Perspective

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:02 pm

Round and round we go. You believe in revelation - the “transmission of the mystery”. You equivocate as to whether it has been transmitted to you or not - you are in the cave but with experience that you imagine transcends the cave. You think you get around this problem by rejecting binary logic.

You advocate a Platonic education but ignore the part of that education that requires dialectics - the part that keeps your fantasy transcendent experience in check. It is “Plato, Plato, Plato” until you run up against the demand of dialectic, and they Plato goes out the window together with binary logic.

And as to triadic logic - you have demonstrated in previous conversations that you have no understanding of it. It is your get out of jail free card, a way of not having to deal with the logical incoherence of your claims. You used to claim it was the logic of included middle until I corrected you: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... ic#p274797
You could not not apply a triadic logic to anything including what you claimed you could apply it to the Trinity: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 45#p274862

And then you dropped it in favor of one of the other claims you cycle through endlessly. But now once again it appears. More things you have been told that you imagine you understand. Words that you use as a shield to protect yourself from criticism, but that only serve to shield you from yourself.

I am getting out before the next go round. As a chess player you should know that the game is not lost simply because you continue to move pieces around.

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:59 pm

F4
Round and round we go. You believe in revelation - the “transmission of the mystery”. You equivocate as to whether it has been transmitted to you or not - you are in the cave but with experience that you imagine transcends the cave. You think you get around this problem by rejecting binary logic.
Yes, I've been fortunate to experience the third dimension of thought also described by Simone Weil
Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.”
You are closed to the third dimension of thought. That doesn't mean the sensitive minority must be closed as well.

Why would I dispute the value of binary logic? It is necessary for daily life but inadequate to reveal objective meaning and a universal perspective.
And as to triadic logic - you have demonstrated in previous conversations that you have no understanding of it. It is your get out of jail free card, a way of not having to deal with the logical incoherence of your claims. You used to claim it was the logic of included middle until I corrected you: https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... ic#p274797

You could not not apply a triadic logic to anything including what you claimed you could apply it to the Trinity:
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 45#p274862

And then you dropped it in favor of one of the other claims you cycle through endlessly. But now once again it appears. More things you have been told that you imagine you understand. Words that you use as a shield to protect yourself from criticism, but that only serve to shield you from yourself.
This is simply untrue and the fact that you make these accusations indicate why substantive conversations dealing with the many expressions of the third dimension of thought are no longer possible on that site. I quoted both Basarab Nicolescu and now Simone Weil. It is only through the third dimension of thought that objective meaning as well the reality of quantum mechanics can be revealed There is nothing sinister in this. Being controlled by secularists, whatever indicates that there must be a source for the third dimension of thought must be shouted down and eliminated. A philosophy site worthy of the name should encourage such depth but it isn't the modern way. It is that way in institutions of spiritual child abuse called schools so why not on secular philosophy sites as well? It is the nature of secular intolerance.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:14 pm

Here’s the thing Nick: if your experience was genuine you would not be so desperate to validate yourself in your own eyes and in the eyes of others.

But the truth is, for some self-deception may be better than the alternative. So I’ll leave you to it.

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:22 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:14 pm
Here’s the thing Nick: if your experience was genuine you would not be so desperate to validate yourself in your own eyes and in the eyes of others.

But the truth is, for some self-deception may be better than the alternative. So I’ll leave you to it.
This is just silly. You attack me as being a victim of blind belief but when I post of the importance of inner empiricism you complain that I'm desperate to validate myself and ignore that I support verification. You complain that I post of inner empiricism and a supporter of blind belief at the same time. You are a true secularist.

For the sake of anyone interested, here is a good article on Inner Empiricism. It isn't useful for those defending blind belief or blind denial but thought provoking for those still inwardly alive.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:53 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:22 pm
You complain that I post of inner empiricism and a supporter of blind belief at the same time.
What you fail to see is that for you they are the same thing. What you see through "inner empiricism" is what you put there to see, what you have been told you will find.

Plato knew better and so you ignore him at this point. Buddhas know better, but rather than kill the Buddha you convince yourself that you have experienced a higher reality.

