Animals and nirvana

[Dennis Mahar]

Whatever you're saying about ok/ not-ok is yours not mine
for the assignment of those, a construct is in place in order to
Perform that act.
distinguishing that.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,
Of course its an assumption.
and it holds ground phenomenally.
what we're talking about is affectivity,
Response to suffering.
constructing an archetype against a natural response to suffering
is to lose the way.
a pretense.

Is it an archetype (an expansion of understanding would be appreciated) or mindfulness of the true nature of reality? From the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: "But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed."

[Leyla Shen]

L: Those “low conscious reactions” are highly tuned, evolutionary responses to the environment. So, unless you want to suggest that the natural environment doesn’t exist and only the supreme high conscious of a super-human does, I really don’t see what is “low conscious” about them.

D: Just having highly tuned, evolutionary responses to the environment does not create any reflections on having "existence" or not.

Oh? Well, I’ve asked you several times a few different ways now. So, again, what exactly is your hypothesis? What “created” the human attribute of (self) reflection?

D: They don't need to and they would react on truth and falsehood alike.

If by this you mean that instinct become useless when the environment for which the organism has been naturally selected changes radically, then sure—there is a problem if that species cannot adapt. We might call this “reacting on truth and falsehood alike”, or we might just call it evolution and natural selection.

Let’s see how we go with this before addressing the rest of your reply.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
Above you amended your position to "he has a chance", a position I find to be more realistic and certainly, more hopeful. Without hope for every being to enter Nirvana, does not Nirvana then fall short of its Ideal?

David wrote: Ah, that is your human sense of fairness and justice coming into play. If only it were so! Here we have a clash between how you would like things to be and how things really are.

Not a sense of fairness and justice but an awareness that no realm of existence is permanent, including that of human being, meaning that logically every being in every realm of existence will eventually be liberated of [the concept of] existence. Is not every causal body the totality of the realms, from the lowest to the highest?

I acknowledge a clash between how I would like things to be and how things really are; do you not experience the same clash, that being the desire for all to become liberated from existence which is in contrast to how things really are, most hate or love their existence? Did not the Buddha experience this same clash, did not Jesus, did not Lao Tzu? Is not the clash of wisdom vs. ignorance the reason for compassion's existence?

David wrote: "Cosmology" is not the right word for it. It is simply a mentally-created map or schemata, a way of analyzing the human condition in the context of wisdom. The 31 planes of existence (or 6 planes, or 9, or whatever number the individual sage happens to make up) are categories of psychological experience, which serve as a tool for helping people assess what they need to do in order to make spiritual progress.

Do you consider the conditions of body hunger and body thirst to be psychological rather than physiological?

[Dennis Mahar]

True nature is before whatever is deemed ok/not ok.

[David Quinn]

Whatever you're saying about ok/ not-ok is yours not mine
for the assignment of those, a construct is in place in order to
Perform that act.
distinguishing that.

Agreed. And by the same token, your own constructs with their particular Oks and not-Oks are not mine.

You do admit to utilizing such constructs, don't you? Please say you do.

True nature is before whatever is deemed ok/not ok.

Agreed. At the same, it shouldn't be forgotten that the deeming of OK and not-Ok is also a part of true nature.

I am reminded of an observation by Chuang Tzu: "He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge." Sometimes I have the feeling that you are too focused on the Heavenly part (consciousness of non-duality) and too neglectful of the Human (purpose, discrimination, action).

We can paraphrase Chuang Tzu this way: He who knows how to discriminate wisely while remaining untouched by all discrimination has reached the perfection of knowledge.

[David Quinn]

People like Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Bono, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lady Gaga, Picasso, the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict - i.e. the wealthy, the charismatic, the socially powerful, the beautiful, the clever and the gifted - these are the gods who have too much to lose to ever want to seek out the human realm.

I wouldn't put anyone in that list except Bill Gates and Picasso in the "god" realms. My understanding is that the god realms are the realm of experiencing a purely *intellectual* bliss, clarity or power, which may or may not spill over into the realm of the emotions. I find it useful to refer to great men who exhibit some of the characteristics of enlightenment, but not all, as gods. Bach was a "god", of sorts, as were philosophers like Weininger, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer(to a much greater extent of course).

