Dada Gunamuktananda: "a rational concept of one all-pervading infinite and eternal consciousness inherent in everybody and everything."
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Dada has written a brief letter to Richard Dawkins arguing for "a rational concept of one all-pervading infinite and eternal consciousness inherent in everybody and everything." See here: www.consciousfrontier.org. . .
Using the analogy of a lightbulb, he argues we are not capable of understanding "the power which animates us". But then later he contradicts this, arguing that we can understand it via "the subjective experience of realising it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation".
He talks about proving and disproving, when IMO these are matters of probability not certainty.
Can you see any fallacies in his letter? I'd very much like for someone with skill in these matters to chip in, as the concept of "one all-pervading infinite and eternal consciousness inherent in everybody and everything" is something I'm coming across a lot lately, mainly from people who just meditate, and sometimes from people who both meditate and as a one time occurrence take a strong psychedelic.
Cheers :)
Using the analogy of a lightbulb, he argues we are not capable of understanding "the power which animates us". But then later he contradicts this, arguing that we can understand it via "the subjective experience of realising it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation".
He talks about proving and disproving, when IMO these are matters of probability not certainty.
Can you see any fallacies in his letter? I'd very much like for someone with skill in these matters to chip in, as the concept of "one all-pervading infinite and eternal consciousness inherent in everybody and everything" is something I'm coming across a lot lately, mainly from people who just meditate, and sometimes from people who both meditate and as a one time occurrence take a strong psychedelic.
Cheers :)
Answers
4Your second paragraph that claims contradiction isn't really one because from what you wrote it appears to be saying you can meditate to learn some or more of this so called consciousness but that wouldn't equate to "understanding it entirely". I might understand a right angle and Pythagorean theorem but that wouldn't mean I understand all of geometry.
My own personal opinion when I hear people talk about these kinds of things I merely take it to mean that most people are capable of an inner peace and an outer harmony that might enable humanity to live in a more beneficial social framework. But it's simply impossible until science can predetermine what would be psychopathic brains and find a way of fiddling with them in utero so as to eliminate the baby as being one when born. Lol
If there's any fallacy I would say fallacy of omniscience. Nobody could possibly know that all people can possess this consciousness or that its inherent in everything. Usually when someone uses the word all or absolutes like everybody that's the first fallacy I think of but I'm not very smart and i'll even try to turn a sentence into a fallacious claim if I'm bored...lol
My own personal opinion when I hear people talk about these kinds of things I merely take it to mean that most people are capable of an inner peace and an outer harmony that might enable humanity to live in a more beneficial social framework. But it's simply impossible until science can predetermine what would be psychopathic brains and find a way of fiddling with them in utero so as to eliminate the baby as being one when born. Lol
If there's any fallacy I would say fallacy of omniscience. Nobody could possibly know that all people can possess this consciousness or that its inherent in everything. Usually when someone uses the word all or absolutes like everybody that's the first fallacy I think of but I'm not very smart and i'll even try to turn a sentence into a fallacious claim if I'm bored...lol
@ OP
“Using the analogy of a light bulb, he argues we are not capable of understanding "the power which animates us". But then later he contradicts this, arguing that we can understand it via "the subjective experience of realizing it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation".
I don’t see a contradiction, and as analogies go, IMOP Dada’s is a rather good one. The full light bulb analogy reads:
”Just as a light bulb can shine light on the room around it but not on the power that illuminates it, so too are we capable of understanding the world around us but not the power which animates us.”
His later line reads:
“….one could make the case that its only VALIDATION (my caps) lies in the subjective experience of realizing it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation….”
Here, he is not referring to any objective (or scientific) UNDERSTANDING but to experientially confirming this phenomena, e.g., thru mediation. Thus, there is no explicit or implied Understanding of the causal Power, only an assertion of realizing its effects.
The larger picture is that Dada is asserting a BELIEF (actually, multiple beliefs) that one may accept or reject. Thus, I do not see the presence of logical fallacy(ies).
@skips777
1. I think you grasped the essence of this, but remember, there is no assertion of Understanding (full or partial) only of Validation. Big difference.
2. Again, Dada is expressing a BELIEF(s). No logical fallacies here.
@Frank Doonan
“The first fallacy I see up front is the justification of his argument by an 'appeal to ignorance.' He appeals to the illusion that there are some thing we cannot know, therefore . . .”
Again, no logical fallacies are present. He is asserting a BELIEF, communicated through an analogy (and subsequent assertions) which you are free to accept, or reject.
” This is a very common problem with theists that argue from the perspective…..”
I see no evidence present that Dada is a Theist, if that’s what you’re suggesting. [def. (dictionary.com) “1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)”]
“Using the analogy of a light bulb, he argues we are not capable of understanding "the power which animates us". But then later he contradicts this, arguing that we can understand it via "the subjective experience of realizing it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation".
I don’t see a contradiction, and as analogies go, IMOP Dada’s is a rather good one. The full light bulb analogy reads:
”Just as a light bulb can shine light on the room around it but not on the power that illuminates it, so too are we capable of understanding the world around us but not the power which animates us.”
His later line reads:
“….one could make the case that its only VALIDATION (my caps) lies in the subjective experience of realizing it as one’s deepest reality through introspective practices such as meditation….”
Here, he is not referring to any objective (or scientific) UNDERSTANDING but to experientially confirming this phenomena, e.g., thru mediation. Thus, there is no explicit or implied Understanding of the causal Power, only an assertion of realizing its effects.
The larger picture is that Dada is asserting a BELIEF (actually, multiple beliefs) that one may accept or reject. Thus, I do not see the presence of logical fallacy(ies).
@skips777
1. I think you grasped the essence of this, but remember, there is no assertion of Understanding (full or partial) only of Validation. Big difference.
2. Again, Dada is expressing a BELIEF(s). No logical fallacies here.
@Frank Doonan
“The first fallacy I see up front is the justification of his argument by an 'appeal to ignorance.' He appeals to the illusion that there are some thing we cannot know, therefore . . .”
Again, no logical fallacies are present. He is asserting a BELIEF, communicated through an analogy (and subsequent assertions) which you are free to accept, or reject.
” This is a very common problem with theists that argue from the perspective…..”
I see no evidence present that Dada is a Theist, if that’s what you’re suggesting. [def. (dictionary.com) “1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)”]
The first fallacy I see up front is the justification of his argument by an 'appeal to ignorance.' He appeals to the illusion that there are some thing we cannot know, therefore . . . He contends, for example, 'like the light bulb we cannot know the power that animates from us.' Fortunately we are not like light bulbs, and yes we can understand a great deal about 'the power that animates from us.' We, of course do not know everything, but we are far better than a light bulb. This is a very common problem with theists that argue from the perspective of their insecurities that what they believe is in part grounded in what we supposedly do not know.
I will common more after reading a bit.
I will common more after reading a bit.
Dada is Hindu, which is a Theistic religion which believes in the ultimate Deity the 'Brahman.' He follows the 'Dashanami Sampradaya' which is Hindu monastic tradition.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course