You could learn a great deal from Ch'an master Lin Chi about attachments. But even if he beat you with his stick you would cling to the illusion that you have seen the light and are on your way somewhere.

I'm not complaining though. It's your life. Lead it as you will. (A truly secular idea).

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:58 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:53 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:22 pm
You complain that I post of inner empiricism and a supporter of blind belief at the same time.
What you fail to see is that for you they are the same thing. What you see through "inner empiricism" is what you put there to see, what you have been told you will find.

Plato knew better and so you ignore him at this point. Buddhas know better, but rather than kill the Buddha you convince yourself that you have experienced a higher reality.

You could learn a great deal from Ch'an master Lin Chi about attachments. But even if he beat you with his stick you would cling to the illusion that you have seen the light and are on your way somewhere.

I'm not complaining though. It's your life. Lead it as you will. (A truly secular idea).
Not a clue
There are ideas which could stop all quarrels; such an idea is the law of three. ~
P. D. Ouspensky
It is amazing. A good minority can understand what it means to be third force blind and the benefit from becoming able to "see." Yet there are those like F4 who will deny it until his last breath.

Of course the real problem is that they inhabit the schools and inflict their denial on young minds beginning to open

There is no reason why I or anyone else must remain third force blind. But these experts in the art of chlld abuse will do their level best to assure that young minds abandon the questions of the heart which can only be understood by opening the mind to the hidden third and become indoctrinated into secular concerns appropriate for snowflakes the most important at this time is how to get rid of Trump.

Sick stuff.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:58 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:53 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:22 pm
You complain that I post of inner empiricism and a supporter of blind belief at the same time.
What you fail to see is that for you they are the same thing. What you see through "inner empiricism" is what you put there to see, what you have been told you will find.

Plato knew better and so you ignore him at this point. Buddhas know better, but rather than kill the Buddha you convince yourself that you have experienced a higher reality.

You could learn a great deal from Ch'an master Lin Chi about attachments. But even if he beat you with his stick you would cling to the illusion that you have seen the light and are on your way somewhere.

I'm not complaining though. It's your life. Lead it as you will. (A truly secular idea).
Not a clue
That where you lost track and veered into la la land.
Note this explanation.
How Do You Kill a Buddha?
This particular koan has caught on in the West, for some reason, and has been interpreted many different ways. One version of it popped up in a discussion of violence in Buddhism; someone apparently believed Linji was being literal (hint: he wasn't).


Many other interpretations abound. In a 2006 essay called "Killing the Buddha," author and neuroscientist Sam Harris wrote,
  • "The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.' Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism."
Is that what Master Linji meant by "killing the Buddha?" Zen records tell us that Linji was a fierce and uncompromising teacher of the Buddha Dharma, famous for instructing his students with shouts and blows. These were not used as punishment but to shock the student into dropping meandering, sequential thought and to bring him into the pure clarity of the present moment.

Linji also once said, "'Buddha' means pureness of the mind whose radiance pervades the entire dharma realm." If you are familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, you will recognize that Linji is talking about Buddha Nature, which is the fundamental nature of all beings. In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion.

In Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (Weatherhill, 1970), Shunryu Suzuki Roshi said,

"Zen master will say, 'Kill the Buddha!' Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. Kill the Buddha, because you should resume your own Buddha nature."

Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. In other words, if you encounter a "Buddha" separate from yourself, you are deluded.

So, although Sam Harris wasn't entirely wrong when he said one should "kill" a Buddha that is a "religious fetish," Linji probably would have punched him anyway. Linji is telling us not to objectify anything -- not Buddha, and not the self. To "meet" the Buddha is to be stuck in dualism.

Other Modern Misinterpretations
The phrase "killing the Buddha" is often used to mean rejecting all religious doctrine. Certainly, Linji pushed his students to go beyond a conceptual understanding of the Buddha's teaching that blocks intimate, intuitive realization, so that understanding isn't completely wrong.

However, any conceptual understanding of "killing the Buddha" is going to fall short of what Linji was saying. To conceptualize non-duality or Buddha Nature is not the same as realization. As a Zen rule of thumb, if you can grasp it intellectually, you aren't there yet.
Harris: "As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism."

