|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:05:05 GMT -5
Okay. I must be on another planet. 😀 I can imagine you hanging out in this cantina (surprisingly hard to find a good image of it) Geee .. I wonder which character ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:12:44 GMT -5
I think every field of endeavor can be a "spiritual" path, and can lead beyond itself. You see the difference in the way people do, or talk about, whatever it is. In the fields he mentioned, like science and philosophy, you see some people approaching it with a kind of "higher appreciation", and they get to the "edges" and toy with paradox. They are seeking to see something on a deeper level, something they are in awe of. I once saw a physics book called the "Mind of God". Eventually they'll probably sense that they don't have the "intellect" to get there, but every step is a step on the way. Is it possible they sense an emptiness or mundaneness in their lives that pushes them to find this awe? Secular humanism offers many paths to awe, but in my subjective experience in the fading of the awe it seems cold, and sort of bewildering and alienating. A mechanistic universe is one that is senseless. Seems to me this can express as nihilism, especially (and perhaps I'm just projecting) in young men. On the opposite end of the spectrum though, most scientists that reflect on it eventually come to something called the anthropic principle (wikipedia's entry on this sucks, don't read it), and the Universe, as it appears, is radically unlikely, which is a sort of tantalizing clue as to the missing pieces in the secular humanist puzzle. Culturally we live in a sort of transition time, because the legacy religions all developed absent the relative truth the scientists have revealed about the Universe. Intellectual mind has too many reasons not to look backward. So where does it look? The movement that brought Zen and Advaita to the West seems to me one consequence of this. Just more threads in the tapestry.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:14:44 GMT -5
I think every field of endeavor can be a "spiritual" path, and can lead beyond itself. You see the difference in the way people do, or talk about, whatever it is. In the fields he mentioned, like science and philosophy, you see some people approaching it with a kind of "higher appreciation", and they get to the "edges" and toy with paradox. They are seeking to see something on a deeper level, something they are in awe of. I once saw a physics book called the "Mind of God". Eventually they'll probably sense that they don't have the "intellect" to get there, but every step is a step on the way. No no no no! 😀 What is the value of seeing deeper into a transient impermanent object? That's just more mind, more perception. You need to get out of the way of mind altogether! Then what remains? You! What you are fundamentally cannot be anything you know no matter how deep or how high the appreciation. Yes, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:16:31 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. They are just experiences. The content is irrelevant. There is no kensho that is better than another. He would have got whacked for thinking his kensho was significant as a sign of awakening. Once one finger hits the keyboard, already wrong. (Loose translation). Sorry sca, you need to read up on your Zen. for anyone who doesn't know that is a line from a very famous zen/chan statement traditionally attributed to bodhidharma. here it is in full: "a special transmission outside the scriptures, not founded upon words and letters. by pointing directly to one's mind, It lets one see into one's own true nature and thus attain buddhahood."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:19:03 GMT -5
No no no no! 😀 What is the value of seeing deeper into a transient impermanent object? That's just more mind, more perception. You need to get out of the way of mind altogether! Then what remains? You! What you are fundamentally cannot be anything you know no matter how deep or how high the appreciation. But they're not trying to see deeper into a "transient impermanent object". They feel called to find the underlying (or transcendent) essence that is constant, underlying the diversity of form. It's obvious to me in physics, but it's present in every field. "Reaching for the stars." etc. You can see the "seeking spirit" at work.
I wrote a poem about this once. (apologies for the spam to anyone who's already seen it )It isn't. a tap on your left shoulder weaves right, and as you look a half forgotten reason falls from an open book a melody with no name carried by a breeze to parts unknown and unexplored that noone can believe it's home without the roof and walls out on the endless road no signs, no maps, no limits the trucks all free of load perpetual deja vu it was the word on tip of tongue that all your friends were hanging on back then when you were young eternity it welcomes you in a casual embrace tells rumor of perfection never out of place so subtle quiet and demure so ordinary, true how could the open sky have been other than just you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:27:16 GMT -5
Is it possible they sense an emptiness or mundaneness in their lives that pushes them to find this awe? I suppose it's possible, but why believe that it's necessary? Sometimes one looks at the stars (or ??) and feels how amazing and mind blowing creation is, and feels a pull or a wonder/curiosity about what it is, really. It seems to me there is a positive pull there that doesn't require an idea about universal suffering. But I get it... I've been quite miserable and depressed at times. Yeah. Like Carl Sagan, for instance. But he comes from a generation that was raised prior to the cultural influence of secular humanism that he helped propagate. Carl had a sense of mystery. He reminds me of my father that way, who always had this keen sense of truth, and right and wrong, even though he was a lapsed Catholic. This landscape of the conditioned mind is always shifting, and as Toffler predicted, the rate at which it's shifting is accelerating. Never read Future Shock, didn't have to because so many people summarized it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:29:13 GMT -5
It's becoming obvious that some people become deeply attached to suffering and their ideas about suffering. A Zen Master would advise letting those ideas go. That would be very good advice! Not only that idea but ALL ideas. hoooboy .. here we go.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:30:16 GMT -5
I basically said that in my sentence after....I'm assuming Sree thinks that we think that that is all we are. Your assumption is correct. If you are a human being, then you are what is defined as a human being by science. Which branch of science says that there is more to the human being that what science has defined this creature walking on two legs? You are not a machine.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 1:31:50 GMT -5
That's interesting (and a bit confusing) because I'm very sure that lots of folks here don't believe they are 'human beings living on planet earth'. In fact, I can't think of someone here that does believe that. There may be a context in which folks here consider it appropriate to say that we are not cats, and we are not living on the moon, but folks don't consider that a spiritual context. Have I understood you right? If so, can I ask what has made you think that folks here believe they are human beings living on planet earth? Of course, they don't believe they are human beings living on planet earth.They think they are more than that. These folks can't have it both ways. They are either human beings or they are not.
