David's compassion

[brokenhead]

Sue H. writes:

Your statement accords with the quality of work you have submitted to this forum - with posturing and gossiping taking no thinking whatsoever.

You are almost as funny as David! What could I possibly gossip about? I don't know any of you!

Yes. You are right. No thinking whatsoever. I do believe I struck a nerve.

I stand corrected. You are clearly the thinker here.

[brokenhead]

Over on the Worldly Matters thread, "Another great anti-feminist site" you admitted, as brokenhead has done, that you don't take your own mind seriously.

I believe I said I don't take all my thoughts so seriously. I daresay all of your thoughts must be dripping with gravitas.
How like a woman to twist someone's very words to suit her own purpose!

Just like brokenhead, you are caught up completely in the sway of WOMAN.

Well, now that depends on which woman is doing the swaying.

[brokenhead]

Sapius wrote:

For example, I say, ‘No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for Allah”. Do you agree? Disagree? And why and why not?

You were asking me this question and it very much deserves an answer. My answer is an unequivocal, unqualified "yes, I agree." I'm pretty sure I know where you are going with this. But if a man in his heart believes he his laying down his life for his love of Allah, you cannot gainsay him. If he is laying down his life - and taking down a few thousand other lives with it - because he thinks Allah is going to supply him with many virgins, and he openly proclaims this, then I think some dogs have greater love than that.

[brokenhead]

Sue H. wrote:

Just like brokenhead, you are caught up completely in the sway of WOMAN. Like him, you continue to long for the company of women - using that longing to define who and what you are.

This kind of psychodrivel doesn't pass very well for rational thought.

BTW, have you been reading my mail??

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what WOMAN refers to – but in doing so, you give a clear example of its effect.

I know very well what it refers to. You act like you are the first person ever to have these thoughts. I am saying that this lump of clay is one of the more entertaining examples of WOMAN that I have seen, yet there it is, on the same old pedestal.

I must have missed the section in Exposition where David mindlessly regaled his readers with stories of trawling women’s rallies to “pick up chicks”.

You are just a laugh a minute, aren't you? But I guess you were never twenty-one.

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

For example, I say, ‘No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for Allah”. Do you agree? Disagree? And why and why not?

You were asking me this question and it very much deserves an answer. My answer is an unequivocal, unqualified "yes, I agree." I'm pretty sure I know where you are going with this. But if a man in his heart believes he his laying down his life for his love of Allah, you cannot gainsay him. If he is laying down his life - and taking down a few thousand other lives with it - because he thinks Allah is going to supply him with many virgins, and he openly proclaims this, then I think some dogs have greater love than that.

That didn’t really warrant a response, but very well put indeed.

Now I must respond for you to be certain as to where I was going.

You see, all that you describe is exactly what David would apply to ‘friendship’, ‘love’, ‘caring’, and the likes. They all, not only take down a few thousand, but in fact almost all of humanity. That’s his worldview.

What he may no believe is, that there can be purely logical reasons for friendship, love and caring to be, which may not have a thing necessarily to do with the heart or emotions as such.

Existence is absolutely logical than one may care to think, with no room for “emotions” so to speak. Logically speaking, emotions are in the eye of the beholder too.

Was this where you thought I was going?

[Cory Duchesne]

Sue writes to Alex:

You are no different from Rich Zubaty (who you consider "a cry-baby"), as like him, you have no interest in the deeper matter of WOMAN - all that matters to you is your personal happiness - which is totally WOMANish.

I'm actually reading Zubaty's latest book: What Men Know that Women Don't

He writes:

Communes dominated by women suffer visibly from toilet-face. Their daily goal is to have a pleasant time, never to reach into the unknown, never to extend themselves to help others in a way that might cause some burden to themselves. Whether Benedictine nuns or Sufi vamps, the big question always seems to be: "And how do I feel today?" This is a psychic (feminine) question, not a spiritual question. Might as well ask Jesus how good he felt carrying the cross, or Buddha if he had a nice time staring at a wall for four years. Saints give until it hurts. They do what the gospels say to do. They live the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Black Elk and Moses. That takes a lot of male energy.