In your case, you should dispense with your A-Game-view [Simone's] and not be so attached to it, i.e. "if you see Simone Weil on the road, kill her."
The critical step is one must cultivate a state of mind and this has to be represented by significantly effective neurally connected state that realizes that above. This is why in Buddhism-proper, meditation to rewire the brain/mind for the better had been advocated by the Buddha.

In your case, the critical step at best is merely believing using pure reason and viola one is comforted but such a security state is very flimsy to the extent some theists will even kill if they perceived their belief is threatened.

Even with 'kill the Buddha ..." some Buddhists still cling to 'Buddha Nature' as some kind of reality.
To be with Buddhism-proper, the Buddhist must detach everything even to the idea of 'Buddha Nature' as with the Buddhist Tetralemma ++;
  • A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A
thus
  • A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A
    None of the above

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:58 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:53 pm


What you fail to see is that for you they are the same thing. What you see through "inner empiricism" is what you put there to see, what you have been told you will find.

Plato knew better and so you ignore him at this point. Buddhas know better, but rather than kill the Buddha you convince yourself that you have experienced a higher reality.

You could learn a great deal from Ch'an master Lin Chi about attachments. But even if he beat you with his stick you would cling to the illusion that you have seen the light and are on your way somewhere.

I'm not complaining though. It's your life. Lead it as you will. (A truly secular idea).
Not a clue
That where you lost track and veered into la la land.
Note this explanation.
How Do You Kill a Buddha?
This particular koan has caught on in the West, for some reason, and has been interpreted many different ways. One version of it popped up in a discussion of violence in Buddhism; someone apparently believed Linji was being literal (hint: he wasn't).


Many other interpretations abound. In a 2006 essay called "Killing the Buddha," author and neuroscientist Sam Harris wrote,
  • "The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.' Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism."
Is that what Master Linji meant by "killing the Buddha?" Zen records tell us that Linji was a fierce and uncompromising teacher of the Buddha Dharma, famous for instructing his students with shouts and blows. These were not used as punishment but to shock the student into dropping meandering, sequential thought and to bring him into the pure clarity of the present moment.

Linji also once said, "'Buddha' means pureness of the mind whose radiance pervades the entire dharma realm." If you are familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, you will recognize that Linji is talking about Buddha Nature, which is the fundamental nature of all beings. In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion.

In Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (Weatherhill, 1970), Shunryu Suzuki Roshi said,

"Zen master will say, 'Kill the Buddha!' Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. Kill the Buddha, because you should resume your own Buddha nature."

Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. In other words, if you encounter a "Buddha" separate from yourself, you are deluded.

So, although Sam Harris wasn't entirely wrong when he said one should "kill" a Buddha that is a "religious fetish," Linji probably would have punched him anyway. Linji is telling us not to objectify anything -- not Buddha, and not the self. To "meet" the Buddha is to be stuck in dualism.

Other Modern Misinterpretations
The phrase "killing the Buddha" is often used to mean rejecting all religious doctrine. Certainly, Linji pushed his students to go beyond a conceptual understanding of the Buddha's teaching that blocks intimate, intuitive realization, so that understanding isn't completely wrong.

However, any conceptual understanding of "killing the Buddha" is going to fall short of what Linji was saying. To conceptualize non-duality or Buddha Nature is not the same as realization. As a Zen rule of thumb, if you can grasp it intellectually, you aren't there yet.
Harris: "As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism."

In your case, you should dispense with your A-Game-view [Simone's] and not be so attached to it, i.e. "if you see Simone Weil on the road, kill her."
The critical step is one must cultivate a state of mind and this has to be represented by significantly effective neurally connected state that realizes that above. This is why in Buddhism-proper, meditation to rewire the brain/mind for the better had been advocated by the Buddha.

In your case, the critical step at best is merely believing using pure reason and viola one is comforted but such a security state is very flimsy to the extent some theists will even kill if they perceived their belief is threatened.

Even with 'kill the Buddha ..." some Buddhists still cling to 'Buddha Nature' as some kind of reality.
To be with Buddhism-proper, the Buddhist must detach everything even to the idea of 'Buddha Nature' as with the Buddhist Tetralemma ++;
  • A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A
thus
  • A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A
    None of the above

Good post, but for those who believe in revealed truths and esoteric secrets it will fall on deaf ears.

