GENIUS FORUMS

Neil wrote:

Isn't this what religion is after all? -- creating some absolutes or foundations upon which one can strap oneself to combat the unstable world in which one lives. Beliefs, convictions.

That is what religion is all about, yes. But it has nothing to do with the spirituality practiced by myself and others on this forum.

I'll tell you again, you haven't even begun to recognize what this forum is all about. Your characterizations of it are so far off the mark as to be laughable.

I'm not simply having ago at you here. I'm deadly serious.

Here is a hint. Spirituality has nothing to do with having convictions or beliefs, or seeking stability in an unstable world. On the contrary, it means opening one's entire mind to the chaos of Nature, which is happening right now.

-

David Quinn wrote:acebackwords,

You think "I'm sure of myself" when I say I think life is largely a "mystery," and you feel that is somehow a contradiction? Ridiculous.

Well, you did say that life is ultimately a mystery. A bit of a difference there.


-

By "ultimately" I just meant: "in the end; eventually" (Websters definition). I didn't mean it as any kind of Ultimate Truth (with a capital U). I just meant that thats where I've ended up as of this moment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

David Quinn wrote:In fact, from my perspective, I regard Uncertaintists as being virtually indistinguishable from Christian fundamentalists. Both have settled down into easy pre-packaged answers provided by an external authority (in the case of the Uncertaintists, from the doctrines of postmodernism) and both have abandoned any attempt to form a serious relationship with truth.
-

Well yeah, I'd agree with that. I once had a friend who felt that life was meaningless. So I once asked him:

"So you feel that there's no inherent meaning to life and man just projects meaning onto it?"

"Yes," he said.

"So thats what you mean?" I said.

"Yes, exactly."

"Get it?" I said.

Ironically, he took great meaning from the idea that life had no meaning. And, as you point out, as with fundamentalism,that circumvents any further desire to discover the truth.

Yes, many people come to the conclusion that life is meaningless and experience a great sense of liberation, for they are able to unburden themselves from all the strictures imposed on them during their religious upbringing. They think, "I'm now free to do as I please". It is a liberation of ego, rather than of spirit.

I personally found the realization that life is meaningless to be liberating as well, but in a different way. For me, it reflected the greater truth that Reality has no form. When I think of the meaninglessness of life, I think of formlessness, innocence, spontaneity, freedom from care, joy, etc. I'm suddenly swimming and playing in the sea of the Infinite.

-

Sounds good to me.

David Quinn wrote:Neil wrote:

Isn't this what religion is after all? -- creating some absolutes or foundations upon which one can strap oneself to combat the unstable world in which one lives. Beliefs, convictions.

That is what religion is all about, yes. But it has nothing to do with the spirituality practiced by myself and others on this forum.

I'll tell you again, you haven't even begun to recognize what this forum is all about. Your characterizations of it are so far off the mark as to be laughable.
...
Here is a hint. Spirituality has nothing to do with having convictions or beliefs, or seeking stability in an unstable world. On the contrary, it means opening one's entire mind to the chaos of Nature, which is happening right now.

You may be right David, but in this case just cut the absolute truths and I will have no problem with your philosophy (other than that it promotes nihilism, but that is a value issue).

"... the chaos of nature" -- good thing this chaos can be knotted in the chains of logical reasoning....

Neil wrote:

"Yes. Dan has talked about how he wants "completeness". What they really want is something "absolute", something to grasp onto in this world where everything is changing and uncertain. They need to fill the void inside of themselves and they do so by creating their own void, this one paradoxically bound tight by the chains of their logic and reasoning. Through metaphysics they now have something absolute. They can dangle by the chains of the infinite. They can comprehend the basic laws of "Everything" -- Or so they have convinced themselves."

Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the time to read their writings, I've got too much of my own reading to do. Hopefully, they might include bits and peices to illustrate their thrust, which I admit I do not quite get.

I do agree with you that they seem to have worked out an agreement, a series of codifications, a nomenclature, and they have their special flags to wave. It seems to have a certain uniformity, and in my case it is the uniformity that makes me rather suspicious. I think that your angle, right at this time, is to 'doconstruct' the religious impetous (in the context of Nietzsche) and to see it as false and misleading, self-trickery, dupery, etc. To me, in contrast, I see all things as having so many layers and levels, and where language forces us to talk in absolutes, I think language has to be bent to accomodate what these blokes refer a little too generally as 'postmodernism'. or rather the perspectives of postmodernism.

The world is a multivalent place, just teeming with contradiction and tension, and it is a place where millions and billions of beings (speaking of the human beings) come to find their consciousness 'installed', with their own personal orb of awareness that pops into existence, and augments or dissipates itself, that contains them, is the sum of their incarnation, a lit-up lightbulb of a temporal sort. Life in that sense is the great mother, the mother whol contains and holds all things, and each thing has a certain run of the place. It is almost too extraordinary, too fantastical, this event of having life and being aware, how are you ever going to sum it up?

Patanjali, nondualism, Buddhism---these are all religious forms and ideas with a peculiar metaphysical underpinning. They are all idea systems that propose ethics, that regulate human affairs, that devise codes of law, that are part of a cultural economy. But even (or especially) within the Hindu-derived philosophical and 'truth-seeking' traditions there are some very different poles, with very different stresses.

