Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Tomas, it would be more fitting to meet you in the cubicle challenging you to describe how the cubicle would be any different than the discussions I already had and am still having with Alex. I'd love to crush your arguments and show how your motives to suggest the cubicle in this case would be seriously deranged. Just you and me: c'mon Tank!
Tomas wrote:
Perhaps you could point out why Alex is a clown/sucks. Care to take him on in The Crucible?
Honestly, he is not significant enough to even bother talking about or debating with. Like Nick said, he's a big gaseous puff, which doesn't speak very highly of those who are repeatedly taking swings at him. It's like getting in a fight with a belt of fog. Inherently stupid.
Your point is a good one. In one sense, there is little to be gained in confronting a fog. The fog will always sidestep everything in its path with effortless ease.
On the other hand, the fog permeates the world and in many ways controls it, via women. So a truth-seeking, consciousness-raising individual does have to confont it at some stage, if only to understand the exact nature of the fog and how its allure hinders the development of consciousness.
A lot of the confontation between me and Alex has been a case of who can out-size the other, in which the other is belittled. This might seem like a primitive egotistical contest on the surface, and it can seem demeaning for those involved, but there are larger issues at stake.
For example:
Is the fog the product of a fully-conscious, undeluded mind? Is it really as limitless as it likes to think? Does developing a broad, multi-stranded consciousness with no grounding in ultimate truth constitute the spiritual path? Or is it simply a subtle form of evasion? Does the fog acquire its natural ease through the cultivation of wisdom or through the abandonment of it?
These are all important questions which go to the heart of what constitutes the spiritual path. They have to be faced.
It is easy to dismiss Alex as a clown and ignore him. But he does represent a very real mindset that permeates our world, often affecting people's decisions in life in a significant way. Simply ignoring it won't make it go away. It thrives on not being noticed. It's all part of being the fog.
David: "Is the fog the product of a fully-conscious, undeluded mind?".
Though it looks good, and seems to have weight, the assumption here is false. There is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind'. This image, this abstraction, entered our society, I guess, with the Vedanta School around the turn of the century. It is an 'idea' that people mistake, through mystification, with a 'real thing'. In the West (and maybe in the East too) this idea is the stuff with which they start, and run, cults. 'Our Master has a fully-conscious, undeluded mind, His thoughts, realizations, his actions, his recommendations are beyond the pale of criticism, and must be accepted' (etc.) Many, many people have surrendered themselves first before an idea (which idea is really like a 'bank of fog') and then before the people who weild the idea: the Guru, the Cult Leader. But those gurus and cult-leaders never cease being human persons with desires, appetites, cravings, foibles, mistaken attitudes, and even perversions. One need look no further than the entire history of such Mental Cults in our society. To deny this, is foolishness.
And that is why Alex, who appears from out of the Cloud of Spirit with his Healing Sword of Truth flashing, seeks to cut through the layers of really bad thinking that are going on here, and swoops down like Big Bird to round up His little goslings, to gather them in a bunch, to protect them from...what COULD be described as the beginning stages of Big Bad Wolf.
I can help you build a house of brick!
There may indeed be 'clear minds', or 'pure minds' or 'lucid minds' (or 'darkened minds' or 'clouded minds') but---please note this Children Mine---these are just adjectives, just words. Any one who tells you differently is selling something.
What I recommend now, and have always recommend it, is pay especial attention to the one who framed the phrase above. You owe it to yourselves. There are 10,000 logical failures in it
"On the other hand, the fog permeates the world and in many ways controls it, via women. So a truth-seeking, consciousness-raising individual does have to confont it at some stage, if only to understand the exact nature of the fog and how its allure hinders the development of consciousness."
This is an old and well-worn strategy of thinking used here. It has become such a habit, such a well-worn rut, that it only has to be loosely referred to to guide thinking along certain establsihed channels. But beware! Real thinking is independant thinking, not 'group-think'.
