Spirituality and Logic

[Russell Parr]

It doesn't take much to see logic has almost zero place in modern religion. It is constantly preached that "human logic" is far too limited to understand the world and reality. Thus it is said that we must rely on the invisible God of [insert local church], with blind faith.

People do this to rid themselves of personal responsibility of their own thinking. This is somewhat understandable, because the ego cannot handle the prospect of being incorrect for long; if an honest path is not soon found, it is much easier, much less stressful to fall in line with the beliefs of those around us, no matter how irrational. Even if an honest path is found, it is still much easier to simply go with the crowd. True spirituality calls for the transcendence of this primitive herd-like survival mechanism.

God is synonymous with the eternal nature of all things. Perceiving the eternal nature of all things is strictly logical in practice. Enlightenment is the practice of implementing the purely logical perspective of eternity into the deepest recesses of one's thinking. The obstruction of roadblocks is caused by sentimentality, that is, ego based thinking.

Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond. Anything less is succumbing to humanly desires. Sentimentality is to spirituality, as delusion and irrationality is to logic.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be the human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond. Anything less is succumbing to humanly desires. Sentimentality is to spirituality, as delusion and irrationality is to logic.

This is true. What is also true is that while logic takes one beyond human desires that give rise to sentimentality and irrationality to realize the eternal truth of spirit, logic ceases being needed once the eternal truth of spirit is realized. I do believe you are implying this truth in your post, but since there seems to be some confusion here on Genius with regards to the role of logic vis a vis becoming enlightened of one's true nature, I was moved to to speak of these things.

[Russell Parr]

Logic isn't just a tool required to reach enlightenment, it is the means by which one correctly understands and expresses enlightenment as well. One cannot be spiritual while not being logical.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What is also true is that while logic takes one beyond human desires that give rise to sentimentality and irrationality to realize the eternal truth of spirit, logic ceases being needed once the eternal truth of spirit is realized.

Ceases to be needed for what? This "eternal truth" would be that very binary opposition always being engaged in for perception, awareness and realization of anything in existence. It never "stops" or "starts" as such unless you want to become all logical about defining existence as birth and its ending as death. The trick of logic is to learn not to add too much to it, as it's "self-grooming" that way.

Logic as the stairway to heaven? Don't forget we find ourselves like Jacob climbing up and down the steps, not belonging on Earth, not in Heaven. Human the bridge between two eternities, Nietzsche mused and to quote Russel: spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be the human.

• "The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, 'How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?'.
  
  'The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.'
  
  'So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life ..." - Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31

All "we can do" is picking up some leaves in the forest. All we are, conceiving ourselves as human, is that ruffle of leaves. Only a few benefit wisdom.

[Pam Seeback]

Logic isn't just a tool required to reach enlightenment, it is the means by which one correctly understands and expresses enlightenment as well. One cannot be spiritual while not being logical.

Russell, your words: "Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be the human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond."

I do not dispute that logic is the means by which one is taken beyond the human ego nor do I dispute that logic is needed to correctly understand and express enlightenment, but once understanding is complete, all that remains is expressing (if indeed one is moved to express), and surely it is not difficult to realize that one is not expressing enlightenment 24/7.

Therefore it is not true that one cannot be spiritual without being logical unless by "being spiritual" you are referring to the activity of understanding or expressing enlightenment and not the activity of spirit going about its business of being spirit.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: "This "eternal truth" would be that very binary opposition always being engaged in for perception, awareness and realization of anything in existence.

Not so! Does spirit engage in binary opposition when it causes leaves to appear and disappear? Does spirit engages in binary opposition when it causes breathing to appear and disappear? As for realization of anything in existence, yes, this requires binary opposition, but since the image-less concept of spirit realization does not produce binary opposition, it is free of binary opposition.

Causality is not binary operated, there is no opposite implied in wisdom of the infinite.

It never "stops" or "starts" as such unless you want to become all logical about defining existence as birth and its ending as death.

No, spirit never stops or starts it is moving always. :-) Logic takes us to this realization by logically concluding that there is no beginning (birth of) spirit nor is there an ending (death of ) spirit. Once this is realized one has nondual, non-binary spirit realization.

The trick of logic is to learn not to add too much to it, as it's "self-grooming" that way."

How did you reason that I was adding anything to logic?

[Pam Seeback]

Since the Buddha has been placed on the table, parenthesis mine:

Through the round of many birth I roamed
without reward
without rest
seeking the house-builder,
Painful is birth
again and again.

House-builder, [by way of logic] you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
[By way of logic] All your rafters broken,
[By way of logic] Your ridgepole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of its craving.

