Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by David Quinn »

Here is an interesting fellow. A French priest who humbly spent his life serving the Church and his parishioners, all the while secretly despising everything about Christianity and religion in general. It was only after his death that his real views became public in the form of manuscripts he wrote late in his life.

His preface to these manuscripts begins:
  • When we wish to examine in a cool, calm way the opinions of men, we are very much surprised to find that in those which we consider the most essential, nothing is more rare than to find them using common sense; that is to say, the portion of judgment sufficient to know the most simple truths, to reject the most striking absurdities, and to be shocked by palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in Theology, a science revered in all times, in all countries, by the greatest number of mortals; an object considered the most important, the most useful, and the most indispensable to the happiness of society. If they would but take the trouble to sound the principles upon which this pretended science rests itself, they would be compelled to admit that the principles which were considered incontestable, are but hazardous suppositions, conceived in ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or bad intention, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by habit, which never reasons, and revered solely because it is not comprehended.
The full work can be read here: Superstition in All Ages. He was too afraid to air his views in public for fear of his own safety.

-
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Interesting food for thought, David, but here's where my focus remains. On the necessary radical shift of brain functioning or a complete psychic change if a totally new or enlightened state of being is to be attained.

http://www.landscapesofthesoul.com/essa ... _night.pdf
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

'A Weberian Sociology of Religious Experience'

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma ... ience.html
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Blair »

Bob Michael wrote:radical shift of brain functioning
The brain does not cope well with "radical shifts", it likely im/explodes.

Subtle is preferable.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Blair wrote:The brain does not cope well with "radical shifts", it likely im/explodes.
This is true. And when a genuine radical shift (which is a collapsing of the long conditioned and utilized self-protective thought mode of brain and organism functioning) does take place it may even lead to physical death (of oneself and/or others) or permanent insanity.
Blair wrote:Subtle is preferable.
Yes, it would be preferable. However, a genuine 'letting-go' (absolutely) is the total surrender or the giving up of (self) control, which is the cessation of all ridgid mentalization and its long held sense of right and wrong or good and evil, along with other things such as living according to other peoples' and society's expectations. Rendering one's actions very largely uncontrollable and unpredictable. So the journey to the 'promised land' is surely not without risks or perils. Nor is it for everyone either.

Interestingly M. Abukuma's states in his rather fine article: "The Buddhist's Nirvana is psychologically to enter the contemplative and euphoric possession of the sacred, which is only achieved by extraordinary persons."

I agree wholeheartedly with his view, which in a broader, non-Buddhist context (be it religious or non-religious) means that only a relatively few people anywhere are capable of genuine enlightenment or attaining to radically new and authentic human being ([i.e.] "Many are called, but few are chosen."). And my view remains that rarely do any of the 'chosen few' ever make a clean and permanent breakthrough. One that will truly and very importantly enable them to be effectively beneficial to others with similarly extraordinarily finely-formed and highly-sensitive souls. Which has certainly not been the case with a long list of men who have undergone this genuine shift in conscience, consciousness, or manner of brain functioning.

"God-consciousness is SIMPLY the consummation of human refinement." (Vimala Thakar)
Last edited by Bob Michael on Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Jamesh »

Ohh good, something to read on the train. I love anti-religious stuff.

Would love to know what percentage of current priests feel a similar way or would have similar viewpoints were one to break their religious habits for a period.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Blair »

Glad to see you're still alive jim.

Would be a little less crispy without ya.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Jamesh wrote:Would love to know what percentage of current priests feel a similar way or would have similar viewpoints were one to break their religious habits for a period.
And if the figure was 100%? Then what? And merely changing one's views or breaking a habit does not necessarily merit him or her fit for the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Heaven. Including Jean Meslier. Quite frankly a true man of faith cannot and will not play an imposter. Or certainy not for very long. And only a radical shift of mind and heart or a complete psychic change along with unending and rigorously honest self or soul purification will gain one permanent residency on that Other Shore.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

interesting fellow indeed. I can actually sympathize with his inability to come clean about his real feelings towards the church. Back then, the church was one of the biggest 'corporations' in town, and there wasn't much opportunity for survival, as I do not believe Europe had much of a safety net back then. And for a thinker, how many places could you actually work for back then, as most of the jobs were much more hellish than many jobs now.

