Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Know Thyself?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@richrf,

TT Man,

In a way, because we are living within different paradigms, I would have to ask you to clarify before I could answer you. (I hope that you can see this.) : ^ )

When you ask can Enlightenment exist independent of self. I would ask you which self do you mean, ego self or Transcendent Self?

*****************************************

I believe that when Sri Ramakrishna speaks of the seeker’s hair being on fire, he is speaking of a man who understands that life is suffering, not so much on the surface where pleasure and pain fluctuate, but deep down inside in a place that seems untouchable and not easily understood. When you feel this suffering, you don’t actually do the searching, not really. It does you. It doesn’t ask you if you want to.

In Islam there is a saying, (Paraphrased) “When God want you to come home. You can do one of two things. You can either walk home, or He will take you by the hair and drag you home.” ; ^ )

**********************************

When I say which kingdom do they rule over, I mean finitude or something more transcendent like Eternity.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 08:47 PM ----------

Ken, and TT Man,

A dictionary is a living thing. It is constantly growing and changing. One reason is that there are new words all of the time. Another reason is because there are words in other languages that don’t have an equivalent in our language, and so our language is just loaded with foreign words it has stolen. (Or is it borrowed permanently?)

Next we have colloquialisms that are just bursting onto the scene. Slang bubbling out of our teenager’s mouth and becoming accepted. Technical language that becomes popular. You get the idea. ; ^ )

Last but not least, we have the same words that are used in multiple ways, as I explained earlier about their use when speaking of either finitude or Eternity, how they overlap.

If that is not enough, we have more than one word meaning pretty much the same thing, but for subtle differences in connotation, etc.

There people who dedicate their whole lives to studying language, linguistics. It is taught in college in a course or three. I guess they didn’t think to open a dictionary. ; ^ )

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

kennethamy;95297 wrote:

The meaning of a word is not a matter for speculation, or for opinion. It is a matter of fact. It is strange how a lot of people do not realize this. They ask someone, "What do you mean by "W", as if it were up to that person what the meaning of W is.

Thank you for clarifying. And yes, I agree, it is strange.

Surely you have been participating in this forum for enough time to have seen that quite a number of people seem to think that it is indeed up to them what the meaning of a word is or, in some cases, to either entirely make up a word or at least corrupt its spelling and correct usage to such a degree as to render it essentially made up.

That being said, I often have to ask someone what they mean by a particular word, for though I may know what it means, I'm not always sure that they, in fact, do, and I like to know what kind of definition they are wielding before I proceed.

Perhaps my need to do this comes from living too long in a place where "we was" and "we seen" are considered correct usage. I once overheard a lady at a shoe store ask the clerk, "Are these them ones that was on sale?"

Subjectivity9;95298 wrote:

In a way, because we are living within different paradigms, I would have to ask you to clarify before I could answer you. (I hope that you can see this.) : ^ )

When you ask can Enlightenment exist independent of self. I would ask you which self do you mean, ego self or Transcendent Self?

And just because that's the way I am, I'm going to say that I deny there is a difference.

Subjectivity9;95298 wrote:

I believe that when Sri Ramakrishna speaks of the seeker's hair being on fire, he is speaking of a man who understands that life is suffering, not so much on the surface where pleasure and pain fluctuate, but deep down inside in a place that seems untouchable and not easily understood. When you feel this suffering, you don't actually do the searching, not really. It does you. It doesn't ask you if you want to.

This is one way to look at it.
There are at least three more that I can think of.

Subjectivity9;95298 wrote:

Ken, and TT Man,

A dictionary is a living thing. It is constantly growing and changing. One reason is that there are new words all of the time. Another reason is because there are words in other languages that don't have an equivalent in our language, and so our language is just loaded with foreign words it has stolen. (Or is it borrowed permanently?)

Next we have colloquialisms that are just bursting onto the scene. Slang bubbling out of our teenager's mouth and becoming accepted. Technical language that becomes popular. You get the idea. ; ^ )

Last but not least, we have the same words that are used in multiple ways, as I explained earlier about their use when speaking of either finitude or Eternity, how they overlap.

Or, interestingly enough, Wikipedia's take on the word "enlightenment."

Enlightenment broadly means wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception. However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment and secular or intellectual enlightenment. This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.