Most of us agree that there is indeed a kind of 'fog' in which humanity lives. We also know that the world is a really troubled place, and we can conceive of it as 'lost', or as a kind of Hell or Purgatory. These are many different lenses that we can place before our vision, and many different stories that we can tell when we look at things according to those lenses. Here, of course! the strategy is to turn women and the female into a sort of New Demonism, and to hang all that is bad, difficult, discomfiting, 'evil', etcetera, on the female. As we all have seen---time and time and time again---if you need or want to take someone down, someone whose ideas you don't like, for almost whatever reason, all you have to do here (in a group context, almost a choreography) is to associate them with 'the female'. No real thinking required, it is more emotive than anything else. The battle is won before you begin though, which is why (here) it is quite effective. Of course, we can all see that human unconsciousness is an enemy, or the enemy, and in many ways the assiciation with 'the female' is a correspondence that 'works', I mean, it has utility and efficacy within a conversation. But, there is great danger in turning it into Credo, an establsihed fact of Doctrine. You have to move very, very carefully through such a characterization. It requires maturity, self-possession, intelligence to do that.
Anyone familiar with theatre sees that David is working (overtime) to associate me (me!) with the female, and of course Diebert (bless his heart) has also been working this angle. It is really the only card they are playing, people! It is the one card that trumps all other cards. And I ask you all to take a good, long look at it. Decide for yourselves. This is not argumentation, it is pure sophistry. It is, I admit, ridiculous, but when you connect such sophistical characterizations with the temptations of Absolute Thinking, establsihing certain individuals in the role of 'Undeluded Minds' ('fully conscious'!) any third-rate intellect, any run-of-the-mill mediocre intelligence, any pimply-faced jerk-off with a computer monitor, can see why all this is pure bullshit.
However, these bad arguments are not completely unsound. Or rather, the essence of a bad argument is that it contains 'good' or 'positive' elements. We all agree that coming out of 'fog' is a good thing. We want clarity, we want to understand, we want to get tools to make our way through a world that is like a 'dangerous fog'. But, I say, it cannot and is not done with mental sophistiries, and it is not done with mental games and a kind of theatre of painting oneself as an Enlightened Lord, a 'fully-enlightened' being, one who is constitutionally incapable of error.
You are not stupid, stupid people. You are partially stupid people when you play within this theatre.
"A lot of the confontation between me and Alex has been a case of who can out-size the other, in which the other is belittled. This might seem like a primitive egotistical contest on the surface, and it can seem demeaning for those involved, but there are larger issues at stake."
There most certainly are 'larger issues at stake'. There is also another issue at stake and it could be called narcissistic grandiosity, a guru-complex, the bad results that come from going overboard with Absolutist thinking, and all of this played out in an electronic theatre of some adolescent boys with a kind of spiritual Peter-Pan Complex.
If you don't already have it, now is the time to get my FREE pamphlet which provides you with tools and talking points to intelligently confront the Swaggering Guru when he comes to your neighborhood selling his devilish wares! Send SASE to: Weisenheimer Katzenbogen, 'Lion of Judah', Bigfork, Montana, 59911 (Include little packs of nuts, dried fruit, any nibbleable 'love offerings' your dear heart can spare).
Like, underneath it all, are you satisfied with what you've accomplished, spiritually I mean. Doesn't it bother you how other people can like, listen to you for five minutes, and become just as enlightened as you are.
I call that: Put Away the Fucking Mascara and Do Some Fucking Work
Or die, whichever. I don't care, so long as it gets rid of You.
You have hardly ever conndescended to speak with me, in any terms that could be called 'real', Trevor. Ninety-nine percent of the time it is just fake interchange, vain and empty, and I ignore it, or play along with you, good-naturedly. It surprises me that you do now. Normally, to get into argumentation with y'all, is to step into a swamp where you get stuck.
Now, I will try to answer your 'statement-question': "are you satisfied with what you've accomplished, spiritually I mean."
In what sense? Do you mean what I expressed in the last post? Or in my life? I merely said that "there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', and I made a number of statements about David's assumptions about himself. All of it in simple, direct prose with only a few embellishments. Just the way you guys like it, right? I mean, you're miserably tired of all the macawesque flourishes, all the 'mascarading', the sarcastic representing of you. I gave it to you straight, fully aware that what I say is very, very threatening to you-plural. There is no doubt in my mind about this, or it wouldn't be expressed like: "Or die, whichever. I don't care, so long as it gets rid of You."
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Or die, whichever. I don't care, so long as it gets rid of You.
Hey Trevor,
You should probably focus on wanting your own bitterness, hostility and ignorance to die, rather than worry about Alex. Alex has his own karmic pathways to travel, which don't really have anything to do with you.