Basically, you have to live your life, and no matter what you do there is no disappearing from the scene, you are here, incarnated, alive, in the fray, and I do not know of any way to ever become 'certain' about any part of 'it'. Part of my spiritual path is to become comfortable with uncertainty, and yet also to recognize that without some absolutes, even if they are temporary or arbitrary, our focus tends to dissipate. To become strong one needs a certain order, and if you don't have it, you have to find it. On one hand, these fellows seem to want to consciously *reduce* the quantity of superfluous stuff on the table, so to have to deal with a smaller group of problems, ideals, goals, possibilities. There is a certain wisdom in that I suppose. Belief systems are better if they are trimmed and paired down to the essentials.

Where I differ from these fellows in in an ethic that pertains to just how one lives life, in the here and now. They seem to have a group of rules, I am suspicious of their rules. They have begun the work of paring down, trimming down, and cast away 'superfluous stuff', but I am not so sure that is a good idea.

I think there is another attitude toward 'the creator' (of all this, of all phenomena, of life, of consciousness) and that is to stop trying to control things, to have always to get a handle on everything, to always have to stop participating so as to reduce the possibility of pain and suffering, and that attitude is one of simple trust in life, in 'God' if you want, and in the *fact* (or is it not a fact?) that everything is out of our control, in the grandest sense, and yet maybe there is a way not to feel so insecure about it. I think that impersonalism engenders a sort of insecurity, and a possible cure for impersonalism is personalism, and the more personal, the better.

Neil,

Neil: Isn't this what religion is after all? -- creating some absolutes or foundations upon which one can strap oneself to combat the unstable world in which one lives. Beliefs, convictions.

DQ: That is what religion is all about, yes. But it has nothing to do with the spirituality practiced by myself and others on this forum.

I'll tell you again, you haven't even begun to recognize what this forum is all about. Your characterizations of it are so far off the mark as to be laughable.

Here is a hint. Spirituality has nothing to do with having convictions or beliefs, or seeking stability in an unstable world. On the contrary, it means opening one's entire mind to the chaos of Nature, which is happening right now.

Neil: You may be right David, but in this case just cut the absolute truths and I will have no problem with your philosophy (other than that it promotes nihilism, but that is a value issue).

Impossible, I'm afraid. One can't peel away the conceptual delusions which come between us and the chaos of Nature without making use of rationality and absolute truth.

"... the chaos of nature" -- good thing this chaos can be knotted in the chains of logical reasoning....

Not knotted in, but pointed to by.

-

I know this is an intellectual-orientated forum. Personally, I've always been frustrated by the limits of my intellectual mind, not so much in terms of "summing it up," as Alex put it, but in terms of making real spiritual progress. The meter I use to determine that progress isn't so much intellectual, but whether I'm increasing my capacity for love, happiness, and peace-of-mind.

I've spent much of my life involved in a quasi-desparate Search For The Truth. Alas, the last 5 years or so I've turned increasingly bitter, hateful, and depressed. So, of coure, I'm questioning the path that I'm on.

I spent several years in the late '90s deeply immersed in Kundalini Yoga. Which, unlike so many other spiritual disciplines, isn't so much a philosophical belief system, as it is a form of spiritual science. You don't BELIEVE in Kundalini Yoga. You follow the recipe, do the experiment on yourself, and then see where you end up. But alas, I lacked the self-discipline to pursue that path fully: regular meditation, mantra-repetition, etc.

Alex wrote:

I do agree with you that they seem to have worked out an agreement, a series of codifications, a nomenclature, and they have their special flags to wave. It seems to have a certain uniformity, and in my case it is the uniformity that makes me rather suspicious.

It is generated by the reality that most people have the same core delusions. For example, nearly every man and his dog is an Uncertaintist these days, convinced that logical reasoning is powerless to uncover truth. And so those of us who value truth have no choice but to keep on emphasizing that there is more to life than uncertainty, that reason can take use to an amazing place which is very real.

I consider it donkey work, but critically important nonetheless.

-

acebackwords wrote:I know this is an intellectual-orientated forum. Personally, I've always been frustrated by the limits of my intellectual mind, not so much in terms of "summing it up," as Alex put it, but in terms of making real spiritual progress. The meter I use to determine that progress isn't so much intellectual, but whether I'm increasing my capacity for love, happiness, and peace-of-mind.

I've spent much of my life involved in a quasi-desparate Search For The Truth. Alas, the last 5 years or so I've turned increasingly bitter, hateful, and depressed. So, of coure, I'm questioning the path that I'm on.

I spent several years in the late '90s deeply immersed in Kundalini Yoga. Which, unlike so many other spiritual disciplines, isn't so much a philosophical belief system, as it is a form of spiritual science. You don't BELIEVE in Kundalini Yoga. You follow the recipe, do the experiment on yourself, and then see where you end up. But alas, I lacked the self-discipline to pursue that path fully: regular meditation, mantra-repetition, etc.

You did? You might have some potential for wisdom, then.

