The Yoga of the Philosophers

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Sanjay
zinnat13 wrote:The ultimate objective of the spirituality to keep the mind firm on its feet in this flow and to enabling it in conceiving a look at this state of flux from outside as a third person. Let the world, and even your mind, flow before you. In simple terms, this is Yog or enlightenment.
YES! If I could sum up what I have learnt in my 35 years in one sentence, this would do it! The world is changing entirely in every millisecond that passes, and yet we don't believe it. We think that things remain somewhere, when out of awareness. The third person is always with us, actually it is not the third person but the first and only person. The fact of the matter is that we don't believe this. We believe that we are individual people.

To absorb other points of view, to view things relatively is to weaken the first person. This is why relativism is so unpopular, and frightens people. To absorb a second view is challenging and rather frightening. Every person has a limit to how much of this second person they are able to be.

At some point we see our neighbours perspective so clearly that it is as strong for us as our own first person perspective. At this point, the third person perspective, which is transcendent and objective appears. The third person is the wise person, the one who knows, sees and understands truly. The problem is that they cannot say what they understand because it is no perspective in particular - it might be one thing one day and the opposite the next. Their wisdom lies in not attaching to any particular view and yet always acting appropriately.

We all have the third person in us, and yet so often he disappears. When he is absent we are first persons, with particular views, opinions and motivations. If the third person is absent then we are acting out of ignorance, and according to subjective conditions. It is the first person who is an object in space and time, an object who perceives other objects in their own portion of space and time.

When the third person is strongly within us and has a stable presence, things in time and space are transient and fleeting. There is no attachment to the objects of sensation because there is so little of the first person with views, opinions and motivations. When there is no attachment things are transient and fleeting. Nothing can touch the third person, nothing can worry him or harm him. He is free to enjoy the world exactly as it is. This is enlightenment.

All we have to do is believe that we are the third person and then we become him, the enlightened one. But the first person is not free to believe as he wills and so to say what I have just said is an absurdity actually.

best wishes, Nikolai
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by lancek4 »

I am astonished and relieved.
But that is your rhetoric, and I will leave it to you.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

lancek4 wrote:I am astonished and relieved.
But that is your rhetoric, and I will leave it to you.
What do you mean?
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by bus2bondi »

"Math is everywhere.

Everything can be assigned a number that has some meaning.


Studying the history of Mathematics gives you an appreciation of how civilization has adapted over the ages. Technology and Science follow the developments in Mathematics; most often, quite later. However, this is not always the case. Recent developments in String Theory (Physics) require mathematics which require techniques we don't yet have to manipulate the equations involved.

Let's take a look at the ancient Greek's perspective on numbers. The ancient Greeks, the Pythagoreans in particular, considered numbers to be reality. Starting with, one, each number in turn had a very specific meaning and purpose in their world view. You probably recall something about the Pythagorean Theorem, or perhaps were introduced to geometry using a text based on Euclid’s Elements. The Pythagoreans used pictographs to represent numbers; perhaps students (called initiates) used pebbles placed in the sand.



The number "one" was a single pebble, all by itself, a single point in the sand.

The number "two" was represented with two pebbles, three with three pebbles, etc.

However, these pebbles were laid out in a specific way. See number shapes 1 and number shapes 2. These links also show how the Pythagoreans thought of numbers in terms of geometry. Thinking this way, a single pebble is a point in space. Two pebbles defined a line. Three pebbles defined a triangle, four pebbles a square, five pebbles a pentagon, etc.

But this is not all, the Greeks had other meanings for numbers.

The number 1 meant unity, not divisible, and the generator of all numbers (the modern Peano Axioms are based on this concept), and more abstractly, 1 meant reason itself. Monad (meaning unity in Greek) was their term for one.

The number 2 represented opinion, diversity, and represented the first female number. Dyad was the word they used for 2.

The number 3 was the first possible sum of the numbers so far, monad plus dyad. But for the Greeks, unity combined with diversity meant harmony and they called three the first male number. (Yes, the Greeks were a male dominated society.)

The number 4 was represented as four pebbles arranged in a square, a shape with four equal sides, and with all being equal, four represented fairness and justice in particular. The word "square" in “You treated me squarely,” still rings true to its original Greek meaning.