Are you in one particular camp or another? And how will this effect your answer to my question of whether or not enlightenment can exist independent of the self?

Subjectivity9;95298 wrote:

If that is not enough, we have more than one word meaning pretty much the same thing, but for subtle differences in connotation, etc.

There people who dedicate their whole lives to studying language, linguistics. It is taught in college in a course or three. I guess they didn't think to open a dictionary. ; ^ )

Subjectivity9

So what are you saying? That we should use and trust dictionaries and other reference materials, or that we should not?

I had to take language-related classes in school at all grade levels, not just college, and I had to open a dictionary a lot of times.

I'm eternally grateful there are people who've dedicated their whole lives to studying and writing about linguistics. Without them, whose reference materials would I turn to when finding myself at a loss for words?

=========
TOCK.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;95379 wrote:

I'm eternally grateful there are people who've dedicated their whole lives to studying and writing about linguistics. Without them, whose reference materials would I turn to when finding myself at a loss for words? ========= TOCK.

T'is not for loss of words that thou suffers. T'is that thou have nothing to say. [Rich, circa, 2009]

Shakespeare Jr.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95177 wrote:

Pathfinder,

Thanks for your gracious hand in friendship.

S9: Tell me this if you will. Do you believe that there is ever a time when the path runs out, has completed its self, or that we actually arrive at Realization or Enlightenment? So many don't. Oh sure they pay lip service to arriving, but arriving is always out there somewhere in a future that never actually arrives. : ^ )

These persons are what some who call "path bound." Or the path has actually become their obstacle.

Poonja (An enlightened disciple of Ramana) said that, (Paraphrased) "The mind is like a train that brings you to the destination (of Enlightenment). But when you arrive at this destination, you must step off this train."

I know what you are saying about "Think you know" being a hindrance to receptivity. But I believe that the kind of knowing that hinders receptivity is mental knowing, and that you are quite right, if this is what you mean. But there is one kind of Knowing that isn't mental knowing and it doesn't use the brain as its vehicle. There is a Direct Knowing, or looking directly at Spirit, ("Spirit knows Spirit as Spirit.") and perhaps this is what some are alluding to with the Third Eye, or Spiritual Seeing. Or as Jesus said, "For those who have the eyes to see." (Actually the single eye.)

A swollen head/ego is certainly a danger. (But perhaps some souls are just too tired, or been around one too many times, to play that game any more, and it has lost it savor.)

I am 'receptive only' now, like a baby chick, mouth wide open, waiting to be fed.

I feel like I have been let out of a prison, where the walls were made of words and concepts. But I confess to being very new, a baby in this still. I believe that time is my friend and that I will settling in to this, "Having taken my seat in Spirit."

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 01:22 PM ----------

Subjectivity9

I have no idea what lies ahead on a path that I have never been down before. And it would seem that anyone that has been down that path ahead of us does not relay their findings back to those they know are following. There must be some reason for that I suppose, which I suspect has something to do with our learning to walk by our own experiences.

What I do know is that anytime one becomes stalled in the process of following that path, the destination ahead becomes suddenly becomes unreachable, until they begin to move again in that direction. Simple logic.

However, I do not see enlightenment as a destination during my journey. I see it as the process of increasing illumination much like the slow turning of a dimmer switch.

From a room isolated by its darkness, as a dimmer switch is slowly turned on, the room begins to gain some illumination, though at first, little discernment can be made other than shadows. As it progresses, at some point, suddenly the illumination reaches a degree of being able to distinguish particular truths about what is in the room, and soon after the clarity becomes increased enough that there is no doubt about what truths are there to be revealed.

That, my friend, is the destination that the process of enlightenment takes one to. The truth!

I do not know what lies ahead in the form of truth. Many have speculated on that for centuries and religions have erupted out of its fog. Wars have been fought and powers have been positioned and torn down.

Many believe they have discovered the truth, only to spend a lifetime not being able to prove it, and having to defend their testaments without a weapon, and many more simply choose to believe through blind faith in a teaching based upon someone else's opinions.

All of these are on the path of enlightenment. And all are experiencing various degrees of momentum at varying degrees of clarity.

I would refrain from describing someone as 'enlightened' simply because an oaf can be more enlightened than another oaf who has not yet learned one simple lesson that the other has been able to experience and learn from.

