The Yoga of the Philosophers

[Typist]

Hi again Nik,

Unfortunately the 'test for enlightenment would probably require some of the same pre-conceived ideas. As good social scientists we would be forced into an a priori definition of enlightenment, as well as an analysis of causes and effects related to the state

Well, I dunno. Our ideas about enlightenment come from those who claim to have it. If someone states "I have transcended my ego" it seems we should be able to test that proposition.

Ok, not something as precise as a blood test, but many common sense tests are available to us. Such tests wouldn't provide definitive proof one way or the other, but it seems some testing is more helpful than no testing.

A challenge we face is that enlightenment is quite glamorous. And lots of folks want to be glamorous. And so the subject tends to attract many who are in fact, heavily invested in their egos. If we make no attempt to separate the enlightened from the confused, the whole subject suffers a major credibility hit, which I propose has basically already happened.

If the Jnana yogi is to use reason as their primary tool, it seems we must think and act like scientists.

I'm reminded of U.G. Krishnamurti's comment that 'if most people knew what enlightenment was, they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.'

Ah, you know U.G. He's a colorful character, isn't he? I like the other Krishnamurti better myself, but I must say U.G. has him beat in the personality department.

The benefits of enlightenment are only, and can only, be testified by those who have experienced it.

My point of course is, who is that exactly? Anybody who says they are enlightened? I used to mod a forum on this topic, and can assure you, there are vast armies of folks who state or imply they are enlightened.

To therefore assume that enlightenment brings positive benefits is an expression of faith in enlightenment, and one which is bound to create dispute.

The average human being simply wants escape from all the painful noise going around in their head. A lot of fancy spiritual talk is layered on top of this desire, but escape from pain is what it boils down to.

The majority of writing about enlightenment promises to provide such an escape. It seems reasonable and appropriate for the jnana yogi to inquire in to whether such an escape route is really available. Not in a cynical way, but a clinical way.

Perhaps one component of enlightenment that distinguishes it from other approaches is the idea of permanence. That is, the concept usually seems to imply some kind of sustained ongoing permanent solution to our emotional difficulties. We can contrast this to say, drugs or meditation, where the relief is known to be temporary.

I think its interesting that people with a well-developed spirituality - saints if you will - are remarkably similar in their behaviour.

The other quality they are share is how rare they are. We might all agree that such "saints" exist. But that doesn't address the question of whether we can become saints too.

I don't doubt that enlightened people may exist, though I don't claim to know. But I do question the premise implicit in their teachings, that we can do what they did.

I've been studying this subject for 40 years. I haven't met many if any people I would consider to be enlightened in the sense of having a fundamentally different psychology than the rest of us. But I've met many who've made the claim.

(Dear reader, if you study this subject for 40 years too, you can be just like Typist!, he said, as they ran screaming from the room.)

I'm not sure that we can develop any kind of reliable 'screen for enlightened persons', based on their behaviour. I think enlightenment is something we recognise in our hearts.

Ok, fair enough. But now we seem to leaving jnana yoga and reason behind.

You do see the problem with the "recognize in our hearts" method, yes?

My ego wants to be big, wonderful, glamorous, the top dog. And so I seek out people who talk about such things. And one of these people says, "You can be big, wonderful, glamorous, the top dog, enlightened!' And my ego "recognizes in it's heart" that which it wants, and dives in to the chase.

I'm proposing that if we're serious about sharing the enlightenment process with significant numbers of people, we have to engineer a credible process that finds it way around these ego traps. Such a reason based inquiry would seem to be in keeping with jnana yoga, if I understand that term.

How does the enlightened person deal with solitary confinement? How about verbal abuse? How enlightened do they act if we take away their stage, their microphone, their ashram, their book deal? All these things are testable.

If we meet a person, any person, and we find ourselves attracted to them, and if they seem to have something that we don't but we want - then in that sense the person before us has enlightenment.

You see, I question whether this process of chasing things we don't have is really enlightenment.

You don't have to be some fancy guru to influence another's spiritual development, all that is necessary is that the path you have taken is starting to bear fruit (and we are all one path or other).

I'm more drawn to the idea that enlightenment is the opposite of chasing things down a path.

Since nearly of us are ignorant on this one central question - the nature of our true self - then the guru who gains wide influence is that one who clearly and demonstrably shows, in words and deeds, that they have transcended their egoic self and its petty needs.

I'm sorry, but the reality of the world is that the guru who gains wide influence is the one with the best marketing.

Who buys the enlightenment books? Our ego. Who sells the most enlightenment books? Whoever offers our ego whatever it wants, usually some flavor of more, more, more.

The guru who says, stop chasing, give it up, be happy with what you've already got, is going to have miserable sales.

I must say Nikolai, you've done an excellent job with this thread. You're very articulate and sincere, and have really enhanced the forum with your writing. Everybody knows I feel psychology lies at the heart of philosophy, and you are imho, exploring the heart of psychology in a very effective manner. Bowing to you sir.

[Nikolai]

Hi Typist

Well, I dunno. Our ideas about enlightenment come from those who claim to have it.

Yes and no. Speaking personally I had experiences as a child, and a strong experience at university that left an impression and I often felt I was searching them out again. It was only several years later and I started taking an interest in spirituality that I made the link between what they were saying and what I experienced. In other words, I had to have experienced it myself before I could relate to the teachers.

If someone states "I have transcended my ego" it seems we should be able to test that proposition.

All that you can test is the expressions of this as it interpreted by you and your colleagues, you cannot test nor measure an enlightened person's subjective phenomonological experience.

A challenge we face is that enlightenment is quite glamorous. And lots of folks want to be glamorous. And so the subject tends to attract many who are in fact, heavily invested in their egos. If we make no attempt to separate the enlightened from the confused, the whole subject suffers a major credibility hit, which I propose has basically already happened.

I don't think it really matters if there has been a credibility hit, because I wouldn't want to prescribe the spiritual life to anyone except the interested. Yes, some might engage in spiritual life because of the glamour - but that's up to them. I wouldn't censure this behaviour any more than the person who visits a beauty salon for the glamour.

I think part of the problem comes with language. Ultimately the spiritual life defies definition, and we shouldn't try and attach the term to some kinds of gurus more than others. When we have found our guru we will follow them whether they are our mentor at our new internship at Goldman sachs, the bestselling guru to the stars, or the obscure visiting pastor who we only met once but can't forget. There will always be others who reject what we've accepted but that is the nature of life as it is lived.

Trying to distinguish the authentic-spiritual from the inauthentic-spiritual seems uncharitable to me. We can gain spiritual insight from any situation, and our paths are wavering. The guru we accepted we may later come to reject - this does not mean that we were formerly in error.

I used to mod a forum on this topic, and can assure you, there are vast armies of folks who state or imply they are enlightened.

Let them think it! Some of them will attract followers and some won't.

The average human being simply wants escape from all the painful noise going around in their head. A lot of fancy spiritual talk is layered on top of this desire, but escape from pain is what it boils down to.

I agree. For some the fancy spiritual talk will cut through through them like a knife and the message behind the words will be perceived. For others, the spiritual talk will become the extra layer of desire leading to more suffering Either way is fine, but the compassionate teacher in you will hope that that increase in suffering will lead this second person to reject what you taught them. In the process of rejection, there is something tremendously important to be learnt.

The majority of writing about enlightenment promises to provide such an escape. It seems reasonable and appropriate for the jnana yogi to inquire in to whether such an escape route is really available

The jnani yogi will only know that is available the moment s/he has it. Until then they would be naive to either accept it or reject it. But even their former naivete they will only see once they understand what enlightenment is and cannot know it in advance!

I'm sorry for being so opaque, but if enlightenement is anything it is the understanding that there is no separate state called enlightenment. Enlightenment is part and parcel of everything that we could possibly do, and that goes for everyone. The insight into enlightenment is invisible in the world. It doesn't itself appear, although it is behind a persons actions and behaviours. Trying to define it is as futile as trying to define the universe. After all, what isn't the universe?

We might all agree that such "saints" exist. But that doesn't address the question of whether we can become saints too.

I don't doubt that enlightened people may exist, though I don't claim to know. But I do question the premise implicit in their teachings, that we can do what they did.

If you go to the Tiger Woods Golf Class you go there because you want to know what Tiger does to make him so good. Whether you can do it consistently, day after day, and be the best in the world is not your present aim - but to do it just one time and see the look on the guys faces might motivate you enough.

If Tiger said to you, 'there's no point in telling you because you'll never be as consistent as I am' you'd be a bit miffed. You'd rather know anyway and let circumstances be the judge.

This is just the same for the spiritual teacher. Whether the teaching make you a saint is immaterial, any understanding will be good for you.

if we turn enlightenment into some dramatic flip-switch of consciousness that occurs only after many kalpas of effort, then we are bound to get discouraged and think 'I'll just try and enjoy who I am.'