In review:



One "monad" unity, not divisible, REASON

Two "dyad" opinion, diversity (FEMALE)

Three unity combined with harmony (MALE)

Four fairness and justice (four EQUAL sides)



One could stretch the point that Mathematics is the basis for all we do today. "Number" pervades everything. The beauty of Mathematics is, that with logical thought, we can extend the concept of number to form logical frameworks to model reality itself. And this modeling of reality forms the basis of all Sciences giving us the ability to predict events up to the accuracy of our mathematical model. Unlike the Greeks we understand that these models are not reality but very good approximations of reality. All we do, and all we build involves numbers in one way or another, and the study of Mathematics should be fun and rewarding all on its own. As one professor said to my Theory of Calculus class, "Knowing WHY it works is far better than knowing HOW it works," which pretty much sums it all up."


http://www.k12math.com/dictionary/why-study-math.htm
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

Why have you posted the above here b2b?

What relevance does it have to the thread?

Why not post it in Logic and Philosophy of Maths? More suitable I'd think.

Why did you just write what the link said without quotes? Its called plagiarism.
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by lancek4 »

Nikolai wrote:
lancek4 wrote:I am astonished and relieved.
But that is your rhetoric, and I will leave it to you.
What do you mean?
I do not mean 'retorhic' negativly. I have only read deceased people of such 'things' as your latest posts. Now I am reading of someone alive: your post. It astonishishes me and gives me a sence of relief.

But I do not speak of it as you do. I speak of it as I do. You speak well of it . It is good.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

When people speculate and philosophise about the world they live in they often don't realise the greatness of what they are doing. Philosophers might profess a certain reverence for truth, but it is nothing like the old days when Sophia was held up as being some kind of ultimate ideal, and personified like a deity. I'm not saying we go back to the old days, but in their conception of reason they had a fuller appreciation of philosophy's grandeur.

To use our reason, to think, to doubt and to speculate is a deeply profound, almost religious activity. It is as worthy as all the good deeds, as all the ascetic practices and as all the devotions at the alter. When we philosophise we are like monks at prayer, we are yearning towards a glorious and lofty goal. Why do we not recognise this? Why all this false modesty?

Our modesty is down to the fact that, deep down, the vast majority of philosophers undo all their good intentions with some rather base behaviour - and deep down we are ashamed. We are ashamed because in our pride and ignorance we claim to have grasped the truth all too prematurely. We think that absolute truth can be expressed in terms of matter and energy, and moral codes, and systems of government. We think that we have found answers when all we have done is abandoned philosophy.

The hardest part of being a philosopher is the final leg - the time when we have to turn our attention on ourself and realise that, like Socrates, we 'know only that we know nothing'. Philosophers revere Socrates, he is almost like our patron saint, but at the same time we baulk at doing what he did. We do not have the humility, we know that deep down, and so we feel ashamed. We then start to deny the grandeur of philosophy, of divine Sophia, but only because it embarrasses us to think of our shortcomings.

It takes a lot of courage to be a thinker - but take heart because if you are reading this then you are more of a thinker than most. We live in a time when there are great intellectual divisions between science, and religion and philosophy and new ageism. There is no need for all this strife - it can all be unified into a single vision. Philosophers are the ones to formulate the vision, but until they cast off this diminished sense of philsophy's importance they are in no position to do anything at all.

This thread has on ostensibly spiritual theme, but at the same time myself, sanjay and Lance have all confessed that we see no distinction between science, spirituality and indeed philosophy. This is a bold claim, but perhaps we can start to substantiate it?

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 »

Dear Nikolai,

Yes, it is possible. I would like to go one step further in saying that it had been happened a long ago. We just have to realize it.

Mankind has evolved a lot from its early days and we should be proud of that.

Whenever, the first thought was would have manifested in the human mind, it was neither science nor spirituality. It was just an innocent thought, a simple idea or a common sense. We cannot name it. That precise incident was the essence of knowledge. Each and everything else, at this very moment, which we consider as knowledge, is derived from that very seed.