We do tend to use the term Enlightened to refer to those who have become aware of their consciousness and that it extends beyond physicality. But in reality, it is really just a step in the long process, is it not.

It is an extremely vital point though, as it allows the person to suddenly begin to step into that realm of exploration where truths of reality become attainable that were not prior to that realization. It is the point where the room becomes illuminated just enough to see the furniture, where before all they could see were block shapes, which allows one to then try to determine what type of furniture is actually there. The ability to discern clarity is increased exponentially at that point.

So for those who think they know that there is furniture in the room, and stop looking any further, thinking they have reached the goal, they are becoming pathbound as you say and will never come to know the difference between the couch and the lazyboy for instance.

However having acknowledged the stale aspect of the process, I think it is a mistake to think of some sort of ultimate point of enlightenment where nothing else can be learned, or where one becomes godlike in awareness. I do not think that a particular degree of enlightenment earns one some prize in a shambala. But I am certain that there is much more to this creation than what earth has to offer and that it is not found in material pleasure.

What I do believe is that the true goal of humanity is to attain harmony as a whole, as a species. That goal will only be attained as we become more enlightened about our reality in this universe, and when that goal is reached a whole new existence will come upon us. There is always 'balance' S9. Balance is the vital key to this all. Many of the great philosophers have recognized this fact. There is great truth in the ying and yang philosophy although they take it too far in some cases. But the premise is exact. At some point in the future of humanity there will be a turning point where the dimmer switch reaches the place that allows the majority of human life to see certain truths that will cause a global change of heart. At that point the world as we know it will begin an extremely fast paced alteration. If you are interested in that aspect of enlightenment and evolution I can provide you with further detail.

@richrf,

richrf;95380 wrote:

T'is not for loss of words that thou suffers. T'is that thou have nothing to say. [Rich, circa, 2009]

Shakespeare Jr.

Ha Ha! How very droll.

'tis sad but true however. Perhaps the most true statement you have made thus far on this forum.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95054 wrote:

We are taught from a very young age, that simply being your self is "not enough," and that we must do something to justify our existence. People who can live simply, don't need to accumulate a lot of money and things, or even other people's respect to shore the up, but simply decide to spend their lives enjoying themselves (playing), are said to have never grown up and are looked upon by others/our culture with distain.

"Why aren't they out doing something with their lives, they say, or saving the world?"

No wonder we often feel that we must justify our existence, save face with others, and that our life unembellished with "bragging rights" only points out or even proves that we are not worthy, AKA not enough. I am a bit of a Taoist on this issue. We should get off other people's back. Give our self a break. We should learn to live naturally. It is my idea that we would not become indolent and unproductive. We would rather get to follow our own hearts more creatively and with interest being our guide.

That is quite an interesting viewpoint. It follows that if people are required to justify themselves, they try to justify everything else. It's like trying to fit the universe in a box.

We have not learned how to live with self-direction. (What some have called self-starters.)

Subjectivity9;95054 wrote:

To answer your question: I think that "reason" is more open ended than "logic," because it doesn't have to wrap it self in a small package and tie it up with a bow. Logic has a known beginning, and a known end. It is self-contained and therefore self-limiting.

I know people often say, "I am being logical," but they might better say it, "I am being consistent with my present beliefs."

That is a good way to differentiate the two. The goal of logicians seem to be to make everything self contained, although as Godel found out it may not be the case. Sextus Empiricus wrote a book called, Against the Logicians. I think I need to read up on it (if it still exists). He probably says similar things you do, that if you put yourself in a logic box then you are limiting yourself from the rest of the universe.
[/QUOTE]

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;95411 wrote:

What I do believe is that the true goal of humanity is to attain harmony as a whole, as a species. That goal will only be attained as we become more enlightened about our reality in this universe, and when that goal is reached a whole new existence will come upon us. There is always 'balance' S9. Balance is the vital key to this all. Many of the great philosophers have recognized this fact. There is great truth in the ying and yang philosophy although they take it too far in some cases. But the premise is exact. At some point in the future of humanity there will be a turning point where the dimmer switch reaches the place that allows the majority of human life to see certain truths that will cause a global change of heart. At that point the world as we know it will begin an extremely fast paced alteration. If you are interested in that aspect of enlightenment and evolution I can provide you with further detail.

Are you perhaps referring to 2012 as the turning point?