You heard me right. I know folks here and everywhere, unless they are nutjobs, believe they are human beings living on planet earth. You don't think the Pope and the Dalai Lama believe that they are human beings living on planet earth? They may think they are more than human. Good luck with that. Charles Manson thought he was more than that and he ended up in prison.
My question was intended to put the ugly truth front and center. The conditioning of science is all powerful. It forces us to see what we are: human beings living on planet earth. Perception is reality. You cannot be more than what science says. To do that, you must be able to, rationally, take apart its doctrines that shape perception.
No. So much less, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 3, 2022 1:58:28 GMT -5
I can imagine you hanging out in this cantina (surprisingly hard to find a good image of it) Geee .. I wonder which character .. Sir Lord Darth Vader, Death Star Canteen...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 3:29:04 GMT -5
I guess we could agree that intrinsic to seeking is the sense that something is missing, something is not 'right'...so I guess the flip side of saying that 'suffering drives the seeking' is to say that 'the call of Home drives the seeking' (or something like that). So yeah, I think I get what you are saying...there's 2 ways to look at it. You mustn't get the idea that the seekers head has to be full of suffering and ideas about suffering to be motivated. If there was only suffering and no glimpse of the light at the end of the tunnel there would be no seeking only despair. It is light that puts an end to darkness. Spiritual practice should show you that light and even though there is darkness from time to time, it becomes the light that more and more motivates you away from the darkness. The word suffering sounds so extreme but most of the time it just means there is separation between limited self and the unboundedness of what you really are which leads to a feeling of lack and incompleteness. That is what suffering means on a day-to-day basis where your life might be going really quite nicely. That is suffering enough to put you on the path. I'm not talking about having your limbs pulled apart on the torture rack! 😃 yeah agree
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 3:31:06 GMT -5
I basically said that in my sentence after....I'm assuming Sree thinks that we think that that is all we are. Your assumption is correct. If you are a human being, then you are what is defined as a human being by science. Which branch of science says that there is more to the human being that what science has defined this creature walking on two legs? I'm not big into science, but I'm guessing no branch of science.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 3:42:38 GMT -5
That's interesting (and a bit confusing) because I'm very sure that lots of folks here don't believe they are 'human beings living on planet earth'. In fact, I can't think of someone here that does believe that. There may be a context in which folks here consider it appropriate to say that we are not cats, and we are not living on the moon, but folks don't consider that a spiritual context. Have I understood you right? If so, can I ask what has made you think that folks here believe they are human beings living on planet earth? Of course, they don't believe they are human beings living on planet earth.They think they are more than that. These folks can't have it both ways. They are either human beings or they are not.
You heard me right. I know folks here and everywhere, unless they are nutjobs, believe they are human beings living on planet earth. You don't think the Pope and the Dalai Lama believe that they are human beings living on planet earth? They may think they are more than human. Good luck with that. Charles Manson thought he was more than that and he ended up in prison.
My question was intended to put the ugly truth front and center. The conditioning of science is all powerful. It forces us to see what we are: human beings living on planet earth. Perception is reality. You cannot be more than what science says. To do that, you must be able to, rationally, take apart its doctrines that shape perception.
I really only understand your first paragraph, and I can address that. I consider the issue of 'having it both ways' to be a matter of context. It's reasonable to say, 'I am a human, not a cat or a tortoise'. It's true within a particular context. But it's not a transcendent context, not the context that we come here to discuss (though as it turns out, we sometimes do discuss it) Your second and third paragraph confuses me greatly. In fact, it confuses me so much that I've attempted twice to write a paragraph explaining what I don't understand, but have deleted them both, because I feel like I am responding to my sense of confusion, with even more confusion. Maybe what I said in my first paragraph is enough to be going on with.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 3:44:13 GMT -5
That's interesting (and a bit confusing) because I'm very sure that lots of folks here don't believe they are 'human beings living on planet earth'. In fact, I can't think of someone here that does believe that. There may be a context in which folks here consider it appropriate to say that we are not cats, and we are not living on the moon, but folks don't consider that a spiritual context. Have I understood you right? If so, can I ask what has made you think that folks here believe they are human beings living on planet earth? What a' yous livin' on Mars?? ... Zork!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:04:49 GMT -5
The whole academic world is also debating accepted theories about the material universe. What I think you all (and this includes academia) are wrong is about what we are. Don't you believe you are a human being? It all begins here. You can philosophize all you want but this fundamental belief conditions all inquiry. Don't you accept that you are living on the planet earth seen in video below?
I am a human being, but belief plays no part in that statement. Human beings are not what you or the scientists think they are. You won't find out what a human being is by trying to answer what a human body is made of. We are not ~made from~ one something-nothing. There is the Whole, there is ~the avatar~ which is formed from ~nearby~ and cultural influences. But there is an in-between, ~our~ essence. The small s self is who most people think they are, but are not. Essence is the true individuation. The ~avatar~ is important for functioning in life, but we need not say "I" to it (from it). Essence is the mystery.
|
|