You're probably making use of a different schemata here. The schemata I was using is the traditional Buddhist one:

The Six Domains

The six domains of the desire realm are as follows:
the god (Sanskrit, Pali: deva) domain
the jealous god (S., P.: asura) domain
the human (S. manuṣya, P. manussa) domain
the animal (S. tiryagyoni, P. tiracchānayoni) domain
the hungry ghost (S. preta, P. petta) domain
the hell (S: naraka, P. niraya) domain

God Realm (Blissful State)

The Deva realm is the realm of bliss. The disadvantage of this realm is that things are so very comfortable there, that these beings completely neglect to work towards enlightenment. Instead they gradually use up the good karma they had previously accumulated, and so they subsequently fall to a lower rebirth.

The Deva realm is sometimes also referred to as the gods' realm, because its inhabitants are so powerful within their own realm, that compared to humans, they resemble the gods of Greek or Roman mythology. However, while the Devas may be referred to as gods, they are not immortal, omniscient, nor omnipotent, and they do not act as creators or judges at death, so they are notably very distinct from the monotheistic Western concept of a god.

Asura Realm

The Asura realm is the realm of the demigods. They are here because of actions based on egoic jealousy, envy, insincerity, struggle, combat or rationalization of the world. They may be here because in human form they had good intentions but committed bad actions such as harming others. The Asuras of some inferior realms however, are malevolent (such as the corruptor Mara) and can be more closely related to the translation of demon that is sometimes ascribed to them. These can be alternatively referred to as Rakshasas.
The Asuras are said to experience a much more pleasurable life than humans, but they are plagued by envy for the devas, whom they can see just as animals can perceive humans.

The Asura realm is also sometimes referred to as the Ashura realm, Titan realm, Jealous God realm, Demigod realm, or Anti-God realm. Asura is also sometimes translated as "demon," "fighting demon," "those without wine," or "angry ghost". The inaccurate translation can cause confusion because beings of the hell realm are also sometimes referred to as demons.

Human Realm

The Human realm (also known as the Manuṣya realm) is based on passion, desire, doubt, and pride.
Buddhists see this realm as human existence. A human rebirth is in fact considered to be the by far most advantageous of all possible rebirths in samsara because a human rebirth is the samsaric realm from which one can directly ensure enlightenment either in the present or future birth (for anagamis, the actual liberation occurs in a deva realm). This is because of the unique possibilities that a human rebirth offers.

A human rebirth is considered to have tremendous potential when used correctly, however we usually waste our human lifetime in materialistic pursuits, and end up reinforcing our unhelpful emotions, thoughts, and actions. Because of this, it is almost always the case that one descends to a lower rebirth after a human life, rather than immediately going on to another human birth.
In the lower realms, such as the animal realm, it is a very slow and difficult process to accumulate enough merit to achieve a human birth once again, so it may be countless lifetimes before one has another chance.

And so on. The rest of the article can be seen here.

So for the purposes of classification, I would put Bill Gates in the deva realm, while Rupert Murdoch in an asura. The bliss of a Bill Gates doesn't come from any kind of deep intellectual understanding; it comes from finding life easy, by being effortlessly successful, by being praised and worshipped wherever he goes. Murdoch, on the other hand, is driven to succeed because he is consumed by insecurity and envy.

Back to your point, I would agree that the deva and asura realms can include philosopher-types. Osho, for example, was a deva. He may have started out as a human, but he soon found the worldly trappings of philosophic success too irresistible and degenerated into a deva instead. Nietzsche more or less stayed human, even if he had one foot firmly planted in the asura realm. Weininger oscillated between human and hell. Kierkegaard was pure and always remained human.