But enlightenment is an ongoing process which is intrinsically satisfying, not a thing to get - like a PGA golf trophy. What is the process for the jnani yogi? To use their brain, to test their assumptions, to remain sceptical if there is no good reason not to be.

My ego wants to be big, wonderful, glamorous, the top dog. And so I seek out people who talk about such things. And one of these people says, "You can be big, wonderful, glamorous, the top dog, enlightened!' And my ego "recognizes in it's heart" that which it wants, and dives in to the chase.

Yes and that's fine. Many people live and die with monstrously large egos to the very end, we might regret that it is so, and perhaps try to help, but in the end we have to accept that it is so. Perhaps you can say to yourself, If their ego wasn't involved in a spiritual chase it would be involved in some other egoic chase.'

We have to endorse the spiritual life even though we can see that for many it will be just be more of the same egoic stuff. I think the Christians are taught this well - to love and trust in God's creation no matter what we might think of it.

How does the enlightened person deal with solitary confinement? How about verbal abuse? How enlightened do they act if we take away their stage, their microphone,dtheir ashram, their book deal? All these things are testable.

If a person wants to set themselves up as spiritual teacher, perhaps make some money, some broads, something different from the wife, they are perfectly free to do so. I'm not sure we should try and stop them through abuse, solitary confinement etc. At the end of the day, they would just be behaving like any normal person who sells a product that can't be 100% guaranteed. And the rest of us have to be confident enough in our spirituality not to be hoodwinked by the brand 'spiritual teaching'. If we are duped then its our mistake, and we'll be more discerning next time.

You see, I question whether this process of chasing things we don't have is really enlightenment.

If you are chasing then you already have some of it and the trail is hot for the rest. To chase something it to have identified it - keep chasing and you'll catch it completely. Most people aren't chasing - this doesn't mean that they are all enlightened.

I'm more drawn to the idea that enlightenment is the opposite of chasing things down a path.

This whole conversation is a form of chasing, although you would perhaps claim that you aren't chasing but enjoying it for what it is!

Any event can be viewed as being entire in itself, under the aspect of eternity, or it can be understood in time and space as being a precursor to future events. When we hold enlightenment in the future then we are chasing.

As I'm sure you'll follow, the moment we start talking about the spiritual life we enter the realm of time and space and so enlightenment is automatically going to seem like a chase. But we are only actual chasers if we have no recourse to the eternal perspective to counterbalance the illusion of time and space.

I am not under the illusion of time and space and so I feel free to chase with the chasers without feeling that I lose sight of my spiritual life, which is about knowing that the chase is not really a chase.

From the way you talk, you also see that the chase is not a chase but you seem to intellectually lose sight of how and for whom the chase is indeed a chase. I say intellectually only,´because in practise, as in inveterate typist, you are as much participating in the chase as I am. I think you argue that life is not a chase but you do it so strongly that you forget to argue that life is a chase as well - and then you get accused of not practising what you preach. Perhaps you feel like they don't need reminding that the spiritual life is a chase, I'm sure they don't, but the argument still has to be made so as not to produce something one-sided.

The guru who says, stop chasing, give it up, be happy with what you've already got, is going to have miserable sales

Actually, I think many gurus are saying this. But everyone asks in bewilderment - how do we do that? what are the techniques? And so the various yogas are born, all the different chases.

You can't simply tell people to be happy by appreciating what they have. They don't appreciate what they have and they don't know how to. Something else is called for. If a person, in their misery, is drawn to a guru then that very action is the first step of the difficult task of 'simply appreciating what they have'. The Buddha, for example, thought that people's inability to enjoy what they have is tied up with intellectual illusions about themselves and the world. His way of getting a wedge in was to challenge people on their beliefs and try to dispel the illusion. This is the closest thing to jnana yoga.

best wishes, Nikolai

[Typist]

All that you can test is the expressions of this as it interpreted by you and your colleagues, you cannot test nor measure an enlightened person's subjective phenomonological experience.

Hmm... Jnana yoga suggests we use reason to skeptically analyze everything, until we arrive at the logical end point of that process. How are we to conduct the analysis if the subject under study is declared to be beyond analysis?

I don't think it really matters if there has been a credibility hit, because I wouldn't want to prescribe the spiritual life to anyone except the interested.

I agree with you that none of this should be shoved at anybody.

I'm just interested in the process of removing unnecessary obstacles. You are interested in this too, or you wouldn't be posting such articulate eloquent expressions which translate your understandings in to a more readily consumable form.

One of the things that obstructs interest is that the subject has been branded a bunch of kooky nonsense in some circles. Anything that can dilute this negative brand will open the door a bit wider for a greater number of people. I'm only referring to opening the door, not to shoving anybody through.

Ultimately the spiritual life defies definition,

Which brings in to question the whole process of Jnana yoga. If we can't define it, we can't use reason to analyze it.

Trying to distinguish the authentic-spiritual from the inauthentic-spiritual seems uncharitable to me.

Well, perhaps it is. But again, Jnana yoga seems to suggest this type of inquiry. If everything is equally spiritual, then there is no need for Jnana yoga, the spiritual life, or any of the rest of it.

Either way is fine, but the compassionate teacher in you will hope that that increase in suffering will lead this second person to reject what you taught them. In the process of rejection, there is something tremendously important to be learnt.

One question here is where this process of rejection should end. You seem to be saying the rejection process shouldn't end (if I understand you) but then you have a long list of well developed and wonderfully articulate positions which it seems you are encouraging us to not reject, but embrace.

My point is this. If the end game is to throw everything away, why not get right to it, by throwing away the medium in which all these positions exist?

It's not possible to throw away thought permanently of course.

So we are then required to acknowledge and accept that a permanent solution to spiritual hunger isn't available, just as a permanent solution to physical hunger isn't available.

We return to the kitchen table throughout the day to replenish our stomachs. In the same way, we can return to silence throughout the day to replenish our "souls" or "sanity" or whatever one wishes to call it.

The good part of this approach is that returning to silence is a simple mechanical process which just about anybody can learn with a bit of patient practice. No need to be a philosopher, no need to be spiritual, no need to change any of our opinions or beliefs, no need for any fancy concepts or deep understandings etc.

The bad thing about looking at it this way is that it strips all the glamor out of the subject, and reduces the topic to a mere daily life management technique.

But is that really so bad? Isn't the grand glamor stuff really just another ego dream which can be safely discarded?

If we have enough calories, we don't need study food. If we have enough sanity, we don't need to study the spiritual life.

The jnani yogi will only know that is available the moment s/he has it. Until then they would be naive to either accept it or reject it.

I propose there is a billion dollars hidden somewhere in your neighborhood and that you can find it and have it. Will you not test this idea a bit before rushing off to dig up the entire neighborhood?

But even their former naivete they will only see once they understand what enlightenment is and cannot know it in advance!

Ok, we are leaving the world of reason and jnana yoga now, and proceeding in to a faith based inquiry. I don't object, as I'm not cynical about faith. I'm just asking we label what we're doing somewhat accurately, which is the kind of thing philosophers do.

I'm sorry for being so opaque, but if enlightenment is anything it is the understanding that there is no separate state called enlightenment.

Ok, the skeptical jnana yoga student can now very reasonably ask, if enlightenment is not a separate state, why are we investigating that which does not exist?

If you go to the Tiger Woods Golf Class you go there because you want to know what Tiger does to make him so good. Whether you can do it consistently, day after day, and be the best in the world is not your present aim - but to do it just one time and see the look on the guys faces might motivate you enough.

Ok. So enlightenment is a process, a continuum, not a destination? If yes, then I see what you mean. I study Tiger, and play a bit better, and better is good. Ok, if that's what you mean, I like it.

if we turn enlightenment into some dramatic flip-switch of consciousness that occurs only after many kalpas of effort, then we are bound to get discouraged and think 'I'll just try and enjoy who I am.'

Well, many people claim that is what enlightenment is.

But enlightenment is an ongoing process which is intrinsically satisfying, not a thing to get -

Ok, this seems clear enough, a process, not a destination.

What is the process for the jnani yogi? To use their brain, to test their assumptions, to remain skeptical if there is no good reason not to be.

Otherwise known as philosophy, for those of you allergic to words like "yogi".

If a person wants to set themselves up as spiritual teacher, perhaps make some money, some broads, something different from the wife, they are perfectly free to do so.

Agreed.

I'm not sure we should try and stop them through abuse, solitary confinement etc.

My idea was not to stop them, only to test their assertions.

If someone claims to have transcended ego, let's heap verbal abuse upon them and see what happens. If they have transcended ego, it seems they would welcome and embrace the experiment.

If you are chasing then you already have some of it and the trail is hot for the rest. To chase something it to have identified it - keep chasing and you'll catch it completely

What I'm asking is, could we catch what we really want by ending the chase?