You can't find wisdom by trying to switch mind off or putting it into an endless loop. That's really a form of madness and smacks of desperation, usually practiced by those who are tormented by mental anguish. That you found those practices unfulfilling is a good sign.

The meter I use to determine that progress isn't so much intellectual, but whether I'm increasing my capacity for love, happiness, and peace-of-mind.

I found that I began to experience these things in greater and greater amounts the moment I gave up worrying about them.

Although, admittedly, I've never been subjected to great unhappiness or mental torment, so perhaps it was a bit easier for me.

-

Alex,

I assure you it is no act that I am sure of myself (or my truths at least).

If I am wrong in my certainty then there will be bad consequences, and if I am right in my certainty then there will be good consequences. But if I held back from certainty, out of an irrational fear of being in error, that too would have bad consequences.

Contact with meaning is not a monolith, and you cannot present people before your monolith and (seem to) ask them to have the same sort of experience as you. No no no no.

Whenever a person sees the truth, and no matter how they have seen it, that is exactly how I myself have seen the same truth. There is no other way.

Yes, I present a monolith, but there are countless aspects to it, and it looks different from different angles and in different light.

I suppose that you completely missed the point of Siddhartha, which might be that every man has his road to travel, and every man must divine the message and the meaning of that road, and when we follow other people's dharma and ipso facto negate our own, we make a grave mistake.

I saw the "point" the author was trying to make - if he had a point, as such - I just thought the point was weak. That's just me though. I was looking for something much meatier at that stage of my life.

To be perfectly honest with you, speaking directly from my intuitive reaction to what I read in that book, straight from the heart, so to speak, and bypassing my brain altogether, when I was reading that book I felt as though I was in the company of an old granny who had about as much life and spirit as a dying slug.

But I don't want to put the book down, since all things are relative, and if I had read that book ten years earlier, or more likely if I had been an entirely different person with vastly lower ambition, then I might have found it quite inspiring. So who am I to judge!

There are likely twenty or more major writers who have played music to the masses, and whose music has, well, caused some of the pigs to fly.

Flutter their wings, perhaps. Yes, I could agree with you that far.

You want you metaphors all dissected on a plate with oil and vinegar, some salt and a dash of pepper?

Too right I do! What is the point of a metaphor if I can't determine exactly what it means? I'm not saying that I want to encase the meaning in a neat package that I can stow away and perhaps sell to others, but I want to experience and know it, first hand. So that it is mine.

Take the metaphor of "God the Father", for example. What does it mean? Something like this I will not let rest until it is personally mine - until I am the creator of the metaphor. I will take it apart relentlessly, and put it back together if I wish, or create something new out of the pieces.

Basically, you have to live your life, and no matter what you do there is no disappearing from the scene, you are here, incarnated, alive, in the fray, and I do not know of any way to ever become 'certain' about any part of 'it'.

You contradict yourself.

"You have to live your life, and no matter what you do there is no disappearing from the scene."

These would be wise words indeed if you really knew the truth of them. That is, if you knew the truth of these words beyond a shadow of a doubt - which is to say, with certainty.

On one hand, these fellows seem to want to consciously *reduce* the quantity of superfluous stuff on the table.

This is well noted, and is something I consciously do all the time. For I am always recalling to mind my purpose in life. Having such a purpose is like having a compass which tells you which direction is North. And once you know exactly which way you are going, and why, a lot of superfluous things automatically fall away.

For example, since I am interested in truth, anything that isn't true is of no concern to me. That means I can automatically discard about 99.999% of all the things in life that people regard as valuable, and which entrap them.

I think there is another attitude toward 'the creator' (of all this, of all phenomena, of life, of consciousness) and that is to stop trying to control things, to have always to get a handle on everything, to always have to stop participating so as to reduce the possibility of pain and suffering, and that attitude is one of simple trust in life, in 'God' if you want, and in the *fact* (or is it not a fact?) that everything is out of our control, in the grandest sense, and yet maybe there is a way not to feel so insecure about it. I think that impersonalism engenders a sort of insecurity, and a possible cure for impersonalism is personalism, and the more personal, the better.

I know what you mean.

But I see myself, personally, as being like a fountain. Literally all that a fountain is, comes from outside of itself. And likewise, literally all that I am comes from Nature ("God"). It is God. It has no will of its own, and can do nothing on its own. There is no "its own". All that I do is what God does.

"I" cannot control anything because "I" am not the doer of anything. "I" do not even exist. God is the doer of all things. God is all things.

impersonalism engenders a sort of insecurity

Not when you become the "person" of God/Nature it doesn't. Nature itself, the All, cannot feel insecure, because there is nothing other than itself.

But I don't want to put the book down, since all things are relative, and if I had read that book ten years earlier, or more likely if I had been an entirely different person with vastly lower ambition, then I might have found it quite inspiring. So who am I to judge!

It was probably the only book with such content that I read as a just-into-teens average intelligence kid living in a country town - so I loved it. I mainly just read sci-fi and fantasy.

When about 16 I read Musashi, by Eiji Yoshikawa, which I'm keen to read again (probably why I like Anime so much).

