I don't think anonymous is being harsh to Alex at all, but just trying to discuss the structure of our discussion, which I think it pretty cool. I call this type of thinking "meta", where one jumps out of the conversation and discusses the flow or structure of the conversation itself.

Ok, must go teach students about the brain now. I hope to be back later to reply some more.

Best to you and all of you and thanks for the fun and stimulating conversation.
Don
 
Alex's question at the end of the Podcast:

What should we make of science that is outside of Western science--do other cultures offer a "science" in the way that we think about it, and does it deserve our attention?

The question reminds me of podcast nr 23 with buddhist scholar Allan Wallace. As I recall one of Wallace's points was that the introduction of meditation as a scientific tool for observation of mental states would propell the science of psychology forward just like the introduction of the telescope propelled the science of astronomy forward.
 
Hi John

Observant comment. Please believe that I am not a "Popperian" (that's a joke for Fantastic Four fans out there). Popper was raised because I address the demarcation problem in What is Science?, which was his idea. By today's standards, Popper is obsolete. If anything, I am most inclined to accept Feyerabend's ideas about the nature of science, which is that it has no definable nature at all. ..

[]
Best wishes,

Don

Straighten up there sir! Eyes forward, shoulders back! Good. Now . .a-ten-shun to detail. lol. I posted that response and I quoted a passage written by John McGowan.

Anyway, thanks much for explaining your perspective. Now if you can only make the leap beyond determinism you may well be forging paths that blaze into new territory. :) I won't hesitate to say that the idea of fate is incorrect and a little silly. The nature of the "patterns" is that they are all always being created anew. Linear time is a feature of physical realities but not of primary consciousness. I sometimes wonder if the originators of fate didn't mean something else - that reason/rationality are not the mechanisms for choice on the level of the "pattern". If they did mean that .then they were correct.
 
Very perceptive! Yes, I would say you were able to decode exactly what I was saying. If, by any chance you are interested in an elaboration of this exact point, I just completed and released a new ebook called Experience that can be gotten from here.

http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/experience-is-now-a-free-ebook/

(P.S. Hi Alex, hope its okay to post links like this)

Best wishes,

Don DeGracia
This looks like another great book, Don. I'm just getting into it, but wanted to bounce a couple of things off of the author since we got you here :)

These are very minor points but important to me as I try and pull back the lens and see the whole field:

#1. you write:
----
Meanwhile, Western societies have significantly deteriorated.
Deindustrialization of first-world countries and the rise of third world
economies have generated serious economic turbulence. First-world
countries now run on fictitious capital instead of tangible wealth.
Constant unemployment, ever-growing inflation, and displacement of
white-collar jobs have eroded living standards. The present political
climate can only be characterized as decadent and insane, where the
power elite ever more openly display their brutality and depravity.
----
Re our economy, I agree with this guy:
(Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - 'America more financially powerful')

Of course I guess your real point is about "brutality and depravity" and I agree. I also agree with you about "world weariness" being a prerequisite to spiritual seeking, but I think it's important to try and understand the global economy game that the US is playing... and we all go along with / derive huge benefit from.

#2 you write:
----
A key factor in all of this is the rise of the internet. When it went public
in the 1990s, the internet was envisioned as a source for a “new
economy”. Instead, the internet has emerged as a threat to the status
quo in ways no past political revolution could ever imagine. Many of the
particulars are well-known and I won’t repeat them here.
However, an important general effect of the internet is that the power
elite have lost control of the “great unwashed masses” via the
centralized mass-media propaganda machines of the 20th century: TV,
newspapers, and movies.
The internet has breathed new life into the
old idea of “marketplace of ideas”. The internet now reflects the natural
cacophony of human social and mental life.
----
again, I just don't know if this is true... I mean, the net is also the greatest propaganda tool ever invented. And the "power elite" have much more experience and resources than we could ever imagine. Case in point, ISIS:
http://www.corbettreport.com/who-is-isis-an-open-source-investigation/

So, I don't think the economy or the state of world politics matters much other than huge fact that this massively corrupt system has worked in our factor and you and I have been privileged enough to have the time and money to do, and learn, and grow. Personally, I feel really blessed that I've been able to spend so much time doing interviews and reading. I wouldn't have been able to do this if I was living on $2/day... heck, I wouldn't have been able to do this if I was working any 9-5 job and trying to live a decent family life and raise 4 kids.
 
Back
Top