I'm fat, and somebody says I should be thin. I'm poor, and somebody says I should be rich. I'm a nerd, and somebody says I should be popular. I only have one car, and the man on the TV says I should have two. I'm neurotic, and the guru says I could be enlightened. My mind is churning, churning, churning with visions of all these other places I should be.

And thus I am distracted by the wonder of where I already am.

How do we access this wonder?

By turning off that which is obstructing it, the churning.

The wonder is always there 24/7/365. We don't hear it, because we're not listening, that's all.

It's like not hearing the small bird chirping in our garden, because we have the blaring radio turned up loud. Want to hear the bird? Turn off the radio. Simple.

This whole conversation is a form of chasing, although you would perhaps claim that you aren't chasing but enjoying it for what it is!

I would perhaps indeed claim just such a thing.

If the process is the destination, we are already there.

As I'm sure you'll follow, the moment we start talking about the spiritual life we enter the realm of time and space and so enlightenment is automatically going to seem like a chase. But we are only actual chasers if we have no recourse to the eternal perspective to counterbalance the illusion of time and space.

So we should chase this perspective?

How about this? We might focus on practical steps towards living a healthy life, and if the perspective should come along and bite us on the ass, then welcome it.

From the way you talk, you also see that the chase is not a chase but you seem to intellectually lose sight of how and for whom the chase is indeed a chase.

How could anyone not lose sight of what's going on in a sentence like that?

Seriously, these kinds of things become so convoluted that they become inaccessible to the vast majority of people, including serious and sincere philosophers.

You have posted brilliantly in order to communicate. Communication and sharing clearly matters to you, as it does to me. The point of this process is to serve readers.

Thus, I feel it's entirely reasonable to look for concepts, language and process that are easily digested by readers. An important design concept we might examine is KISS, keep it simple stupid.

I say intellectually only,´because in practise, as in inveterate typist, you are as much participating in the chase as I am.

I am chasing typing. And I have found it!

I think you argue that life is not a chase

No, life is a chase. The mind is a chase machine. I'm suggesting we take a breather and rest.

You can't simply tell people to be happy by appreciating what they have.

I can and I will!

They don't appreciate what they have and they don't know how to.

They don't know how to because, sincere apologies, threads like this make it sound hopelessly complicated and obscure.

Something else is called for.

Yes! Making it simpler.

If a person, in their misery, is drawn to a guru then that very action is the first step of the difficult task of 'simply appreciating what they have'.

The guru will complicate it, and turn it in to some kind of glamorous becoming dance.

What I'm suggesting could be taught by any high school student, totally outside the context of any intellectual or belief systems etc, which have a strong tendency to divide and distract people.

The Buddha, for example, thought that people's inability to enjoy what they have is tied up with intellectual illusions about themselves and the world.

I don't disagree. I don't know it to be true, but it seems a very reasonable and interesting theory.

The question for me is, will feeding the machine (thought) that is causing the problem cause the problem to go away? I don't doubt that for some it will.

I do doubt that for the many it will, and I'm interested in the many. I'm interested in the global human mind, the big picture wholeness, more than I am the individual personal ego drama situation. And thus, my book sales totally suck!

[Arising_uk]

...
The guru will complicate it, and turn it in to some kind of glamorous becoming dance. ...

No, thats the gnu, take a look in a mirror sometime.

What I'm suggesting could be taught by any high school student, totally outside the context of any intellectual or belief systems etc, which have a strong tendency to divide and distract people.

Point out this high school student then as you are apparently not one. as in all your supposed billions of words you've still not yet said or taught anything of use.

[Nikolai]

Hi Typist,

Hmm... Jnana yoga suggests we use reason to skeptically analyze everything, until we arrive at the logical end point of that process. How are we to conduct the analysis if the subject under study is declared to be beyond analysis?

Yes, I see your point. But from the standpoint of the jnana yogi everything, all investigation is spiritual in its nature, not just investigation into what often passes in the west as 'the spiritual'. I imagine the yogi as a philosopher, whose interests are broad and limitless - ethics, politics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics. S/he may choose to conduct research into the professed guru, but they are perhaps just as likely to conduct research into the serial killer.

When i described the spiritual as beyond analysis I was speaking from 'beyond' the yogi's path, as it were.

But again, Jnana yoga seems to suggest this type of inquiry. If everything is equally spiritual, then there is no need for Jnana yoga, the spiritual life, or any of the rest of it.

This presents the age old paradox. It takes immense spiritual wisdom to recognise that everything is spiritual. Until that point we have a tendency to make some things spiritual and not others, and so fail to recognise the spiritual. To say 'everything is spiritual, there is no work to be done' is itself a clear indication that the this person has work to be done.

You seem to be saying the rejection process shouldn't end (if I understand you) but then you have a long list of well developed and wonderfully articulate positions which it seems you are encouraging us to not reject, but embrace.

If anybody embraces any of the positions I take they are sure to be missing the point. If I ever discuss this stuff it is primarily because I consider my own life to have deeply changed for the better and I dearly wish that people could see that the same is possible for them. So this is a general statement.

My secondary reason for writing is not to get people to embrace and specific positions, but perhaps to challenge the ones they have more deeply.

It's not possible to throw away thought permanently of course.

No and nor would we want to. If anyone thinks that the aim of the spiritual life is the cessation of thought they are under a radical misunderstanding about what the spiritual life and thought actually are.

We can however see into the true nature of thought, and this insight is a permanent one and will effect a huge transformation in your life.

So we are then required to acknowledge and accept that a permanent solution to spiritual hunger isn't available, just as a permanent solution to physical hunger isn't available.

If your spiritual hunger is a hunger for thoughtlessness then I cannot but think that you excessively malign your life, which along with the rest of us, is full of thoughts.

The good part of this approach is that returning to silence is a simple mechanical process which just about anybody can learn with a bit of patient practice. No need to be a philosopher, no need to be spiritual, no need to change any of our opinions or beliefs, no need for any fancy concepts or deep understandings etc.

The bad thing about looking at it this way is that it strips all the glamor out of the subject, and reduces the topic to a mere daily life management technique.

Not only does thought not require any management, but we couldn't manage it anyway!

A thought, when properly understood, is a passing breeze and is as harmless to our spiritual selves as a passing perception of a cloud, or the passing aroma of perfume.

Thought in itself is harmless and there is absolutely no need to try and rid ourselves of it.

Thought is only a problem when we think that the contents 'represent' something. If we believe in our hearts that our thoughts are 'about' something, or a reflection of something, then our thoughts have the capacity to do us great harm. In fact, this perspective is itself spiritual ignorance and to fall into it is spiritual suicide.

Now when we talk 'about' the spiritual life as something separate from this present moment we commit spiritual suicide. All the greatest teachers have tried, often in vain, to point towards the potential of enlightenment while knowing that, they themselves are simultaneously presenting the same old spiritual barrier. But they have to say something! Often they say things that are shocking, non-sensical and paradoxical because this is the best way to stop the hearer from falling into the all too easy heresy - to think 'about' the world.

Teachings of no-thought, or that thought is bad, divisive, are very popularly chosen by teachers, especially in the eastern world. But even this teaching is at best a metaphor and logically a contradiction in terms. The sentence 'thought is divisive' itself sets up a division between the action of thinking and the material (reality) that gets divided up!

Actually, thought isn't divisive and couldn't possibly be so. A thought is as serene, perfect and whole as the cosmos itself.
'
Thought is only divisive if we think that there is a world beyond the thought that the thought is referring to.

Only when we see that thought is not about anything will we become reconciled to thinking. And when we become reconciled to it we stop taking it so very seriously, the quantity of it reduces, and it starts to operate in a way that we never considered possible before. This is the state that the 'thought abolitionists' think they should try and emulate somehow, but they will only be able to do so if they rid themselves of their passionate belief that 'thought is divisive'!

Now the spiritually naive will not understand this teaching because they will continue to think that it requires thought to recognise that a thought is not about the world. This is because they cannot rid themselves of the illusion that there is a thinker separated from thinking. They must be left to see it for themselves because more thinking on the matter would just make them more ignorant.

The question for me is, will feeding the machine (thought) that is causing the problem cause the problem to go away? I don't doubt that for some it will.

The thoughts won't go away, but insight into thought will stop feeding the machine - which is the illusion of sepration. For others, insight into thought won't occur and so more thoughts will keep making them worse. A good teacher will be able to tell which is which from the way that the student talks.

Best wishes, Nikolai

[Typist]

Hi Nikolai, as always I'm enjoying your articulate and provocative contributions. I really appreciate your focus on the source of all the many different issues we discuss here on the forum.

But from the standpoint of the jnana yogi everything, all investigation is spiritual in its nature, not just investigation into what often passes in the west as 'the spiritual'.