[Kelly Jones]

To my knowledge, Kierkegaard's journals show an ongoing awareness of struggling against melancholy. So he had some element of hell. He rarely gave into it, but it was like an irritating skin disease affecting his moods. He was occasionally bitter and sardonic. The melancholia was probably seated in the childhood awareness that he was not "universal", meaning, he wasn't one of the masses, but was more conscious, intelligent and capable than anyone living he knew; and then he also realised that the truths of the universal man (Christendom) were at direct odds with the truths of spirit and Christianity. This profounder perception of human life, awakening him to constant conflict with everyone he met, meant he had to accept the tremendous and unceasing burden of responsibility in trying to communicate and help others, despite knowing in advance that it would be largely unavailing and that he would be made to suffer for it. Being under this unrelenting and intense strain for most of his life, for which he himself provided the only cure and relief, it was a truly glorious indication of his strength of character and mind, that he didn't succumb to melancholy or anything worse. His last journal entry, in the light of his terrifying life, reads as quite probably the greatest overcoming anyone has ever achieved.

[jupiviv]

The bliss of a Bill Gates doesn't come from any kind of deep intellectual understanding; it comes from finding life easy, by being effortlessly successful, by being praised and worshipped wherever he goes.

Well I didn't say that "gods" must necessarily have any deep intellectual understanding, but elements of it. Basically they use whatever understanding they have("good karma") for deluded ends, rather than going further. They're like the zen monks that Hakuin talked about.

Finding life easy and being successful per se are part of the animal realm, like a goldfish or a pack leader.

Nietzsche more or less stayed human, even if he had one foot firmly planted in the asura realm. Weininger oscillated between human and hell. Kierkegaard was pure and always remained human.

Actually, I think philosophers with an unusual degree of understanding like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard or Weininger alternated between many different realms, since they were courageous enough to face their demons. Weininger said somewhere that the experiences of the genius are, in addition to being clearer and deeper, also much more varied than those of others. So they could be called Bodhisattvas in various stages of development.

Others like Kant, Russell, Locke or Leibniz may be said to be in the god realms, or even the form and formless realms.

The point is that the realms of existence are a psychological categorisation based on the proportion of consciousness and unconsciousness in a person's mind. That wikipedia article wasn't very good. Quoting from the Surangam sutra:

The realm of devas
‘If his mind is wholly thoughtful, it will fly in the air and he will be reborn in heaven. If in this flight it is filled with blessedness and wisdom strongly sustained by his pure vow, it will open to let him behold the pure lands of all Buddhas in the ten directions; he will be reborn there as a result of his vow.

The realm of seers (rishis) and spirits
‘If his mind is more thoughtful than passionate, it will not be light enough for him to fly to distant places; he will be reborn as a flying rishi, a powerful king of ghosts, a flying yaksha or an earthbound rakshasa. He will be able to roam freely in the heavens of the four deva kings. If he is good natured and has taken a vow to protect my Dharma and those who observe the precepts, repeat the mantras, meditate and realize patient endurance, he will dwell beneath the throne of the Tathagata.

The realm of human beings
‘If his thoughts and passions are in equal proportions, he will neither rise nor sink, but will be reborn in the realm of human beings where his intelligence comes from the clearness of his thoughts and his stupidity from the dullness of his passions.

The realm of animals
‘If his passions exceed his thoughts, he will be reborn in the realm of animals where great passions create beasts with hair and fur and mild passions produce winged and feathered creatures.

The realm of hungry ghosts
‘If his passions and thoughts are in the proportion of seven to three, he will sink into the wheel of water close to the region of fire, will endure intense heat and be reborn as a hungry ghost whose body is constantly scorched by heat and drowned in water, so that he will suffer from hunger and thirst for hundreds and thousands of aeons.

The realm of hells
If his passions and thoughts are in the proportion of nine to one, he will sink into the wheel of fire and be reborn where wind and fire meet. He will dwell in the intermittent hell if his passions are great, in the unintermittent one if they are very strong, and in the avici hell if he is completely dominated by extremely violent ones. If in addition he slanders the Mahàyàna, breaks the Buddha’s precepts, distorts the Dharma when preaching it to deceive his patrons for selfish gain or for fame, and commits the five rebellious acts and ten grave sins he will be reborn (in turn) in all the avici hells. ‘

Although the above are self-inflicted retributions resulting from individual evil deeds, all sinners endure the same kinds of suffering which originate from (the same) concurrent causes.