Zubaty doesn't acknowledge key differences between Buddha and a guy like Mohammed. This shines through in his admiration of Mother Teresa who he praises quite a few times in his book.

---
_____________

[divine focus]

Yes, but knowledge doesn't happen all at once. There is a process to wisdom. Mother Teresa was a very caring individual who wasn't at any supreme level of wisdom. If she were wiser, she may have professed through her beliefs a little differently. She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're getting mad at or berating a lot of spiritual talk for having certain misconceptions surrounding it, you're really condemning everyone for not having **Supreme Wisdom**.

I don't really condemn people for their ignorance and not having supreme wisdom, for I know how difficult it is to acquire it. But I do condemn the idea that certain forms of ignorance - in this case, Mother Teresa's motherly values, fantasizing and short-sightedness -are virtuous and God-related. They aren't.

Everything is God-related. There is Truth in everything. Notice the beliefs you have and, instead of judging them to be the right and best ones, simply appreciate them. They're obviously valuable, but they're not better than others. Growth for you now is seeing that you have beliefs. That is the ego, your belief systems. You couldn't exist physically without them. You're judging yours to be the only way to see Truth, but Truth is involved in all beliefs. It's the foundation for everything.

It's not as if we could possibly do away with all preconceptions and enlighten everybody immediately. It doesn't work that way. Let it happen how it'll happen. It will happen eventually, and gradually.

There is no guarantee that it will happen. Indeed, there is every chance in the world that it will never happen, particularly if people continue to be besotted by false idols. This is where geniuses and wise people come into their own. If it wasn't for their diligent efforts to free people from their false idols, to open up their horizons, the human race wouldn't be making any spiritual progress at all.

True, but wise people didn't become wise overnight. It took time for them to free themselves. And that's an important point, you are freeing yourself. You might use a teacher or teaching to facilitate your growth, but the choice has to be yours for it to happen. You direct yourself toward whatever sources of information ring true for you, and then you eventually realize that the ringing you feel is its own source of information.

[Shahrazad]

Sapius,

Was this where you thought I was going?

I thought you were going to bring up suicide bombers.

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

So I ask David..

What would a sage actually tell or do for those multitudes of starving and deprived souls of Calcutta, if he were to be placed amongst them?

I know, it is much better to preach wisdom to those that run the country, good luck with that, but what would a sage’s response be to those people directly? For they starve NOW! Not for wisdom, but food.

You know what, I wish words could quench thirst and hunger. I am well aware that thirst and hunger for a sage are of a different kind, but I’m sure he does actually eat time to time.

I ask help from the non-feminine minded too; advise me as what should I do since I plan visiting Calcutta soon.

My views on these matters are pretty straightforward. If a person feels strongly enough to want to help the starving in India, then he should probably do it. But he shouldn't do it thinking that he is doing a good thing, or that he is being compassionate and virtuous. He should face the truth that he is doing it purely out of egotistical reasons - for example, to soothe his conscience, to prevent unpleasant feelings that would arise from not doing it, to boost his opinion of himself, to negate sinful actions of his past, etc. It has nothing to do with the spiritual path of shedding all deulsions and opening the mind to Reality.

It could possibly have some spiritual value if he had previously lived a hedonistic, self-centered life and now wanted to break free of that and engage in a different form of egotism. The breaking of old habits in this way can lead to a freeing up of the mind, possibly making it more receptive to Truth, which would be a good thing. So if helping the starving in India was performed that for reason, it could have some lasting spiritual value.

As for what a sage would do in such circumstances, that would depend on whether he thought he had more important things to do. After all, a sage living in Australia or America already knows about the existence of the starving in India, and yet it is unlikely that he would rush over to help them, given that he thinks that he can better serve the human race by promoting wisdom and rationality through the elimination of delusion. His thinking on this shouldn't be any different, regardless of whether he is in America or on the streets of Calcutta.

-

[David Quinn]

Yes, but knowledge doesn't happen all at once. There is a process to wisdom. Mother Teresa was a very caring individual who wasn't at any supreme level of wisdom. If she were wiser, she may have professed through her beliefs a little differently. She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're getting mad at or berating a lot of spiritual talk for having certain misconceptions surrounding it, you're really condemning everyone for not having **Supreme Wisdom**.

