Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:32 am
Heathen!evangelicalhumanist wrote:... Richard Bander, John Grinder, both Americans, both still with us (like it or not).
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Heathen!evangelicalhumanist wrote:... Richard Bander, John Grinder, both Americans, both still with us (like it or not).
Not really that in to authority worship, but thanks for asking.Arising_uk wrote:No! 'We're' small and those I mentioned are fucking HUGE!
Bollocks! Go away and read them, and the Yanks I mention as well, these are the philosophy 'forum' winners you numbnut.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.
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.Typist wrote:Is this the particular worldview you are attached to?
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.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.
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: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.
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.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.
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.
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.I could no longer possibly attach myself to any particular view about the world, and nor could I discuss it.
A touch of meglomania? Are you a devotee of Osho too?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.
I'm agreeable to being labeled a philosopher, but Arising just barfed up his lunch.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 am open to the proposal that thought is perfectly harmless for the enlightened, only one of whom are in attendance.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.
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.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.
The more you passionately debate me, the more you look like that guy.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.
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.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.
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.It has come as a surprise to me that I also expect odedience - I never thought I would become THAT guy!
In other words, we must first accept the ideas you are attached to, and be obedient before we can proceed?Yes this is true I do. But it cannot work if one does not accept the basic framework.
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.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.
Whoa, I am the DOMINATOR! I expect you'll hear some objections to this theory.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.
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.You seem to be in this dreadful trap of advocating one thing while doing the opposite.
I don't mind the preaching, please continue.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.
You need my yoga to show you the error of your ways.
Perhaps it is time for us to get off the treadmill of always trying to be somewhere other than where we already are.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.
Nik, again, you have explicitly asked us to do philosophy. Asking that a point of view be internally consistent is what philosophers do.The philosopher in you, the lover of logic and non-contradiction demands that I 'choose one please'.
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?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 have to go through?In fact, this state much more closely resembles my natural state than all this tedious philosophising I have to go through.
True enough in my case, can't speak for others.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.
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.This notion than we can all just drop it all and the enter the moment at will is actually very abstract.
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.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.
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.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.
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 know you're trapped. This is why we get this, I'm 60 years old its time to accept myself as I am whine.
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.You've given up, and you're now trying to repudiate your lifetime of searching as so much wasted time.
Sit at the feet of the master and obey! Can we call you Baba Osho now?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 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.Again, I'm sorry to be forceful - but you've put in all the work.
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.I do not have any intention to insult you or any one else here because it will serve no purpose to me.
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.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.
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.I feel that you are also referring about calling you " over smart".
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.More often than not, philosophers use to come up with a particular stance and belief and spend their whole life defending it.
Billions of people over thousands of years disagree with this, but then many agree too.The second reason is that spirituality and religions, by and large failed to provide either any proof or any utility in normal life.
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.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.
Right, none of this is new. Just as philosophy goes back thousands of years, so do these explorations outside of thought.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.
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.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?
I would agree remaining open to new experience and information is a wise choice that is logical and supported by reason.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.
Yes, I can agree with you here.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.
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.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'd guess that each generation goes through a process of translating ancient subjects in to language that the latest generation can more easily access.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 plead guilty to sharing too many words, when fewer might have been clearer.So, typist, I see your arguments a bit circular. Regardless of agreement or disagreement, one cannot able to understand what you are suggesting.
I couldn't agree more.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.
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.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.
Sounds good to me, simple and straight seems a wise plan.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.
If it's true that I'm smarter in communication, here's what I've learned from that experience.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.
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.Furthermore, you are about 13 years older than me, and given my Hindu background, i cannot even think of insulting you.
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.Yes, i may disagree from you and debate the issues.
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:Do you object if we attempt to methodically dismantle the perspectives you are sharing?
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: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.
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:Religion, or philosophy, which are we doing here?
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:In other words, we must first accept the ideas you are attached to, and be obedient before we can proceed?
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: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?
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.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?
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:Peace is found by simply turning off, or down, the thought machine that is making all the opinions.
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.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.
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: If we want peace, sooner or later we're going to have to make peace with where we are now.
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.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.
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: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.
Ok, I agree that both of us are doing philosophy, and that philosophy is the appropriate activity for this space.As I said you can dismantle everything except the framework that is philosophical yoga.
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.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.
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.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.
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.I would say then that this is both religion and 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.For the time being, you must accept some things on faith (like the usefulness of philosophy)-
What are the core unproven assumptions your conclusions are based on?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.
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?The philosophical yogi, who is a sceptic, doesn't have any preconceived ideas other than faith in their own reason.
Again, I am not jettisoning reason, I am using reason, to explore the boundaries of 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.
I am not dismissing philosophy, I am doing philosophy.You, with aphilosophy, are trying to dismiss philosophy before you have fully removed all your intellectual attachments.
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.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.
Agreed, you did place the thread in the religion section after all.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.
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 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.
1) How could you know this?, and 2) sorry, not true.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.
Ok, "thought is indistinquishable from perception" is a good theory to examine, please continue with that.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.
I will of course argue the opposite.Its takes quite a bit of good concentrated meditation to realise that meditation does not quell thoughts even the slightest iota.
Ok, I agree this can indeed happen.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.
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.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.
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.Its clear that you don't understand what all these spiritual folk mean by the word 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.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.
Harmless for who? The enlightened person. Whom we've yet to prove exists, even in one single instance.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.
Unlike you, I am not perfect.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.
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.You allow me the space to be as impertinent as my rhetoric needs and this is to your credit.