[jupiviv]

To my knowledge, Kierkegaard's journals show an ongoing awareness of struggling against melancholy.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of it had to with that love affair he had. He tried to immerse himself in the animal realms, and had to pay the price.

Also, about the quote in my previous post, being "reborn" does not necessarily refer to just one person. It could be an entire society, or a family, or just a different person. A single mother who goes to happy hour every afternoon leaving her kid at home, is obviously engaging in the animal realms, and may be said to be reborn in the kid who grows up to be a cocaine dealer(the hell/preta realms).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

They don't need to and they would react on truth and falsehood alike.

If by this you mean that instinct become useless when the environment for which the organism has been naturally selected changes radically, then sure

The instincts remain relative dumb and their development relative slow on evolutionary timescales. We're dealing with the timescales of cultures, knowledge and general perception. Human beings function in a relatively fast moving context. The human mind appears very flexible with its ability to adapt and form new ways to deal with profound changes in his environment. It cannot reprogram the instincts but some degree of repression or sublimation have shown to be possiblities so far.

What “created” the human attribute of (self) reflection?

Are you asking about all the causes? There are consciousness studies for theories on that. The philosophical view I find useful is that of Spinoza with his three types of knowledge: 1. instinct & opinion 2. reason & knowledge 3. intuition & enlightenment. They can be all three present and active but are still distinct types. So when trying to know oneself it's a mixture of opinion and feeling, then some reason and logic applied which could act as a guide to a more intuitive "direct" grasp of ones own nature and the nature of reality.

[Leyla Shen]

What?

[jupiviv]

What?

Female philosophy in a nutshell!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What?

That there's a big difference between primate instincts and human intuition. The first ones might be "highly tuned" but still pretty crude on other scales, like the one of self-knowledge.

[Leyla Shen]

What?

Female philosophy in a nutshell!

As long as it was understood to have nothing in common with the reply it was directed at, you can call it whatever you like, you masculine thing, you.

What?

That there's a big difference between primate instincts and human intuition. The first ones might be "highly tuned" but still pretty crude on other scales, like the one of self-knowledge.

Oh, I see. Like the adeptly executed intuition demonstrated in your last post? Well, I guess I should say thanks for reducing the exchange down to its essence so expeditiously and figuring that out for me, Diebert. Who would have thunk it, eh!?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So, are you still going to talk about something of just make more female philosophy nutshell noises?

[Leyla Shen]

Shit.

Having been made aware of it, far be it from me to impose either one of those two options upon a reluctant benevolent god!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But you did go with one option despite the reported awareness. Every sentence a snake onto itself.

[Leyla Shen]

I call it sarcasm.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Taken from the word σαρκάζειν meaning "to tear flesh, bite the lip in rage, sneer".

Perhaps you should have taken the snake option of biting its own ass. One reply can after all cover several perceived possibilities of intent.

[Leyla Shen]

No thanks. I'll stick with the modern definition of sarcasm and point out that the option was always available for you to engage philosophically.

You surely don't need my help there, now do you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In the mean time you still don't address any content or make it clear which part was unclear in whose post.

And yet calling for others to "engage philosophically". That's called irony, for the witness that is.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: To my knowledge, Kierkegaard's journals show an ongoing awareness of struggling against melancholy.

Jupiviv: I could be wrong, but I think a lot of it had to with that love affair he had. He tried to immerse himself in the animal realms, and had to pay the price.

You are wrong, as it happens. Kierkegaard was 24 years old when he first met Regina, on a visit to the Rørdam family. She was only 14 or so (from memory). Kierkegaard was prone to melancholy long before then.

