Is this a situation where the Law of Non-Contradiction is false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
There is a meditative state titled

The Eighth Jhana: Neither perception nor non-perception

The eight and ninth jhanas are difficult to discuss because they are so hard to describe in much the same way nibbana is hard to describe. This is because they are such heightened levels of concentration and of the Path itself, that they must be experienced. There is also very little to discuss with the eighth and ninth jhanas, since the perception levels have become so fine and so subtle. You enter the eighth jhana by letting go of the sense of no-thingness and enter a very natural, calm place. In the eighth jhana there is very little recognition of what is happening, but you are also not totally unaware of what is happening. There is such a peaceful state and you have gone beyond the duality of perception nor non-perception that it is easy to be fooled that you have experienced full enlightenment. But there is still more to do.

Would this prove that a thing can be and not be at the same time and the same way?
 
Ben_Sinner said:
There is a meditative state titled

The Eighth Jhana: Neither perception nor non-perception

The eight and ninth jhanas are difficult to discuss because they are so hard to describe in much the same way nibbana is hard to describe. This is because they are such heightened levels of concentration and of the Path itself, that they must be experienced. There is also very little to discuss with the eighth and ninth jhanas, since the perception levels have become so fine and so subtle. You enter the eighth jhana by letting go of the sense of no-thingness and enter a very natural, calm place. In the eighth jhana there is very little recognition of what is happening, but you are also not totally unaware of what is happening. There is such a peaceful state and you have gone beyond the duality of perception nor non-perception that it is easy to be fooled that you have experienced full enlightenment. But there is still more to do.

Would this prove that a thing can be and not be at the same time and the same way?
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with none of this, but based on what you’ve described, these are theoretical states, which by the very fact of their being theoretical, “prove” nothing.

But then since, you said “would,” I guess you might be saying “assuming such states do exist…” But even then, you’re simply describing states of perception. The law of non-contradiction, I think, holds that a thing cannot be and not be; it doesn’t hold that a person cannot believe/sense he’s in a state and not in a state simultaneously.
 
No matter what kind of state someone might claim to exist…

Such will not make the law of NC false.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Hi Bookcat,

Why wouldn’t it make it false?
Click to expand...
  1. It simply does not. That is the nature of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Such is in the basics of reality.
  2. Besides it is some claimed state…not something of science or Revelation anyhow…
  3. And even if some state like that was authentic…such would not have have to do with reality…with what is or is not.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
The Eighth Jhana: Neither perception nor non-perception
The eight and ninth jhanas are difficult to discuss because they are so hard to describe in much the same way nibbana is hard to describe. (…)
(link to the full article 9 Jhanas From Dhamma Wiki )
(…)
Click to expand...
One is curious about why you are interested in The Eight Fold Path.
I guess one of the best, if imperfect, explanations for the layman is that the 8th Jhana is very much like the mental sate one has if one could equally mix Stage 1 and Stage 2 sleep - as I said, this is a very imperfect description of the 8th Jhana.
Ben_Sinner said:
Would this prove that a thing can be and not be at the same time and the same way?
Click to expand...
The 8th Jhana has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a “thing” but more with the person’s perception of that thing - well more like a state of mind in that the perception is there but not realized.
This is like trying to explain the Trinity 🙂
 
Yeah, but someone “not experiencing perception” and “nor not experiencing perception (which is the same thing as experiencing perception” would break it though, right?

It is basically saying the person is experiencing and not experiencing at the same time. They are perceiving and not perceiving at the same time.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Yeah, but someone “not experiencing perception” and “nor not experiencing perception (which is the same thing as experiencing perception” would break it though, right?
Click to expand...
They simply would* not *be doing that.

(I mean experiencing and not experiencing…they may want to claim what they want -but such does not mean that such is reality…).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top