[Russell Parr]

Russell, your words: "Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be the human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond."

I do not dispute that logic is the means by which one is taken beyond the human ego nor do I dispute that logic is needed to correctly understand and express enlightenment, but once understanding is complete, all that remains is expressing (if indeed one is moved to express), and surely it is not difficult to realize that one is not expressing enlightenment 24/7.

Therefore it is not true that one cannot be spiritual without being logical unless by "being spiritual" you are referring to the activity of understanding or expressing enlightenment and not the activity of spirit going about its business of being spirit.

Touché. I would argue that "being spiritual" is dualistic, and "realizing spirit" describes something else, but we both know where this is going.

Logic as the stairway to heaven? Don't forget we find ourselves like Jacob climbing up and down the steps, not belonging on Earth, not in Heaven. Human the bridge between two eternities, Nietzsche mused

True. 100% pure heavenly bliss at all times isn't possible, of course, but "keep your eyes on the prize," as they say.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Therefore it is not true that one cannot be spiritual without being logical unless by "being spiritual" you are referring to the activity of understanding or expressing enlightenment and not the activity of spirit going about its business of being spirit.

Russell: Touché. I would argue that "being spiritual" is dualistic, and "realizing spirit" describes something else, but we both know where this is going.

A mystery no more, your logic signpost:

Russell to Diebert: True. 100% pure heavenly bliss at all times isn't possible, of course, but "keep your eyes on the prize," as they say.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: "This "eternal truth" would be that very binary opposition always being engaged in for perception, awareness and realization of anything in existence.

Not so!

Binary opposition! :-)

Does spirit engage in binary opposition when it causes leaves to appear and disappear? Does spirit engages in binary opposition when it causes breathing to appear and disappear? As for realization of anything in existence, yes, this requires binary opposition, but since the image-less concept of spirit realization does not produce binary opposition, it is free of binary opposition.

There is no image-less concept of anything. That seems like just another imaginary concept or feeling trying to claim it's not what it actually is. The method of that deception is to obfuscate simple truth with additional complexity, unclear terms, invoking Powers, different "modes" or states.

Causality is not binary operated, there is no opposite implied in wisdom of the infinite.

That's because causality is an absolute, meaning for all ends and purposes it could just as well equal totality. Simply because everything (A) needs everything else (not A) to exist. Causality here being a logical "active" application while the absolute more often appears as "static" or "passive" notion. It's like with the Tao: the way or word which is followed or spoken (logic, causality, reason, goodness) is not the eternal way or word (absolute, unspoken, totality). And yet there is only one way. There is no opposition here and as such no separation between some "image-less concept of spirit realization" and properly reasoning on it. They flow from the same source, no matter how much remains unspoken.

Logic takes us to this realization by logically concluding that there is no beginning (birth of) spirit nor is there an ending (death of ) spirit. Once this is realized one has nondual, non-binary spirit realization.

Expressed through that realization, driving that logic, fueling all awareness. The realization you talk about is one of understanding that there was no separation to begin with. Including the separation between any "nondual, non-binary spirit realization" and some "dual, binary genius understanding". But you can't escape this seperation simply because you, your understanding, your feeling, any ruffle of your existence is wrapped up in that opposition. It would be like trying to stop moving.

[Bobo]

Causality is not binary operated, there is no opposite implied in wisdom of the infinite.

That's because causality is an absolute, meaning for all ends and purposes it could just as well equal totality. Simply because everything (A) needs everything else (not A) to exist. Causality here being a logical "active" application while the absolute more often appears as "static" or "passive" notion.

Is A or not A infinite when talking about causality? If both are finite then the totality is finite too, if the causes of a thing were finite and not the totality, or the causes would be infinitely many caused themselves by infinitely many causes, and things themselves would have to be infinite too.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, I cherry-picked your last paragraph as I believe it to be a nice summation of our dialogue:

Expressed through that realization, driving that logic, fueling all awareness. The realization you talk about is one of understanding that there was no separation to begin with. Including the separation between any "nondual, non-binary spirit realization" and some "dual, binary genius understanding". But you can't escape this seperation simply because you, your understanding, your feeling, any ruffle of your existence is wrapped up in that opposition. It would be like trying to stop moving.

I concur with what you are saying above, and no, I wasn't implying a separation anywhere in the totality, obviously I used flawed logic in my choice of phrasing. To view a separation of source from source is delusion of the highest order. And if I am hearing you correctly in your last two statements above, you are reasoning that this sense of separation exists because of the ruffling one experiences in their existence, the ruffling being the appearance of consciousness.