Many modern men do that nowadays with companies, they see the circus show around them, they see the stupidity, indifference and hypocrisy on a daily basis, but they learn to vent in private, vent away from the guy who decides whether you have a job or not.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Many modern men do that nowadays with companies, they see the circus show around them, they see the stupidity, indifference and hypocrisy on a daily basis, but they learn to vent in private, vent away from the guy who decides whether you have a job or not.
Which is to live a lie for the sake of the almighty buck (venting or not) and suffer the consequences.

"All instincts that cannot be released outwards will turn inwards." (Nietzsche)

"Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Christ)

"To thine own self be true." (Shakespeare)
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Bob Michael wrote:
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Many modern men do that nowadays with companies, they see the circus show around them, they see the stupidity, indifference and hypocrisy on a daily basis, but they learn to vent in private, vent away from the guy who decides whether you have a job or not.
Which is to live a lie for the sake of the almighty buck (venting or not) and suffer the consequences.

"All instincts that cannot be released outwards will turn inwards." (Nietzsche)

"Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Christ)

"To thine own self be true." (Shakespeare)
COURAGE to CHANGE the things I can. (Niebuhr)
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Jamesh »

Baird: [Glad to see you're still alive jim]

Yeah still kicking around. My brain has lost significant interest in philosophy and posting on forums these days. I'm back in the land of the worldly matters, the dreaming void, and only sometime post on a newspaper forum.

[Would be a little less crispy without ya]

:) Well, I cough up some bad shit these days (not too bad though). Might mean I'm getting closer to hell on earth, so you are probably right.

[Many modern men do that nowadays with companies, they see the circus show around them, they see the stupidity, indifference and hypocrisy on a daily basis, but they learn to vent in private, vent away from the guy who decides whether you have a job or not]

I do that. I'm just a lot more vocal than most, probably more so than anyone where I currently work. I don't get promotions, but that doesn't bother me much, well apart from the lack of personal control of how everything should be done.

Bob:
[…and only a radical shift of mind and heart or a complete psychic change along with unending and rigorously honest self or soul purification will gain one permanent residency on that Other Shore.]

I lack the earnestness, as I have a nature that is too undisciplined and I don't really accept that the reward is real, so faith is missing.

In any case being 50 I'm way too old, experience has made my brain non-enlightenable. It is far easier to travel mostly along well worn neural paths, viewing the scenery, than to work myself into a state where I have to be born again by fracturing my mind in order to get away from the self-imposed need to be enlightened. Such desires are for the youthful.

[which is the cessation of all rigid mentalization and its long held sense of right and wrong or good and evil, along with other things such as living according to other peoples' and society's expectations]

[One that will truly and very importantly enable them to be effectively beneficial to others with similarly extraordinarily finely-formed and highly-sensitive souls]

Are not you still judging right and wrong, in which case your break is not total. That is nature of deep philosophy - it goes in circles, then swallows it's own tale.

You also need to ensure your ego is not getting the better of you, there is a smell of ego about your words - take care of elitist delusions of grandeur. I've yet to sense any referred-to-as-maybe-enlightened person who wasn't fundamentally still human, still subject in some way to emotions and current affects, still imperfect or lacking in some way, no matter whom you may quote.

It is possible to be closer to enlightenment than anyone else, but there is no point where one can say they are enlightened. That is just an ideal. Absolute poles exist only as imagined things. Apart from time, there is no thing that is an absolute end point in the spectrum of opposite appearances within nature. The closest thing to an absolute is the speed of light, but really it isn't, the ultimate would be instantaneous, such as exists with a continuum such as time or the totality.