There is no need to be bitter. Alex is a perfect manifestation of Nature and ultimately blameless in everything that he does, as we all are. Why be hostile towards Nature?
skipair wrote:My take on the QRS, after meeting them, is that they're just normal guys. They don't have an excess of all the strange personality oddities that most people have (which is why most people act very weird sometimes<---->much of the time). Many of those quirks are either gone or quickly terminated.
Good to see you have returned.
Yes, it'd be pretty cool to meet up with each one of them.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Tomas, it would be more fitting to meet you in the cubicle challenging you to describe how the cubicle would be any different than the discussions I already had and am still having with Alex. I'd love to crush your arguments and show how your motives to suggest the cubicle in this case would be seriously deranged. Just you and me: c'mon Tank!
It was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment to get back to what Skip (Skip's Affairs) was going on about. When Alex started in on the conversation, a few of the regulars here took umbrage to his pointers.
As far as kicking some ass in The Crucible (cubicle?!!), the Reasoning Show would be of more interest.
However, when Alex's posts get too long-winded, it tends to water-down whatever he is trying to get across :-(
Perhaps when he's cleaning out Weisenheimer's cage 'the turd droppings,' he's got himself a touch of avian bird flu :-)
Coke habit, naw, perhaps he chews coca leaf and then he come here and rambles .. I've had coca leaf tea (Mate De Coca) - not too shabby!
Alex Jacob wrote:I merely said that "there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', and I made a number of statements about David's assumptions about himself. All of it in simple, direct prose with only a few embellishments. Just the way you guys like it, right? I mean, you're miserably tired of all the macawesque flourishes, all the 'mascarading', the sarcastic representing of you. I gave it to you straight, fully aware that what I say is very, very threatening to you-plural. There is no doubt in my mind about this, or it wouldn't be expressed like: "Or die, whichever. I don't care, so long as it gets rid of You."
Regarding your assertion, "there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', when you say this you in effect claim to be personally less than fully conscious and to be deluded. This has implications for you personally, for what you write, for how other's regard what you write, etc. It is one statement about yourself that i agree with, but i suggest to you that the state can be improved upon.
For example, there is truly no reason why delusion has to exist in any given mind, either in any given moment, or over a period of time. Your statement is analogous to, for example, claiming that a yellow rose is necessarily present in every mind. It's clearly not.
Now for a comment on the thread topic, the "problem with women", i mention:
In the presence of a woman a man's mind sheds over-arching thoughts and saturates itself with the colours and textures and forms of her appearance, vicariously enjoying the mindlessness that women embody and symbolise. Men seek this as a means to reduce stress, principally, the stress caused by conflicting thoughts and unresolved problems. It is a circuit breaker that reduces men towards the level of the mentally impaired.
Naturally, this practice is not conducive towards enlightenment. Stress is a driver of spiritual change, and any mental impairment reduces both motivation and capacity.
Rhett wrote:In the presence of a woman a man's mind sheds over-arching thoughts and saturates itself with the colours and textures and forms of her appearance, vicariously enjoying the mindlessness that women embody and symbolise. Men seek this as a means to reduce stress, principally, the stress caused by conflicting thoughts and unresolved problems. It is a circuit breaker that reduces men towards the level of the mentally impaired.
Naturally, this practice is not conducive towards enlightenment. Stress is a driver of spiritual change, and any mental impairment reduces both motivation and capacity.
And yet over-stress causes shut-down of the system which involves even greater 'mental impairment'. Thus some sorts of circuit breakers are useful. Unfortunately, women make poor ones. Relationships and fantasies about them are power users, generally, to extend your analogy.
"Regarding your assertion, "there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', when you say this you in effect claim to be personally less than fully conscious and to be deluded. This has implications for you personally, for what you write, for how other's regard what you write, etc. It is one statement about yourself that i agree with, but i suggest to you that the state can be improved upon."
"For example, there is truly no reason why delusion has to exist in any given mind, either in any given moment, or over a period of time. Your statement is analogous to, for example, claiming that a yellow rose is necessarily present in every mind. It's clearly not."