But is this not the core reason one starts the search for enlightenment in the first place, the experiencing of the ruffling of one's existence and questioning why this happens? Which becomes, for some, the quest to end the ruffling (the desiring, the unrest, the unease...the suffering.)

Is it your view that the ruffling is an eternal experience in existence and not just one that appears because of the appearance of consciousness? I am of the latter view and in applying logic to this view it is logical that since the appearance of desiring/ruffling causes the appearance of consciousness, that by ending the appearance of desiring/ruffling, the appearance of consciousness is also ended.

Consciousness ends, but causality does not.

[Russell Parr]

Is A or not A infinite when talking about causality? If both are finite then the totality is finite too, if the causes of a thing were finite and not the totality, or the causes would be infinitely many caused themselves by infinitely many causes, and things themselves would have to be infinite too.

Both A and not A are always finite, as observed by the fact that they are two separate things. The totality is all things(A), and their causes (not A), or simply put, everything. The totality is infinite because the principle that connects all things, causation, is infinite.

Is it your view that the ruffling is an eternal experience in existence and not just one that appears because of the appearance of consciousness? I am of the latter view and in applying logic to this view it is logical that since the appearance of desiring/ruffling causes the appearance of consciousness, that by ending the appearance of desiring/ruffling, the appearance of consciousness is also ended.

To add my own cherry-picking, if I may: All appearances are an illusory occurrence within the phenomena of consciousness. Consciousness itself does not appear, it only appears to appear.

[Bobo]

A totality can be the sum of an amount of finite things, I don't think that any amount of finite things can make infinity though. In separating the totality in two finite amounts it makes such a totality finite too. The other option would be to separate it in a finite and infinite parts when we are talking about finite things, this makes some part of totality which should be less than the totality infinite which makes infinity not an exclusive property of totality. Also a thing, which should be finite, that is caused by an infinite amount of causes must somehow be infinite too so it could be able to be caused by an infinity of other things.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A totality can be the sum of an amount of finite things, I don't think that any amount of finite things can make infinity though

Sure, any more all-compassing interpretation of the infinite cannot be captured by endlessly stacking things on top of each other. The reason for this lies in any "A" being illusive, like any "not A". Two illusions don't make a disillusion, let alone any "reality". It just adds to the illusion I suppose :)

For this reason it could become clear that A is ultimately infinite just like anything that is not A. Any seperation ("Assertion") remains artificial and always implies a third and so on. Since the infinite is not any entity, set, abstract or quality of any kind, it cannot be divided, added or subtracted. It would be like calling it Marklar, to use a popular reference. One marklar plus another marklar would still be marklar. But a such lack of distinction does not help to untie any thought.

The reason I described causality as a good conceptual representation of the totality is that it shows that causes and effects both "stretch" out into the infinite. It takes care of any "thing" in a thoughtful manner. It's an active representation of the absolute and it's part of wisdom for exactly that reason.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But is this not the core reason one starts the search for enlightenment in the first place, the experiencing of the ruffling of one's existence and questioning why this happens? Which becomes, for some, the quest to end the ruffling (the desiring, the unrest, the unease...the suffering.)

Indeed, life as we know it in its very essence.

Is it your view that the ruffling is an eternal experience in existence and not just one that appears because of the appearance of consciousness? I am of the latter view and in applying logic to this view it is logical that since the appearance of desiring/ruffling causes the appearance of consciousness, that by ending the appearance of desiring/ruffling, the appearance of consciousness is also ended.

Consciousness ends, but causality does not.

You can only have endings where you insist as well on a beginning.

[Russell Parr]

A totality can be the sum of an amount of finite things, I don't think that any amount of finite things can make infinity though. In separating the totality in two finite amounts it makes such a totality finite too. The other option would be to separate it in a finite and infinite parts when we are talking about finite things, this makes some part of totality which should be less than the totality infinite which makes infinity not an exclusive property of totality. Also a thing, which should be finite, that is caused by an infinite amount of causes must somehow be infinite too so it could be able to be caused by an infinity of other things.

Keep in mind that we're talking about Totality as a philosophical concept, in which there is only one Totality, the Totality.

The Totality is ultimately non-dualistic. At bottom, no separation ever happens. Finitude is an illusory state of reality produced by consciousness, whereas there is only, ultimately, Oneness, or the Totality, which can be called 'infinite' due to the fundamental principle of causation. Diebert put it nicely:

The reason I described causality as a good conceptual representation of the totality is that it shows that causes and effects both "stretch" out into the infinite. It takes care of any "thing" in a thoughtful manner. It's an active representation of the absolute and it's part of wisdom for exactly that reason.