Without doubt both affected me in ways I don't realise, though there was some non-fiction book about human separation and the herd, I read when about 18, that had a much bigger impact (cant recall the books name).

The Kundalini experience, now that is an intense one, and opens a strange ball of wax, a sort of Pandora's bag of cats (I am having problems with metaphors this morning, bear with me).

If it is true that the realm in which we find ourselves is a sort of being-in-itself, if Life is really existing in a being, a matrix, 'our mother', and if all the roads of life, all the possibilities of life, in a fantastical world of possibility, contains within it innate intelligence, a trapdoor of liberation, and if along the road there appears from time to time, to certain people, 'shining metaphors' that draw our attention, that entice us toward them, so that we take up the metaphor and examine it, and should the metaphor eXpLoDe, then this casts revealing light on the psychedelic experience, revelatory experiences, unexplicable synchronicities, and such experiences that come through (a metaphorical) moving of energy through the bodily system. Wow. Strange. However, and of course this is documented, the Kundaline experience, like the psychedelic experience, is an increase of amplitude into the wiring of the individual entity, that part and parcel of God, covered over in the mire of unconsciousness, lost in a samsaric dream, afloat in an amythyst galleon on a rolling sea, but with convoluted circuitry, crossed-over wiring, hopes and longings wedded to false metaphors and derailing illusions, to the false belief that there can arise any lasting satisfaction to the living entity through grasping after fleeting material condensations, such that with an inflow of latent consciousness, a turning of a mysterious key in a hidden lock, the whole system is supercharged, and all the metaphors appear like sparkling ruby-throated hummingbirds and glow like backlit jewels, but when this happens in an entity that has not been prepared (as they warn in Tantric literature) there is danger of burning the circuitry, or something like the mixing of 'texas medicine and a cheap railroad gin' that 'strangles up the mind', so that 'people just get uglier and I have no sense of time', which is a way of saying that the ultimate medicine, administered at the wrong time, can act as a poison, and can derail one from spiritual life, set one back, and even lead to madness...

And that of course is why the Great AsHkeNaZ, for the first time ever in the history of the Earth Loka, is offering a complete 10 course corrspondence course in which you will be introduced to the mysteries of consciousness and to the science of reversing incarnation and going back to the source from which all arises, all in easy-to-understand weekly lessons, delivered to your (virtual) mailbox every Sabbath morning. Don't hesitate! don't dilly-dally there on the great highway of life, pilgrim! for hesitation can lead to getting mired in incarnation, to errors and wrong turns taken! to to fatal entrapment in the cycle of birth and death, and as the Chinese say it is just a puff of the wind that can lead one into prison, but it takes a hurricane to get you out. True, true, the cost seems a little high---$25,000.00 made payable to Alex Jacob---but if you consider what you stand to lose if you are derailed in this incarnation into a nearly bottomless mire, that devolves you back toward the inanimate, when this power-packed metaphor of liberation came and presented itself to your vision on your computer screen and tried to set you free (*faraway sound of a sitar, the smell of all the holy temples of the East*), when you consider what you stand to lose, dear friend, and what extreme danger you are in fact in! you will consider this sum (payable in installments of course, with mild interest) to be minimal, and worth every dammed penny! S don't hesitate, hit the Escape button now, dear reader, and the shining path to Total Liberation will open before you!

Alex Jacob wrote:The Kundalini experience, now that is an intense one, and opens a strange ball of wax, a sort of Pandora's bag of cats (I am having problems with metaphors this morning, bear with me).

However, and of course this is documented, the Kundaline experience, like the psychedelic experience, is an increase of amplitude into the wiring of the individual entity, that part and parcel of God, covered over in the mire of unconsciousness, lost in a samsaric dream, afloat in an amythyst galleon on a rolling sea, but with convoluted circuitry, crossed-over wiring, hopes and longings wedded to false metaphors and derailing illusions, to the false belief that there can arise any lasting satisfaction to the living entity through grasping after fleeting material condensations, such that with an inflow of latent consciousness, a turning of a mysterious key in a hidden lock, the whole system is supercharged, and all the metaphors appear like sparkling ruby-throated hummingbirds and glow like backlit jewels, but when this happens in an entity that has not been prepared (as they warn in Tantric literature) there is danger of burning the circuitry, or something like the mixing of 'texas medicine and a cheap railroad gin' that 'strangles up the mind', so that 'people just get uglier and I have no sense of time', which is a way of saying that the ultimate medicine, administered at the wrong time, can act as a poison, and can derail one from spiritual life, set one back, and even lead to madness...

!

This is quite true. Which is why one of the primary functions of Kundalini Yoga is to strengthen and purify the body and the mind, so that it can withstand the increased wattage on its circuits. Where I went off-course was, after a couple of years of intense yoga, I slipped back into drugs and drink, undisciplined behavior, general spiritual sloppiness, etc. With disastrous results. Yes indeed, its like "the ultimate medicine, adminstered at the wrong time, can act as a poison." Another analogy: Its like putting a little child behind the wheel of a powerful and complex automobile.