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:12 pm

“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison. Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” Simone Weil
Killing the Buddha as I understand it means killing the results of the supremacy of dualistic animal reason. It is also the source of the belief in progress as advocated by secularism in favor of opening the path to universalism or the return to our origin. Obviously in modern secular society this idea leading to a human perspective will go over like your proverbial lead balloon. Killing the Buddha and killing the god of the Great Beast: same situation.

https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/against ... l-auid-844
…………….At the heart of Weil’s argument against history resides a lesson she tried over and over again to teach those who would listen, a lesson we today need specially to heed. The lesson concerns the fundamental question of whether the meaning of the world, as one might put it, or its value, or its significance, can be found within it. That it can is the message of so-called humanism, a child of The Enlightenment, the view that the key to our destiny lies within us. Call that view immanentism, in contrast with transcendentalism, or if you prefer, the horizontal vs the vertical perspective, or, perhaps most perspicuously, naturalism vs. supernaturalism. On this question, one cannot avoid taking sides. As T.S. Eliot, an early champion of Weil, said in “Second Thoughts About Humanism”: “Either everything in man can be traced as a development from below, or something must come from above. There is no avoiding that dilemma: you must either be a naturalist or a supernaturalist.” Wittgenstein, strikingly, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus — ironically, the “bible” of the positivists of the Vienna Circle — made his position on that dilemma perfectly clear. “The sense of the world,” he wrote, “must lie outside the world. … n it no value exists — and if it did exist, it would have no value. … Ethics is transcendental. … God does not reveal himself in the world.”……………………..

An essential question: can the meaning of the world be found in Plato’s cave? Those like F4 and VA will say yes since we create it.

. As T.S. Eliot, an early champion of Weil, said in “Second Thoughts About Humanism”: “Either everything in man can be traced as a development from below, or something must come from above. There is no avoiding that dilemma: you must either be a naturalist or a supernaturalist.”

Yep, that’s how it is. Those like F4 and VA are naturalists and I am a supernaturalist. Right now the naturalists are winning in society and succeeding in destroying the attraction to eros in the young. But there is a minority who keep the great ideas alive so essential for awakening us to our potential for a universal perspective. Those who understand the situation have the ethical obligation to keep their sources alive in the world. A difficult problem since the world is against them..

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:06 am

Nick:
Yep, that’s how it is. Those like F4 and VA are naturalists and I am a supernaturalist.
No, Nick, that’s your dualist reason at work. You do not even understand what you quote:

That it can is the message of so-called humanism, a child of The Enlightenment
How does that apply to Lin Chi? He is not a child of the Enlightenment.

It is not question of naturalism vs. supernaturalism but of seeing things as they are rather than according to the categories you impose. Not according to an “above” that you imagine to be whatever it is you imagine it to be or whatever Simone Weil or anyone else tells you it is. It is, according to Lin Chi, forgetting all these things you have been told, they do not inform you, they feed your imagination and desire for something more than this world. But you do not see this world as it is but as a “below” as a “cave” as inferior to the world you wish to escape to.

According to the trap of your dualist thinking you imagine this has something to do with “the great beast” or “progressivism” or whatever else you set up as the enemy to be fought against, but the problem is not this world, the problem is you. The whole world could change and you would remain the same. Your would still see things through the same eyes, desiring to transcend reality, never suspecting that what needed to be changed is you.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:12 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:12 pm
“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison. Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” Simone Weil
Killing the Buddha as I understand it means killing the results of the supremacy of dualistic animal reason. It is also the source of the belief in progress as advocated by secularism in favor of opening the path to universalism or the return to our origin. Obviously in modern secular society this idea leading to a human perspective will go over like your proverbial lead balloon. Killing the Buddha and killing the god of the Great Beast: same situation.
Nope! you got the wrong understanding.

The general rule is humans must act as necessary and morally, thus one must avoid what is 'evil' and act on what is 'good', within a range of degrees. 'Killing the Buddha' is a metaphor to highlight, even if it is of the highest good [normally trigger pleasure] one must not be extremely obsessed with it and its related matters.