I think my assertion is utterly simple, intuitively obvious. To say there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind' does not mean that there are not brilliant minds, subtle minds, blissful minds, and of course the sort of minds that 'you' seem to admire: the mind of certain Eastern sages, Buddhists, Crazy Wsdom teachers, whatever. But the category 'enlightenment' or 'enlightened'---this is simply obvious---is a subjective category. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who claim such a 'title' or who have been given it. If it were a unique and singular 'thing', all of them would act more or less the same way, or say the same thing, or give the same sort of advice. But they don't. Each remains a unique individual, with foibles, appetites, mistaken attitudes, etc. This does not mean that there are not men, and I suppose women, who have achieved unsusual, elevated, or difficult to attain states of mind. But when you look at it, the use of the word 'enlightened' is just an adjective to describe a certain stance. Krishnamurti, if I remember correctly, spoke about very sophisticated states of mind that, in essence, could be learned. That is, with the proper training you could attain states of mind far beyond the average. There are dozens of different gradients to these states and they all have Sanskrit names. Krishnamurti, again if I remember correctly, did not seem to place a great deal of merit in these states. But he did hold a type of focus or awareness or perhaps 'realitionship to being' (existence) in great esteem, and spoke of that in his talks.
My point is that nomatter what state one attains, one still have to live in a body, one still has to deal with one's terrestrial existence, and still has to face all the same issues as all other living beings. There is also the possibility that what one is calling 'enlightenment' is not that at all. Almost all of the so-called 'enlightened teachers' who have come from the East to the West have been shown to be...very interesting men, men who attained very interesting or even relevant viewpoints, who may or may not have had something valuable to impart to others, but in each case, when one digs under the surface (went below the 'image management'), you found there just another human being, like yourself, doing this and doing that, getting by, etc.
This notion of the 'perfect man'---I say this just as a side-note---does not exist in Judaism. Men are seen as what they are: imperfect, striving, but capable of great things, great ideals, great accomplishments within the temporal space of a life lived. The Eastern religions. which likely played a role in engineering the Divine Person of Jesus, always seem to employ exaggeration when they speak of great men's accomplishments. It is a question of the use of language. In no sense does this mean that there are not men who can and do have strong, memorable and lasting effects on others---I am thinking of Ramana Maharshi who, many said, seemed to produce changes in people who simply came to sit in his sangha.
True, I am not claiming 'enlightenment' and I have certainly never claimed to be 'free of delusion'. To be truthful, this seems like a ridiculous, and vain, class of pursuit. Why bother? It has far more to do with language and the use of words than it does with 'reality'. It seems far more 'sane' to me to arrive at a clearer, if more realistic, stance about who we are and what we are than it is to pursue a concept of 'enlightenment' tied to grandiosity, potential narcissim, not to mention a (potential) suppression or denial of one's real nature.
Different people here regard what I write in different ways, Rhett. That is just a simple statement of fact. Some feel quite threatened by what I propose, and seek to find ways to villify me, or demonize me, of feminize me, but in any case to marginalize these ideas so that they don't have to be considered. Others appreciate and understand what I am saying and why I say it. (I think they are more mature and have 'been round the block a time or two')
I am though quite obviously saying that David has been captured by his grandiosity and seems, to all appearances, to cultivate dangerously mistaken ideas about his own self. If it isn't completely obvious to you, he implies that he has a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', and he both represents himself and defends himself (against all comers) in these terms. The people who buy into this are people who have been primed to accept the ideational possibility of such a perfected state of consciousness. You have to have an attraction to it in order to want and need to defend it. My 'evil' is to state, openly and yet with infinite good humor that the whole platform of holding oneself up as 'enlightened' is complete bullshit and should be seen through.
There is a great deal at stake with mistaken notions about oneself and one's capabilities. There is such a thing as a 'Ponzi scheme of the mind' and it takes numerous players to get it rolling and to maintain it.
Finally, what I propose is sane, balanced assessment of oneself, a realistic relationship to life, and slow, continuous progress toward realizing higher ideals in oneself, in combination with economic development, social development, service to one's community, education, etc. I know that the sound of this strikes many here discordantly. It almost HURTS. It is so much easier to engage with vain imaginings, to imagine as real things that aren't. That is also why I refer to a sort of 'pathology' among young boys, a Peter Pan complex, etc.
If a person is going to make the self-righteous claim that they are deluded and less-than-fully conscious (as Alex effectively does), then he should accept the conseqences of this - namely, that he isn't qualified to comment on matters that are currently beyond his reach. For him to say that full, undeluded consciousness is a pipe-dream is at best speculation, a blind stab in the dark. At worst, it is an attempt to pat himself on the back for his own mediocrity and laziness.