[Bobo]

You wrote earlier that 'perceiving the eternal nature of all things is strictly logical in practice', I am struggling to see the logic in it. I am assuming that you meant something as 'perceiving that all that is not eternal is eternal', I assume that one can perceive the lack of logic in this statement that cannot be taken at face value and must be demonstrated to be logical.

The other day a religious person told me that 'quantum mechanics proves' his religion, obviously he was a religious fundamentalist, I think that you may be engaging in the same level of fundamentalism here saying that logic has anything to do with your spiritual suppositions.

[Bobo]

The reason for this lies in any "A" being illusive, like any "not A". Two illusions don't make a disillusion, let alone any "reality". It just adds to the illusion I suppose :)

Are you saying that logic cannot capture reality?

For this reason it could become clear that A is ultimately infinite just like anything that is not A. Any seperation ("Assertion") remains artificial and always implies a third and so on.

The separation is embedded in logic.

Since the infinite is not any entity, set, abstract or quality of any kind, it cannot be divided, added or subtracted. It would be like calling it Marklar, to use a popular reference. One marklar plus another marklar would still be marklar. But a such lack of distinction does not help to untie any thought.

You were just talking it though.

The reason I described causality as a good conceptual representation of the totality is that it shows that causes and effects both "stretch" out into the infinite. It takes care of any "thing" in a thoughtful manner. It's an active representation of the absolute and it's part of wisdom for exactly that reason.

A description of causality as 'the cause precedes the effect' says that every effect has a cause, the description says nothing about stretching into the infinite, it cannot even do that as it stops working when you start thinking that way because then the distinction between the cause that should precede the effect doesn't apply anymore as you are talking of causes of causes which are also effects. The distinction is a finite distinction of cause and effect, on the infinite every effect is a cause.

[Russell Parr]

You wrote earlier that 'perceiving the eternal nature of all things is strictly logical in practice', I am struggling to see the logic in it. I am assuming that you meant something as 'perceiving that all that is not eternal is eternal', I assume that one can perceive the lack of logic in this statement that cannot be taken at face value and must be demonstrated to be logical.

I am not simply positing that 'all that is not eternal is eternal', yes that would be illogical. To further explain my statement that you quote: The fundamental nature of "things" is that they are ultimately boundless, as boundaries are an illusory fabrication of consciousness. Certainly a useful and practical fabrication, yes, but none-the-less illusory. The reason for this is that all things, within and beyond consciousness, are in constant flux of change, either subtly or overtly, to a degree that is impossible for finite consciousness to keep up with, by virtue of the inherent limitations of consciousness.

Put another way, the ultimate truth about all things is that there are no things, but simply Oneness, or, a boundless continuum, from an understanding of the above.

Finally, these truths can only be discerned via logical reasoning.

The other day a religious person told me that 'quantum mechanics proves' his religion, obviously he was a religious fundamentalist, I think that you may be engaging in the same level of fundamentalism here saying that logic has anything to do with your spiritual suppositions.

I regard the philosophical practice of understanding ultimate reality to be spiritual in the sense that it deals with the fundamentals of Reality, through and through, and my place within it as a conscious being. Yes, it is (to put it mildly) quite unpopular to mix logic and spirituality in the same conversation these days. It is understandably counter-intuitive to do so. But after working so long with the logical side of things, I've grown to see the usefulness in it. It is the same reason that many ancient philosophers used anthropomorphic mythologies, parables, and metaphors to express their profound ideas: to make them easier to relate to.

[Bobo]

It doesn't follow from the fact that things are finer than our senses that our sensations are illusory, a bigger jump yet lies in going from there to some kind of oneness. Anyway these are not the objects of logic that logic deals with, logic deals with the formation of simple propositions and the steps to derive them to certain conclusions according to rules of inference. In a sense instead of being the most fundamental it may be the most vain form of thinking. It certainly can aid philosophical thinking that often takes itself to be more rigorous than other forms of thinking. The fellow I was talking about was selling a translation of the bhagavad gita and some other books by sri whatever on karma and stuff, I didn't asked whether he thought that quantum physics disprove classical logic or if there was an 'ancient' logic that already had all of it.

[Russell Parr]

It doesn't follow from the fact that things are finer than our senses that our sensations are illusory, a bigger jump yet lies in going from there to some kind of oneness. Anyway these are not the objects of logic that logic deals with, logic deals with the formation of simple propositions and the steps to derive them to certain conclusions according to rules of inference.