Spirituality often provide very extraordinary and significant 'good' [epiphany & highs] to a follower of a spiritual practice, but one must never be fanatical and extremely obsessed in clinging to the founder/messenger, rituals, etc. Such an attachment to the founder will lead to clinging and desire which will be antithetic to one's progress in spirituality.
This is where Lin Chi used a very dramatic and striking metaphor, i.e. 'Kill the Buddha ..' to warn followers not to cling to an idol/hero but focus on the essential practice.

Note in contrast to no such warning in Islam where Mohammad the illiterate messenger is highly enamored and idolized to the extent those who draw cartoons of Muhammad are killed. In Pakistan and other Muslim majority countries, the slightest criticism of Muhammad meant the death penalty.
Note the case of Asia Bibi who was sentenced to death for a negative comment on Muhammad.

Yep, that’s how it is. Those like F4 and VA are naturalists and I am a supernaturalist. Right now the naturalists are winning in society and succeeding in destroying the attraction to eros in the young. But there is a minority who keep the great ideas alive so essential for awakening us to our potential for a universal perspective. Those who understand the situation have the ethical obligation to keep their sources alive in the world. A difficult problem since the world is against them..
The above is where you are too dualistic, i.e. if not "us", then 'them' or the others who are evil without exceptions. This implied you did not 'kill the Buddha when you saw him on the road.' You are too obsessed with the doctrines of Simone Weil to the extent that those who do not agree with Simone's view are evil humanists or naturalists out to destroy the world.
How can you lump those who are pro-Buddha's thoughts as evil?

I don't view humanity like you do, rather I see things within a continuum, .e.g.

Note the tetralemma ++
  • 1. A
    2. -A
    3. Both A and -A
    4. Neither A nor -A
    5. None of the above
This is how it works;
  • 1. Good things in a continuum for low [1/100] to high [99/100] = A
    2. Evil things in a continuum for low [1/100] to high [99/100] = -A
    3. Then we have a combination of good and evil in various degrees
    4. We act on A and -A but we need to detach from A and -A
    5. We also need to detach from the whole of the above model.
Detach does not mean disengagement but interact to the fullest.
Note 'FLOW'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Detachment in this case mean detaching the religion, philosophy, founder, from one's extreme emotions, worries, anxieties, pleasures, ego and whatever that is negative in one's interaction with 'reality'.

Unlike you, I do place Simone's views as the "other" in either/or state but I regard Simone's view as good of a certain degree. Theism has its combination of good and evil elements. I would rate the Abrahamic theism as 50% good and 50% negative [best guess], and Islam the ideology 10% good and 90% evil [based on extensive research].

Based on what you posted, Simone's theism would be above average [?]. Note how Simonists would attack critiques when Simone's views are criticized as you are doing above, i.e. quickly putting me and F4 into the 'evil' pigeonhole.

As for pantheism and panentheism I would rate such theism as 80% good and 20% negative.
Why? the reason is no matter how good theism is, its nature is such it is vulnerable to attachment on a psychological basis, albeit in a low percentage for some types of theism, e.g. pantheism. I have argued the basis of theism is psychological. Both pantheism and panentheism are ignorant of the internal psychology of the individual and thus do not address it directly.

As for Buddhism-proper [not the religion as practiced] I would rate it a 95% good as a spiritual practice because Buddhism-proper deliberately prevent the attachment-clinging-desire elements and deal directly with the existential psychology.

So Simone Weil's philosophy is good on the high side but not good enough relatively to say Buddhism's philosophy and imperative-practices.