There is no harm in categorizing knowledge for the practical purpose but there should be no rift within them. A knowledge should be considered just as a knowledge irrespective from its acquiring process and even use.

I would to quote a few lines of myself from another thread.
Any materialistic knowledge, no matter how advance and sophisticated it may be, is just an extension of common sense. This is the very way in which our science has evolved. If there was instant formula of knowledge then it would have been happened in a day. In my opinion, it is as simple as that. All types of complicated scientific knowledge were initiated from a simple idea. Then either the originator or someone else adds one more common sense to it. This process is go on and on and after many additions the sum of them became complex. But, still it is nothing more than the sum of some common sensed ideas. Though, on the surface it may looks different.

It is sad that modern science do not see any value either in philosophy or metaphysics. The recent statement of Stephen Hawkins is a perfect example of that. I also see a hint of negation even in philosophy for metaphysics. I am not talking about disagreement but disbelief. The illogical and rigid approach of major religions is also responsible for that. But, it is mankind, who is only sufferer.

I do not know whether other members have heard about it or not but there is a very old Hindu religion in the name of Jain religion. It is considered as old as Vedic mythology but it resurged in 5th century BCE during the tenure of its last thirnthkar (prophet) lord Mahavira. He was almost contemporary to Buddha. Both of these schools run almost parallel but contrary to the Buddhism, Jainism did not spread much outside India but I found it unique in many aspects. If we delete its metaphysical portion, then it almost appears as a text of theoretical physics. I do not think that any other religion has gone as far as Jainism to describe things philosophically and scientifically.

Much of ethical principles of Jainism follow the lines of both Vedanta philosophy and Buddhism but it differs on some finer points. Jainism lays too much stress on vigilance as it holds that negligence is a sin so one should be vigilant all the time. It is defined by an example in Jain texts.
There was a monk and his duty was to prepare food for all other monks but one day the food became poisonous without the knowledge of that monk and he served the food to others and as the result, many of them died. Now both, Vedanta and Buddhism hold that; although the monk is ignorant but he cannot be held guilty but on the other hand Jainism declares that the ignorance of the monk caused the death of others so his crime is as serious as murder, because if he had tasted the food before serving, the life if other monks could have been saved.

There is a very interesting concept in Jainism and we can call it principle of pluralism. It explains this notion with a parable which is widely usurped by philosophers. I am talking about the famous tale of blind men and the elephant. Six blind men tries to understand the elephant by touching but their realizations differ because they touch different parts of the body of the elephant; foot, trunk, tail etc. Jainism holds that, while none of them is able to conceive the whole elephant in its true sense, yet it cannot be said that they are wrong. So, only an omniscient or enlighten one is able to conceive it in totality.

At this point, Jainism differs both from Vedanta and Buddhism. Vedanta believes in absolutism and eternal realism. It postulates that everything else is in the state of flux, and not in permanence, that’s why it is illusion. Buddhism says that everything is in constant flux and impermanence, hence there is no need to pay attention to it though Buddhism does not give any precise answer which is often quoted by the famous silence of Lord Buddha about 14 unanswered questions. Instead of it Buddha insists on; go by yourself. Jainism does not negate any of them but says that there are two different phenomena. One is substance and the other is process. Vedanta stresses on substance while Buddhism takes care of the process only but both are equally important. So Jainism postulates its own version in the form of relativity.

Relativity is defined in Jainism by three doctrines.
Principle of pluralism.
Theory of partial truths.
Theory of provable predictions.

The third one includes other two and it is called SYADVADA.

Many of us will be surprised to know and even do not believe that it was Jainism who took notice both of relativity and the uncertainty principle much before the science.

Jainism realized that everything is relative in this world, not only metaphysically but physically also. It understood that a tree is stationary for an observer stand by him but it is moving along the earth if looked from the space. They did not formulate it mathematically as it was impossible at that time because of limited knowledge of mathematics but they got the conceptual basics of the relativity absolutely right.