Being undeluded and fully conscious means perceiving the nature of reality without any mental distortion. Not only is it entirely possible for the human mind to attain this magnificent state of consciousness, but it has been enjoyed and described by wise thinkers for thousands of years. It has been enjoyed by those who have "made every effort to go through that narrow gate", and denied to everyone else.
That there are various different accounts of enlightenment made by various different people is irrelevant. Some people know what enlightenment is and can describe it accurately; many are deluded and give false accounts. The mere fact that these false accounts exist has no bearing on the existence and validity of genuine enlightenment, just as deluded views of science, such as those proposed by Christian fundamentalists, have no bearing on the existence and validity of the scientific method.
The reasoning used by Alex here is extremely poor and could only be seriously entertained by those who are deluded and less-than-fully conscious, and who want to remain that way.
Alex again evokes the image of a number of "mature, well-rounded people" who are supposedly rooting in his corner (a kind of appeal to authority), effectively dismissing everyone else as suffering from a "peter pan complex". It would be easy enough to identify who they are, but in the main we can dismiss them as old farts who never developed any strong spiritual roots in their youth and have allowed life to beat them into abject mediocrity. This is effectively what a "mature" person is - someone who life's batterings have caused them lose faith in the power of their own mind, and in the human mind generally. A contented animal, in other words.
Incidentally, Alex is dreaming if he thinks that I am being threatened by his uninspired, lifeless views in any way. On the contrary, I am simply doing what I have always done, which is challenge the ignorance that comes my way. And my God, there is an awful lot of it coming my way at the moment.
Alex Jacob wrote:My point is that nomatter what state one attains, one still have to live in a body, one still has to deal with one's terrestrial existence, and still has to face all the same issues as all other living beings. There is also the possibility that what one is calling 'enlightenment' is not that at all. Almost all of the so-called 'enlightened teachers' who have come from the East to the West have been shown to be...very interesting men, men who attained very interesting or even relevant viewpoints, who may or may not have had something valuable to impart to others, but in each case, when one digs under the surface (went below the 'image management'), you found there just another human being, like yourself, doing this and doing that, getting by, etc.
So you find the most mundane and boring things to be the most meaningful things, the most real things in life. Alex, I have no problem if you want to continue your glorified rolling around in feces, but lets not pretend your doing anything but!
Alex Jacob wrote:True, I am not claiming 'enlightenment' and I have certainly never claimed to be 'free of delusion'. To be truthful, this seems like a ridiculous, and vain, class of pursuit. Why bother? It has far more to do with language and the use of words than it does with 'reality'. It seems far more 'sane' to me to arrive at a clearer, if more realistic, stance about who we are and what we are than it is to pursue a concept of 'enlightenment' tied to grandiosity, potential narcissim, not to mention a (potential) suppression or denial of one's real nature.
Why, Alex, do you insist that everyone be content to lead a mundane life like you? You've done such a good job of it yourself, why does it matter if others strive for something beyond the world of blood, guts and feces you love to swim in?
Alex Jacob wrote:I am though quite obviously saying that David has been captured by his grandiosity and seems, to all appearances, to cultivate dangerously mistaken ideas about his own self. If it isn't completely obvious to you, he implies that he has a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', and he both represents himself and defends himself (against all comers) in these terms. The people who buy into this are people who have been primed to accept the ideational possibility of such a perfected state of consciousness. You have to have an attraction to it in order to want and need to defend it. My 'evil' is to state, openly and yet with infinite good humor that the whole platform of holding oneself up as 'enlightened' is complete bullshit and should be seen through.
Alex, lets be honest, you have no idea what enlightenment is in any shape or form. Your long winded posts express your theatrical nature with no consideration for meaningful philosophical discourse. What you write is sheer mindlessness, it shines through in every contrived statement you make, with your vaguely defined terms and half baked meanderings. Do you see what you've done to yourself Alex? You've turned yourself into someone who expresses nothingness with every burst of hot air that exits your orifice! Woe to you Alex, woe to you...
Alex Jacob wrote:There is a great deal at stake with mistaken notions about oneself and one's capabilities. There is such a thing as a 'Ponzi scheme of the mind' and it takes numerous players to get it rolling and to maintain it.