A significant part of the melancholy, not mentioned above, was his inner feeling of being cursed. The family had a belief that, because the father had cried against God in his youth, each family member would die prematurely and the father be left alone in the end, the family line cut off in his lifetime. So Kierkegaard's father's death when Soren was 25 took them all by surprise. It was a climactic point for Soren, since prior to this, he knew himself to be a prodigal, using his enormous wit and youthful energy to establish himself as an audaciously witty leader of the young scholars, which he privately wrote made him feel like killing himself. He didn't yet know the idea which he was to live for. He writes of his spiritual confusion and indecision a year before his father's death, that being two years before meeting Regina:

Copenhagen, June 1, 1835

You know how very enthusiastically I listened to you in the past, how interested I was in your description of your stay in Brazil, although not so much in the mass of detailed observations you made, enriching yourself and your scholarship, as in your first impressions of those natural wonders, your paradisiacal joy and happiness. Something like this always appeals to any man of warmth and feelings, even if he intends to find his satisfaction and work in an entirely different field; it is especially appealing to the young, who as yet only dream about their destiny. Our early youth is like a flower at dawn, cupping a lovely dewdrop, reflecting pensively and harmoniously its surroundings. But soon the sun rises over the horizon and the dewdrop evaporates; with it vanish life's dreams, and now the question is (to use once again a flower metaphor) whether one is able, like the oleander, to produce by his own effort a drop that can stand as the fruit of his life. This requires, above all, that a person find the soil where he really belongs, but that is not always so easy to discover. In this respect there are fortunate temperaments so decisively oriented in a particular direction that they go steadily along the path once assigned to them without ever entertaining the thought that perhaps they should really be taking another path. There are others who let themselves be so completely directed by their environment that they never become clear about what they are really working toward. Just as the former class has its internal categorical imperative, so the latter has an external categorical imperative. But how few there are in the former class, and to the latter I do not wish to belong. The majority will get to try out in life what the Hegelian dialectic really means. Incidentally, it is altogether proper that wine ferments before it becomes clear; nevertheless the particular aspects of this condition are often unpleasant, although regarded in its totality, of course, it has its own pleasantness, inasmuch as it still has its relative results in the context of the universal doubt. It is especially significant for the person who through this comes to realize his destiny, not only because of the contrasting tranquillity that follows the preceding storm but also because then life has an entirely different meaning than previously. This is the Faustian element that for a time asserts itself more or less in every intellectual development, which is why I have always been of the opinion that world-significance ought to be attributed to the idea of Faust. Just as our forefathers had a goddess of longing, so, in my opinion, Faust is no doubt personified. More he should not be, and it certainly is a sin against the idea when Goethe allows Faust to be converted in the same way as Mèrimèe lets Don Juan be converted. Do not raise the objection that the moment Faust addressed himself to the devil he made a positive step, for right here, it seems to me, is one of the most profound elements in the Faust legend. He approached the devil for the express purpose of becoming enlightened on things about which he was previously unenlightened, and precisely because he addressed himself to the devil, his doubt increased (just as a sick man falling into the hands of a quack is likely to get even worse.) Admittedly Mephistopheles let him look through his spectacles into the hidden secrets of man and the world, but Faust could still not avoid having doubts about him, for he could never enlighten him about the most profound intellectual matters. In accordance with his idea he could never turn to God, for once he did that, he would have to say to himself that here was the true enlightenment, and at the same moment he would, in fact, deny his character as a doubter.

But this kind of doubt can also show itself in other spheres. Even if a man has come to terms with himself on several such main issues, there are still other important questions in life. Naturally every man desires to be active in the world according to his own aptitudes, but this again means that he wishes to develop his aptitudes in a particular direction, namely, in the direction best suited to his individuality. But which direction is that? Here I stand before a big question mark. Here I stand like Hercules, but not at the crossroads — no, here there are a good many more roads to take and thus it is much more difficult to choose the right one. It is perhaps my misfortune that I am interested in far too much and not decisively in any one thing; my interests are not subordinated to one but instead all stand coordinate.

I will try to indicate how things look to me.