Well yes, thought has divided reality in to the spiritual and non-spiritual. Personally, I like the idea of just dropping the word "spiritual" altogether, but this is a semantic quibble. If we're going to use words at all, we'll just have to put up with the limitations involved I guess.

I imagine the yogi as a philosopher, whose interests are broad and limitless - ethics, politics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics. S/he may choose to conduct research into the professed guru, but they are perhaps just as likely to conduct research into the serial killer.

Yes, every subject is connected to every other subject, and one can get to any topic from any other topic.

However, if somebody gets on stage and promises that which we most dearly want, something like a permanent solution to emotional challenges, it seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to test such a person and their assertions by some method or another. What such a method might be is as yet to be determined.

There are faith and emotion based approaches which might involve a surrender of critical thought. Unlike many here, I'm not cynical about such approaches. But, it seems jnana yoga is not such an approach.

Thus, it seems to me that if we are to declare "enlightenment" to be beyond reason and analysis, we are thereby tossing jnana yoga and other flavors of philosophy out the window. Again, I don't object to this, as I often suggest something like this myself.

But I would like to know, are we doing philosophy here or not?

When i described the spiritual as beyond analysis I was speaking from 'beyond' the yogi's path, as it were.

Ok, you seem to be addressing my question here, but I'm not getting it yet. If it interests you, could you try again please?

It takes immense spiritual wisdom to recognise that everything is spiritual. Until that point we have a tendency to make some things spiritual and not others, and so fail to recognise the spiritual.

Oops, a time out for another semantic quibble. If everything is spiritual, we really have no need for the word spiritual.

I would counter propose that everything simply is, and any kind of label we might apply to "what is" is nothing more than a human invention. I could call you Nikolai, or I could call you Batman, it doesn't really matter ultimately, you are what and where you are whatever label I choose.

I suggest to you that all these divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual, enlightenment and non-enlightenment etc, are nothing more than a distortion by-product of the tool we are using to conduct the investigation.

If we turn that tool off, all the conceptual divisions and problems associated with them go away. To the degree we're not thinking, we really won't give a damn whether we're enlightened or spiritual or ordinary or not etc, as it's just no longer relevant.

To say 'everything is spiritual, there is no work to be done' is itself a clear indication that the this person has work to be done.

Ok, fair enough, there is work to be done. That is, while we're thinking about where we are vs. where we could be, there is work to be done if we wish to proceed along that path.

If we stop thinking about here vs. there, the becoming dance comes to an end. Until we start thinking again.

If I ever discuss this stuff it is primarily because I consider my own life to have deeply changed for the better and I dearly wish that people could see that the same is possible for them.

I do recognize and appreciate your sincerity, which I wish to emphasize I do not question that in the least. To the degree I am debating your statements, it's only a practical tactical consideration, not an analysis of your intentions.

My secondary reason for writing is not to get people to embrace and specific positions, but perhaps to challenge the ones they have more deeply.

To which we ask, do you wish to join that process?

There seem to be at least two different possibilities available to any reader.

1) One is trading in the materialist consumer society etc story and replacing it with the spiritual story.

2) Another is getting out of the story business altogether. We stop asking to be more rich, famous and popular etc. And we stop asking to be more spiritual and enlightened etc too.

We shift our focus from going somewhere else, to being where we already are. Stop climbing some mountain or another, and sit down.

If anyone thinks that the aim of the spiritual life is the cessation of thought they are under a radical misunderstanding about what the spiritual life and thought actually are.

I would here propose that the spiritual life story, as well as the materialist consumer society story, are actually cover stories for the real story, which is...

We just want to feel good. We just want to be at home inside our own skin. Our real goal is indeed challenging, but it's also very simple.

As example, if there was a safe, healthy and affordable pill that took us to this bottom line goal, all these other stories about material and spiritual fame would begin to melt away. Imho.

We can however see into the true nature of thought, and this insight is a permanent one and will effect a huge transformation in your life.

Ok, this seems a concise summary of your point of view. Using thought to understand thought. Please continue to expand on this in whatever way you can.

If your spiritual hunger is a hunger for thoughtlessness then I cannot but think that you excessively malign your life, which along with the rest of us, is full of thoughts.

Imho, it's not maligning to simply recognize the limitations of a tool we are using.

However, I do agree, if a writer expresses this recognition in a less than skillful way, with a weakness for the dramatic statement etc, then readers who know nothing but thought can understandably come to the conclusion that thought is being maligned. I would plead guilty to such a thing myself.

Not only does thought not require any management, but we couldn't manage it anyway!

Ok, apologies, but this is simply inaccurate. First, thought can indeed be managed! Second, run away thought trains are nothing less than the single biggest threat to our civilization.

A thought, when properly understood, is a passing breeze and is as harmless to our spiritual selves as a passing perception of a cloud, or the passing aroma of perfume.

I do agree with you that if thought can be used to fundamentally transform our relationship with thought, then thought might be rendered harmless. I don't dispute this proposal.

I'm only addressing the practical question of, how many people can actually access and make use of this method?

Thought is only a problem when we think that the contents 'represent' something.

But, we do think that. And so far you've provided no evidence beyond your own personal experience that it might be otherwise, for us.

Again, this is Jnana Yoga so as you suggest, we should be questioning everything. I am questioning, how many people are really going to become psychological Olympic athletes?

Some? Yes, ok, I can agree. And I can agree on faith, without the benefit of personal experience.

Many? I have my doubts obviously, but I'm open to investigating further.

Now when we talk 'about' the spiritual life as something separate from this present moment we commit spiritual suicide.

Yes, but the use of language to express this tosses us in to a semantic nightmare. Can't be helped I guess.

All the greatest teachers have tried, often in vain, to point towards the potential of enlightenment while knowing that, they themselves are simultaneously presenting the same old spiritual barrier. But they have to say something!

Ah, but do they? Let us question that as well.

You have yourself said that we the unenlightened will recognize something in the enlightened. I forget the exact words you used.

Some of the Christians, the better ones imho, have an interesting approach here. Service.

I go to my priest with a hundred theological questions and he says....

"Ok, maybe we'll get to that later, but for now, let's go work in the soup kitchen."

Want to surrender yourself, asks the priest? Ok, start surrendering. Right here, right now. Not in theory, in practice. Stop thinking so much about it, and get on with doing it.

I'm not selling this as "the solution" I just think it's an interesting non-intellectual approach.

The sentence 'thought is divisive' itself sets up a division between the action of thinking and the material (reality) that gets divided up!

Right, because everything thought touches will be divided. The solution isn't "the correct thought" which will then be divided from "the incorrect thought". It's pull the plug on thought.

Actually, thought isn't divisive and couldn't possibly be so.

The word "tree" divides a unified reality in to "tree" and "not tree".

Thought is only divisive if we think that there is a world beyond the thought that the thought is referring to.

Your thoughts on this matter are divided from my thoughts on this matter. Your thought presents itself as being different than and better than my thought, and my thoughts do the same in reverse. You can construct some very interesting thoughts about thought not being divisive, and in that act are dividing.

Once we turn on the thought machine, there is no escape my friend.

Only when we see that thought is not about anything will we become reconciled to thinking.

Or, we can become reconciled to thinking once we've learned how to manage it so it no longer terrorizes us.

This is the state that the 'thought abolitionists' think they should try and emulate somehow, but they will only be able to do so if they rid themselves of their passionate belief that 'thought is divisive'!

Point of order, there is a difference between being a "thought abolitionist" (a wonderful phrase!) and being a "thought manager".

I manage what I eat, what I drink, when I sleep, when I go to the bathroom, how hard my heart is pumping, and how sweaty I am etc. What's challenging about the idea of managing one more physical process? Why make it in to something complicated, when we use simple common sense to manage all the other bodily functions?

Now the spiritually naive will not understand this teaching because they will continue to think that it requires thought to recognise that a thought is not about the world. This is because they cannot rid themselves of the illusion that there is a thinker separated from thinking.

Ok, interesting, keep going please.

1) We are discussing ridding ourselves of this illusion via thought, vs. ridding ourselves of this illusion via non-thought.

2) We are discussing a permanent change vs. a temporary change.

A fair summary?

So very many words! If we can get there via words, our chances seem good!

Thanks again Nik! As you can see, I find your words to be very interesting.

[lancek4]

There is no nor will there ever be one who is enlightened. I am enlightened.

[lancek4]

Hi Nikolai, as always I'm enjoying your articulate and provocative contributions. I really appreciate your focus on the source of all the many different issues we discuss here on the forum.

But from the standpoint of the jnana yogi everything, all investigation is spiritual in its nature, not just investigation into what often passes in the west as 'the spiritual'.