I don't really condemn people for their ignorance and not having supreme wisdom, for I know how difficult it is to acquire it. But I do condemn the idea that certain forms of ignorance - in this case, Mother Teresa's motherly values, fantasizing and short-sightedness -are virtuous and God-related. They aren't.

Everything is God-related. There is Truth in everything.

Yes and no. While all things are a part of God, not all things can help a person to realize the nature of God. Child-molesting, for example, is a part of God, yet no one would say that molesting children advances people along the path to God-realization. Usually, the opposite occurs.

Notice the beliefs you have and, instead of judging them to be the right and best ones, simply appreciate them. They're obviously valuable, but they're not better than others. Growth for you now is seeing that you have beliefs. That is the ego, your belief systems. You couldn't exist physically without them. You're judging yours to be the only way to see Truth, but Truth is involved in all beliefs. It's the foundation for everything.

I don't have any beliefs. All I do is think logically within an awareness of God.

Being attached to fixed beliefs is an obstacle to thinking logically within an awareness of God, as is being contradictory and irrational. Freeing yourself from these things is the only way that God can be realized. There is no other way.

It's not as if we could possibly do away with all preconceptions and enlighten everybody immediately. It doesn't work that way. Let it happen how it'll happen. It will happen eventually, and gradually.

There is no guarantee that it will happen. Indeed, there is every chance in the world that it will never happen, particularly if people continue to be besotted by false idols. This is where geniuses and wise people come into their own. If it wasn't for their diligent efforts to free people from their false idols, to open up their horizons, the human race wouldn't be making any spiritual progress at all.

True, but wise people didn't become wise overnight. It took time for them to free themselves. And that's an important point, you are freeing yourself. You might use a teacher or teaching to facilitate your growth, but the choice has to be yours for it to happen. You direct yourself toward whatever sources of information ring true for you, and then you eventually realize that the ringing you feel is its own source of information.

What you say is true, but nonetheless, good teachers can accelerate growth by removing the obstacles that are in people's minds. As Ramakrishna says:

"A man who voluntarily goes into a river and bathes therein gets the benefit of the bath; so does likewise he who has been pushed into the river by another, or who while sleeping soundly has water thrown upon him by another."

-

[Dan Rowden]

Sue H. writes:

Your statement accords with the quality of work you have submitted to this forum - with posturing and gossiping taking no thinking whatsoever.

You are almost as funny as David! What could I possibly gossip about? I don't know any of you!

It could be simply because I haven't paid enough specific attention, but prior to this thread I always thought you were a girl (or perhaps, more accurately, thought of you as a girl). My bad, I guess.

[Shahrazad]

Dan, remember he threw a hissy fit when I said that "all men want from women is sex", so he couldn't possibly be a girl.

[Dan Rowden]

Let's get one thing straight - I don't know the first thing about Mother Teresa, nor do I care.

In the face of evidence that she was not what her myth portrays you suddenly confess ignorance and indifference. Not long ago you were stridently defending MT's actions against criticism. I guess this is the end result of not taking thoughts seriously.

I am simply pointing out that there are far more reprehensible people in the public eye than MT. Like almost everybody.

A few sentences back you were saying you don't know the first thing about her. The argument hasn't been that MT is some extraordinarily reprehensible person (note how you bring exaggerated emotional terms into your point to create a strawman to set fire to); the argument has been, a) that MT's reality does not match her mythology, and b) that MT's so-called "compassion" is merely religious role-playing whose superficially beneficial actions catches the eye but not the true consequences and deeper reality. You're the sort of person who sees happy faces at Xmas and thinks that makes Xmas just dandy. What is your exact criterion for an outcome that makes compassion meaningful? Or do you believe that intention is the thing that really matters? You know which road is paved with those things, right?

You are not only picking on a rather defenseless old eccentric, but a dead defenseless old eccentric.

Oh, good grief, Charlie Brown. Now she's some helpless old, dead eccentric. Have you no shame at all? Do you understand why this sentence is so shameful?