Your ponzi scheme is becoming more evident by the day, Alex. You've built your life on a puff of hot air, even sand would have been a better option! It's almost scary, Alex, encountering someone with so little substance, who's so empty inside, so close to death. You're like a zombie!
Alex Jacob wrote:Finally, what I propose is sane, balanced assessment of oneself, a realistic relationship to life, and slow, continuous progress toward realizing higher ideals in oneself, in combination with economic development, social development, service to one's community, education, etc.
It is so much easier, isn't it Alex, to meander on with these vain imaginings, to believe these things to be real, to take part in this theater and just read your script. Carry on your life playing the part of the living dead, Alex, but know that not everyone will follow script, no matter how much it disturbs you to see others finding a life of their own. Go try and gorge on some other's brains, the stench of death you carry with you is beyond nauseating.
This is almost exactly the same structure of argument you always use. It is a formula that you've worked out down to a science.
I love the third-person treatment by the way. In the context of a cult, or group-think, it is a form of 'punishment' for those who think outside of the given box, and a way for the group-thinkers to close ranks.
I don't have time right now to comment, tomorrow maybe.
(I see that Nick has also posted...but unfortunately I don't have time right now).
This is almost exactly the same structure of argument you always use. It is a formula that you've worked out down to a science.
It's called logic. If you can refute it, be my guest. But do actually address it. Try refraining from the mud-slinging for awhile and do some proper intellectual work.
"If a person is going to make the self-righteous claim that they are deluded and less-than-fully conscious (as Alex effectively does), then he should accept the conseqences of this - namely, that he isn't qualified to comment on matters that are currently beyond his reach."
I think this is crappy use of 'logic', friend. It always occurs to me that logic works best within a closed system, such as mathematics, where logical premises can be said to truly exist, or perhaps function is a better word. Right at the start---and I said this many many months ago---there are areas where logic is extremely useful and there are others where logic cannot decide issues. It is my personal belief that the magnitude of life, of phenomenal existence, of the manifestation of this matter and energy in which we also appear, is not reducible to simple logical predicates. One cannot interpret existence, or respond to existence, soley through a logical mindset. This does not mean that logic is not useful in some or many areas. It could also mean, and I take your emphasis (the emphasis of this forum) to mean that it would be a good thing if many more people used 'logic' more often in regard to issues they confront in life, or to their own mental processes, to getting clear about things, deciding things. But, to approach life wholly through the logical mind-set would be a great error. How to go about 'logically proving this?' I don't think I would make the effort, it would be a vain exercise. What I propose is, to me, intuitively obvious. The more a person lives, the more they come to understand that our human logic---for all that it is wonderful, unique and important---is not the only 'tool of consciousness' we have at our disposal.
And with that I say that your assertions are subjective and personal, and they should be seen as such by all who consider them.
My argument against presenting 'enlightenment' as a clear, discussable category---again this is simply intuitively obvious---is that it is utterly subjective, and therefor is precisely an example of an area where logic cannot operate. There is no way to quantify enlightenment, and there is effectively no way to demostrate it. Obviously, and almost with no 'shadow of doubt', your entire assertion crumbles right here. I do not deny that there are very advanced, admirable and difficult to attain states of mind that could be grouped together in the category of 'enlightened', and I certainly do not deny that it is a noble goal for all of us to try to attain unique perspectives in life that allow us to navigate life with superiority. But, as I have expressed many times, I am very, very suspicious of the pursuit of 'enlightenment' as you are defining it (again, as you own it, possess it and dole it out), and I am thoroughly suspicious of so-called enlightenment teachers, and the whole tradition of so-called 'enlightenment', not only in the West but in the East too.
I am inclined to think that the whole story of Ramakrishna may have been extremely embellished. He did no writing himself and everything about him is revealed in the writing of his disciples. I have always observed a marked tendency in Indians to exaggerate and embellish the saintliness of their gurus and enlightened teachers, such that it is an obvious thing. Yet, there are many very wise things that Ramakrishna said, many valuable and useful things, as I see it. How does one reconcile this possible split or division? My answer is that one does it by grounding oneself in one's own life, in one's own body, and understanding that our experiences come to us in this platform, in this biological, psychological structure. The unity of the platform of existence with the experiences that we have in that structure is the key. Language intervenes and suddenly we are speaking about and considering abstractions. There is only the experience of a person who is alive in a physical body, within a limiting structure, highly imperfect and suseptible to all sorts of disturbances. But fundamentally, and no matter what, one has to take this experience and live it, translate it into daily activities, into service, into work, relationships, what-have-you.