Well yes, thought has divided reality in to the spiritual and non-spiritual. Personally, I like the idea of just dropping the word "spiritual" altogether, but this is a semantic quibble. If we're going to use words at all, we'll just have to put up with the limitations involved I guess.

I imagine the yogi as a philosopher, whose interests are broad and limitless - ethics, politics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics. S/he may choose to conduct research into the professed guru, but they are perhaps just as likely to conduct research into the serial killer.

Yes, every subject is connected to every other subject, and one can get to any topic from any other topic.

However, if somebody gets on stage and promises that which we most dearly want, something like a permanent solution to emotional challenges, it seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to test such a person and their assertions by some method or another. What such a method might be is as yet to be determined.

There are faith and emotion based approaches which might involve a surrender of critical thought. Unlike many here, I'm not cynical about such approaches. But, it seems jnana yoga is not such an approach.

Thus, it seems to me that if we are to declare "enlightenment" to be beyond reason and analysis, we are thereby tossing jnana yoga and other flavors of philosophy out the window. Again, I don't object to this, as I often suggest something like this myself.

But I would like to know, are we doing philosophy here or not?

When i described the spiritual as beyond analysis I was speaking from 'beyond' the yogi's path, as it were.

Ok, you seem to be addressing my question here, but I'm not getting it yet. If it interests you, could you try again please?

It takes immense spiritual wisdom to recognise that everything is spiritual. Until that point we have a tendency to make some things spiritual and not others, and so fail to recognise the spiritual.

Oops, a time out for another semantic quibble. If everything is spiritual, we really have no need for the word spiritual.

I would counter propose that everything simply is, and any kind of label we might apply to "what is" is nothing more than a human invention. I could call you Nikolai, or I could call you Batman, it doesn't really matter ultimately, you are what and where you are whatever label I choose.

I suggest to you that all these divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual, enlightenment and non-enlightenment etc, are nothing more than a distortion by-product of the tool we are using to conduct the investigation.

If we turn that tool off, all the conceptual divisions and problems associated with them go away. To the degree we're not thinking, we really won't give a damn whether we're enlightened or spiritual or ordinary or not etc, as it's just no longer relevant.

To say 'everything is spiritual, there is no work to be done' is itself a clear indication that the this person has work to be done.

Ok, fair enough, there is work to be done. That is, while we're thinking about where we are vs. where we could be, there is work to be done if we wish to proceed along that path.

If we stop thinking about here vs. there, the becoming dance comes to an end. Until we start thinking again.

If I ever discuss this stuff it is primarily because I consider my own life to have deeply changed for the better and I dearly wish that people could see that the same is possible for them.

I do recognize and appreciate your sincerity, which I wish to emphasize I do not question that in the least. To the degree I am debating your statements, it's only a practical tactical consideration, not an analysis of your intentions.

My secondary reason for writing is not to get people to embrace and specific positions, but perhaps to challenge the ones they have more deeply.

To which we ask, do you wish to join that process?

There seem to be at least two different possibilities available to any reader.

1) One is trading in the materialist consumer society etc story and replacing it with the spiritual story.

2) Another is getting out of the story business altogether. We stop asking to be more rich, famous and popular etc. And we stop asking to be more spiritual and enlightened etc too.

We shift our focus from going somewhere else, to being where we already are. Stop climbing some mountain or another, and sit down.

If anyone thinks that the aim of the spiritual life is the cessation of thought they are under a radical misunderstanding about what the spiritual life and thought actually are.

I would here propose that the spiritual life story, as well as the materialist consumer society story, are actually cover stories for the real story, which is...

We just want to feel good. We just want to be at home inside our own skin. Our real goal is indeed challenging, but it's also very simple.

As example, if there was a safe, healthy and affordable pill that took us to this bottom line goal, all these other stories about material and spiritual fame would begin to melt away. Imho.

We can however see into the true nature of thought, and this insight is a permanent one and will effect a huge transformation in your life.

Ok, this seems a concise summary of your point of view. Using thought to understand thought. Please continue to expand on this in whatever way you can.

If your spiritual hunger is a hunger for thoughtlessness then I cannot but think that you excessively malign your life, which along with the rest of us, is full of thoughts.

Imho, it's not maligning to simply recognize the limitations of a tool we are using.

However, I do agree, if a writer expresses this recognition in a less than skillful way, with a weakness for the dramatic statement etc, then readers who know nothing but thought can understandably come to the conclusion that thought is being maligned. I would plead guilty to such a thing myself.

Not only does thought not require any management, but we couldn't manage it anyway!

Ok, apologies, but this is simply inaccurate. First, thought can indeed be managed! Second, run away thought trains are nothing less than the single biggest threat to our civilization.

A thought, when properly understood, is a passing breeze and is as harmless to our spiritual selves as a passing perception of a cloud, or the passing aroma of perfume.

I do agree with you that if thought can be used to fundamentally transform our relationship with thought, then thought might be rendered harmless. I don't dispute this proposal.

I'm only addressing the practical question of, how many people can actually access and make use of this method?

Thought is only a problem when we think that the contents 'represent' something.

But, we do think that. And so far you've provided no evidence beyond your own personal experience that it might be otherwise, for us.

Again, this is Jnana Yoga so as you suggest, we should be questioning everything. I am questioning, how many people are really going to become psychological Olympic athletes?

Some? Yes, ok, I can agree. And I can agree on faith, without the benefit of personal experience.

Many? I have my doubts obviously, but I'm open to investigating further.

Now when we talk 'about' the spiritual life as something separate from this present moment we commit spiritual suicide.

Yes, but the use of language to express this tosses us in to a semantic nightmare. Can't be helped I guess.

All the greatest teachers have tried, often in vain, to point towards the potential of enlightenment while knowing that, they themselves are simultaneously presenting the same old spiritual barrier. But they have to say something!

Ah, but do they? Let us question that as well.

You have yourself said that we the unenlightened will recognize something in the enlightened. I forget the exact words you used.

Some of the Christians, the better ones imho, have an interesting approach here. Service.

I go to my priest with a hundred theological questions and he says....

"Ok, maybe we'll get to that later, but for now, let's go work in the soup kitchen."

Want to surrender yourself, asks the priest? Ok, start surrendering. Right here, right now. Not in theory, in practice. Stop thinking so much about it, and get on with doing it.

I'm not selling this as "the solution" I just think it's an interesting non-intellectual approach.

The sentence 'thought is divisive' itself sets up a division between the action of thinking and the material (reality) that gets divided up!

Right, because everything thought touches will be divided. The solution isn't "the correct thought" which will then be divided from "the incorrect thought". It's pull the plug on thought.

Actually, thought isn't divisive and couldn't possibly be so.

The word "tree" divides a unified reality in to "tree" and "not tree".

Thought is only divisive if we think that there is a world beyond the thought that the thought is referring to.

Your thoughts on this matter are divided from my thoughts on this matter. Your thought presents itself as being different than and better than my thought, and my thoughts do the same in reverse. You can construct some very interesting thoughts about thought not being divisive, and in that act are dividing.

Once we turn on the thought machine, there is no escape my friend.

Only when we see that thought is not about anything will we become reconciled to thinking.

Or, we can become reconciled to thinking once we've learned how to manage it so it no longer terrorizes us.

This is the state that the 'thought abolitionists' think they should try and emulate somehow, but they will only be able to do so if they rid themselves of their passionate belief that 'thought is divisive'!

Point of order, there is a difference between being a "thought abolitionist" (a wonderful phrase!) and being a "thought manager".

I manage what I eat, what I drink, when I sleep, when I go to the bathroom, how hard my heart is pumping, and how sweaty I am etc. What's challenging about the idea of managing one more physical process? Why make it in to something complicated, when we use simple common sense to manage all the other bodily functions?

Now the spiritually naive will not understand this teaching because they will continue to think that it requires thought to recognise that a thought is not about the world. This is because they cannot rid themselves of the illusion that there is a thinker separated from thinking.

Ok, interesting, keep going please.

1) We are discussing ridding ourselves of this illusion via thought, vs. ridding ourselves of this illusion via non-thought.

2) We are discussing a permanent change vs. a temporary change.

A fair summary?

So very many words! If we can get there via words, our chances seem good!

Thanks again Nik! As you can see, I find your words to be very interesting.

Hi typist and nikoli.
Interesting exchange.
Might I contribute:

As you say: everything just 'is'. It is then a 'distortion' of what might be called the 'yogi' approach to suggest that certain terms might indicate a 'distortion' of what might be spiritual

The Being that is supposed of this 'union' (yoga) is significant in all its forms. The terms you would call 'distortions' cannot be such. They are exactly implicative and indicative inherently to what may be this 'union'.

To see a division indicated at all reveals one as subject to the 'illusion', samsara, I think it is called.
In that I might be a soldier who's job it is to kill people, I am exactly being true, in yoga, in union with existance.