Yes, people that fawn all over Politically Correct viewpoints make me want to puke. But blaming MT for the opression of the people she tried to help is beyond nonsensical.

Says the person who knows nothing about her.

Walking up in the WTC on 9/11 when everyone else is going down is brave.

I guess it is, to an extent. But here you're creating the same sort of bullshit myth that surrounds MT. You do know that no-one knew the towers were going to collapse, right? You do know that bravery is acting in the face of known danger and risk, right? You do know that fire services have extremely taut and complex risk management strategies that firefighters must adhere to, right? It takes a certain amount of courage to do that sort of job, but don't try and romanticise it to me. And clearly you have no conception at all of how much courage it takes to engage in real thought.

Bashing withered old MT - and Christianity along with it - is perverse.

Undermining delusion that causes suffering and the karma that brings future suffering is perverse? Oh, well, it's perversity for me then! That shoe seems to fit somehow :/

Separate the Church (Roman, Anglican, every last one of them) from Christ's teachings. Separate them in your mind as they have been separated in the world for two thousand years. Then try to view the world with your heart instead of your formidable intellect (and I am not being facetious.) Then see if identifying human compassion as the root of helplessness and oppression makes sense.

Well, guess what, if MT had done this she wouldn't have been such a hag. Conventional compassion is nothing more significant than empathy with suffering. It's rudimentary and insignificant in itself. It is as normal as seeing. True compassion is understanding the basic reality of suffering and attending to that - which then insures that one's actions have genuine practical merit rather than the things that David and others have already stated about compassion.

[edit: typo]

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, remember he threw a hissy fit when I said that "all men want from women is sex", so he couldn't possibly be a girl.

I must have missed that. I tend to skip over hissy fits, if that's what it really was. And I would restate your point as: all women can offer men is sex[uality]. The question then becomes, which of our generalisations best states the reality of things. Perhaps they say the same thing from different perspectives.

P.S. I used "sexuality" rather than "sex" because "sex" is way too narrow to cover matters.

[Alex Jacob]

Sue, why would you level this attack against me now? Because of the quote from Las Mil y Una Noches? I thought it was ironic and played both sides of the fence. Women who only follow the 'caprices of their vulvas' and all that. Isn't that what you are trying to get at, essentially? Why would you wait until...my most vulnerable moment...to brutally attack and rend me?

:-(

At some other time I will write (...and write and write) about what I think of your analysis, and about my own relations with 'WOMAN'. It is vastly different from what you are supposing, but as I said somewhere else, this medium is inherently blind and we are all shooting in the dark...

[brokenhead]

Dan Rowden wrote:

In the face of evidence that she was not what her myth portrays you suddenly confess ignorance and indifference.

I've seen nothing that resembles evidence. All I know about MT is what I heard in the news. You and David, on the other hand, appear to know her so well you know her motives.

the argument has been, a) that MT's reality does not match her mythology, and b) that MT's so-called "compassion" is merely religious role-playing whose superficially beneficial actions catches the eye but not the true consequences and deeper reality.

Great argument! Now go tell it to those people she was trying to help.

You're the sort of person who sees happy faces at Xmas and thinks that makes Xmas just dandy.

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about me other than what I've posted here. And Mr. Wise Sage, you couldn't even pick up my gender from that.

Or do you believe that intention is the thing that really matters?

Intention counts, but it's just a first step.

You know which road is paved with those things, right?

The Yellow Brick Road?

Says the person who knows nothing about her.

What are you, MT's confidante?

But here you're creating the same sort of bullshit myth that surrounds MT. You do know that no-one knew the towers were going to collapse, right? You do know that bravery is acting in the face of known danger and risk, right?

You do know you're making an ass out of yourself by totally not getting what went on that day, right? Of course no one knew the towers were going to collapse. If they did, it would have made no sense to go into them because they would not have saved anybody and it would have been pure suicide. They didn't know what was going to happen, all they knew was there were holes in the buildings, there was fire, and there was potential for enormous loss of life. Yes, I'd say that took a "certain amount of courage." Where did you get your definition of bravery, anyway?