As for my delusions of grandeur, well I truly believe I understand the "why and how" of the universe, so I'm philosophically content (as opposed to emotionally content, which I suppose an enlightened person would be at all times). That is not at all to suggest I know much particularly about the detail within. I'm only referring to the overall process. The how and why is quite simple - it is simply that time is the only form of real existence. It is both causality and content. With that as the base fact, resting below but in tandem with, the various QRS's logical observations about reality, and Newtons, Einsteins basic universal laws of nature, I have been able to foresee a path to anything we observe in the physical world. I just lack the discipline, interest, memory recall ability, and time to prove it scientifically :)

Details within are simply reality causing emotional reactions (I class all feelings of any kind as emotions - they are the two-way interaction between the brain and chemicals that inform consciousness how to categorise one's current state). Facts are essentially emotional entities, as without the emotion underlying the fact they become meaningless. I'm more interested in entertainment and stimulation. I like that side of being human and accept the negative cost - the suffering of desire and shorter life than otherwise may have been. Is your active desire for enlightenment really that different at core?
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Jamesh: I lack the earnestness, as I have a nature that is too undisciplined and I don't really accept that the reward is real, so faith is missing.

Bob: Sensitivity of the organism and its accompanying passion are the source of earnestness. Though most people lack these necessary qualities.

Jamesh: In any case being 50 I'm way too old, experience has made my brain non-enlightenable. It is far easier to travel mostly along well worn neural paths, viewing the scenery, than to work myself into a state where I have to be born again by fracturing my mind in order to get away from the self-imposed need to be enlightened. Such desires are for the youthful.

Bob: Enlightenment is possible at 50, though it's not all that likely to happen. U. G. Krishnamurti was 49 when he experienced enlightenment. Which he preferred to call the 'natural state'. Tolstoy I think was over 50.

Jamesh: Are not you still judging right and wrong, in which case your break is not total. That is nature of deep philosophy - it goes in circles, then swallows it's own tale.

Bob: I'm simply pointing out what I perceive things to be. Just as we all do.

Jamesh: You also need to ensure your ego is not getting the better of you, there is a smell of ego about your words - take care of elitist delusions of grandeur. I've yet to sense any referred-to-as-maybe-enlightened person who wasn't fundamentally still human, still subject in some way to emotions and current affects, still imperfect or lacking in some way, no matter whom you may quote.

Bob: I've said previously and often that all the heretofore enlightened men fell short of the fully glory of the Infinite. Yet their minds and bodies definitely functioned differently than those of the unenlightened masses. And where there is no 'self' there can be no ego, no pride, no conceit, no "elitist delusions of grandeur." Just a stating of the truth as one understands it.

Jamesh: It is possible to be closer to enlightenment than anyone else, but there is no point where one can say they are enlightened. That is just an ideal. Absolute poles exist only as imagined things. Apart from time, there is no thing that is an absolute end point in the spectrum of opposite appearances within nature. The closest thing to an absolute is the speed of light, but really it isn't, the ultimate would be instantaneous, such as exists with a continuum such as time or the totality.

Bob: Once again, enlightenment is a real, extraordinary, and absolute state of being in which one's mind especially functions in a revolutionarily different manner then the old mind and the minds of the multitude.

Jamesh: As for my delusions of grandeur, well I truly believe I understand the "why and how" of the universe, so I'm philosophically content (as opposed to emotionally content, which I suppose an enlightened person would be at all times). That is not at all to suggest I know much particularly about the detail within. I'm only referring to the overall process. The how and why is quite simple - it is simply that time is the only form of real existence. It is both causality and content. With that as the base fact, resting below but in tandem with, the various QRS's logical observations about reality, and Newtons, Einsteins basic universal laws of nature, I have been able to foresee a path to anything we observe in the physical world. I just lack the discipline, interest, memory recall ability, and time to prove it scientifically :)

Bob: Due primarily to lack of sensitivity, most people are quite 'content' living in delusion and self-will. Thus the fire of fully authentic human life and being is not in them. Consequently there're piling up negative karma including contributing to the ills of the world around them.

Jamesh: Details within are simply reality causing emotional reactions (I class all feelings of any kind as emotions - they are the two-way interaction between the brain and chemicals that inform consciousness how to categorise one's current state). Facts are essentially emotional entities, as without the emotion underlying the fact they become meaningless. I'm more interested in entertainment and stimulation. I like that side of being human and accept the negative cost - the suffering of desire and shorter life than otherwise may have been. Is your active desire for enlightenment really that different at core?