The natural sciences. If I look first of all at this whole movement (including in this classification all those who seek to clarify and interpret the runic inscriptions of nature: from those who calculate the course of the stars and, so to speak, stop them in order to inspect them more closely, to those who describe the physiology of a particular animal; from those who survey the countryside from the heights of the mountains to those who descend to the depths of the abyss; from those who follow the development of the human body through its countless nuances to those who examine intestinal worms, I would of course see examples along this road, as on every other road (but principally on this one), of people who have made a name for themselves in the literature by their enormous assiduousness in collecting. They know a great many details and have discovered many new ones, but nothing more. They have merely provided a substratum for others to think about and work up. These men are satisfied with their details, and yet to me they are like the rich farmer in the gospel: they have collected a great deal in the barn, but science can say to them: "Tomorrow I will demand your life," insofar as that is what decides the significance each separate finding is to have in the whole picture. To the extent that there is a kind of unconscious life in such a man's knowledge, to that extent the sciences can be said to demand his life; to the extent that this is not the case, his activity is like that of the man who contributes to the upkeep of the earth by the decomposition of his dead body. This, of course, is not the case in other instances, with the kind of scientific researches who through their reflection have found or are trying to find that Archimedean point which is nowhere in the world and from that point have surveyed the whole and have seen the details in their proper light. As far as they are concerned, I do not deny that they have had a very salutary effect on me. One rarely finds tranquility, harmony, and joy such as theirs. Here in Copenhagen we have three worthy representatives: An Ørstead, whose face to me has always resembled a Chladni figure that nature has touched in the right way; a Schouw, who provides a study for an artist wanting to paint Adam giving names to all the animals; and finally a Hornemann, who, intimate with every plant, stands like a patriarch in nature. In this respect I also remember with joy the impression you made upon me, you who stood as the representative of a great nature that also should have its voice in parliament. I have been enthusiastic about the natural sciences and still am, but I do not think that I will make them my principal study. The life by virtue of reason [Fornuft] and freedom has always interested me most, and it has always been my desire to clarify and solve the riddle of life. The forty years in the wilderness before I reach the promised land of natural sciences seem too costly to me, all the more since I believe that nature can also be observed from a side that does not involve insight into the secrets of science. What difference does it make whether I view the whole world in a single flower or listen to the many hints that nature offers about human life, whether I admire the bold freehand sketches in the firmament or the nature-sounds in Ceylon remind me of those sounds in the spiritual world or the departure of the migratory birds reminds me of the deeper longings in man's breast.

Theology. This seems to be my most immediate choice, but here also there are great difficulties. Christianity itself has such great contradictions that a clear view is hindered, to say the least. As you well know, I grew up in orthodoxy, so to speak, but as soon as I began to think for myself the enormous colossus gradually began to totter. I call it an enormous colossus deliberately, for taken as a whole it actually is very consistent and through the many centuries the separate parts have fused together so tightly that it is difficult to get at it. Now I could very well accept particular parts of it, but then these would prove comparable to the seedlings often found in rock fissures. On the other hand, I could probably also see the distortions in many separate points, but for a time I was obliged to let the main foundation stand in dubio. The moment that was changed, the whole thing took on an entirely different cast, and thus my attention was drawn to another phenomenon: rationalism, which on the whole looks rather second-rate. As long as reason [Fornuften] consistently follows its own nature and, by analyzing the relation between God and the world, again comes to look at man in his deepest and most inward relation to God and in this respect also from its own viewpoint considers Christianity to be that which has satisfied man's deepest needs for many centuries, as long as this is the case, there is nothing objectionable, but then it is no longer rationalism, for rationalism acquires its own special coloring from Christianity and consequently is in a completely different sphere from Christianity and does not construct a system but a Noah's ark (to use an expression Professor Heiberg used on another occasion) in which the clean and the unclean animals lie down side by side. It creates just about the same impression our National Guard of the old days would make alongside the Potsdam Guard. That is why it virtually tries to attach itself to Christianity, bases its formulations on scripture, and sends a legion of Bible passages in advance of every single point, but the formulation itself is not penetrated by it. They conduct themselves like Cambyses, who in his campaign against Egypt sent the sacred chickens and cats ahead, but they are also prepared, like the Roman consul, to throw the sacred chickens overboard if they will not eat. The fallacy is that they use scripture as a basis when they agree with it but otherwise not, and thus they rest on two alien positions.

Nonnulla desunt.