And clearly you have no conception at all of how much courage it takes to engage in real thought.

Because I disagree with you? That's starting to sound like a party line. Sue H went off like that on me, too. As soon as someone questions your viewpoint, it's, well obviously you're not a real thinker...

Undermining delusion that causes suffering and the karma that brings future suffering is perverse? Oh, well, it's perversity for me then! That shoe seems to fit somehow :/

Agreed.

Well, guess what, if MT had done this she wouldn't have been such a hag. Conventional compassion is nothing more significant than empathy with suffering. It's rudimentary and insignificant in itself. It is as normal as seeing,

Conventional compassion can lead to concrete action. You don't have to be a sage, or whatever it is you call yourself, in order for your compassion to have merit.

BTW, I don't think "seeing" is insignificant.

[sue hindmarsh]

Alex wrote:

Sue, why would you level this attack against me now?

Alex, you’re a mature man who I reckon doesn’t need protecting. If you were a young bloke, you’d naturally have to be forgiven for acting naively. But you’re not young, so there is no time to mess around. What you describe as my “attack” was me alerting you to this fact.

You’re like so many men possessing the potential to develop their consciousness. Instead of developing, you keep yourself caged in an anti-woman mindset. This is a complete waste of your time and energy, because it is completely shallow minded. Women aren’t the enemy of masculinity – the feminine mindset is. And it isn’t just most women who have this mindset – most men do also. It’s everywhere! Everywhere people are valuing the emotions over reason and truth; worshiping love and relationships; believing in compassion and peace whilst preening and protecting their own egos; and reveling in their own ignorant and tyrannical natures. This is the WOMAN that needs your attention. Throw yourself first into her depths, and then her shallows will be clearly understood.
.

[Sapius]

David;

My views on these matters are pretty straightforward. If a person feels strongly enough to want to help the starving in India, then he should probably do it. But he shouldn't do it thinking that he is doing a good thing, or that he is being compassionate and virtuous.

No, he is in any case, irrelevant of what he/you “think” motivates him.

He should face the truth that he is doing it purely out of egotistical reasons - for example, to soothe his conscience, to prevent unpleasant feelings that would arise from not doing it, to boost his opinion of himself, to negate sinful actions of his past, etc. It has nothing to do with the spiritual path of shedding all deulsions and opening the mind to Reality.

May be it has nothing to do with shedding delusions directly, and that may not be his top priority as per situation. 'He should face the “truth”'? That is a "truth" as YOU see it my friend, as what it means to "you", but that may not necessarily be the case. You see, you cannot really judge that, only speculate, for you do not and cannot face his “truth”. Opening others mind to Reality may not be his top priority for those who can’t even think straight on an empty stomach; can you? Have you ever had a headache? What would you take care of first?

It could possibly have some spiritual value if he had previously lived a hedonistic, self-centered life and now wanted to break free of that and engage in a different form of egotism. The breaking of old habits in this way can lead to a freeing up of the mind, possibly making it more receptive to Truth, which would be a good thing. So if helping the starving in India was performed that for reason, it could have some lasting spiritual value.

So you should actually have no complains, for at least that is a possibility, and you cannot say for a certainty that that isn’t the case. On the other hand, one may have already dropped the self-centeredness, and what may seem emotionally self-centered reactions to you, may well be non-emotional; one of the reasons of helping out may be that one may help another so that he lives today to learn tomorrow. Who the hell teaches, or if they find truth on their own or not, is not what I would be really concern with myself, because if realization doesn’t come about from within, nothing can ever force it, not even causality per say, for that too operates from “within”, for there is no “without”, isn’t it? Which of course shouldn’t make sense according to domino style causality, (or a deck of cards type, for then one is necessarily looking at it from the “outside”, from the "without"), for it actually assumes that causes are actually external only.

As for what a sage would do in such circumstances, that would depend on whether he thought he had more important things to do. After all, a sage living in Australia or America already knows about the existence of the starving in India, and yet it is unlikely that he would rush over to help them, given that he thinks that he can better serve the human race by promoting wisdom and rationality through the elimination of delusion. His thinking on this shouldn't be any different, regardless of whether he is in America or on the streets of Calcutta.

