Re: How to Build a Stronger Ego - Steve Pavlina
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:30 am
Well, as a result.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Old Travis. In the beginning the futility of caring deeply owned him, then a purpose inspired by the intent of life set his mind free of that possession. Interesting that physically the actor Harry Dean Stanton closely resembled what an adolescent buddy of mine came to look like at that age.Talking Ass wrote:Cahoot: Paris, Texas is a pretty damn good film. That scene is pure Shepard. In fact, he wrote the beginning of the screenplay for the film but the middle of it Wenders struggled to write, but then Shepard came back in precisely with that scene and the ending of the film. The version of the film I have (Criterion Collection) has an a separate extra all the Super-8 they shot but didn't include. Radiant stuff.
I have a few other recommendations, if you like films: One is a Louis Malle production of the Chekhov play Uncle Vanya: 'Uncle Vanya on 42nd Street'. Masterful. Another film I tremendously admire is a Korean film by Lee Chang-Dong: 'Secret Sunshine'. A woman loses her husband and then her only little boy is killed and, avoiding her pain, has a Christian conversion. Then is forced to work her way back to reality, back to the reality of her loss, and away from this shallow conversion. It's very good. The other one is a German film by Götz Spielmann: 'Revanche'. A small-time German crook falls in love with a Russian hooker and to escape their mutual economic plight he robs a bank. Stupidly, he takes her along and she gets killed. But he escapes back to his grandfather's homestead in the country and the bulk of the film is his dealing with his 'revanche' (desire for revenge against the cop who shot his GF).
It is an interesting exercise to imagine these 'Dialogues of Enlightenment', the people here, and the contrast between a written projected existence and the 'real life' each must surely have, in a theatrical or dramatic setting. Dan with his karaoke. Dennis with his chihuahuas and their little electrocution collars. Blissful David on his bicycle. Liberty Sea with his volume of Heidegger in a cyclo wending its way through the busy streets of Hanoi. Bob Michaels with a copy of Mein Kampf and the layout of an Ark. Alex with his stacks of books and chintzy 'putas' in broken down Colombian hotels while the bells toll mass and the eagle screams (writing epic missives on his fucking iPhone! for christsakes!) Diebert stoically making his way across Dutch campuses of Higher Learning and tipping his hat to the damsels, stopping now and again to jot down a profundity. Movingalways in a full lotus posture with the backdoor open and the wind from some N Eastern forest blowing in leaves. Kunga with her oversized bottle of wine, tippy-tapping rhapsodies in capitals...
Every character has motivations, whether obvious and stated or perhaps unknown even to themselves. I think about this because at some point, I heard, David was writing a screenplay: a didactic drama to demonstrate his points about enlightenment. To some degree at least this is a theatrical medium since it is all moved along by dialogue and nothing else.
Yes, very good. Don't recall seeing that before (don't watch old films).One of the greatest movie scenes, though this isn't all of it.
That ought to tell us about all we need to know about the worth of his thoughts on spirituality, I think.but the one thing they usually have in common is that they’re borderline broke most of the time.
This is a very half-assed approach to enlightenment.
It's not about "seeking" the abyss, it's about preparing for it. Other than the recent Tibetan ruckus, one doesn't generally see Buddhists or Daiosts killing themselves off in droves, which would be the logical behavior if they were truly "seeking the abyss." It's only a rope or a gun away, and not hard to find. The point is to work on becoming prepared for the eventual loss of all that one has come to regard as meaningful and sigtnificant, culminating finally with the ultimnate loss of one's own individual idenity. Many are very deep denial of these facts, thinking that's all a joyride forever, and as a result, they also have to cope with extreme fear of what they spend so much time vainly trying to deny - the inevitable.Consider the words of the Ass, for only a fool or a nutcase seeks the abyss before his time.
I find what you have written interesting because you have really cut to the chase and located what the issue really seems to be: the terror of death and dissolution. Ernst Becker wrote The Denial of Death around that same notion. But not from within the structure of Buddhistic thinking or praxis, but from within and out of, if you will, the Western soul. And there is a big difference.Unidian wrote:The point is to work on becoming prepared for the eventual loss of all that one has come to regard as meaningful and significant, culminating finally with the ultimnate loss of one's own individual idenity. Many are very deep denial of these facts, thinking that's all a joyride forever, and as a result, they also have to cope with extreme fear of what they spend so much time vainly trying to deny - the inevitable.
If one can accomplish this (to at least some extent) before death, than they are at a psychological advantage when everything starts falling apart.
Guys like Steve Pavlina will have an unpleasant surprise when old age sets in, health flees, all their money becomes useless to them, and the reality of the Buddha's observations become clear. I hope it isn't too late for them by then, because death can be especially ugly for those who behave as if the world is a plaything and we get to live forever. We don't - not by a long shot. We have about 70-80 years (if lucky) to investigate reality and come to terms with it. That isn't a long time, and therefore it doesn't pay to waste any of it trying to pander to the ego and pretend life is our personal Disneyland.
I compressed your paragraphs and deleted a line or two for compactness and clarity. You say 'that ought to tell us about the worth of his spirituality' with a definite authority! But in actual fact there is no reason whatever why having or gaining wealth should be considered, or is, unspiritual. To refer to 'Jesus' or 'Buddha' is weak argumentation, it seems to me. I seem to remember, Nat, some of our previous conversations on this subject! While a strict life of mere wealth-getting is perverse---as perverse as many different perversions---gaining a certain amount of financial solidity, being able to contribute to the construction of things within this plane of existence, educating one's children, and creating with one's wealth and knowledge a decent world, or community, or family, just does not at all seem to me a bad idea. To 'self-actualize' in this plane of existence has all sorts of different elements.Unidian wrote:That ought to tell us about all we need to know about the worth of his thoughts on spirituality, I think. One can't make a much more egregious error than trying to tie it to material wealth. I'm not just borderline broke, I'm usually flat broke, and see it as having no relation to spirituality other than the fact that I share the non-materialistic views of people like Buddha, Jesus, etc. And that's actually quite a significant relation, come to think of it...
But life is our personal Disneyland (and torture chamber).Guys like Steve Pavlina will have an unpleasant surprise when old age sets in, health flees, all their money becomes useless to them, and the reality of the Buddha's observations become clear. I hope it isn't too late for them by then, because death can be especially ugly for those who behave as if the world is a plaything and we get to live forever. We don't - not by a long shot. We have about 70-80 years (if lucky) to investigate reality and come to terms with it. That isn't a long time, and therefore it doesn't pay to waste any of it trying to pander to the ego and pretend life is our personal Disneyland.
One does not have to have a truthful reality. To be content with life over the long term - all one needs is to be a fundamentalist – any kind of fundamentalist. Now this is certainly not ideal – but it is the truth. You just need some set of fixed ideas that you can attach to and always fall back on. Of course, the more rational the set of fundamentalist ideas, then the more likely they will provide the right course of action when needed.We have about 70-80 years (if lucky) to investigate reality and come to terms with it.