One might recall the Mahabarata (sp?): Arjuna and Krishna overlooking the battle and the discussion which goes on there.

Such a discussion like this thread gets nowhere towards what it discusses since by its very nature is already what it supposes as the object or topic

[Nikolai]

Hi typist,

When i described the spiritual as beyond analysis I was speaking from 'beyond' the yogi's path, as it were.


Ok, you seem to be addressing my question here, but I'm not getting it yet. If it interests you, could you try again please?

The jnana yogi's path is a thought based enterprise, where they use their reason to challenge to explore alternative viewpoints. That's how I see this yoga, as a form of intellectual scepticism. At some point the yogi is bound to start wondering whether there might be something to doubt about the split between themselves and the world - at this point they may start to be sceptical about thought itself.

You and I have spent hardly any time discussing philosophy because we have jumped straight to this final phase - no doubt because of both our backgrounds and experience. Nearly all of our concern has been at the final outpost of the yogi's path, has been about the nature of thought itself. I've therefore been speculating about insights that happen beyond thought.

I suggest to you that all these divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual, enlightenment and non-enlightenment etc, are nothing more than a distortion by-product of the tool we are using to conduct the investigation.

If we turn that tool off, all the conceptual divisions and problems associated with them go away. To the degree we're not thinking, we really won't give a damn whether we're enlightened or spiritual or ordinary or not etc, as it's just no longer relevant.

Yes I agree with all of this. Perhaps what you call turning the tool (of thought) off, I have been calling 'understanding thought for what it is'. Perhaps they both result in the same thing, which is about letting thoughts come and go and not getting too attached from what they supposedly mean. My focus has been on the benignity of thought, I've been wanting to show how inconsequential thought really is ( while knowing the dreadful consequences of thought-based illusions). Once you have seen thought for what it really is it cannot possibly harm you anymore and you can think all you like with complete impunity.

Ok, this seems a concise summary of your point of view. Using thought to understand thought. Please continue to expand on this in whatever way you can.

In a way we already think about thought appropriately. If we think of the tree in the garden, move on to a thought of ice cream, then think of the tree in the garden again - we consider the first thought of the tree to have gone forever, and the second one is a fresh new thought but perhaps on the same tree theme.

This is all as it should be. Our problems come when we consider the tree to have endured in some outside reality, while we were distracted by ice cream. This is the illusion. We see our thoughts correctly enough, but our problem is that we believe they are 'about' something that exists, in itself, outside of thought. if we could only let our thoughts pass through us without attaching to the importance of their supposed 'contents' we would be enlightened on the spot.

So my point is that thought itself is fine, it is believing too much in what our thoughts tell us that creates all the difficulty.

Now the good sceptical philosopher will quickly recognise that we can't verify whether there really is or isn't a tree that endures outside of thought. The trouble is nearly of us are thoroughly convinced that we are objects that exist in a world that exists indepedently of us.

Actually, I'm not suggesting we reject this view of an independent world outside, but what we do need to do is understand that it is nothing more than a kind of belief, a superstition. When we know that there are these two different ways of understanding our experience then the world cannot cause us suffering like it used to. We don't take our thoughts so seriously because we don't take the 'world' so seriously. Things are only ever half true from now on - our selfhood which we fret and worry so much about, hurting others in the process, behaving selfishly and out of fear. All of that behaviour calms down considerably, we simply can't take ourselves so seriously any more. We are like the kid who caught his parents placing the gifts round the tree. He simply can't make himself believe in Santa Claus like he used to.

This serene state is the ataraxia that philosophy promises.

But, we do think that. And so far you've provided no evidence beyond your own personal experience that it might be otherwise, for us.

Again, this is Jnana Yoga so as you suggest, we should be questioning everything. I am questioning, how many people are really going to become psychological Olympic athletes?

Some? Yes, ok, I can agree. And I can agree on faith, without the benefit of personal experience.

Many? I have my doubts obviously, but I'm open to investigating further.

There aren't many people in this world who hear the kind of arguments that I just outlined. Its not hard to understand, anyone capable of a little reflection would see the legitimacy of the argument. It doesn't require any philosophical training.

Yes, nearly everyone does believe in the contents of their thoughts, but how many are often reminded not too. This is an attitude to thought that I would like to see more widespread, I also think it would well complement what you advocate - that is learning techniques to avoid thought arising in the first place.

Ok, interesting, keep going please.

1) We are discussing ridding ourselves of this illusion via thought, vs. ridding ourselves of this illusion via non-thought.

2) We are discussing a permanent change vs. a temporary change.

A fair summary?

Yes, I think this is a fair summary. And as a said, I think the approaches could complement each other although I think what you say will appeal to some personality types more than others, and the same for me.

In the last post I suggested that an insight into the nature of thought will result automatically in a reduction in the quantity of thought. So the student would reach a well thought-managed state through insight. Do you think that managing thoughts and reducing their quantity would produce insight into the nature of thought?

Best, Nikolai

PS - sorry but lost loadsof my message somehow, this is what I could remember

[Nikolai]

To see a division indicated at all reveals one as subject to the 'illusion', samsara, I think it is called.
In that I might be a soldier who's job it is to kill people, I am exactly being true, in yoga, in union with existance.

One might recall the Mahabarata (sp?): Arjuna and Krishna overlooking the battle and the discussion which goes on there.

Such a discussion like this thread gets nowhere towards what it discusses since by its very nature is already what it supposes as the object or topic

Hi Lance,
You are right that these discussions 'get' nowhere, but that doesn't mean that that they aren't anything. Krishna taught Arjuna at the battlefield, Arjuna went on to fight. To refrain from teaching because you think it is pointless is to commit the same error as Arjuna made when he wanted to refrain from fighting in the battle.

I'm not saying you are wrong as such, but you need to see that teaching is a part of the world as anything else, distortion as it is. A good teacher will always remind their pupil that a time will come when they must ignore the teaching but in the meantime they will continue.

Best wishes, Nikolai

[Typist]

The jnana yogi's path is a thought based enterprise, where they use their reason to challenge to explore alternative viewpoints. That's how I see this yoga, as a form of intellectual scepticism.

Ok, good clear description.

At some point the yogi is bound to start wondering whether there might be something to doubt about the split between themselves and the world - at this point they may start to be sceptical about thought itself.

Yes, well said.

This might be compared to the astronomer who shifts their focus from studying the cosmos, to studying their telescope. At some point, the astronomer realizes that everything he's learning about the cosmos is affected by the characteristics of the telescope. As example, if the telescope only records visible light, then he is missing a vast amount of relevant information about the cosmos. This information should be factored in to his calculations.

You and I have spent hardly any time discussing philosophy because we have jumped straight to this final phase -

Yes, I agree. You make a good point. Agreed, let's backup to the beginning, and slow down.

Perhaps what you call turning the tool (of thought) off, I have been calling 'understanding thought for what it is'.

Yes. You're addressing yourself to the content of thought. I'm addressing my comments to thought itself. Like a SWAT team, busting down both the front door and the back door at the same time.

Perhaps they both result in the same thing, which is about letting thoughts come and go and not getting too attached from what they supposedly mean.

A key difference I see is that you seem to be seeking a permanent transformation, whereas I am contenting myself with day to day management. These approaches aren't really in conflict, though it's fun (and very thought-like!) to pretend they are. Surely someone who is meditating just to get through the day might find enough quiet to then be able to have the insights you are referring to.

My focus has been on the benignity of thought, I've been wanting to show how inconsequential thought really is ( while knowing the dreadful consequences of thought-based illusions). Once you have seen thought for what it really is it cannot possibly harm you anymore and you can think all you like with complete impunity.

I do understand, and agree that this would be a case of pulling the problem up by the roots, which is surely advisable, if it's possible.

Another approach might be to learn where to go to escape run away thought circuses. As example, suppose there was a magic room in our house where we could go, where we were always at peace. If we have access to such a room, then we can explore life with more courage and less fear.

As example, a shy young man might begin asking out a new cute girl every day. Yes, he's going to be rejected sometimes, perhaps rudely. But, if he has a place to go to heal the wounds, he doesn't need to be so afraid of the injuries. The less fear he has, the greater his chances of success.

I sometimes suggest that folks have at least one period in their life where they meditate 3 or 4 hours a day. Not to become enlightened and so on, just to learn what is available from that experience, and how to get there. Once we know where the safe room is, it's not necessary to go there every day. Just knowing the safe room is available makes emotional adventures less scary.

Our problems come when we consider the tree to have endured in some outside reality, while we were distracted by ice cream. This is the illusion. We see our thoughts correctly enough, but our problem is that we believe they are 'about' something that exists, in itself, outside of thought.

This is going to be a tough one for readers to swallow. It's a tough one for me as well. Perhaps you might go in to this slowly step by step?