This concept does not follow the precise mood of uncertainty principle but it stands somewhere between the theory of relativity and the uncertainty principle. It argues that the uncertainty in anything is caused by the different approach of the different observers. SYATVADA gives us seven probabilities of a state or event instead of simple yes and no as mentioned below-
1- In some ways it may be
2- In some ways it maybe not
3- In some ways it may be and in some ways it may be not
4- In some ways it may be but it is unexplainable
5- In some ways it may be not but it is unexplainable
6- In some ways it may be; in some ways it may be not but it is unexplainable
7- In some ways it is unexplainable

The basic that I got from the Syadvada is that it assumes that doubt is a necessity. It does not believe in absolutes like Newton and Einstein. Giving the reasons it says that this is because of every observer having his own point of view. It argues that different observers could have different observations for one object of event so one could have his or her own version of truth which may be different from others. Jainism explained this paradox with very simple but famous parable of “blind men and an elephant”. This concept falls exactly in line of what modern theory of relativity says if we exclude the mathematical portion from it. The uncertainty element of Syadvada is slightly different from its scientific version. Science says that the reason of uncertainty is because of means of measurement disturbing the object but Syadvada argues that the uncertainty is due to different approaches between different observers so it is difficult to hold which version is right or wrong. Syadvada postulates that the truth is relative that’s why it is uncertain. So we see that Syadvada provides a perfect mix of relativity and uncertainty at least at the metaphysical level. Science is also trying to unifying both of them.

The modern mathematics must be very grateful to the Jain religion because of two reasons. Jainism introduced a revolutionary concept for extremely large numbers for the first time as it endowed mathematics with infinite. Jainism was not even satisfied with one simple infinite. Going deep, it gave five versions of infinity; infinite in one direction, infinite in two directions, infinite in area, infinite everywhere and perpetual infinite.

Secondly it freed Indian mathematics from religious constrains which went on growing and invented decimal system and trigonometry. All this knowledge was adapted by Arabs and routed to Europe by them. Furthermore, the zero was properly used by Jainism for the first time. They named it as Shunya which ultimately converted into zero.
There are many more very interesting doctrines in Jainism which runs almost parallel with theoretical physics. I will try to discuss them.

With love,
sanjay
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by bus2bondi »

oh hi auk, you again :shock: :evil: :lol:, to answer your question.. i posted that there because Nikolai was assigning numbers to people (and reality) and what i posted talked about assigning numbers to people (and reality). 1, there is harmony, 2, .. , 3.., and furthermore combined science and spiritual, of which also is discussed in this thread.. and sort of echo's, in a way what has been brought up here by those particiapting in the thread, through the philosophy of math. i saw that quite clearly, and i apologize if you didn't. i hope that explanation helped.

(as for you saying i plagiarized, without quoting (?) i am boggled in my mind as to why you have said that because i did quote everything, and provided a link at the bottom which is the source. i might have forgot to put one set of quotes on the first time i posted and added later, but i don't recall that either.. i may have. and i provided the source at the bottom, most definitly the first posting as well. anyhow, no i did not plagiarize.) (i have no idea what you saw???) (anyhow, hope that clarifies things a little further as well) :D
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

Bloody 'ell!! :shock: My apologies b2b. I retract any accusation of plagiarism and beg forgiveness. If you wish I'll ask for it to be deleted.

I think Nikolai was talking about taking mental positions in ones own mind to help thinking and acting about things. I now understand your thought, thank you, and think that the 'numbers' are not meant in the way of maths, you could just say position A, position B and position C, as long as you describe what each mental state is meant to be.

I still think this would have been a lovely post in the Logic and Phil of Maths section.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Arising_uk wrote:I think Nikolai was talking about taking mental positions in ones own mind to help thinking and acting about things. I now understand your thought, thank you, and think that the 'numbers' are not meant in the way of maths, you could just say position A, position B and position C, as long as you describe what each mental state is meant to be.
Yes, this is what I was doing. In many ways using numbers to make my point can be misleading. Position 1 and position 2 (first and second person) are actually equal to each other. For every position 1, for every thesis, there is of necessity a position 2 (antithesis), which is the thing position 1 is set against. Indeed, for position 1 to make sense position 2 is tacitly implied because when we make a statement we need to also posit what it isn't.

Position 3 is the recognition of the above argument, not only with our head but our heart, and a recognition that reality can always be conceptualised in two contradictory ways. Position 3 is to see positions 1 and 2 as equal and not to attach to either of them. In other words, the moment we accept position 2 we open up position 3.