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:16 am

F4
It is not question of naturalism vs. supernaturalism but of seeing things as they are rather than according to the categories you impose. Not according to an “above” that you imagine to be whatever it is you imagine it to be or whatever Simone Weil or anyone else tells you it is. It is, according to Lin Chi, forgetting all these things you have been told, they do not inform you, they feed your imagination and desire for something more than this world. But you do not see this world as it is but as a “below” as a “cave” as inferior to the world you wish to escape to.
This is precisely what you don't understand. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are? You are not alone. Most never do and just continue to habitually argue as you do. But to seriously question what is essential for you to acquire a human perspective is something apparently you are not open to.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:49 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:16 am
F4
It is not question of naturalism vs. supernaturalism but of seeing things as they are rather than according to the categories you impose. Not according to an “above” that you imagine to be whatever it is you imagine it to be or whatever Simone Weil or anyone else tells you it is. It is, according to Lin Chi, forgetting all these things you have been told, they do not inform you, they feed your imagination and desire for something more than this world. But you do not see this world as it is but as a “below” as a “cave” as inferior to the world you wish to escape to.
This is precisely what you don't understand. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are? You are not alone. Most never do and just continue to habitually argue as you do. But to seriously question what is essential for you to acquire a human perspective is something apparently you are not open to.

Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are?
If I didn’t know that you do not know better I would think that this is a trick question. You start out on the wrong foot with what you think must be necessary. What you think might be necessary to achieve something you have not achieved is not a question you can answer. Any answer you give will be based on your ignorance. In addition, what might be necessary for you may not be necessary for someone else. Both Socrates and Lin Chi say that the proper cure depends on what the illness is. There is no one size fits all find the answer in a book solution. With the next step you stumble: “quality of perspective” and a “human perspective”, these are terms laden with your evaluation of “above” and “below”. You carry with you the very things that must be left behind.
Most never do and just continue to habitually argue as you do.
Are you really unaware of the fact that is is exactly what you do and have been doing for years? You trot out the same arguments over and over again, thread after thread, year after year. Nothing I say is likely to change that. Are you?

Nick_A
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:22 pm

N. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are?

F. If I didn’t know that you do not know better I would think that this is a trick question. You start out on the wrong foot with what you think must be necessary. What you think might be necessary to achieve something you have not achieved is not a question you can answer. Any answer you give will be based on your ignorance. In addition, what might be necessary for you may not be necessary for someone else. Both Socrates and Lin Chi say that the proper cure depends on what the illness is. There is no one size fits all find the answer in a book solution. With the next step you stumble: “quality of perspective” and a “human perspective”, these are terms laden with your evaluation of “above” and “below”. You carry with you the very things that must be left behind.
The following is something F4 will deny but you dear reader may appreciate why Julia Haslett became so intrigued with an excerpt from Simone Weil that she created a documentary based on it.
."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
According to those like F4, a person should forget about contemplating what is meant and concentrate on the important things such as getting rid of Trump, Abortion rights, and social justice. Julia in her attempt to understand Simone is keeping this ancient question alive while those like F4 won’t understand it so will seek to destroy it. This is the reality of the modern world. It denies that conscious attention is essential for acquiring a human perspective so will ignore its value and focus on superficiality.

Consider the trailer from the documentary. Julia is trying to understand what Simone brings. F4 will seek to bury his head in the sand and suggest that I do the same since I admit to as of now being incapable of sustained conscious attention. Those like F4 still don’t even know what it is and the value of being aware of what we lack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:16 am
This is precisely what you don't understand. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are?
...
  • "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
I agree 'attention' is necessary, but what is the use if 'attention' is directed to the wrong path rather than the right-view, right action, and the rest of the noble-eightfold paths.

"seeing things as they are" is a core maxim of Buddhist philosophy, but the effectiveness of 'seeing things as they are' is grounded on 'seeing things as you are.'
This meant that you are unable to 'see things as they' are unless you first see into your own self and understand the principles, mechanics and processes that 'rules' within your own self, i.e. Know Thyself.
Seeing Things as They Are

This is often the first question that lurks behind any new undertaking. But when it comes to spiritual practice—and Buddhist practice in particular—it’s a question bathed in irony. One way to get at this irony is through an expression found in pretty much every Buddhist tradition: seeing things as they are (Sanskrit yatha-bhutam darshanam).

To “see things as they are” means, very simply, to see that all samsaric experience is stamped by what are known as the three marks: impermanence (anitya), no-self (anatman), and suffering (duhkha).
-C. W. Huntington
Wiki wrote:Saṃsāra in Buddhism is the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again.[1] Samsara is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful,[2] perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.
In your case, you are not 'seeing things as they are' because you have been deceived [attention misdirected] by your mind to chase an illusion [which you sincerely believe is real].

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests