The Yoga of the Philosophers

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

evangelicalhumanist wrote:... Richard Bander, John Grinder, both Americans, both still with us (like it or not).
:lol: Heathen!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

Shit!

C.S. Pierce, Quine, Searle and Chomsky(but not for what most think, I would suspect).

Bollocks! So many when you start to think. :)
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Arising_uk wrote:No! 'We're' small and those I mentioned are fucking HUGE!
Not really that in to authority worship, but thanks for asking.

If any of those guys came to this forum, and posted as DonkyDog34, you'd be telling them they're morons within a day or two. If they were Yanks, it'd only take an hour or so. :-)
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

Typist wrote:If any of those guys came to this forum, and posted as DonkyDog34, you'd be telling them they're morons within a day or two. If they were Yanks, it'd only take an hour or so. :-)
Bollocks! Go away and read them, and the Yanks I mention as well, these are the philosophy 'forum' winners you numbnut.

That I'd ask questions about what I didn't understand is a given but I've already done that by reading them. Try it yourself, it may help with your quest.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Typist,
Typist wrote:Is this the particular worldview you are attached to?
Perhaps the first thing you need to know about me is that I am no longer attached to any particular worldview. I am through with all that. I know this might sound paradoxical to you because this statement sounds like a world view coming from a person. But I am not that person, any person, and I do not have this worldview.

Anyone who knows what I mean would be able to cut through all this paradox instantly, like a knife. But those people are few, and so I have to resort to methods that might make more sense. Hence philosophical yoga.

I am no longer a philosopher. I used to be, but I graduated. I could no longer possibly attach myself to any particular view about the world, and nor could I discuss it. To do so would be the height of futility as far as I am concerned.

But...I see all around me people who are philosophers and are committed to various worldviews. I can see their predicament very clearly, because I used to be like them. I am not a philosopher any longer, but that makes me uniquely able to actually help people who are still attached to their own opinions. Of course, they have to have the motivation, or, to put it another way, the unconscious sense that their understanding is incomplete. But if they have that in place then I can help them to push through. I am way above being a philosopher, and it is because of that I am uniquely placed to teach it.

Talented as you are, I don't believe you are where I am - you are still a philosopher. I base this on your comments, not just on this thread but on all threads. You often talk about thought as something that distances us from the present - something to be managed. You seem unable to see how this is a one-sided view, and that thought is also something perfectly harmless. This belief is so deeply engrained (of 40 years standing I think) that you dare not contemplate the only remedy - which is a little more thought. You protest on behalf of other people, on the average human beings out there, but really you protest on behalf of yourself.

It would take you half a split second for you to see what I am telling you about thought. Instead you close your ears and try to pretend that I am some kind of fellow philosopher thrashing out an idea with you. I am no longer that guy. I don't have any position to take on the matter of thought. All I can do is tell you where you are going wrong on the path to spiritual wisdom. I admit that I didn't fully realise this when I started this thread. It has come as a surprise to me that I also expect odedience - I never thought I would become THAT guy!
Typist wrote:This is part of what philosophy does Nik, it attempts to uncover internal conflicts within points of view. If you do indeed wish for us to follow the philosophical path, you will welcome such inquiries and challenges.
Yes this is true I do. But it cannot work if one does not accept the basic framework. If you turned up at your local hatha yoga class and said that you don't want to use your body, but you want to sit on the chair and think about all the poses instead - the teacher might suggest you explore other types of yoga. They are not denying your capacity for spiritual progress, but in hatha yoga using your body is the whole point.

So, even though I personally am not attached to philosophy and do not in any way place it above other ways (eg meditation) - it is the yoga I am qualified to teach, way beneath me as it is.

Now coming back to you, Typist, there is something most peculiar. You are always saying lets not think so much, and yet there is hardly anyone in the history of this forum who has dominated the boards like you do. You seem to be in this dreadful trap of advocating one thing while doing the opposite. I know to the ignorant eye, the same could be said about me (thought to a lesser extent), but I know, understand and acknowledge the ultimate redundancy of philosophy - (this is why I have understood the principle of aphilosophy so well, and thorughly endorse it).

If you could demonstrate to me that you understand the harmlessness of thought, and the redundancy of aphilosophy then I would stop preaching at you in a second. But you don't seem to do this, and I'm not sure you understand the arguments. You need my yoga to show you the error of your ways. Your evident addiction to thinking, and your impressive intellect all suggest your suitability, but perhaps I should appeal to your moral sense. Perhaps it is time for you to stop being a hypocrite.
Typist wrote:You seem to be saying, nothing really matters, we don't need to manage ANYTHING, but, we really really need to manage our relationship with enlightenment. Choose one please.
When I talk to you I address two people, but the English language forces me to use the same personal pronoun: you. I am constantly switching between them, and I talk to one of your persons differently to the other - in opposite ways in fact. Were you wiser you would be able to know instinctively which Typist I address at any given time But you only have one set of ears so far, only one meaning for this term "you" and so you think I am being paradoxical. The philosopher in you, the lover of logic and non-contradiction demands that I 'choose one please'. For now I would curb your impertinence - rest assured that I am making the best possible sense. Trust me on that,and your moment of illumination will be much faster. Typist#2 will be positively running to greet you!
Typist wrote:Perhaps you are saying that the rejection of various perspectives will happen at some point in the future, leading to some kind of permanent transformation.

Perhaps I'm saying

Is that a fair summary? If not, no problem, please clarify.
Yes this is a fair summary. I also agree that "all the various perspectives can be rejected right now, in the moment, just for the moment, not as a means to some future end." In fact, this state much more closely resembles my natural state than all this tedious philosophising I have to go through.

But the reality is, for most people, and especially for you I think, that we don't enter the here and now except for in certain circumscribed events like church or the forest. This notion than we can all just drop it all and the enter the moment at will is actually very abstract. Why? Because it is a potential that makes intellectual sense only, and in reality doesn't actually happen.

Why doesn't it happen? Well for the philosophical yogi it is because we believe so much in all our opinions that they are so alive and well in us that they never give us peace. Your case is particularly tragic because you have mistaken a whole set of intellectual opinions (pertaining to thought and silence) - you have mistaken them for actual spiritual understanding. This is a particularly deep trap for someone to fall into.