Now the good sceptical philosopher will quickly recognise that we can't verify whether there really is or isn't a tree that endures outside of thought. The trouble is nearly of us are thoroughly convinced that we are objects that exist in a world that exists indepedently of us.

Yes, this is true. Good luck unraveling that one. A worthy challenge!

Actually, I'm not suggesting we reject this view of an independent world outside, but what we do need to do is understand that it is nothing more than a kind of belief, a superstition.

So you're saying this perspective is just one of many possibilities?

We are like the kid who caught his parents placing the gifts round the tree. He simply can't make himself believe in Santa Claus like he used to.

Ok, great analogy. We are debunking Santa Claus!

This raises the question of whether human beings truly want to see reality, or whether we prefer the pleasing illusions we create for ourselves. So long as we are creating the illusions, and living within those illusions, we are like gods.

I have a new spiritual teacher in addition to you.

He's Jeff Dunham, a famous ventriloquist who appears on the Comedy Channel here in the states. He's quite talented! It's interesting to observe how we know with absolute certainty that the ventriloquist's dummies are not real living people. And yet, we rush to fully embrace the illusion that they are.

And, it feels great! The agreed upon illusion is really a much more fulfilling experience than philosophy, imho. It's interesting to observe that there are no philosophers who are as popular as this ventriloquist.

This serene state is the ataraxia that philosophy promises.

Ok, we are now chasing ataraxia.

There aren't many people in this world who hear the kind of arguments that I just outlined.

That's true. That's because there aren't many people in the world who would enjoy joining this conversation.

Its not hard to understand, anyone capable of a little reflection would see the legitimacy of the argument. It doesn't require any philosophical training.

There is seeing the insight in theory, and there is seeing the insight in a way that changes our life.

Yes, nearly everyone does believe in the contents of their thoughts, but how many are often reminded not too. This is an attitude to thought that I would like to see more widespread,

And you are quite an articulate spokesman for this insight, so I urge you to continue. It's really a translation job. How do we talk about these things so that they become interesting to a wider audience? You have the knack for this translation.

I also think it would well complement what you advocate - that is learning techniques to avoid thought arising in the first place.

I would describe my approach as learning methods for managing thought.

Food is good, food is essential. Too much food gives us diabetes and a heart attack. Thought is good, thought is essential. Too much thought makes us nutty.

And as a said, I think the approaches could complement each other although I think what you say will appeal to some personality types more than others, and the same for me.

Yes, agreed. It's not one or the other, however fun it might be to play that game.

In the last post I suggested that an insight into the nature of thought will result automatically in a reduction in the quantity of thought. So the student would reach a well thought-managed state through insight.

Understood.

Do you think that managing thoughts and reducing their quantity would produce insight into the nature of thought?

I don't know about produce. I would express it more as, create a more favorable environment. If one has a philosophic nature, then a well managed mind might be a place where better philosophy could unfold.

But, most people don't really have a philosophic nature, they just want to feel good.

PS - sorry but lost loadsof my message somehow, this is what I could remember

Yes, same thing happening here. I've learned to carefully copy my words before hitting the dreaded Submit button. On the other hand, maybe the technology is trying to help us achieve silence?

[lancek4]

To see a division indicated at all reveals one as subject to the 'illusion', samsara, I think it is called.
In that I might be a soldier who's job it is to kill people, I am exactly being true, in yoga, in union with existance.

One might recall the Mahabarata (sp?): Arjuna and Krishna overlooking the battle and the discussion which goes on there.

Such a discussion like this thread gets nowhere towards what it discusses since by its very nature is already what it supposes as the object or topic

Hi Lance,
You are right that these discussions 'get' nowhere, but that doesn't mean that that they aren't anything. Krishna taught Arjuna at the battlefield, Arjuna went on to fight. To refrain from teaching because you think it is pointless is to commit the same error as Arjuna made when he wanted to refrain from fighting in the battle.

I'm not saying you are wrong as such, but you need to see that teaching is a part of the world as anything else, distortion as it is. A good teacher will always remind their pupil that a time will come when they must ignore the teaching but in the meantime they will continue.

Best wishes, Nikolai

Yes quite so; I was being obstinate. Jnana yoga. I apollogize; its the rebel in me.

I wish to return to my eariler question in this post: the contradiction of 'being let seen' or what may be 'teaching of that which is already going on, already that which is being taught-as-the-teaching', does this have an 'Bhagavagita' term? Are there terms which indicate the 'teaching apart from the fact' (towards emlightenment, as it may) , and then the 'teaching that is the fact (of enlightenment, as it may) ?

Iwent to an couple online lexicons of Buddhist/Hindu terms, and the list is extensive. Almost rediculous. I couldn't find such terms.

[lancek4]

The jnana yogi's path is a thought based enterprise, where they use their reason to challenge to explore alternative viewpoints. That's how I see this yoga, as a form of intellectual scepticism.

Ok, good clear description.

At some point the yogi is bound to start wondering whether there might be something to doubt about the split between themselves and the world - at this point they may start to be sceptical about thought itself.

Yes, well said.

This might be compared to the astronomer who shifts their focus from studying the cosmos, to studying their telescope. At some point, the astronomer realizes that everything he's learning about the cosmos is affected by the characteristics of the telescope. As example, if the telescope only records visible light, then he is missing a vast amount of relevant information about the cosmos. This information should be factored in to his calculations.

You and I have spent hardly any time discussing philosophy because we have jumped straight to this final phase -

Yes, I agree. You make a good point. Agreed, let's backup to the beginning, and slow down.

Perhaps what you call turning the tool (of thought) off, I have been calling 'understanding thought for what it is'.

Yes. You're addressing yourself to the content of thought. I'm addressing my comments to thought itself. Like a SWAT team, busting down both the front door and the back door at the same time.
I dont mean ot brage in, but perhaps I do.
I likewise address thought itself. This occurred because of an experience I had which conerned what I thought about reality, where when I went to convey it, I was met with people who always misunderstood what I was trying to say even though I felt I had comveyed it beautifully and succinctly. This lead me to see that it was not so much that what I understood as reality was incorrect, but the means I was using to 'know' reality was the issue. My reality was intact; it is true. The terms by which I situated my reality was the probelm. Thus I came to look at thought itself. I saw that when what I saw as my being was invested, attatched to the terms I was using in the attempt to describe my being, I was upset and frustrated. But when I saw that this was the heart of the problem, I stepped back, not by any move I could make on my own - I myself as the prodcut of the meaning of the terms I used could not make this move - but it just happened. And I began to consider thought in itself, as a category.

Perhaps they both result in the same thing, which is about letting thoughts come and go and not getting too attached from what they supposedly mean.

The problem, then, seemed to me, how to convey so that others would understand as I understand, this probelm, because for me it was not the positing of the problem which caused my 'detachment', but it was an effect upon me. The thoughts I used for myself could not bring me to 'understand' so that a change would occur which solved the probelm, for the understanding itself was the problem, and constantly lead me back into the motion of being frustrated with the terms.

A key difference I see is that you seem to be seeking a permanent transformation, whereas I am contenting myself with day to day management. These approaches aren't really in conflict, though it's fun (and very thought-like!) to pretend they are. Surely someone who is meditating just to get through the day might find enough quiet to then be able to have the insights you are referring to.
I found that because of the probelm, I could not instruct someone how to come upon the problem so that it had the effect that somehow seems to be desired, both because the terms I was using to convey such teaching thwarted what might have been learned by the seeker in that they are depending upon the terms I use in the same way I was attached to the meaning of the terms, and because the desire to learn also compounded the problem.
So I saw that 'learning' always requires a 'method' but that the method never teaches what is supposed to be teaching, since it cannot be learned due to the probelm I just presented. Yet because the seeker, the learner, the one who is attempting to 'get' this thing of the instruction still desires this thing that the teacher supposedly has, in the futility that is the want but never achieved in time, the 'teaching' aquires a semblance of 'method', as if one just has to do these things to achieve the result. The problem lay plainly in the fact that I cannot bring upon the disired result on my own; it has to 'occur' despite my intenstions.

My focus has been on the benignity of thought, I've been wanting to show how inconsequential thought really is ( while knowing the dreadful consequences of thought-based illusions). Once you have seen thought for what it really is it cannot possibly harm you anymore and you can think all you like with complete impunity.

I do understand, and agree that this would be a case of pulling the problem up by the roots, which is surely advisable, if it's possible.

Another approach might be to learn where to go to escape run away thought circuses. As example, suppose there was a magic room in our house where we could go, where we were always at peace. If we have access to such a room, then we can explore life with more courage and less fear.

As example, a shy young man might begin asking out a new cute girl every day. Yes, he's going to be rejected sometimes, perhaps rudely. But, if he has a place to go to heal the wounds, he doesn't need to be so afraid of the injuries. The less fear he has, the greater his chances of success.