Another serious drawback on the path of Kundalini Yoga is that it makes available to you many, many occult powers. Powers that all the Yoga Masters warn against playing with. But very, very difficult to resist. Theres something so alluring about "power" that tempts even the most supposedly "ego-transcending" type of seeker. And once you open, and enter into, those occult doors. You had better really know what you're doing. Or. . . .

I've had similar thoughts about Hesse, and I also read Siddhartha years ago and wasn't impressed by it then, thought it was weak. I read it agains recently and had a different opinion. Hesse as a writer, as an artist, has a very delicate touch. I guess you could say that his touch is 'feminine' but looked at more closely I don't think this is the case. But to say that he has all the spirit of a 'dying slug', well, no one can argue with you if this is your impresssion, but I wonder if you overlook important things in your privelaging of a more dynamic attitude, or more dynamic revelations. I am thinking back to my younger days---in my 20s---and the sort of material I was attracted to, and I always wanted pithy material, dense, packed. I wanted to go to the essence of everything, I didn't want to mess around. From the perspective I have now, I (obviously) needed potent medicines, and maybe that was because of my own denseness, I don't know. But now, since I am not so sure there is really anyplace to go to, some radical destination, or even necessarily some tremendous achievement, I am inclined to focus on the more subtle things, and, speaking of Hesse, the essence of his work really seems to revolve around love. I point out that this is NOT a word one hears around here, but for a great many people it is the only sentiment that makes any sense, and I don't mean that in an indistinct, 'flowy' sort of way (as Dan uses the word), but as an active sentiment, a way to move through the world. Also, I think that Hesse, likely because of his appreciation of Jungian psychology, has as an idea the balancing of masculine and feminine, and it is my opinion to date thatthere mere idea of such a thing, to you et al, would be appalling.

Nevertheless, Hesse is a German Romantic, and all his art if colored by his formation. To me, his most adventurous work, and one that deals (in his way) with Nietzsche, is Steppenwolf, which I personally think is one of the best works I have read to date. I have no idea what your 'ultimate goals' are---I have had the hunch that they are illusions in their own way---but I find that Hesse zeroes in on what are the essential problems of modern life, for modern individuals, and also as a man, from a man's perspective, and a man who deals with ideas and their ramifications. Here, on these pages, there seems to be a certain amount of boyish bluster, but rarely does anyone talk about anything that I would consider *really* worthy of talking about. You seem to talk around just about everything, conversations here are contests, but there seems to be big peices missing here, maybe because you are missing peices of yourselves? If you can't relate to 'woman' I doubt you'll ever really *understand* life. But that certainly doesn't mean revert to feminine modality, and I admit that this is a problem for many men, a sort of imitations of women's ways. Another reason why I find Hesse relevant: he is a man, dealing on ideas, processing philosophy, but as an artist he is very aware of the nature of the feminine as a matrix for art. I don't at all get the sense that you (plural) have that awareness, or that it is relevant to you.

"Flutter their wings, perhaps. Yes, I could agree with you that far."

Well, I just ask you Where are they, and where is anyone, supposed to go? 'The only way out is through' to coin an old song. When I say 'fly' I mean to do some small thing, some small meaningful thing, just something in life that signals that you existed, that you responded, that life moved in you, that you were not a mere automaton. That can be quite an achievement, I think. If I would have heard just ONE choice statement while I have been on these pages (this forum), some indication of (what I consider) wisdom, if something like this had come out of someone's mouth here, well maybe I'd think differently. If you are pursuing 'Truth', then maybe I am not too interested in whatever you are calling Truth. 'Truth' is something that happens in a person's relationship with God, whatever that means to them.

"What is the point of a metaphor if I can't determine exactly what it means? I'm not saying that I want to encase the meaning in a neat package that I can stow away and perhaps sell to others, but I want to experience and know it, first hand. So that it is mine."

The problem with this statement, is that sometimes it is our own selves that are standing in the way. You say you 'want' this and you 'demand' that. But life has an odd way of throuwing back its head and laughing when we exclaim and insist. And in this is an important point. Yes, a masculine focus will charge through obstacles and will often 'insist', and insistance is often rewarded, but 'knowledge' is granted (I think) and deeper understanding requires receptivity, which is not so much a masculine quality, as it is generally understood. I think that one has to face the 'metaphors' with a certain humility, and though we migfht be able to 'storm heaven' there are reprecussions to that sort of charging-in.

"Take the metaphor of "God the Father", for example. What does it mean? Something like this I will not let rest until it is personally mine - until I am the creator of the metaphor. I will take it apart relentlessly, and put it back together if I wish, or create something new out of the pieces."

...and one gets the sense this is exactly what you do, and there are moments when it looks like frustrated little puppy wrastling with a grisly peice of bone. It looks boyish, and not manly, if you wanted my solemn opinion, my direct intuitive hit, by-passing the mind.

"This is well noted, and is something I consciously do all the time. For I am always recalling to mind my purpose in life. Having such a purpose is like having a compass which tells you which direction is North. And once you know exactly which way you are going, and why, a lot of superfluous things automatically fall away."

Very true. There is a unique feature to the masculine mind, and it has to do with focus, but that focus also has another characteristic, and that is that it acts like a blinder as well. To focus on one thing (to will One Thing) is to keep to the periphery many other things. And this focus has also been described as 'storming heaven', but when that happens the masculine mind must also change. One has to become more fluid, one has to be capable of both receptivity and creativity, to use I-Ching words. Why do you think Chinese wisdom places so much emphasis on 'The Receptive', on the fluid, on the adaptive and penetrating wind, on water that overcomes all obstacles? I have heard thus far NO LANGUAGE on these pages that indicates any understanding of the softer side of things, a required side IMO. Y'all are compensating so hard...

"For example, since I am interested in truth, anything that isn't true is of no concern to me. That means I can automatically discard about 99.999% of all the things in life that people regard as valuable, and which entrap them."

Discrimination is a tool, and not an end in itself.

Alex Jacob wrote:I've had similar thoughts about Hesse, and I also read Siddhartha years ago and wasn't impressed by it then, thought it was weak. I read it agains recently and had a different opinion. Hesse as a writer, as an artist, has a very delicate touch.

A long time ago I did read a book of his essays, which I thought were more interesting than his Siddhartha story.

But now, since I am not so sure there is really anyplace to go to, some radical destination, or even necessarily some tremendous achievement, I am inclined to focus on the more subtle things

That's the thing. I'm still convinced that there is much that urgently needs doing, and a very definite destination to be reached. For that reason I'm interested in the general thrust rather than the subtle details.

and, speaking of Hesse, the essence of his work really seems to revolve around love. I point out that this is NOT a word one hears around here, but for a great many people it is the only sentiment that makes any sense, and I don't mean that in an indistinct, 'flowy' sort of way (as Dan uses the word), but as an active sentiment, a way to move through the world.

Can you define what you mean by the word "love", in this context.

In one sense I would say that everyone is motivated by love. Some of the things people love include money, physical beauty, sex, violence and war, power, and music.

Also, I think that Hesse, likely because of his appreciation of Jungian psychology, has as an idea the balancing of masculine and feminine, and it is my opinion to date thatthere mere idea of such a thing, to you et al, would be appalling.

Here are some interesting words on women by Jung himself, from "Jung Speaking" (1977),

"A woman is at her best only when she loves a man. Personal
relationship is her basic need, and when that falters she grows dissatisfied
and argumentative in a way that often leads to divorce. But this certainly
doesn't mean that men and women should remain placid. On the contrary,
some tension must prevail in their daily lives, for otherwise there cannot be
the ideal relationship in sex - and this is a 'must' between husband and
wife.

" Mentally, morally, physically - in all these ways Nature has created an
extreme difference between man and woman, so that he finds his opposite
in her and she in him. That creates tension."

If you can't relate to 'woman' I doubt you'll ever really *understand* life.

The ordinary human mind is a combination of both the conscious and the unconscious, the masculine and the feminine. It is because I have explored the feminine within my own self that I am able to relate to, and understand women.

Interestingly, it is only men who can understand women, since women tend not to have enough of the conscious aspect of mind with which to understand themselves. For that reason, all the true things that have ever been written about women have been written by men. And when a woman does write something about women that has the ring of truth, like Camille Paglia, Esther Vilar, and Celia Green, they are always much more masculine than the average woman.

as an artist he is very aware of the nature of the feminine as a matrix for art. I don't at all get the sense that you (plural) have that awareness, or that it is relevant to you.

I am aware of it, but it is not relevant to me. It is something I explored, and then I moved on. It is one of the many false things that I simply dropped, having no reason to carry them around any more.

When I say 'fly' I mean to do some small thing, some small meaningful thing, just something in life that signals that you existed, that you responded, that life moved in you, that you were not a mere automaton.

It all comes down to what you mean by "meaningful". I am very sympathetic to those who want to do something meaningful, but "meaningful", to me, means true. Only that which is true is meaningful. And a thing is meaningful to the degree that it is true.

Bob Dylan, for example, is an artist who has had a couple of minor and vague brushes with what is true, and therefore I would say his work has some meaning. I applaud him for that.

When someone asked him what religion he was, he is reported to have said, "The religion of the poisoned mind." A good, honest answer. It is meaningful, and thus has some real weight, like a microgram of plutonium.

Every hint that a person is thinking for themself, and really thinking, is a greatness, and is itself genius.

But I would like to see a lot more. And I work for more.

If you are pursuing 'Truth', then maybe I am not too interested in whatever you are calling Truth. 'Truth' is something that happens in a person's relationship with God, whatever that means to them.

What you say there doesn't really mean anything, since on the one hand you are talking about a "relationship with God", as though it were a particular thing, and then you follow that up with "whatever that means to them" - which could be anything at all.

For example, a "relationship with God" could be a person's relationship with their bank account, if their bank account is their "God".

To me, "Truth" and "God" are synonymous. It is simply Nature as it really is, undistored by false thinking.

What is the point of a metaphor if I can't determine exactly what it means? I'm not saying that I want to encase the meaning in a neat package that I can stow away and perhaps sell to others, but I want to experience and know it, first hand. So that it is mine.

Though we might be able to 'storm heaven' there are reprecussions to that sort of charging-in.

I storm-in with humility.

Why do you think Chinese wisdom places so much emphasis on 'The Receptive', on the fluid, on the adaptive and penetrating wind, on water that overcomes all obstacles?

Chinese wisdom also talks about water as having no mind of its own, and thus it is pushed this way and that by other mindless forces, and thus doing great harm (floods, erosion) - and because it has no mind it can't stop the harm it is doing.

A medicine needs to be suited to the particular ailment. The ailment of our age, in my view, is the unconsciousness of postmodernism and relativism, the death of the absolute.

Since I am interested in truth, anything that isn't true is of no concern to me. That means I can automatically discard about 99.999% of all the things in life that people regard as valuable, and which entrap them.

Discrimination is a tool, and not an end in itself.

Being able to disciminate truth from falsity - wisdom - is a destination.

TRUTH: THEIR IS NO GOD...AND WISDOM IS FOR THE WEAK! WHOM IT ENTRAPS AND DELUDES...ITS DESTINATION: THE END...THE STRONG, THE VITAL, THE NEW, THE YOUTHFUL, THE BRAVE, ARE NEVER 'WISE'...WISDOM IS FOR THE POWERLESS AND IMPOTENT I.E. MOST PHILOSOPHERS (ONE REASON WHY THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND OR GET ON WITH WOMEN, AND WHY MOST WOMEN ARE REPELLED BY THEM). PHILOSOPHY IS A 'RELIGION' FOR THE INTELLECT, ( LIKE BENNY HINN IS RELIGION FOR THE 'LACK OF' INTELLECT ) NO MORE AND NO LESS...AT BOTTOM THEY ARE BOTH 'IDENTICAL'...

z

You don't have to shout - I'm not deaf!

.

Alex Jacob: Why do you think Chinese wisdom places so much emphasis on 'The Receptive', on the fluid, on the adaptive and penetrating wind, on water that overcomes all obstacles?

Because the Chinese are as human as anyone else, and it is we (mindful) who see obstacles as obstacles, not the mindless water as Kevin points out.

Kevin: Chinese wisdom also talks about water as having no mind of its own, and thus it is pushed this way and that by other mindless forces, and thus doing great harm (floods, erosion) - and because it has no mind it can't stop the harm it is doing.

But isn’t reasoning or consciousness pushed this way and that way through mindless forces too, so how is a mind at any fault however, irrelevant of how it reasons or what it concludes?

Kevin: "I" cannot control anything because "I" am not the doer of anything. "I" do not even exist. God is the doer of all things. God is all things.

If God is all things, and I (an individual) understands that, then logically I shouldn’t be speaking against delusion, for that would be like speaking against God. Unless it’s a mindless God and hence doesn’t mind either way; mindlessly playing tennis from either end. Surely that would be the height of some meaningfully conceived illogical meaninglessness on Gods part, since God is the doer of all things, including a thing like me who seems to be saying this too. Its God that speaks then, not "I".

opps, sorry kev....

z

Sapius wrote:.

Alex Jacob: Why do you think Chinese wisdom places so much emphasis on 'The Receptive', on the fluid, on the adaptive and penetrating wind, on water that overcomes all obstacles?

Because the Chinese are as human as anyone else, and it is we (mindful) who see obstacles as obstacles, not the mindless water as Kevin points out.

I think the Taoists are trying to correct a certain set of delusions, and I am trying to correct another set of delusions that are partly encouraged by a misunderstanding of Taoism.

Kevin: Chinese wisdom also talks about water as having no mind of its own, and thus it is pushed this way and that by other mindless forces, and thus doing great harm (floods, erosion) - and because it has no mind it can't stop the harm it is doing.

But isn’t reasoning or consciousness pushed this way and that way through mindless forces too, so how is a mind at any fault however, irrelevant of how it reasons or what it concludes?

Nothing is ever at "fault", since everything that happens is caused from beginningless time. Nevertheless, some people are wise and some are foolish - through no fault of their own. Some people think for themselves, while others do not even think.

"The forgiveness of God" is meant to indicate that, for a person who sees reality (cause and effect), there is no "blame" or "fault".

Kevin wrote:"I" cannot control anything because "I" am not the doer of anything. "I" do not even exist. God is the doer of all things. God is all things.

If God is all things, and I (an individual) understands that, then logically I shouldn’t be speaking against delusion, for that would be like speaking against God.

If God (Nature) causes you to speak against delusion, then you will do so - just as you will breathe, or eat, if God causes you to do so.

If you were not fully mindful that that which you are speaking against, is in fact God, and that your very communication is God, etc, then you would be deluded.

You might then ask, why would God (Nature) cause a person to devalue delusion, when delusion is a perfectly natural thing?

And the answer is . . .

Why does a tree grow from a seed, destroying a seed, and when a seed is a perfectly natural thing?

Unless it’s a mindless God and hence doesn’t mind either way

God, being the All, cannot be conscious. Since it is the All, it cannot mind either way. Only individual consciousnesses "mind" about anything . . . since only they have a mind to be able to mind anything.

Kevin,

I think the Taoists are trying to correct a certain set of delusions, and I am trying to correct another set of delusions that are partly encouraged by a misunderstanding of Taoism.