— As far as little annoyances are concerned, I will say only that I am starting to study for the theological examination, a pursuit that does not interest me in the least and that therefore does not get done very fast. I have always preferred free, perhaps therefore also indefinite, studying to the boarding house where one knows beforehand who the guests will be and what food will be served each day of the week. Since it is, however, a requirement, and one scarcely gets permission to enter into the scholarly pastures without being branded, and since in view of my present state of mind I regard it as advantageous, plus the fact that I know that by going through with it I can make my father happy (he thinks that the real land of Canaan lies on the other side of the theological diploma, but in addition, like Moses of old, ascends Mount Tabor and declares that I will never get in — yet I hope that it will not be fulfilled this time), so I had better dig in. How lucky you are to have found an enormous field of investigation in Brazil, where every step offers something new, where the screaming of the rest of the Republic of Scholars does not disturb your peace. To me the scholarly theological world is like Strandveien on Sunday afternoon during the Dyrehaug season* — they dash by each other, yelling and shouting, laugh and make fools of each other, drive their horses to death, tip over and are run over, and when they finally come — covered with dust and out of breath — to Bakken — well, they just look at each other, turn around, and go home.

As far as your coming back is concerned, it would be childish of me to hasten it, just as childish as Achilles' mother trying to hide him to avoid a quick, honorable death. — Best wishes!

June 1, 1835

*In margin of previous:

There is something strangely ironic in Copenhagener's excursions to Dyrehaug. They are trying to shake off the bourgeois dust of the city, flee from themselves — and find themselves again at Bakken.

January 14, 1837

After he realised that his father's curse didn't exist, or had ended, it brought him to a spiritual watershed, and he was struck with a sense of grace and the very real possibility of entering a spiritual life. But he was still in the thick of academia, studying for his PhD in theology, and still very much obsessed with intellectual brilliance and the poetic realm. So he was still enthralled to his social role as a witty poet-scholar.

Also, he liked stories of lovers, because they reminded him of the relationship between God and man. So it was inevitable, given his penchant for poetry and social acceptance, that he still believed in the possibility of getting married.

The day he met Regina, his journal entry for that day reads:

67

O God, how easy it is to forget such intentions! Dethroned in my own inner being, I have once again returned to the world in order to prevail there for some time yet. But what good is it to win the whole world and lose one's own soul. Again today (May 8) I tried to forget myself, not in the boisterous tumult (that surrogate does not help) but by going out to Rørdam and by talking with Bolette and by getting (if possible) the devil of my wit to stay home, the angel with the flaming sword (as I have deserved) who places himself between me and every innocent girlish heart — since you overtook me, O God, thank you for not letting me immediately go mad — I have never been so fearful of it — thank you for once again inclining your ear to me.

May 8, 1837

Clearly, his driving motif even while asking for Regina's hand in marriage (at the age of 27, just after he graduated from the theological phD with a magna cum laude), was to know God's will. He believed in the relationship of marriage as a reflection of the relationship of God to man, yet he recognised the unrealistic poetry of that belief, when he saw that the necessary candour and understanding between both parties could not exist between himself and Regina. He called off the engagement after a year, overtly claiming the problem was his "melancholy", but in reality the reason was his inability to reconcile spiritual consciousness with the life of lies needed in a marriage. Of course, he never blamed Regina. Two years later, Regina became engaged to Schlegel, her tutor, who was, prior to Kierkegaard's appearance, the preferred suitor, and another four years later, married. The family never forgave Kierkegaard, and he never told the truth to anyone during his lifetime. To this day, people still believe he loved Regina passionately, and put his celibacy down to a fear of women, madness, or personal incapacity. In fact, he cancelled the engagement, and never engaged in any emotional/romantic relationships, because of his underlying and overarching spiritual goals.


[edit: Kierkegaard's father died when he was 25, not 23 years old]

[Leyla Shen]

In the mean time you still don't address any content or make it clear which part was unclear in whose post.

And yet calling for others to "engage philosophically". That's called irony, for the witness that is.

Yes, full of irony.

Call your witnesses, my dear. I need no such other to attest on my behalf.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What?