Sure, sure… I agree those are profound words indeed, and that’s very compassionate of you, but I think you missed the “IF” part. Read it again please.

S: What would a sage actually tell or do for those multitudes of starving and deprived souls of Calcutta, if he were to be placed amongst them?

I think you are actually scared to openly admit it in public, that you too would first feed, of course, not without mentioning that if that were possible according to the various causal conditions, and hence you cannot or do not lift a finger on your own, or may be some other "logical excuse”. Perhaps you cannot react unless caused to, but in that you are actually holding causality responsible, but as per your convenience, otherwise, conveniently, MT or her beliefs are to be blamed! What wisdom, mate!

The question is plain and simple. Would a sage logically try and remove delusions or hunger first? When faced with that fact, that is; and of course, if that is within his capabilities, which is a different story, so don't get confused. I know feeding costs, but a sage should also be well aware that even a measly dollar all the way from Australia to Africa can provide books for five children, but of course, an enlightened sage would look for those that are already at the brink of going overboard; how convenient a compassion?

I agree, his thinking may remain consistent weather in Australia or Thailand, but his actions necessarily demand reactions as per situations faced first-hand. And secondly, in my opinion, a sage so reliant on logicality, is an insult to intelligence if he cannot earn his own living or even feed another ten at least, and yet remain consistent and clear in his goal of spirituality. In my opinion he is actually incapable on making full use of his intelligence and reasoning that he so much has faith in and relies on.

The fact is, David, your compassion is limited to your own definition, and does not include All that there is, namely Reality, may be not even according to your own definition.

Self-centeredly defined importance can circumvent, or turn a blind eye to immediate facts of immediate reality of the NOW, in hope of being a beacon of an unknown future, well aware that realizations are but temporary, but knowledge and truth is here to remain and will be rediscovered every time thinking-consciousness resurfaces. Reality does not depend on you or I; I’m utterly humbled by just that one thought, logically speaking.

BTW, being cruel to be kind does not always work; most of the time it backfires, with more vengeance if I may add, further fostering ignorance. I think you should know that by now.

[Alex Jacob]

Sue wrote:

"You’re like so many men possessing the potential to develop their consciousness. Instead of developing, you keep yourself caged in an anti-woman mindset. This is a complete waste of your time and energy, because it is completely shallow minded. Women aren’t the enemy of masculinity – the feminine mindset is. And it isn’t just most women who have this mindset – most men do also. It’s everywhere! Everywhere people are valuing the emotions over reason and truth; worshiping love and relationships; believing in compassion and peace whilst preening and protecting their own egos; and reveling in their own ignorant and tyrannical natures. This is the WOMAN that needs your attention. Throw yourself first into her depths, and then her shallows will be clearly understood."

First, I was only joking when I lamented that you attacked me. I regret to say that much of what takes place on this forum, and much of the philosophy of those who created this forum, is worthy only of parody. No one (yet) has said anything that came near to being cutting or even wounding, and very little of it has even caused me to think very deeply or to question myself, except in some minor areas.

I said months ago that I came to this forum through a strange path of following links, and at that time I had ended my participation in another forum so I was 'forumless'. And I decided to park myself here. At the time (August) I was reading some of the early feminist works and trying to come to some conclusions for my unsettled feelings about American culture, and at that time I was in the US, so much of it was shoved in my face. It is also true, and I said this at other times, that my own relations with women have been peculiar, insofar as I never married, do not have kids, and never pursued the routes of life that so many do. Job, marriage, house, mortgage, kids, teevee---the general pattern and form.

I haven't been dishonest about myself or my intentions, and have (mixed in with many attemps at humor) been open and honest about what I think. But this desire to be open and honest, which is natural, stops when I encounter entrenched stubbornness or even what I consider to be a sort of stupidness. But there is no point in being insulting after one has expressed ones differences in straightforward terms, and the avenue that remains open to one is humor and irony, or simply to avoid participation in particular subjects and to stick to those that interest one.

