Great Philosophical Discourse (Audio)

[Bob Michael]

Damn man, you must be joking ,-). You're a broken record. You're addiction is obvious to all - "Man of Wisdom" / "Genius" / "Great Thinker" / "Sage"

How about freeloading or parasitism?

[Sphere70]

How about freeloading or parasitism?

If that's a continuous identification-pattern then sure

[Bob Michael]

How about freeloading or parasitism?

I think most so-called enlightened men were guilty of these defects of character. They got a glimpse or two of heaven-on-earth and were quick to run front and center with the 'good news' while failing to grow and develop towards their own spiritual (and human) perfection. While often gathering a support team of gullible followers to sponge off of. Hence their total ineffectiveness in leading any others to permanent residency in the real 'promised land'.

[Bobo]

So the problem is sponging off or not growing spiritually? Sponging off by itself restrain spirituality? Any examples of spongers and not spongers?

[Sphere70]

A modern teacher (modern in the way of actually breathing and talking now) that is good is Mooji. First I was very cautious and doubting about him and shoved him off as just another fake Guru (cause his teachings are presented in the classic sat-sang style that has been bleached by the west) - but when listening to him it really seems like he speaks from the truth and his words and presentation is powerful indeed.

This is a pretty good one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upQPmWCJo1g

[Bob Michael]

So the problem is sponging off or not growing spiritually?

The problem is both these things.

Sponging off by itself restrain spirituality?

No, but it's a large factor. Though ultimately the lack of the courage for truth and the courage to fully be are the real impediments to reaching the goal of being Pure Spirit.

Any examples of spongers (and those who fell far short of spiritual perfection) and non-spongers?

The list of spongers and those who limped considerably is quite large. Some of them are listed at the following link.

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

While on the top of my list of non-spongers and spiritually and humanly sound men would be Albert Sweitzer, even though he also failed to bring any appreciable light into our dark and decaying world.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sphere 70,

From reading through your posts, I haven't been able to find a logical reason as to why one would want to be consistently abuse substances on a regular basis...If you look at the majority of the population that suffers from substance abuse, it is due to serious character flaws such as as - no connection to wisdom, a weak character, a character filled with sorrow and mental blocks. That is most cases, so now you come along and say, well there are exceptions, you can get away with it if you are wise, but why would you want to?

If you are wise, isn't less always more all of the time? I don't see the point in abusing your body and brain on a regular basis to experience a fleeting perception that vanishes as quickly as it came, leaving only pain, and a desire to repeat it.

[Sphere70]

Haha, not even close. The view that things are not separate is just as relative and empty as the view that they are separate. Haven't you even realized this yet?

You are still missing the essential point by a million miles. Your "ultimate viewpoint" is an illusion. There is no ultimate viewpoint.

And you're "essential point" is an illusion.

Sorry brother, you're two million miles of the essential "essential point"... But please, try again.

I'm actually supping with Lao Tzu tonight. The Buddha will be there too. Feel free to come along, if you like.

You will have to leave everything behind, though ....

I'm there,,,,,! I'll bring my signature raspberry-pie

[Sphere70]

Ryan:

I agree, from a personal stand-point (with my interest being in self-inquiry) that there is no reason to abuse substances, or more accurately, there isn't any desire because there is an enjoyment in giving attention to whatever arises in consciousness, which substance-abuses would fog (from a subjective view)
But a logical reason differs from identity to identity, mine differs in certain lengths from someone like Charles Bukowski, as an extreme example, - but from his viewpoint, imaginably, it is a logical decision to drink excessively, based on his identifications and ideas about life and its purpose or non-purpose, and there wasn't any dichotomy involved in this which I respect.
For me, wisdom isn't put forth with honesty when it's done with a disgust and condemnation from a pseudo-altitudinal viewpoint which has its "wisdom" & "virtues" based on an experiential contrast which is derived from choosing an lifestyle of asceticism (hardcore or relative) and contrived "non-attachment" (which in my view is very attached) from the stand-point of an acting self, an ego - but, if it's true wisdom (a.k.a Enlightenment) then this will shine through, undoubtedly, by the honest non-attachment that has been arrived at by a natural shedding of layers by abiding in the true place of wisdom - the Self (disillusioned and dis-identified from the (small S) self; the body/mind). To be wise while still identifying with this self is to me an impossibility. Then that is relative wisdom which I don't personally regard very high.
And also, I don't think taking a non-attached way of life when still acting from the ego (that is you're doing this to gain something else) will lead to true wisdom (Enlightenment) anymore than doing the opposite. All that is required is, I believe, a sincerity and a true earnestness - then ones own path will be trodden.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For me, wisdom isn't put forth with honesty when it's done with a disgust and condemnation from a pseudo-altitudinal viewpoint

Why would it matter how it's ever put forward? Only a context can demand a form and a response, not you.

[Sphere70]

Why would it matter how it's ever put forward? Only a context can demand a form and a response, not you.

that is, I appreciate a teacher speaking from the place he's pointing to. If he is speaking about it not from that place then I don't mind it if he/she is honest about it. But when there is a false (either unconsciously or consciously) advertisement of being Enlightened (wise) and consequently speaking about it when this is not so (knowing this is of course really impossible from an outside perspective, so one have to develop a great critical eye for these things) is to me crappy. I rather, if gathering some outside pointers, do it from the ones of true honesty.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... when there is a false (either unconsciously or consciously) advertisement of being Enlightened and consequently speaking about it when this is not so (knowing this is of course really impossible from an outside perspective, so one have to develop a great critical eye for these things) is to me crappy. I rather, if gathering some outside pointers, do it from the ones of true honesty.

So all that matters is ones own true honesty and developing a critical eye toward oneself. The moment one talks about enlightenment, whatever one imagines with that term, but one which can be hidden, cloaked or advertised falsely or truly, one is not speaking truthful yet about enlightenment.

[Sphere70]

So all that matters is ones own true honesty and developing a critical eye toward oneself

Yeah, definitely. I just talked about the same principle applying for external guidance due to the course the discussion has been taking.

[David Quinn]

Why would it matter how it's ever put forward? Only a context can demand a form and a response, not you.

that is, I appreciate a teacher speaking from the place he's pointing to. If he is speaking about it not from that place then I don't mind it if he/she is honest about it. But when there is a false (either unconsciously or consciously) advertisement of being Enlightened (wise) and consequently speaking about it when this is not so (knowing this is of course really impossible from an outside perspective, so one have to develop a great critical eye for these things) is to me crappy.

Careful now, you are sliding into the realm of "disgust and condemnation from a pseudo-altitudinal viewpoint".....

-

[Sphere70]

Careful now, you are sliding into the realm of "disgust and condemnation from a pseudo-altitudinal viewpoint".....

I've never claimed the altitude, ol' chap.

[David Quinn]

Careful now, you are sliding into the realm of "disgust and condemnation from a pseudo-altitudinal viewpoint".....

I've never claimed the altitude, ol' chap.

You claim it the moment you begin to speak authoritively on the subject of wisdom (which you like to do quite a lot).

-

[Sphere70]

You claim it the moment you begin to speak authoritively on the subject of wisdom (which you like to do quite a lot).

I've never said I was enlightened (which I equal to altitude) and I don't parallel it to speaking firmly about the subject of wisdom to that degree one feel comfortable doing so, which is an act of discovery in itself. I'm not dishonest (to the amount possible to be honest) if you ask me where I'm at - but again, honesty and dis-honesty is always a questionable aspect which can only be subjective determined, and even that is questionable.