Position 3 is wisdom, and we all possess this at various times and in various situations. When we are not in position 3 we are in position 1 - stuck in a one sided viewpoint and blind to the equal and opposite alternative.

In day to day life position 2 is often provided for us in our encounters in with other people. When our wisdom is weak in us we need other people to remind us of alternative viewpoints. As our wisdom grows stronger we become increasingly able to generate position 2 from within us and other people are not needed. Philosophically minded people are especially good at doing this and it is often said that the good philosopher is good because s/he is able to argue with themselves and self-perfect their own thoughts.

People who are weak in wisdom have more single-minded opinions and are unable to modify their viewpoints without a rather dramatic collision course with their opponent. But they are not necessarily rigid and intransigent. A person weak in wisdom is suggestible and might suddenly reject their own position 1 in favour of the position 1 of someone they subordinate themselves to.

As I've said earlier we all have our limits and in some areas we are bound to be stuck in position 1 - a position we probably call the Truth. If we find that there are other people who vehemently disagree with us then this is more evidence that we are in position 1. If we find ourselves thinking that "I am right and they are wrong" then we are emotionally in position 1. If, in the case of philosophers, we are fighting a battle on an issue that has been fought over for centuries and has still not been resolved then we are in position 1 and we are blind to the position 2 that our opponent is desperately trying to show us (position 2 for us is, of course, the opponent's own position 1).

When we finally see what our opponent is showing us we absorb position 2 without rejecting our own position 1 - and this is position 3. This is wisdom, seeing things equably and from all perspectives. It is tranquil, just, and tolerant. It is no wonder this has been called the God's Eye view, even though it is rather commonplace and within us in all sorts of situations and places.

The more we gain of it, the less we need other people to forcefully provide us with position 2s. We start to develop a sense that there is bound to be a second way to view things, and we go actively looking for alternative perspectives rather than unilateral position 1 'truths'. The irony is, that is only when we stop looking for unilateral truths that the only unilateral truth suddenly appears right before us. But this time we recognise it and accept it md our career as a seeker of truth is finally completed.

Best wishes, Nikolai
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Hi Nikolai,

Great posts, as always.
Nikolai wrote:The authentic spiritual teacher will be at pains to remind their students to reject their teaching in the end.
Fantastic sentence!

And now we might ask, why in the end? Why not in the beginning?

To further this goal, let's begin by undermining the credibility of the most popular and well known spiritual teachers.

How did they become the most popular and well known teachers? In any field, the most popular authors and speakers are those who best serve the desires of their audience, right?

What are the desires of the spiritual audience? This market is all about "me". My situation, my feelings, my experience, my development, my enlightenment etc etc. An relentless focus on "me", that is, ego.

So, using simple market math, we can see that the most popular spiritual teachers would be those who most successfully give our ego what it wants. Visions of my peace, my glory, my salvation, my enlightenment and so on.

A process of natural selection in the publishing market weeds out those teachers who would tell us what we don't want to hear (the area of most opportunity) and elevates those who tell us what we do want hear (ie. the feeding of our egos).

And then, once a teacher is famous, that fame gives them credibility, which attracts more students and more fame, and the process builds on itself.

Next, the most popular teachers will be showered with money, fame, love, sex, worship etc, which heavily rewards the teacher for feeding our egos. The teachers are after all human, and like the rest of us, subject to the laws of behavior modification described by B.F. Skinner.

Thus, the powerful rewards showered upon popular teachers serve to make it ever less likely they will tell us anything we don't want to hear. One wrong move by a popular teacher can spell a quick end to their public career.

Lest this seem too cynical, please let me emphasize that imho, the majority of spiritual teachers are sincere and well intended. I'm not referring to charlatans and crooks here.

The problem is the way the market works.

The only teachers who gain a mass audience will be those who serve the real agenda of the audience, the enlargement of their egos.

Thus, the main function of spiritual teacher market is to feed and strengthen the very human illusion that all of reality is divided in to "me" and "everything else", which is of course the very problem that brings the students to the teacher's feet.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

So what might an unpopular teacher say?