It is funny that you say 'develop consciousness'...it is as if you assume (and you do assume) that you have a monopoly on the project! Yet, I might point out that if the productions of this forum are an indication of an involvment in 'consciousness', it is a low level of consciousness indeed, and in the most direct terms I don't want anything to do with it. Yet, I really agree with you that we all need to develop our consciousness, if we have the time and the space to do it.

The way it is turning out for me, after a good long period invlved, very idiosyncratically, in spirituality, which involved many different things, such as yoga, meditation, prayer, the investigation of African spirituality and religion (very rewarding), Jewish religion, mysticism---so many different things but most importantly my own psychic life---is that it is our 'consciousness' that is our project.

In the end, and at least for right now, what has the most importance, is literature. That is where I find the most sophisticated repository of consciousness, and entering into literature---into meaning and 'the word'---is where I find myself most enriched. Also, I discover that there is a very important relationship between the cultivation of the mind, the consciousness, and the matters that pertain to higher spirituality. They very definitely go hand in hand. The best and highest examples of spirituality and religion always arise in a very literate context. Put another way, where you don't find it is among cultures that are not literate, or among mentally defective sorts, and I might add among those who sever their connection to their literary roots as they pursue abstract ideals, like chimera.

That was of course a direct statement about what I note among 'the wise' here. If I have a message it is a relatively simple one: do not abandon the traditions and mental-spiritual works that produced you (us), and find a way to integrate your own spiritual pursuits, whatever they may be, with that higher portion of human concern and activity. Also, don't ever think that you could successfully sever yourself from your own human self, and remember the human heart, as flawed and susceptible as it may be. A purified heart and a cultivated mind is one of the rarest things, and it is where the real human jewels are to be found. I have said it openly many times, and I will repeat it again: the path that you (plural) recommend will produce, one day or the next, mental illness, and it will also attract the mentally ill, as it now does, the unbalanced and the deranged. The fruits of a defective tree cannot produce desirable fruit. But it can produce fruit, and sometimes lots of it...

And the fruit that is produced here, Sue, despite what you think or hope, is defective fruit. Many offer you critiques, and at every juncture you sophistically and eristically defeat those critiques. Really, that is your choice.

I have discovered---and for that discovery I assure you I paid a price---that ideas and attitudes that once I valued, that once I though had supreme or ascendant value, now just do not appear all that valuable to me. Abraham Hershel said: 'When I was young I admired clever people, now I admire kind people'. There are whole areas of 'consciousness' that have opened up to me as a result of these sorts interior experiences, shifts in my view, etc.

No one here talks about any part of these things. Everything here takes place on a platfrom of mental games, of basic and essential insincerity, and I can only see this as evidence of lack of contact with self, and in that sense, lack of contact with consciousness. It must be, then, that my God is a different God, and my path is a different path.

I haven't written about what I think of the relationship between man and woman, that is what I think it could be, or should be. And though I was not being insincere or misrepresenting myself when I wrote those portions that you quoted, that is just one part.

You guys work an angle, it is sort of a classic tendency in what are normally described as 'new-age' religions. You focus on some aspect of doctrine and you work it very, very hard. You take a few simple ideas, very linear ideas, and build monuments, whole edifices, and they serve a purpose as long as he or she who enters your edifice has not seen through the smallmindedness that produces the reduction (the small aspect) and upholds it, or who is not grown up enough to see alternatives. This is one of the major downsides---truly tragic---of severing connection with literary roots. This is a terribly predominant problem and I see it as a matter of class.

As I see things, and I am sorry to state it so brazenly, it is the lower classes, mental and spiritual, who must build a bridge to the higher classes, and no tthe other way around. All the bait in the history of the world can be dangled before the modern brute, but if he has no hunger and is satiated with pablum, he'll demonstrate no interest in eating.

Here the main participants are shallow, snide, incompletely developed boys and an ocasional, girlish companion, with completely insufficient preparation, and are not 'men'. So, in this way and as a response to your undisguised insinuations, I might respond by saying that this 'game' that you play, this eristic mathematics, just cannot work on me. Trust me that I know what consciouness asks of me...and it is vastly different from any idea that is presented in these pages.