And I was essentially trying to point out that the nature of water and mind are not one and the same thing, even though “causality” remains the core operating principle. Water cannot move a muscle voluntarily triggered by “internal” causal conditions like a human consciousness can, thereby being responsible as an individual discriminate thing for its effects. Causes do not produce effects, things do. Sentience places the greatest responsibility on things that can reason; otherwise we might as well drop the act.

Nothing is ever at "fault", since everything that happens is caused from beginningless time. Nevertheless, some people are wise and some are foolish - through no fault of their own. Some people think for themselves, while others do not even think.

So “nevertheless” is the logical justification that absolves “fault”, since it is placed in between inverted commas? If those that think for themselves AND those that do not even think are both not at fault, so what is the problem of God driven thinkers who know that the other party is equally driven by God?

I on the other hand do have a problem with those that are foolish, because it is I who is caused through individual but not isolated consciousness. Without the factor of I considered, absolutely nothing you say holds any meaning then on. If it is not you who speaks, then never mind.

And what people? How come suddenly “they” exist and “you “ don’t? You are pointing to ‘people’, aren’t you? How come you see people as wise or foolish? Please don’t tell me ‘nevertheless’, because either you speak the truth in the first instance or the other, it can’t be both by adding ‘nevertheless’ in between your above quote.

"The forgiveness of God" is meant to indicate that, for a person who sees reality (cause and effect), there is no "blame" or "fault".

May be, but nevertheless, (if I may), he cannot transcend consciousness, which necessarily operates through discriminations, without which, he is illogically denying the discriminatory factor and effectually placing the blame on God. If not, then all is literally meaningless, be it being wise or foolish, be it Truth or Falsity. After all, just as all else, meaning-making and logical reasoning is all natural too, and those that are capable, produce their own individual effects. It is the one tree that can produce either oranges or apples, while remaining the same thing day in and day out. Aren’t your conclusions radically different then they might have been earlier? What has changed? Line of reasoning and conclusions, or the nature of consciousness?

Sentience once caused, can use causality to its advantage. Those who conclude otherwise, remain mental slaves of their own making. Do not underestimate the gift of consciousness that nature has provided to a person I say.

You might then ask, why would God (Nature) cause a person to devalue delusion, when delusion is a perfectly natural thing?

And the answer is . . .

Why does a tree grow from a seed, destroying a seed, and when a seed is a perfectly natural thing?

Well, I wouldn’t ask such a question to begin with, nor would I throw an irrelevant question as a rebuttal. However; that’s not destruction but transformation; as if you don’t know.

I know that nature causes a person, and a person follows his natural nature of reasoning and is capable of producing diverse effects. At every step of a ‘thing’ that can be sensed or defined, they carry their own natural limitations, or limitlessness once freed through logical consciousness when triggered.

God, being the All, cannot be conscious. Since it is the All, it cannot mind either way.

So God is unconscious then. Are you saying God is femininity? God forbid! I hope not.

Only individual consciousnesses "mind" about anything . . . since only they have a mind to be able to mind anything.

Individual you say? Well, I can’t logically argue with that, hence I don’t mind saying that I don’t mind you saying that at all. But mind you, I still mind other mind's that redefine God to keep it in mind however, after enduring centuries of mindless mental slavery.

Sapius wrote:so what is the problem of God driven thinkers who know that the other party is equally driven by God?

I'm not sure what your question is here. There is no problem.

This in fact was a "problem" dealt with in the Bhagavad gita, where Arjuna was battling members of his own family, and his opponents included his own teachers and carers. The long shot of it was, there was no problem for him to fight them.

And what people? How come suddenly “they” exist and “you “ don’t? You are pointing to ‘people’, aren’t you? How come you see people as wise or foolish? Please don’t tell me ‘nevertheless’, because either you speak the truth in the first instance or the other, it can’t be both by adding ‘nevertheless’ in between your above quote.

All things are God, and all things do God's will since they can't possibly do otherwise. "I" and "though", "self" and "others", are abstractions, and are as real as anything else - which is to say, they are real.

"The forgiveness of God" is meant to indicate that, for a person who sees reality (cause and effect), there is no "blame" or "fault".

May be, but nevertheless, (if I may), he cannot transcend consciousness, which necessarily operates through discriminations

Quite so.

After all, just as all else, meaning-making and logical reasoning is all natural too

Yes.

produce their own individual effects.

Yes, so long as we remember that the individual is always totally controlled in every respect by God/Nature (his larger Self).

Sentience once caused, can use causality to its advantage. Those who conclude otherwise, remain mental slaves of their own making. Do not underestimate the gift of consciousness that nature has provided to a person I say.

Yes, I'm not downplaying it - only keeping it in context.

Why does a tree grow from a seed, destroying a seed, and when a seed is a perfectly natural thing?

. . . that’s not destruction but transformation . . .

Yes. And when we fight against delusion and destroy it, what we're really doing is transforming it.

God, being the All, cannot be conscious. Since it is the All, it cannot mind either way.

So God is unconscious then. Are you saying God is femininity? God forbid! I hope not.

God, the All, not being a thing, can be neither conscious nor unconscious.

give me a break....
z