"Being undeluded and fully conscious means perceiving the nature of reality without any mental distortion. Not only is it entirely possible for the human mind to attain this magnificent state of consciousness, but it has been enjoyed and described by wise thinkers for thousands of years. It has been enjoyed by those who have "made every effort to go through that narrow gate", and denied to everyone else. "
Clearly, this is not a genuine argument, and no one could ever take it as such (one would be a fool to mistake it for a logical argument). It is so simple. One is there is no possibility, within philosophy, physiology, biology or psychology that there is a state of no distortion. It is a false category, inadmisable in a philosophical argument. It is an ideal state, an abstract state, that is represented as something attainable 'in reality'. We all know that nothing in 'reality' occurs in this way. Pretty much: end of argument. It is a waste of time to consider it. But, there most certainly are---comparatively---moments that could be described as being 'free of delusion'. Note that language takes over. Language is sort of gross and things become either one or the other, but not both. In life though, many things function together, which is a characteristic of life.
It is also a pretty obvious fallacy of thinking to assert, straight across the board, that (this abstract state you propose) "has been enjoyed and described by wise thinkers for thousands of years". What a blatant appeal to an invisible and undemonstrable 'authority'. Many men, many of them described as wise, enlightened, lucid, revolutionary, bold, complex, profound---what have you---have lived and written, or lived and been written about. Some of them say one thing, some of them say another. There is NO UNITY to what they reveal, only similarities (if one is generous), and in every age people come into contact with this 'wisdom' and look for ways to apply it to their lives. Nothing more, nothing less. It is all you can really do.
But to assert that it is one thing, something that you can put your hands on and own, control, administer, decide on, and all the rest, is flatly absurd. David, your 'logical structures' are a farse! This is really too easy...
And basically one can easily go through all the rest of the pseudo-argements you have presented in the same way.
"Alex again evokes the image of a number of "mature, well-rounded people" who are supposedly rooting in his corner (a kind of appeal to authority), effectively dismissing everyone else as suffering from a "peter pan complex". It would be easy enough to identify who they are, but in the main we can dismiss them as old farts who never developed any strong spiritual roots in their youth and have allowed life to beat them into abject mediocrity. This is effectively what a "mature" person is - someone who life's batterings have caused them lose faith in the power of their own mind, and in the human mind generally. A contented animal, in other words."
I have mentioned that I consider the Jewish sages to be the most realistic in their approach to spiritual, moral, religious, intellectual, civic, social life. The basic premise is Life is to be lived and Life is a gift. Don't go too far into vain abstractions and unattainable metaphysics, avoid the vain attraction for 'vertical ascent' and understand that you have a context, a body, a social structure, and can only work within this context. I do not conceal from you that, after so many different experiences, I return to what seems the most sensible. I do think that one could find great similarity in terms of ethical recommendations between the Jewish sages and some of the Taoist or Buddhist (or perhpas the Zen) teachers. It is not something that comes from another planet. In that, these 'Jewish sages' never talk in the terms that you use, and value a great deal of what you dismiss, and importantly they have not and do not recommend such a radical severing from one's 'context', as I am calling it, that you recommend.
(Thinking it over, I think that my post to David also pretty much works as a response to Nick. I would only like to mention that I note an over-the-top force, something almost violent in what Nick expresses. Why is that?).
______________________________________________________________
"Those who speak the truth are often threatened, stoned, and restricted, if by no one else, by their sheep-like peers."
Alex Jacob wrote:It is my personal belief that the magnitude of life, of phenomenal existence, of the manifestation of this matter and energy in which we also appear, is not reducible to simple logical predicates. One cannot interpret existence, or respond to existence, soley through a logical mindset.
Mine, too, and well put, my fine feathered friend, and no, one cannot.
But to assert that it is one thing, something that you can put your hands on and own, control, administer, decide on, and all the rest, is flatly absurd. David, your 'logical structures' are a farse! This is really too easy...
That would be f-a-r-C-e, Alex. The word farce has another definition: "mixture of ground raw chicken and mushrooms with pistachios and truffles and onions and parsley and lots of butter and bound with eggs"