[brokenhead]

Alex Jacob wrote:

I haven't been dishonest about myself or my intentions, and have (mixed in with many attemps at humor) been open and honest about what I think. But this desire to be open and honest, which is natural, stops when I encounter entrenched stubbornness or even what I consider to be a sort of stupidness. But there is no point in being insulting after one has expressed ones differences in straightforward terms, and the avenue that remains open to one is humor and irony, or simply to avoid participation in particular subjects and to stick to those that interest one.

Illigitimi non carborundum, Alex. The illigitimi on this board mean well.

Here the main participants are shallow, snide, incompletely developed boys and an ocasional, girlish companion, with completely insufficient preparation, and are not 'men'. So, in this way and as a response to your undisguised insinuations, I might respond by saying that this 'game' that you play, this eristic mathematics, just cannot work on me. Trust me that I know what consciouness asks of me...and it is vastly different from any idea that is presented in these pages.

You just don't have the courage to be a real thinker like them. Right, Dan and Sue?

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

The question is plain and simple. Would a sage logically try and remove delusions or hunger first?

Past sages answered this through their choice of lifestyles. As far as I'm aware, none of them ever rushed over to help the starving in India or Africa or wherever.

And let's be honest, none of us on this forum care enough about the starving in India or Africa to go over and help them, even though we all know about their existence. If we did, we would be over there. We all think we have more important matters to attend to, whether they be wise or egotistical in nature.

-

[David Quinn]

The problem that I have with Alex is that he hides away in the fog of uncertainty and proceeds to hold this up as a virtue. To him, if a person isn't hiding away in the fog of uncertainty, then he is "stunted", "unrefined", playing "clever games", of the "lower classes", etc. Those are the only two options that he sees.

To be sure, if you hide away in the fog of uncertainty, then your consciousness will develop in different ways. The chances are you will become more poetic and artistic (praising the mystery of things or lamenting over the human situation), more kind in a conventional sense (wanting to hug everyone in the face of a forbidding, mysterious Universe), and more complex (a consequence of wanting to hide from the simplicity of Truth). That is all very well, but it means forfeiting the possibility of developing the depth and simplicity needed to know Truth.

Hiding away in the fog of uncertainty is really a form of cowardice. It certainly isn't humility, as Alex likes to pretend. Humility means being open to Truth, not hiding away from it.

-

[Shahrazad]

Broken,

You just don't have the courage to be a real thinker like them. Right, Dan and Sue?

It's David and Sue.

[brokenhead]

Broken,

You just don't have the courage to be a real thinker like them. Right, Dan and Sue?

It's David and Sue.

No, I meant Dan and Sue. David might think my posts show me to be incapable of serious thought, but it was Dan and Sue H. who were kind enought to actually say it.

[sue hindmarsh]

brokenhead,

You may well be capable of "serious" thought, but so far I've only seen you mouthing common old herd think. Not once have you shown that you've ever thought about any of these concepts that you foster. So it is no wonder you are picked up on the mediocrity of your thought - remembering that this is a forum dedicated to Genius. Your examples of what you consider to be acts of kindness, bravery, fairness, and compassion have nothing whatsoever to do with Genius.

When Dan observed:

You're the sort of person who sees happy faces at Xmas and thinks that makes Xmas just dandy.

You replied:

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about me other than what I've posted here.

Do you mean that you don’t hold the beliefs you’ve written about?! Well then open the door and let them loose upon these forum pages. But what’s that you say…you do hold those beliefs you’ve written to be the truth…and they are a clear representation of the state of your mind. Ok then, so there is no surprise that Dan mistook your gender. For the beliefs you base your life upon are part of the fabric that constructs the feminine. And here at Genius, war was long ago pronounced on the feminine for its crime of being a barrier to Truth.

So don’t be afraid to let them show. Your true colours. True colours are beautiful

…in rare cases. But those true colours, your thoughts, do deserve to be backed up by you. You can’t use the excuse here that you’ve left your other thoughts back home in a different head. What you write IS YOU. If you think you have more to offer this forum, don’t hold back - let rip.