It's not simply that the details are finer than we can perceive in any given moment, it's also that we cannot know anything in 100% certainty about the details of what has been sensed. All we can know, with 100% certainty, is that an experience is being had, that reality is in some way being sensed, and that any further detail is only seemingly true, no matter how convincing they are. It is in that certainty that we can further postulate absolute truths about reality, via logic. Empirical observations (sensed details) can no longer serve us in this stage of thinking.

"Oneness" is really just one of many conceptual metaphors to describe the state of reality in the most fundamental sense. It isn't to be taken more seriously outside of that. Non-dualistic is another, and perhaps better way to describe it.

In a sense instead of being the most fundamental it may be the most vain form of thinking. It certainly can aid philosophical thinking that often takes itself to be more rigorous than other forms of thinking.

Philosophy must be a rigorous practice if it is to have any truly profound effects on one's lifestyle and habits. Spiritual interpretations of philosophical truths give them a bit more ballast in many cases.

The fellow I was talking about was selling a translation of the bhagavad gita and some other books by sri whatever on karma and stuff, I didn't asked whether he thought that quantum physics disprove classical logic or if there was an 'ancient' logic that already had all of it.

I can't imagine him relying on quantum mechanics to provide the proof of his religion to be a good start. Sounds like a new age "spiritual science" type.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert wrote:

movingalways wrote:
Is it your view that the ruffling is an eternal experience in existence and not just one that appears because of the appearance of consciousness? I am of the latter view and in applying logic to this view it is logical that since the appearance of desiring/ruffling causes the appearance of consciousness, that by ending the appearance of desiring/ruffling, the appearance of consciousness is also ended.

Consciousness ends, but causality does not.

You can only have endings where you insist as well on a beginning.

The infinite continuum of the alpha and the omega of causality. In tying this wisdom to the recent discussion on the Tao, philosophical logic takes the Tao to the realization of its absolute nature and allows "It" to express this wisdom (the spoken Tao) but where philosophical logic cannot take the Tao is absolute knowledge of its continuum as it was, is or will be (the unspoken Tao). Therefore, logic is of the Tao so it can realize and express its absolute nature of causality and in doing so be released from its ignorance that it does or can know itself as a "thing" or collection of "things."

And going a step further into the logic of logic :-), because logic/the spoken Tao is the way by which ignorance is dispelled, logic/the spoken Tao cannot express the nature of the alpha at the omega of ignorance. A truth that the ignorant Tao is unable to see, ergo its belief in an absolute finite heaven or hell - the illogical Tao appearing as religion - or its belief in an absolute appearance of material/finite things - the illogical Tao appearing as empirical science.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The reason for this lies in any "A" being illusive, like any "not A". Two illusions don't make a disillusion, let alone any "reality".

Are you saying that logic cannot capture reality?

The verb capturing could imply something outside or bigger than that reality. Logic is at the base the only way to perceive -- anything! Or to discard.

A description of causality as 'the cause precedes the effect' says that every effect has a cause, the description says nothing about stretching into the infinite

It's an expression of relation. Something does not exist "by itself" or "inherent" simply because it's dependent on for example the universe to exist in the way it does. But that relates again to whole other effects. It's not hard to see it stretching into the unmeasurable and senseless. Maybe the word "infinite" confuses you? Then call it nature. The causes and effects of a thing stretch out into the whole of nature and are not separate -- and as such ultimately unmeasurable. A measurement creates the thing for some end or purpose. It "exists" in that purpose driven context but not metaphysically.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

where philosophical logic cannot take the Tao is absolute knowledge of its continuum as it was, is or will be (the unspoken Tao).

Such knowledge only exists as the philosophical or "Tao Taoed". Absolute knowledge would be "not knowing" where knowing was already "the case".

And going a step further into the logic of logic :-), because logic/the spoken Tao is the way by which ignorance is dispelled, logic/the spoken Tao cannot express the nature of the alpha at the omega of ignorance. A truth that the ignorant Tao is unable to see, ergo its belief in an absolute finite heaven or hell - the illogical Tao appearing as religion - or its belief in an absolute appearance of material/finite things - the illogical Tao appearing as empirical science.

This is not about "Tao" - that's just playful wording of a clever poet: meaning the "way" things are so it's really about everything. Any function of change: a word, a life, a feeling, a wind, a ruffle of leaves, a logical poem or even death and all other movements are not the constant and ever-lasting nature.

As far as we imagine to "be" and ponder that, an understanding is formed that the nature of existence is flux and yet we can only conceive of that because of the nature of constancy: the infinite and absolute. It has no descriptions and it doesn't need one. There's nothing to know about it since all we can know about it is what is already being discovered about everything else. There's no difference. There's no duality.