I sometimes suggest that folks have at least one period in their life where they meditate 3 or 4 hours a day. Not to become enlightened and so on, just to learn what is available from that experience, and how to get there. Once we know where the safe room is, it's not necessary to go there every day. Just knowing the safe room is available makes emotional adventures less scary. Such is the method prescribed out of compassion for the one who has not the experience come upon.

Our problems come when we consider the tree to have endured in some outside reality, while we were distracted by ice cream. This is the illusion. We see our thoughts correctly enough, but our problem is that we believe they are 'about' something that exists, in itself, outside of thought.

The problem is that thought about, or knowing, the problem is not sufficient to bring about such a change we are looking for
.
This is going to be a tough one for readers to swallow. It's a tough one for me as well. Perhaps you might go in to this slowly step by step?

Now the good sceptical philosopher will quickly recognise that we can't verify whether there really is or isn't a tree that endures outside of thought. The trouble is nearly of us are thoroughly convinced that we are objects that exist in a world that exists indepedently of us.

Yes, this is true. Good luck unraveling that one. A worthy challenge!

Actually, I'm not suggesting we reject this view of an independent world outside, but what we do need to do is understand that it is nothing more than a kind of belief, a superstition.

So you're saying this perspective is just one of many possibilities?
I might offer: possibility is eternal; particularity has infinite possibilities. Perspective is limited by thought on the matter. Infinity is likewise confined by perspective. All this amounts to superstition. It is the 'unknowing of what is known', the taking-back but not-taking back of that by which I know reality, in that what I know equates to my self. This does not then negate reality, but only the terms by which I have come upon myself. Thus reality remains, and I remain, but I no longer come upon the two in the same manner. Thus i react differently to myself and reality.

We are like the kid who caught his parents placing the gifts round the tree. He simply can't make himself believe in Santa Claus like he used to.

Or, that the belief that was Satna 'Clause' has already had an establiishing effect upon what Christmans may be.

Ok, great analogy. We are debunking Santa Claus!

This raises the question of whether human beings truly want to see reality, or whether we prefer the pleasing illusions we create for ourselves. So long as we are creating the illusions, and living within those illusions, we are like gods.
The 'wanting' relays itself into 'method'. 'I' do not 'create' the illusion; the illusion is that I am in that manifestation. Overcoming the illusion is not what it is supposed in speaking about it; such terms are used to convey method.
I have a new spiritual teacher in addition to you.

He's Jeff Dunham, a famous ventriloquist who appears on the Comedy Channel here in the states. He's quite talented! It's interesting to observe how we know with absolute certainty that the ventriloquist's dummies are not real living people. And yet, we rush to fully embrace the illusion that they are.

This serene state is the ataraxia that philosophy promises.

Ok, we are now chasing ataraxia.
Perhpas it is the chasing that is thwarting you endeavor. I still chase, but I do not move. All things come to me, though I have ventured to find them.
Ataraxia seems a term that confounds what philsophy may be. As to another thread; philsophy in this sense of attainment, is thus aphilsophy, yet in that then such an aphilsophy might propose a method by which to achieve ataraxia, it has become philsophy.

There aren't many people in this world who hear the kind of arguments that I just outlined.

Not many who hear, but those who can probably dont need to hear it, or so it might seems.

That's true. That's because there aren't many people in the world who would enjoy joining this conversation.

Its not hard to understand, anyone capable of a little reflection would see the legitimacy of the argument. It doesn't require any philosophical training.

There is seeing the insight in theory, and there is seeing the insight in a way that changes our life.
yes; one argues itself, the other itself argues.

Yes, nearly everyone does believe in the contents of their thoughts, but how many are often reminded not too. This is an attitude to thought that I would like to see more widespread,

And you are quite an articulate spokesman for this insight, so I urge you to continue. It's really a translation job. How do we talk about these things so that they become interesting to a wider audience? You have the knack for this translation.

I also think it would well complement what you advocate - that is learning techniques to avoid thought arising in the first place.

I have always seen from my first encounter with you Typist, that this was the point of your struggle. And I sympathize. I absoutely hope you gain what you are seeking.

I would describe my approach as learning methods for managing thought.
I could not manage my own life; how might it be that I could manage my thoughts? No one could teach me this because my thoughts always commandeered what ever anyone was trying to tell me.

Food is good, food is essential. Too much food gives us diabetes and a heart attack. Thought is good, thought is essential. Too much thought makes us nutty.

And as a said, I think the approaches could complement each other although I think what you say will appeal to some personality types more than others, and the same for me.

Yes, agreed. It's not one or the other, however fun it might be to play that game.

In the last post I suggested that an insight into the nature of thought will result automatically in a reduction in the quantity of thought. So the student would reach a well thought-managed state through insight.

Understood.

Do you think that managing thoughts and reducing their quantity would produce insight into the nature of thought?

I don't know about produce. I would express it more as, create a more favorable environment. If one has a philosophic nature, then a well managed mind might be a place where better philosophy could unfold.

But, most people don't really have a philosophic nature, they just want to feel good.
I wonder what is occuring in me when I defer what I am attempting to understand to what other people do ?

PS - sorry but lost loadsof my message somehow, this is what I could remember

Yes, same thing happening here. I've learned to carefully copy my words before hitting the dreaded Submit button. On the other hand, maybe the technology is trying to help us achieve silence?

damn computers. i dont know why that happend either - what botton Im actually pushing tht makes my whole paragraph disappear.

[lancek4]

My focus has been on the benignity of thought, I've been wanting to show how inconsequential thought really is ( while knowing the dreadful consequences of thought-based illusions). Once you have seen thought for what it really is it cannot possibly harm you anymore and you can think all you like with complete impunity.

This idea, though I know what you are saying, conveys the wrong idea. It is not 'thought' but 'thought which gains its particular reality through definitions'. The idea you are proposing here is a thought. Would you say it is incorrect? It is not 'absence of thought' we are after in our quest toward some serenity or enlightenlement, as the case ,may be. One cannot avoid thinking in order to engage with life. These thoughts are unique to the individual as the individual is established. Perhaps the 'order' (in the Foucaultian term) may be rearranged, such that how the terms relate to one another, but this is exactly method, as if somehow I might be able to change my diefinitions of what reality is and then I might have some serenity or something similar. this may be true, but it is not the enlightenment of which we propose to be speaking, in the sense of 'thought'. It is not rearrangment of the particular definitions, but the resituating of what 'thought', itself, is defined as - not what 'thought' is in reference to 'not-thought'.

So my point is that thought itself is fine, it is believing too much in what our thoughts tell us that creates all the difficulty.
Again; it is not 'thought' but rather 'the content of thought' that is the problem. If I have an idea of what thought is : thought is thinking, say - and thus I have a corresponding thought: thought is the probelm, thus I must attempt a 'not-thought', or 'not thinking'. This situation of thought is not thought itself, but is a negotiation of terms, of definitions of thought.
The problem, if one wishes to 'come upon reality diefferently' is not a rearrangment of definitions, it is a resituating upon what thought may be. which is determined by the whole scheme of thought, the whole scheme of definition which has allowed me to come to an idea or conception of what thought is. It is rediculous and highly metaphysical and verging on religious dogma to propose that one can live life without thinking.
We don't take our thoughts so seriously because we don't take the 'world' so seriously.

this is to say, not that "I do not take my thoughts so seriously" but rather "the relation that is of my Self to my thoughts has changed". The definition that I have of the term 'thought' has changed. Not that I have the same thoughts and somehow I have changed the definitions of them so they appear humorous instead of serious, and not that I devorce myself from thought so i can gain a 'better' view on life. this last may be helpful, so far as a method by which to deal with life, but again, it is not the elightenment-speak of thought.

So to be clear: what we are talking about is this: "the thoughts I have about reality are the same; I think the same thoughts as I always have in relation to my Being. What has changed is how I come upon such 'thoughts'; they do not have any less substantial quality for reality, but my 'Self's' relation to the thoughts (that is: what 'thought' is as a whole) has changed. To have some period of 'no-thought' as some means to deal with life may be helpful, but such moments do not help me in achieving a 'permanent serenity', if you will, since how i come upon life definitions, the things of life, the situations in themselves, has not changed, I have only added something else I do, and in this, have added to the arragement of terms and definitions which establish who I am and what my Being is in reality, and thus have aggravated the problem."

[evangelicalhumanist]

The life that is thus examined, it holds, will be happier, more satisfying, more fruitful.

First, is this true? I'm just asking the question, not making an assertion.

I'm new to this thread (led here by a PM from Typist -- I always forget to look at PMs), and I'm not even close to up-to-date on the content. I'll read, and post further.

But I did want to address that little point that I quoted: If Nikolai's statement is true, then it certainly gives the boot to that old canard that "ignorance is bliss!"