This isn't about you. There's very little you can really do. And if you do want to do something, it will involve you getting out of the way.

The Problem

Human life is built upon thought. Thought is inherently divisive. Thus, it's the human condition to be trapped within a worldview that divides reality in to "me" and "everything else". The pain we are hoping to somehow escape arises from this illusion.

The Spiritual Quest

Something deep inside of us seeks to escape this prison, and reunite with reality. That is, just as there is an indomitable will to live, there is an equal and opposite deep desire to die.

It's Not About Us

Well, the system of life and death has been working just fine for a couple billion of years, without our help. We didn't ask to be born, life is incredibly short, and then we are going to die. Our death is absolutely 100% guaranteed, a zero failure rate operation. So, the reunion with reality we so desperately seek is coming, coming soon, coming for sure, no matter what we do or don't do.

Everything is under control. Your help isn't needed. Everything we most deeply want is just around the corner. It's already on the schedule.

We Could Relax

So, one option is just to relax, stop worrying about everything and how to change it, and just enjoy being human for the very short amount of time involved.

It's your life, do whatever you want.

Do you have some problem? Do you want to endlessly chew on it? Ok, go ahead, that's generally the kind of thing humans do. Dive in to it, live it, taste it fully, get your money's worth!

Can't Relax?

Well, we're human, so we probably don't want to relax. We probably want to do something, get involved, take charge etc. The next post is for these take charge types, the spiritual quest folks.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

We've established that your physical death is coming soon, and the reunion with reality your soul demands is guaranteed, a perfect certainty. But, as an impatient and demanding spiritual person, you're not happy with the schedule, and want to move things along, speed things up, get on with it etc.

So even though the life and death system has been around for billions of years, and you've only been here a few decades, you still think you can improve upon the system. Ok, we're human, and this is a very human sentiment, so let's get tinkering.

We can assume you've ruled suicide out, or you wouldn't be here reading this. Ok good, let's leave physical death for the system to manage.

So, if you still want to speed death up somehow, without actually physically dying, that brings us to the cheap dime store version, psychological death. In psychological death, the body lives on, but the "me" that thinks it owns the body dies.

As you'll recall, the problem which inspired the spiritual journey in the first place is the pain which arises out the conceptual division between "me" and "everything else". We can't get rid of "everything else", so to heal the division our only choice is to get rid of "me".

The first step in turning off the "me" is understanding what the "me" actually is.

The "me" is thought. I am Typist, I am this, I am that, I am above or below somebody else, etc etc, the "me", just a bunch of thoughts running around inside our heads.

So, that's simple enough. The "me" is made entirely of thought. So to turn off the "me", we just need to turn off thought.

The alert spiritual traveler may start to become uncomfortable at this point. The more intelligent they are, the sooner they will realize that when we turn off thought and the "me", we will also be saying goodbye to...

My glorious spiritual journey. My advancement up the spiritual ladder. My enlightenment. My salvation. My peace, my insight, my wisdom. Without "me", nothing in this paragraph is possible.

The game the spiritual traveler plays is to visit psychological death, and try to bring something back from it. They are attempting an impossible magic trick, turning nothing in to something.

But death is death. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

While we are psychologically dead, the "me" and all it's "accomplishments" are gone. When we wake up from psychological death, the "me" and all it's goofy ego games return, and life with it's joys and pains continues as before.

The "me" says...

"Aha, that was a good meditation, I'm making progress!"

But that's just more "me" ego bullshit.

The only progress that's been made is that during that hour of fantastic meditation, we came an hour closer to the real thing, phsycial death.

Now the spiritual traveler is depressed. "How can I make progress then??", they whine.

You can't make progress.

You are the opposite of progress.

Something far bigger than you will swallow you up soon enough. You have no say in the matter. It's not about you.

Until then, all you can do is pass the time by playing games.

If the spiritual journey game is your favorite game, then go for it, and seek those popular well known teachers with lots of credibility, who will help you play it.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Typist- you went away for a while then came back with a flurry!

You're definitely an interesting thinker - despite your interest in spirituality it doesn't stop you from following any teacher blindly! I agree with much of what you say although as ever I have a few comments:
Typist wrote:The only teachers who gain a mass audience will be those who serve the real agenda of the audience, the enlargement of their egos.
I think we need to be careful not to fall into the 'ego = bad, non-ego = good' trap. The good spiritual teacher does not seek to outright deny the ego, what they seek to deny is that the egoic mode is the only way of being. Alongside the truth of the ego, there is also a the truth of non-ego. This latter argument is largely ignored by most people. So the spiritual teacher finds themselves having to strongly emphasise arguments against the ego, even though these arguments are only the equal and opposite counterparts to the egoic argument.

In truth we are neither ego nor non-ego. Or, to put it another way, we transcend both views and contain them both. This is why the teacher will find themselves having to talk endlessly about non-ego (as this is the neglected argument that people are generally unaware of), only then to say that all their non-ego teachings are actually not the truth either - or no more true than our native egoism.

The ego is not a base thing that we should reject, and supplant with egolessness. What we need to reject is the belief that our ego is all that we are. Every spiritual genius is fully aware of their individual identity - where they were born, who their parents were etc. But they also know that this is just one side of them, and this awareness of the other side allows them to remain detached from the ego, which, when taken alone, is the source of so much suffering.

The student might find themselves in the orbit of this teacher. Until the teacher has worked his magic, the student has nothing other than their egoic sense of things. But the fact that they are there, and listening is enough for the time being.

In my last post I said that the authentic spiritual teacher must urge the rejection of their teachings. I would also say that the good spiritual teacher has to remain detached from the spiritual welfare of their student. Many students will seek aggrandisement in the name of spirituality. But this is OK! There is nothing bad about egoism - it is a perfectly legitimate mode of being. But it just so happens that the teacher's role in life is about teaching something extra. Those who have ears to hear will hear; as for the rest - well their deafness is fine too. This is faith. Yes they might suffer, but as Jesus said: 'such people will have their reward in full.'
Typist wrote:The Problem

Human life is built upon thought. Thought is inherently divisive. Thus, it's the human condition to be trapped within a worldview that divides reality in to "me" and "everything else". The pain we are hoping to somehow escape arises from this illusion.
I think we've discussed this before, but I'll say it again anyway. To describe thought as divisive, as a problem, is a very powerful teaching and many teachers in history have used it - but ultimately it is only half the story. Thought is also perfect and entire in itself and can only be called divisive if we take it as occurring within a subject that is interpreting a reality 'out there'. In other words, thought is only divisive to the ego-bound mind. To the non egoic mind a thought is perfect and entire in itself, and arises and passes in the same manner as anything else in awareness.

To argue against thought and divisive nature can be very therapeutic to those who are trapped in their own harmful opinions. But this is only a provisional teaching, that, unless rejected, will serve to keep people trapped in their view as individuals in a world that is actually able to be divided up.

When thought is understood properly we are able to indulge in it however we wish, because through understanding we become immune to its deleterious nature. A thought is quite toothless and harmless really, and it is only when we take it seriously that it has power to upset us.
Typist wrote:Now the spiritual traveler is depressed. "How can I make progress then??", they whine.

You can't make progress.

You are the opposite of progress.

Something far bigger than you will swallow you up soon enough. You have no say in the matter. It's not about you.

Until then, all you can do is pass the time by playing games.

If the spiritual journey game is your favorite game, then go for it, and seek those popular well known teachers with lots of credibility, who will help you play it.
Now this is cynical! I can see why you say this though because for many people the spiritual industry just seems to cause more dissatisfaction and suffering. And if this was the only outcome I would accept your analysis, but you forget just what positives the spiritual search can bring.

The fruits of the spiritual search are not only realised after death, but here and now in this lifetime. A sincere and dedicated search can bring you all the joys and satisfactions that we can possibly imagine. All those people who are out trying to find money, love, luxury and fame only do so because they think it will make you feel great. Well I tell you, I have a pretty ordinary life by western standards and yet I cannot imagine how anyone could be happier than I am. You could offer me a million pounds and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the joy in life. The spiritual life, or the life of philosophy that we are discussing in this thread is real and available - for those who are engaging with the issues, all it takes is time.

Best wishes, Nikolai
Post Reply