You know you're trapped. This is why we get this, I'm 60 years old its time to accept myself as I am whine. And because even this statement has the faux spiritual air of surrender you are further ensnared by it. Actúally all this is despair. You've given up, and you're now trying to repudiate your lifetime of searching as so much wasted time. Well you can try to repudiate but it won't work. You're much closer than you think. just continue to read this thread, listen to what I say, and quell your intellectual attachment to silence by actually being silent.

Again, I'm sorry to be forceful - but you've put in all the work. Let what I say chime with everything you've ever read and heard in all these 40 years. You are a hair breadth away!

With my best wishes, Nikolai
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Hi Nik,
Perhaps the first thing you need to know about me is that I am no longer attached to any particular worldview. I am through with all that.


Well, ok. If we are to do our job as philosophers, we must now ask if you mind if we test this assertion you have shared with us. Do you object if we attempt to methodically dismantle the perspectives you are sharing?
I could no longer possibly attach myself to any particular view about the world, and nor could I discuss it.
Please forgive me, but your posts so far give a strong impression you are attached to a particular world view, and are quite capable of discussing it. This is the impression created, not necessarily a fact.
But...I see all around me people who are philosophers and are committed to various worldviews. I can see their predicament very clearly, because I used to be like them. I am not a philosopher any longer, but that makes me uniquely able to actually help people who are still attached to their own opinions.
A touch of meglomania? Are you a devotee of Osho too? :-)
Talented as you are, I don't believe you are where I am - you are still a philosopher. I base this on your comments, not just on this thread but on all threads.
I'm agreeable to being labeled a philosopher, but Arising just barfed up his lunch. :-)
You often talk about thought as something that distances us from the present - something to be managed. You seem unable to see how this is a one-sided view, and that thought is also something perfectly harmless.
I am open to the proposal that thought is perfectly harmless for the enlightened, only one of whom are in attendance.
This belief is so deeply engrained (of 40 years standing I think) that you dare not contemplate the only remedy - which is a little more thought. You protest on behalf of other people, on the average human beings out there, but really you protest on behalf of yourself.
Anybody who has read my writing for very long soon understands that I don't excel at compassion. So when I protest on behalf of the average person, I am not playing the role of baby Jesus.

My interest is more like that of a fussy programmer who insists a piece of software should work for as many users as possible. My interest is more like that of the philosopher you've asked us to be, who is merely commenting that there appears to be very limited evidence that enlightenment is possible.
It would take you half a split second for you to see what I am telling you about thought. Instead you close your ears and try to pretend that I am some kind of fellow philosopher thrashing out an idea with you. I am no longer that guy.
The more you passionately debate me, the more you look like that guy.

Look, I apologize. You've claimed to be above attachment to ideas, so I am doing what you've asked us to do, being a philosopher, and testing assertions. If you don't wish that your assertions be tested, please just say so. I am agreeable that you be allowed to share your religious faith, if that's what it is, without being challenged.

Religion, or philosophy, which are we doing here?
All I can do is tell you where you are going wrong on the path to spiritual wisdom. I admit that I didn't fully realise this when I started this thread.
Ah, my path to spiritual wisdom is to be married to a saint. I'm content to be that close, for as you can see, I have no talent for sainthood.
It has come as a surprise to me that I also expect odedience - I never thought I would become THAT guy!
Honesty is the best policy. I am further appreciative of your writing seeing that you will express whatever you are really feeling. And good luck with getting me to be obedient, this should be interesting. :-)
Yes this is true I do. But it cannot work if one does not accept the basic framework.
In other words, we must first accept the ideas you are attached to, and be obedient :-) before we can proceed?
If you turned up at your local hatha yoga class and said that you don't want to use your body, but you want to sit on the chair and think about all the poses instead - the teacher might suggest you explore other types of yoga. They are not denying your capacity for spiritual progress, but in hatha yoga using your body is the whole point.
Again, you have this notion I am not doing philosophy as you request. It seems to me I am doing exactly what you requested, using philosophy to challenge philosophy itself. Logically, as a philosopher, it occurs to me that if we are to transcend all opinion, "all opinion" would include your opinions as well.
Now coming back to you, Typist, there is something most peculiar. You are always saying lets not think so much, and yet there is hardly anyone in the history of this forum who has dominated the boards like you do.
Whoa, I am the DOMINATOR! I expect you'll hear some objections to this theory. :-)

But, not from me. It's entirely true that I have 45 billion thoughts about the end of thought. I find this self contradictory irony to be quite entertaining, and always wear my clown costume while posting. As readers should have long ago realized, I am not a guru, an expert, enlightened, a saint, a role model or any of that.

I'm a typoholic maniac, who because he is a typoholic maniac, has developed a sincere interest in the substance of typoholic mania, thought.
You seem to be in this dreadful trap of advocating one thing while doing the opposite.
For some reason, I don't feel in a dreadful trap. If readers should conclude I'm hypocritical, ok, we human beings do such things, me too.
If you could demonstrate to me that you understand the harmlessness of thought, and the redundancy of aphilosophy then I would stop preaching at you in a second.
I don't mind the preaching, please continue.
You need my yoga to show you the error of your ways.


This is getting more and more interesting. :-)
Your evident addiction to thinking, and your impressive intellect all suggest your suitability, but perhaps I should appeal to your moral sense. Perhaps it is time for you to stop being a hypocrite.
Perhaps it is time for us to get off the treadmill of always trying to be somewhere other than where we already are.

I already agree I'm an ornery old blowhard. Accepting this obvious fact, being honest about it, having a sense of humor about it, feels good to me. So if I'm a hypocrite too, ok, so be it. I also fart sometimes! Yes, it's true!
The philosopher in you, the lover of logic and non-contradiction demands that I 'choose one please'.
Nik, again, you have explicitly asked us to do philosophy. Asking that a point of view be internally consistent is what philosophers do.

I have a theory, which may or may not be correct. I hope you might comment on it.

Are you sure you want to do philosophy? Are you sure it's not religion you wish to do? The more you type, the more it sounds like it's a religion you wish to engage in with us, not philosophy. Again, I could be wrong, so clarify as needed.
For now I would curb your impertinence - rest assured that I am making the best possible sense. Trust me on that,and your moment of illumination will be much faster. Typist#2 will be positively running to greet you!
You keep assuming that I wish to change. Why should I go to all the bother of changing, when I could instead just decide to be happy with where I already am? Do you see the efficiency of this choice?
In fact, this state much more closely resembles my natural state than all this tedious philosophising I have to go through.
You have to go through?
But the reality is, for most people, and especially for you I think, that we don't enter the here and now except for in certain circumscribed events like church or the forest.
True enough in my case, can't speak for others.
This notion than we can all just drop it all and the enter the moment at will is actually very abstract.
I've gone out of my way to "unabstract" it. I propose the brain is simply another organ of the body, and that it's processes can be managed with the patient application of simple exercises. It's not really any more complicated than doing situps.
Well for the philosophical yogi it is because we believe so much in all our opinions that they are so alive and well in us that they never give us peace.
Peace is found by simply turning off, or down, the thought machine that is making all the opinions. That machine is merely a mechanical device that we can learn to control, like any other mechanical device.
Your case is particularly tragic because you have mistaken a whole set of intellectual opinions (pertaining to thought and silence) - you have mistaken them for actual spiritual understanding. This is a particularly deep trap for someone to fall into.
Ok, I'm in a deep trap. That's where I am right now. I accept being in a deep trap. I'll spread out my blanket here in deep trapness, make a sandwich, and enjoy the day.
You know you're trapped. This is why we get this, I'm 60 years old its time to accept myself as I am whine.
Are you aware of all the emotion poring out in your posts now? Might this emotion be evidence of attachment to the perspectives you've been articulating?
You've given up, and you're now trying to repudiate your lifetime of searching as so much wasted time.
Yes! Searching is wasted time. That's what I've discovered. If we want peace, sooner or later we're going to have to make peace with where we are now. The philosopher uses reason to see that making that decision now, instead of sometime later, is fully logical.
Well you can try to repudiate but it won't work. You're much closer than you think. just continue to read this thread, listen to what I say, and quell your intellectual attachment to silence by actually being silent.
Sit at the feet of the master and obey! Can we call you Baba Osho now? :-)
Again, I'm sorry to be forceful - but you've put in all the work.
Again, I don't mind the forceful. When one writes as I do, one can not be delicate. Thank you for your enthusiastic honesty! You continue to be an engaging writer, and the more of you to emerge, the more engaging you become.
Last edited by Typist on Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
zinnat13
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by zinnat13 »

Hi typist,

My dear friend,
I was busy somewhere so was not able to give reply promptly.

I do not have any intention to insult you or any one else here because it will serve no purpose to me.

If you ask anyone else, other than me, who have read a bit of OSHO, his opinion will be the same as mine because, not only the intent, but sometimes the complete lines are matching. But, as i said in my post, i may be wrong as those were your thoughts as well.

Furthermore, inspiring from anyone is neither shame of insult. Everyone has to take a start from some point. You may say that i am inspired by religions, but my friend, i shall not take it as an insult for sure. And even if i disagree, then i shall simply say no and explain it.

I feel that you are also referring about calling you " over smart".

There are many ways of arguing and, perhaps,that is what philosophy is all about in general, besides a stance or belief. I may well be wrong, because i did not studied enough, but, i see very rare cases, where philosophers evolve in their lifetime. More often than not, philosophers use to come up with a particular stance and belief and spend their whole life defending it. As far as i found, there are only two persons in the history, Einstein and Kant, who admitted that they were wrong. And, they admit it without any hesitation.

But, look at the Socrates when he says- I know only that i do not know.

There is huge difference in the approach.
All of us try to sum up philosophy or spirituality with our particular standpoint and reservations. Because it serves our pride handsomely to stand alone in the crowd and to be recognized.

I know many other would disagree with me but i feel that this is one of the main reason why people feel more comfortable to be called as atheist instead of religious.The second reason is that spirituality and religions, by and large failed to provide either any proof or any utility in normal life. And now, contrary to the past, onus is on them. They have to bear the burden of proof.
And perhaps, this was the intent of Nikolai, when he started this thread.

I want to draw the attention of all the members towards NLP.
I gone through it with the help of link provided by AUk. It is not a bad thing to start with but, it is still a Hathyoga; though it is not done by complete body but with the eyes only.

I want to tell a very simple thing about meditation which is not acknowledged. In Sanskrit and Hindi, meditation is referred as DHYAN; and its nearest meaning in English is to do anything vigilantly and involving the whole mind. So, the emphasis is on concentration. There are many ways described for it both in Hindu religions and Sufism. What NLP is proposing, is being done by BRAHMKUMARIS school of thought in India since a very long time. It is not a new thing.

Now have a look at the prayer. what is it? If one is just pronouncing the words merely from his mouth and his mind is involved somewhere else, then it becomes a useless ritual. But, if is is done honestly and sincerely, involving completely in it, then it converts into meditation by default. So, what is the harm in doing it? One can easily argue that he does not believe in deities and God. Well, he is logically right, But, i want to ask logically that; if one is ready to believe that dots and circles can enlighten, then let us give a chance to God also to prove himself. I think he deserves at least one, if not more.

knowledge lives in the state of third person all the times. it is neither useful nor harmful. All depends on the user. Atomic energy is disastrous when it is used as weapon but very useful when it produces electricity. We cannot blame the science for what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, all depends on the applicant and application.

The same is with religions and spirituality. They have more good things than bad ones. If one looks only for abuses in the dictionary, ignoring millions of other words, then he will find some for sure. In my opinion, it will not be the victory of the logic, but the misrepresentation of facts; highlighting the intruded portions only. But, still one has his own judgement.

I am very much sure that,in last century, no purposeful spiritual practice or meditation is invented by any such person of group, which did not had religious roots. I will be highly obliged, if any knowledgeable member will tell me.

we take pride in adhering with new age meditating practices but feel ashamed to stick the original sources, even if all this is usurped from them; simply because it looks old fashioned, so we do not even want to testify the facts.

But friends, it is not philosophy. Skepticism is the essential part of philosophy, but, it does not has the right to reject any theory in the first place as it a slave of philosophy not master. When any theory, new or old, knocks at the door of philosophy, in the midnight and as a unwelcome guest, philosophy sends skepticism to open the door to have the introduction of the guest. Skepticism asks the guest; who are you and what is the purpose of your visit. It conveys the answers to the philosophy, then philosophy looks at the answers that if the case is admissible prima-facie or not. If it sees even a slight hint of worthiness in the answers, then the guest is escorted to the guest room where he and philosophy have a long chat during dinner.
Hense, simply asking what , why or how is not enough. A skeptic should clear himself in the first place that why is he asking "why". This implies that the skeptic should provide a counter view with questioning. Otherwise it is a layman's "why" not a philosophical one.

So, typist,
I see your arguments a bit circular. Regardless of agreement or disagreement, one cannot able to understand what you are suggesting. Given the intellectual status of you and other members here, it should be not be that difficult. One should be be very clear while argumentation. If one want to say "yes" then it should pronounce "yes" very categorically and the same should be in the case of "no". Philosophy also allows its adherents to escape by quoting words like perhaps, may be, etc but we avoid these terms because this implies "i do not know" and we do not want to put this label on our face.

So, my dear friend, no one knows all. This includes you and me also. Besides it, we may be right and wrong. And, even this includes you and me also as we are not enlightened. That's why we are here to share and cross check our versions and that is what we are supposed to do here.

I must tell you that, regardless of our different opinion, i see you as a very learned and intelligent person and a good writer also. The same of my opinion was about Satyr also, though i do not subscribe his view at all.

If you noticed in my posts, i do not like vulgar and insulting words and i will never use them. I like to say simple and straight. When i want to say no, i like to say it completely, without any cover. If i am not sure of anything, i would like to narrate my opinion with a simple line; i am not sure.

So, typist, when i say you over smart that it simply means that you are smarter in communication than the others and that also includes me. But, i do not think that, even with the help of your excellent writing skill, you are able to support your ideology properly.

Furthermore, you are about 13 years older than me, and given my Hindu background, i cannot even think of insulting you. Yes, i may disagree from you and debate the issues.

So, i am extremely sorry if i sound like hurting you but, neither it was my intention, not it ever would be.

with love'
sanjay
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Hi Sanjay,
I do not have any intention to insult you or any one else here because it will serve no purpose to me.
I understand. My response was just joking. Apologies, but sometimes my sense of humor is rather obscure. No offense intended by you, none taken by me.
If you ask anyone else, other than me, who have read a bit of OSHO, his opinion will be the same as mine because, not only the intent, but sometimes the complete lines are matching. But, as i said in my post, i may be wrong as those were your thoughts as well.
Ok. I must admit I am only vaguely aware of who Osho is. I know he is a guru in Oregon who got in to some kind of trouble with the law, and that's about it.
I feel that you are also referring about calling you " over smart".
Actually, I agree with that part. That is, I feel I have a natural talent for ripping intellectual positions apart, a service that nobody on earth really wants, especially when it's their intellectual position. So, the joke's really on me.
More often than not, philosophers use to come up with a particular stance and belief and spend their whole life defending it.
Yes, this seems true. It's especially true if the thinker makes a living at their thinking, as then there is much more on the line.
The second reason is that spirituality and religions, by and large failed to provide either any proof or any utility in normal life.
Billions of people over thousands of years disagree with this, but then many agree too.
I want to tell a very simple thing about meditation which is not acknowledged. In Sanskrit and Hindi, meditation is referred as DHYAN; and its nearest meaning in English is to do anything vigilantly and involving the whole mind. So, the emphasis is on concentration.
Yes, concentration is a common technique. Eventually, concentration may give way to surrender. That is, the person who is concentrating must be let go of, in order for the concentration to develop further.
There are many ways described for it both in Hindu religions and Sufism. What NLP is proposing, is being done by BRAHMKUMARIS school of thought in India since a very long time. It is not a new thing.
Right, none of this is new. Just as philosophy goes back thousands of years, so do these explorations outside of thought.
Now have a look at the prayer. what is it? If one is just pronouncing the words merely from his mouth and his mind is involved somewhere else, then it becomes a useless ritual. But, if is is done honestly and sincerely, involving completely in it, then it converts into meditation by default. So, what is the harm in doing it?
The only danger I see is the possibility of becoming overly involved with the ideology the repeated words reference. If the ideology is taken lightly, and the "involving completely in it" is taken seriously, and it works for the individual, sounds worth trying.
One can easily argue that he does not believe in deities and God. Well, he is logically right, But, i want to ask logically that; if one is ready to believe that dots and circles can enlighten, then let us give a chance to God also to prove himself. I think he deserves at least one, if not more.
I would agree remaining open to new experience and information is a wise choice that is logical and supported by reason.
The same is with religions and spirituality. They have more good things than bad ones. If one looks only for abuses in the dictionary, ignoring millions of other words, then he will find some for sure. In my opinion, it will not be the victory of the logic, but the misrepresentation of facts; highlighting the intruded portions only. But, still one has his own judgment.
Yes, I can agree with you here.
I am very much sure that, in last century, no purposeful spiritual practice or meditation is invented by any such person of group, which did not had religious roots.
Hmm, that's interesting. I don't know the answer here. I guess it depends on how we trace the roots of this subject. It goes way back, far beyond my understanding of history.
we take pride in adhering with new age meditating practices but feel ashamed to stick the original sources, even if all this is usurped from them; simply because it looks old fashioned, so we do not even want to testify the facts.
I'd guess that each generation goes through a process of translating ancient subjects in to language that the latest generation can more easily access.
So, typist, I see your arguments a bit circular. Regardless of agreement or disagreement, one cannot able to understand what you are suggesting.
I plead guilty to sharing too many words, when fewer might have been clearer.

If it interests you, we might try this. Ask me one question, or make one point of your own. One question or point at a time. We address that one question or point together, and then proceed to the next. Perhaps this would help create a better reading experience for all?
So, my dear friend, no one knows all. This includes you and me also. Besides it, we may be right and wrong. And, even this includes you and me also as we are not enlightened. That's why we are here to share and cross check our versions and that is what we are supposed to do here.
I couldn't agree more.
I must tell you that, regardless of our different opinion, i see you as a very learned and intelligent person and a good writer also.
Thank you for your kind words. I see myself as not especially learned, intelligent at a limited number of things, one of them being writing. Although I must admit I do consider myself a good writer, and do carry pride about this, the truth is, if I am a good writer, I had nothing to do with that.
If you noticed in my posts, i do not like vulgar and insulting words and i will never use them. I like to say simple and straight. When i want to say no, i like to say it completely, without any cover. If i am not sure of anything, i would like to narrate my opinion with a simple line; i am not sure.
Sounds good to me, simple and straight seems a wise plan.
So, typist, when i say you over smart that it simply means that you are smarter in communication than the others and that also includes me. But, i do not think that, even with the help of your excellent writing skill, you are able to support your ideology properly.
If it's true that I'm smarter in communication, here's what I've learned from that experience.

There is nothing that any of us can think or type, that can't be ripped to shreds by somebody.

It doesn't matter who we are, how well we know the topic, or how articulate we may be. It doesn't matter what our position is, or how many people agree with it. Whatever our position, there is always somebody who is clever enough to demolish it.

If we take this view, it logically follows that the problem is not with the individual people, or their particular views, but with something deeper, something more fundamental, something that all ideas share.

From this perspective, I propose that thought is inherently divisive and fragmentary, and thus it can never fully capture the wholeness of reality.

Thus, philosophy, which is made of thought, will always be incomplete, will never reach "the truth" or some kind of final answer.

This is not a criticism of thought, it's simply an attempt to understand the characteristics of a natural substance in a clear minded manner.
Furthermore, you are about 13 years older than me, and given my Hindu background, i cannot even think of insulting you.
This is quite charming, and I must say our culture has much to learn from yours in this regard. But really, you have my permission to insult me if that's what you should be feeling in the moment.
Yes, i may disagree from you and debate the issues.
Yes, please do. And please don't worry about what you said earlier, the problem is that I responded to your comments with a lack of cultural skill.

Thanks for being here Sanjay, it's clear you have much to contribute on this topic.
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

Thank you for clarifying your extreme view of things for me, Nikolai.
That whatever we do is not our action at all but happens necessarily.

So no criminals are to be blamed for whatever they did.
And no judges who sentenced them to death for their crimes are to be blamed either.
There is no blame, no free will, no responsibility.

The best is to lean back and see what happens.
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

Thanks for the exercise, Arising.
I will try and show up with questions in due time.

One reflection:
wild animals are probably very restless: constantly on the watch out for enemies and dangers, always looking for food. Flashes of dangers past and imagines of possible dangers and hardships flash in their brains all the time.
A bear with a full belly can rest in the sunshine because he is high in the food chain, but even he can worry about not enough fish in the river, and the winter coming, who knows.

It is the logical thinking which makes the mind calm, I would say.
That is why agitated patients who talk to a psychotherapist calm down, they have to formulate what bothers them and switch from the emotional to the rational.
Ratio is calm, emotions move you (e-movere).
zinnat13
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by zinnat13 »

Hi typist,
I am a kind of busy somewhere so i am not able post night now but i will try to post tomorrow.

with love,
sanjay
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Typist
Typist wrote:Do you object if we attempt to methodically dismantle the perspectives you are sharing?
As I said you can dismantle everything except the framework that is philosophical yoga. You can't dismantle the framework of philosophy because you need philosophy to do so. The only thing that can dismantle philosophy is meditation - but this is not a meditation hall.
Typist wrote:Please forgive me, but your posts so far give a strong impression you are attached to a particular world view, and are quite capable of discussing it. This is the impression created, not necessarily a fact.
If I give the impression that's probably unavoidable. I am not attached to philosophy, I know that ultimately its quite useless ( as I have stated repeatedly on page 1 of this thread.) But, I also recognise that many are attached to it, including you. As I said, if you could demonstrate that you understand how your opinion that 'thought is divisive' is just one side of a two-sided argument, I would be confident that you really are unattached to philosophy.
Typist wrote:Religion, or philosophy, which are we doing here?
Well, I discovered that this is rather a false dichotomy. I would say then that this is both religion and philosophy. For the time being, you must accept some things on faith (like the usefulness of philosophy)- but in fact any philosopher is doing that anyway, they just don't realise it. Any philosophical argument is based an an core assumption, itself unproven, but is the assumed ground that allows so-called truths to be drawn. Seeing this is a key achievement for the philosophical yogi. In your case, you need to see the other side thought.
Typist wrote:In other words, we must first accept the ideas you are attached to, and be obedient before we can proceed?
The philosophical yogi, who is a sceptic, doesn't have any preconceived ideas other than faith in their own reason. Yes they must repudiate even this in the end, but while they are a yogi they must retain their reason and not try to jettison it prematurely. You, with aphilosophy, are trying to dismiss philosophy before you have fully removed all your intellectual attachments. Your ideas about thought are intellectual attachments - you don't realise this because it sounds to you like you are renouncing it, or trying to renounce it. Properly seen the attempt to renounce anything is actually just more of the same attachment.
Typist wrote:I have a theory, which may or may not be correct. I hope you might comment on it.

Are you sure you want to do philosophy? Are you sure it's not religion you wish to do?
Considering I named this thread Yoga of the Philosophers, and my OP was full of reference to salvation and the divine, I think I've been quite honest about the religious dimension. But it has also been my aim to get people to realise the religious, that is faith-based, nature of all their philosophical and scientific theories.
Typist wrote:Why should I go to all the bother of changing, when I could instead just decide to be happy with where I already am? Do you see the efficiency of this choice?
But in reality there is no efficiency. When you go into the forest, and do your exercises, your mind is as full of thoughts as any other time. The trouble is you don't see this basic fact because you are under the belief that you are 'doing thoughtlessness'. It is only when you see the true nature of thought, its transiency, its indistinguishability from perception that you will really understand thoughtlessness. And then you will be able to think to your hearts content and there will be negative feeling, no negative appraisal.

Its takes quite a bit of good concentrated meditation to realise that meditation does not quell thoughts even the slightest iota. But what it does do is open up a space where you can sit back and watch them happen, in all their fury. This space that is opened up, this is your true consciousness, your true self, Typist#2. It is that guy that can sit back and watch the thoughts as of if they were waves on a beach.

Until you rid yourself of this prejudice against thought you will continue to fear them and need to escape them. I'm telling you, that dark dreary forest does you no favours.
Typist wrote:Peace is found by simply turning off, or down, the thought machine that is making all the opinions.
Its clear that you don't understand what all these spiritual folk mean by the word peace. Unfortunately until you experience spiritual peace, peace remains something associated with silence and stillness. Remember what Lance said about feeling very peaceful even when his thoughts are rapidfiring - this is spiritual peace.
Typist wrote:I've gone out of my way to "unabstract" it. I propose the brain is simply another organ of the body, and that it's processes can be managed with the patient application of simple exercises. It's not really any more complicated than doing situps.
There is nothing more intellectually abstract than all these notions of the so-called brain and body. These superstitions may be familiar to you, but that doesn't mean they are any less abstract.

Don't try and explain thought as a biological process or anything else. Just look at it. Just look at the way it behaves. Its very simple, and very harmless. Thoughts come, and then go. That is all. they are not 'about' anything, they don't refer to anything. They are entire, whole, self-sufficent and perfect.
Typist wrote: If we want peace, sooner or later we're going to have to make peace with where we are now.
Then why do you keep looking for it in to the forest? If you actually had any of the peace that you talk about you would stop making these special trips. You will still go there, but you will expect nothing more nor less from it than if you stayed in in front of the TV.
Typist wrote:Thank you for your enthusiastic honesty! You continue to be an engaging writer, and the more of you to emerge, the more engaging you become.
Thank you! And the same goes for you. You allow me the space to be as impertinent as my rhetoric needs and this is to your credit.

Best wishes Nikolai
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Duszek,
duszek wrote:Thank you for clarifying your extreme view of things for me, Nikolai.
That whatever we do is not our action at all but happens necessarily.

So no criminals are to be blamed for whatever they did.
And no judges who sentenced them to death for their crimes are to be blamed either.
There is no blame, no free will, no responsibility.

The best is to lean back and see what happens.
Although I have arrived from a different approach, this is exactly the view that Jesus taught. Jesus tried to get us to renounce our concern with morality in two ways:
1) He told us not to remain neutral in our actions. If someone strikes us we should accept it and 'turn the other cheek'. This is to renounce concern with morality through our behaviour.
2) He told us not to remain neutral in thought. We should not judge other people's conduct, should not 'point out the speck in another person's eye'. This is to renounce concern with morality in our thoughts.

These two teachings, one addressed to our actions and one to our thoughts are aimed to remove our thinking and acting concern with right and wrong . There is no blaming, and no responsibility - just,as you say it, a leaning back and seeing what happens.

But, and this is a big but. This is not some kind of argument for licentiousness. This teaching does not endorse any one behaviour - it is the negation of morality. If people think they are therefore permitted to do as they wish, even 'bad' things - it means that they are still attached to their old ideas about right and wrong.

Most people still equate spirituality with a moral code. This was the case in Jesus's and Buddha's time and is still the case - even among the followers of Jesus and Buddha. Both these teachers were quite clear however: those who are preoccupied with right and wrong are failing to understand the spiritual life.

Best wishes, Nikolai
zinnat13
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by zinnat13 »

Hi typist,

I am trying to form a complete case of myself so I have to start from a beginning.

As we are going to share some thoughts, so it should be wise option to examine those prior to anything else.

You said-
There is nothing that any of us can think or type, that can't be ripped to shreds by somebody.
It doesn't matter who we are, how well we know the topic, or how articulate we may be. It doesn't matter what our position is, or how many people agree with it. Whatever our position, there is always somebody who is clever enough to demolish it.
If we take this view, it logically follows that the problem is not with the individual people, or their particular views, but with something deeper, something more fundamental, something that all ideas share.
From this perspective, I propose that thought is inherently divisive and fragmentary, and thus it can never fully capture the wholeness of reality.
Thus, philosophy, which is made of thought, will always be incomplete, will never reach "the truth" or some kind of final answer.
This is not a criticism of thought, it's simply an attempt to understand the characteristics of a natural substance in a clear minded manner.


You are right in your conclusion, up to this point. I felt it too, but I found reasons for it.

There are three entirely different phenomena; understanding, thinking and expression. Understanding represents knowledge or feeling while expression represents all ways of communication like words, language, pictures, symbols, physical postures, different types of looks and gazes, etc. Thinking happens between the feeling and expression.

The problem arises when we confuse feeling with thinking. If we look carefully then we will find that both of these do not happen simultaneously. Feeling always happens prior to thinking. Feeling is an event and thinking is the analysis of the event and expression is like the end result. So the whole process happens in three steps; feeling, thinking and expressing. Sometimes, the time interval between the steps is so narrow that we are just unable to differentiate between the first two or even three. Furthermore, all these three requires different skills.

As far as capacity of feeling or understanding is concerned, every one of us is at par. understanding has its own language, different from out invented ones. Although, sometimes it appears that we have different capacity of understanding but it is not. Actually, the cumulative quantity of understanding is totally dependent on experience; both mental and physical. As the experiences increase, thus the understanding, feeling and knowledge increase by default. But, the same is not in the cases of thinking and expression, even though, these two are also directly proportional to the understanding, but, the rate of increase differs person to person.

Thinking depends on mind. Once again, the mental capacity is same for all of us, but the activated portion differs. It depends on the utilization and that is practice. Mind behaves just like the body. When we exercise, our body strengthens, and in the same way, our mind tends to strengthen when we use to think over and over. A bodybuilder can develop his body more than others by exercising hard and in a particular way, but, it does not mean that anyone else is not able to do it. Others also have the same capacity, thus, it is subjected to capacity utilization. So, the thinking ability depends both on understanding and then, practice.

We may found cases where, in spite of high state of understanding, one does not apparently look wise enough, because he does not put enough stress on the mind, thus, his mind is not able to manifest enough thoughts at the given moment, inasmuch his knowledge or understanding.

Now comes the final part and that is expression. In expression, first we must have the understanding, then we must have enough thoughts about the understanding; and that requires both time and practice. After these two steps, we must have a good set of information about a particular language; only then, the job could be done perfectly. Lacking any one of these three qualities, expression may lack perfection.

Hindu mythologies had found a unique way of communicating. When they find that the massage is too difficult to explain and it will need too much words, thus, it may be possible that, perhaps, a common man will confuse or misunderstand it. So, more often than not, instead of using a long and highly intellectual text, they go by simple parables; as they are easier to conceive.

Let me put one from my earlier post, which is pertinent to our discussion, as it also explains what i mean by experience.

A father has two sons. When they become 10 years old, the father brings them a football and a book about the football. One chooses the book while the other goes for the boll. Another 10 years passed. In the meantime, former has read all the literature about the game. He knows each and everything; like history, great players, strategies, etc. but the second one is only interested in playing with his friends in the backyard. So, we have two entirely different kinds of personalities. We have a person who can discuss, give speeches and even write books about the game but he is not even able to kick the ball properly; while the second one does not know anything else but how to play with the ball on the ground.
Now, I want to ask a very simple question and that is; who has the knowledge of football.
The question will answer all by itself if put slight differently and that is; who is able to play football.

Here, we can see that, in spite of able to play football, the later son could not explain it, because it is not his forte. On the other hand, the first one can discuss about the game, even though, he does not know how to play.

So, when try to analyze any person, we must not only look at the words, but also for what he has written between the lines. And, that is his intention and, perhaps, that is more important than written text, because, more often than not, words fail to convey subtle thoughts. This is what the only excogitation, which the genius in Wittgenstein was able to derive in his whole life.

Philosophers, in general, are masters in the thinking and expression; simply because they use their mind more than a normal person. But, the same cannot be said for their understanding and knowledge; simply because none of these can be enhanced by thinking. Understanding has only one source in the universe and that is experience. Without experience, what we are able to get, is only information not knowledge. In my opinion, there is huge difference between these two; as the above parable says.


This is exactly what happens, when philosophy searches for the truth. Philosophy wants to attain it by thinking and fails. I do not think that philosophy has ever produced a second genius to the capacity of Kant. He is outstanding, extraordinary sincere in his efforts and, more importantly, honest too. Wittgenstein realized that, after a certain limit, language fails to express the essence of thoughts in true sense. But, he did not probe it further. Kant went a step forward than him and found that, even thoughts have a limit; as they are also unable to get the true essence of understanding. He spent 11 years of self imposed exile to establish a connection between the thoughts and feelings, but fails. This very point is the limit of both, thoughts and thus, philosophy; and also the threshold of spirituality. Reaching here, one can feel for sure that there is something beyond. This stage is the maximum, up to where our mind able to lead us.

So, philosophy is not just argumentation of writing skill, as it is considered in general. It has a tendency to look beyond as it wants to understand the understanding. I strongly feel that this should be the first aim of philosophy, because, without understanding the understanding, it will never be able understand what is beyond understanding. The first and foremost aim of philosophy and philosophers is to have a serious look at the mind, because this is only tool they have. It they choose to take it for granted, then they will never able to use it in proper sense.

Typist, I have read a quite from you in this thread and aphilosophy, so I can say that I understand what you said, and even a good portion of that what you have not said. And, I hope that you understand me as well.

I try to limit myself only about discussing that; how we express and argue. Let me see your perspective, then we can proceed further.

with love,
sanjay
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Hi again Nik,
As I said you can dismantle everything except the framework that is philosophical yoga.
Ok, I agree that both of us are doing philosophy, and that philosophy is the appropriate activity for this space.

I propose it's entirely relevant to use philosophy to explore the limits of philosophy.

We can examine the evidence, and develop arguments which propose that philosophy is helpful for ABC, less relevant to DEF, and not useful for XYZ. As example, we might state that philosophy is fundamental to science, might or might not be relevant to art, and is perhaps rather worthless for falling in love.

So, within the philosophic process and the context of this thread, the following questions seem appropriate.

1) Does something we might label "enlightenment" exist?

2) If yes, what is it's relevance to readers here, and people in general?

3) If enlightenment exists, is philosophy a path to this state of mind?

To summarize, we can agree we're both doing philosophy, but this doesn't bind us to any further agreement. Fair enough?

I would propose further that because we are using philosophy, ie. thought, it is inevitable that we won't agree on something or another.
If I give the impression that's probably unavoidable. I am not attached to philosophy, I know that ultimately its quite useless ( as I have stated repeatedly on page 1 of this thread.) But, I also recognise that many are attached to it, including you.
If you agree, one of the assertions we might examine is this idea that we are attached to philosophy, while you are not. So far, I see no evidence of this being true, other than your repeated declarations.

However, me not seeing evidence is not proof such evidence doesn't exist, so please proceed to make your case, and hopefully all of us here can examine your sharing with open minds.
As I said, if you could demonstrate that you understand how your opinion that 'thought is divisive' is just one side of a two-sided argument, I would be confident that you really are unattached to philosophy.
I'm agreeable to the proposal that I am attached to philosophy. And I offer you this thread as evidence of the divisive nature of thought.
I would say then that this is both religion and philosophy.
Let's say a Christian goes to a Christian forum and declares they have achieved serenity through Jesus. The appropriate response in that context would be to applaud and congratulate.

Let's say the same Christian goes to a philosophy forum, and declares they have achieved serenity through Jesus. The appropriate response in that context would be to examine the evidence, and test the assertion.

My question is, which are we doing here? And I ask because....
For the time being, you must accept some things on faith (like the usefulness of philosophy)-
On a philosophy forum, we are unlikely to allow cake and eat it too regulations. We will probably be unwilling to accept things on faith, and engage in philosophy, both, at the same time. Thus, I am asking for some clarity from you regarding what we are doing here.

By asking for faith, I see you maneuvering, hoping to carve out an arena where we will be required to obey and agree. This process is called religion, and this is not a religion forum, but a philosophy forum.

But we could declare this a religion thread, if you were to ask for such in a clear minded unambiguous honest manner. If you wish to share your faith, I'm agreeable you be allowed to do so without a lot of quibbling and challenging etc. I'm not agreeable we label such a process as philosophy.
Any philosophical argument is based an an core assumption, itself unproven, but is the assumed ground that allows so-called truths to be drawn. Seeing this is a key achievement for the philosophical yogi.
What are the core unproven assumptions your conclusions are based on?
The philosophical yogi, who is a sceptic, doesn't have any preconceived ideas other than faith in their own reason.
Why should we have blind faith in the power of our own reason, any more than we should have blind faith the power of baby Jesus?
Yes they must repudiate even this in the end, but while they are a yogi they must retain their reason and not try to jettison it prematurely.
Again, I am not jettisoning reason, I am using reason, to explore the boundaries of reason.
You, with aphilosophy, are trying to dismiss philosophy before you have fully removed all your intellectual attachments.
I am not dismissing philosophy, I am doing philosophy.

To be more precise, I believe the issue is that I may be coming to different conclusions than yourself regarding the boundaries of philosophy, what it can accomplish or not, etc.
Your ideas about thought are intellectual attachments - you don't realise this because it sounds to you like you are renouncing it, or trying to renounce it. Properly seen the attempt to renounce anything is actually just more of the same attachment.
I am not renouncing thought, but arguing that thought might be managed more effectively than is typically the case. Further, I'm arguing such management techniques have a wider practical value than chasing states of mind which we've yet to prove actually exist.
Considering I named this thread Yoga of the Philosophers, and my OP was full of reference to salvation and the divine, I think I've been quite honest about the religious dimension.
Agreed, you did place the thread in the religion section after all.
But it has also been my aim to get people to realise the religious, that is faith-based, nature of all their philosophical and scientific theories.
Ok, this is interesting, agreed. I've attempted a similar thing in some of the atheism/theism threads. What kind of rope would you like for your hanging? :-)
But in reality there is no efficiency. When you go into the forest, and do your exercises, your mind is as full of thoughts as any other time.
1) How could you know this?, and 2) sorry, not true.
The trouble is you don't see this basic fact because you are under the belief that you are 'doing thoughtlessness'. It is only when you see the true nature of thought, its transiency, its indistinguishability from perception that you will really understand thoughtlessness. And then you will be able to think to your hearts content and there will be negative feeling, no negative appraisal.
Ok, "thought is indistinquishable from perception" is a good theory to examine, please continue with that.
Its takes quite a bit of good concentrated meditation to realise that meditation does not quell thoughts even the slightest iota.
I will of course argue the opposite.
But what it does do is open up a space where you can sit back and watch them happen, in all their fury. This space that is opened up, this is your true consciousness, your true self, Typist#2. It is that guy that can sit back and watch the thoughts as of if they were waves on a beach.
Ok, I agree this can indeed happen.

We might continue to propose that the act of attempting to make this happen is itself an obstacle to it happening. If true, then we might propose that meditating for simple reasons, such as, it just feels good, helps relax the "me" who is always demanding this and demanding that, and otherwise getting in the way.

From this perspective, one takes on the stance of a simple person doing simple things. I'm hungry, so I eat. I'm tired, so I sleep. My mind is overheated, so I cool it off.

If fancy states of mind should happen, ok, nice. If fancy states of mind should not happen, ok, nice. A simple person leaves the fancy outcomes to be decided elsewhere, and stays focused on being simple.
Until you rid yourself of this prejudice against thought you will continue to fear them and need to escape them. I'm telling you, that dark dreary forest does you no favours.
Well, an entire lifetime of real world experience tells me otherwise. However, I'm open to a proposal that the holy forest does you no favors. Nature is not "the one true way", just one way that some people find helpful, that is, it's not for everybody. I have no argument with anybody who says it's not for them.

Seeing as we are in a religion thread, I will share my faith, which I don't claim can be proved in any fashion.

In my faith based opinion, Whatever It Is we are really looking for is embedded in the fabric of physical reality. Imho, the more closely we examine physical reality, the more likely we are to encounter this Whatever It Is. The main thing that distracts us from such a close examination is thought, that is, the universe of abstractions we rule over within our minds.
Its clear that you don't understand what all these spiritual folk mean by the word peace.
It's also hopefully clear that just about everybody, including spiritual folks, are always trying to tell us we aren't good enough as we already are, in order to sell us something. That is, all such becoming agendas are rooted in rejection.
Unfortunately until you experience spiritual peace, peace remains something associated with silence and stillness. Remember what Lance said about feeling very peaceful even when his thoughts are rapidfiring - this is spiritual peace.
Whatever I already have, it's not good enough, and something better is awaiting me in the future, if I'll just keep rejecting who, what and where I already am.

OR:

I could stop rejecting now, today, without further delay, and be grateful to be who, what and where I already am.

Peace now, or peace maybe sometime later.
Don't try and explain thought as a biological process or anything else. Just look at it. Just look at the way it behaves. Its very simple, and very harmless.
Harmless for who? The enlightened person. Whom we've yet to prove exists, even in one single instance.
Then why do you keep looking for it in to the forest? If you actually had any of the peace that you talk about you would stop making these special trips. You will still go there, but you will expect nothing more nor less from it than if you stayed in in front of the TV.
Unlike you, I am not perfect. :-)

I am instead, a human being. As a human being, I expect and accept certain dependencies. I accept my dependency on air, food, sleep, shelter, medical care, companionship, and the holy forest.

I don't make these dependencies in to a big problem which needs to be solved. I just deal with the business of life in a practical manner on a daily basis. Sometimes I get hungry, so I head to the kitchen. Sometimes I have to pee, so I head to the bathroom. Sometimes I get nutty, so I head to the holy forest. No big deal.
You allow me the space to be as impertinent as my rhetoric needs and this is to your credit.
Impertinence from anybody who is as intelligent and articulate as yourself is always welcomed. So far though, you've come up with nothing as good as labeling me a lawyer and follower of Osho, so your impertinence is judged to be earnest and sincere, but not yet quite expert. :-)
Post Reply