Bob: The "desire for enlightenment" no longer exists here, it has been achieved. Though the organism must continue to be perfected. And continued uncomfortability and suffering direct it along that course.
Albert Einstein wrote: The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our 'modes of thinking', and thus we drift toward 'unparalleled catastrophe'.

Here Einstein states a tragic fact that I suspect he himself lacked a deep and comprehensive understanding or certainy of.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Blair »

Gee I wonder why.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Blair wrote:Gee I wonder why.
He lacked the courage to fully examine the tragic nature of the human condition. Instead he stuck his head in the sand of science and frittered a good portion of his life away working on his foolish and fruitless unified field theory.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Bob,
Which is to live a lie for the sake of the almighty buck (venting or not) and suffer the consequences.

"All instincts that cannot be released outwards will turn inwards." (Nietzsche)

"Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Christ)

"To thine own self be true." (Shakespeare)
hey Bob, I actually agree with you. Putting up with unconsciousness and not confronting it directly for the sake of money is not ideal. But to live the full ideal with everyone you encounter, one needs to disregard all negative consequences related to survival that comes to oneself including loss of job, social alienation, death threats, attempts on your life, and so on. I admire guys like Jesus and Socrates, they had enormous faith and total disregard for their own survival, they had balls, and I respect that, but my own weakness is that I do not want to end up being crucified or made to drink hemlock for stating the obvious to some douchebag who has never picked up a philosophy book...

Some call it fear, but I'd like to think of it as....well, fear I guess....: P

I basically think of it as a necessary compromise if you are in a position where you need to work for a corporation. Because unconsciousness corporate overlords tend to to not enjoy it very much when some entry level peasant walks in with his fancy words and indifferent demeanor and shows him the ethical errors of his ways by pointing out how many people he has had to ass rape to get where he is, and how he contradicts himself daily depending on whether it benefits him or not.

So I understand your point very well, and I understand why guys like Diogenes lived in a barrel urinating on rich men as they walked by...

But why should men of character compromise their standards of living because humanity stinks? I prefer to mingle with the monsters, understand them deeply, while on the side, plotting to undermine everything they are...
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by Bob Michael »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Hey Bob, I actually agree with you. Putting up with unconsciousness and not confronting it directly for the sake of money is not ideal. But to live the full ideal with everyone you encounter, one needs to disregard all negative consequences related to survival that comes to oneself including loss of job, social alienation, death threats, attempts on your life, and so on. I admire guys like Jesus and Socrates, they had enormous faith and total disregard for their own survival, they had balls, and I respect that, but my own weakness is that I do not want to end up being crucified or made to drink hemlock for stating the obvious to some douchebag who has never picked up a philosophy book...
What you fail to realize here, Ryan, as I've said before, is that when a man becomes fully awake, fully alive, and fully human and then discovers that he's surrounded everywhere by thoroughly dehumanized and thereby as good as dead human beings while he's lacking an effective approach to successfully resurrect some of those living dead in order for him to have some truly fun company in life, his own bodily death begins to look sweet and quite acceptable to him. However, if he can perfectly follow the will of the Infinite, which the two guys you mentioned failed to do, there'll be no cross or hemlock for him to have to deal with. Instead and ideally he'll go out in a blaze of glory, and quite possibly with much applause. Or perhaps a relatively quiet and uneventful mahasamadhi might also be an option. But surely there'll be no cross or hemlock for this "This man of the future, who.....must come one day."
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by windhawk »

Not to doubt the veracity of the translation (or you David), but I've never read anyone who wrote in that style during that period of time. Everything was over the top, rehtoric wise, and normaly as dense as lead when one tries to pull out the issues.

Have you read the original? Kant, Hegal et al, are mighty tough reads.

Just asking ;-)
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Jean Meslier (1678-1733)

Post by windhawk »

I just googled the guy, and Voltaire in French is quite a bit more nuanced than most people realize; however, the translation appears quite passable.

As one of my philosophy professors one said about his study in Leipzig, "They string one damn sentence on forever; leaving you to feel confident, even arogrant, about one's command of the German language, and then they put a modifer on the end of it, which changes the meaning of the whole thing, leaving you to scamble about like a fool trying figure out, 'What'd he just say'."

French, is quite different.
Locked