Also, what is "ying yang philosophy"? When I was a kid, "ying yang" referred to a lower region of ones anatomy. As in, "if you don't stop playing with your ying yang, you'll go blind."

Perhaps you mean "Yin Yang," as in Taoist thought? Maybe not.

@richrf,

Pathfinder,

Often when people say that they don’t want to “speculate” about the future, what they actually mean is they can’t speculate beyond what they already know. But then they go on to speculate, that the future will just be more of what they already know (more of the same) and this of course isn’t necessarily true.

Looking ahead to the future always contains a certain amount of faith. If nothing else, that there will actually be a future. Even the 'hardest headed realist' believes that, the future will conform in some way to his own ideas of reality.

All we actually can say about finitude, or the future, is “So far.”

: ^ )

A little story: A friend and myself have read the Bhagavad Gita many, many times over a span of 3 decades. In the beginning, it “knocked our socks off” with its wisdom. It is such a tiny jewel.

But miraculously, as time went by and we changed, this tiny book seemed to change with us. In fact, it continued to keeping pace with our own wisdom. Becoming more subtle and deeper with time.

One morning my friend said jokingly, “Someone snuck in last night, and rewrote the whole Gita on us.”

Sure enough its wisdom had once again morphed.

What I am trying to say here is that, nothing is just what it is in finitude. It seems to be a mixture of what it is as well as who is looking at it.

So yes indeed, like you have stated, truth is a process in finitude. But I have witnessed another Truth as well, a Truth that is Complete and Unchanging.

Because Ultimate Truth is Ever Present, it doesn’t manifest like a process. Ultimate Truth is “All at once,” just like Eternity its other name. It is what the Ancient Chinese have called, “The Gateless Gate,” and it is always wide open with absolutely nothing blocking it.

Self Realization isn’t stale or empty. Only the human mind, which cannot see beyond finitude, imagines this Eternity not to be there (except conceptually), or even as a kind of dead darkness. Therefore being “empty of finitude” does not mean being “empty of Eternity.”

Humanity, finitude, is a process of seeking a goal that is constantly moving away from it. This is what “becoming” is all about.

Again, in a similar fashion ‘yes’ we seek balance. But this is unattainable, because its very nature is to CONTINUE seeking balance.

In fact, a healthy body requires this dynamic of fluctuating between imbalance and a balance once again found. But balance is not one thing. It is a dynamic between two ways of being off balance.

If you arrived at a stasis once and for all, what you called final balance, your body would immediately begin to grow weaker. Seeking balance is what keeps everything working properly. (More like a pendulum than a pole.)

I can’t imagine anyone saying that those who went before us on this path haven’t dropped breadcrumbs along the way for us to follow. So I must be misunderstanding you. Please explain further. : ^ )

It is very possible that humanity is Spiritual evolving. But each individual is also evolving at his own personal pace as well. (I might add individually maturing Spiritually too.) There is a history of other Golden Ages in the Hindu way of seeing it. These take place between the day and the night of Brahman. This time span is made up of a number of Yugas, which are each an exceeding long span of time. The Golden Age being one of them. (Our life span is like a fruit flies in comparison.) : ^ )

I too believe in the yin/yang, and consult the I Ching, as a book of wisdom rather than trying to know the future.

I am interested in your ideas about the future, or is it an enlightened universe as a whole, which included humanity? I certainly don’t rule any of this out. However, it would still be events within finitude. Wouldn’t it?

I look forward to your reply. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95563 wrote:

Pathfinder,

Often when people say that they don't want to "speculate" about the future, what they actually mean is they can't speculate beyond what they already know. But then they go on to speculate, that the future will just be more of what they already know (more of the same) and this of course isn't necessarily true.

Looking ahead to the future always contains a certain amount of faith. If nothing else, that there will actually be a future. Even the 'hardest headed realist' believes that, the future will conform in some way to his own ideas of reality.

All we actually can say about finitude, or the future, is "So far."

: ^ )

A little story: A friend and myself have read the Bhagavad Gita many, many times over a span of 3 decades. In the beginning, it "knocked our socks off" with its wisdom. It is such a tiny jewel.

But miraculously, as time went by and we changed, this tiny book seemed to change with us. In fact, it continued to keeping pace with our own wisdom. Becoming more subtle and deeper with time.

One morning my friend said jokingly, "Someone snuck in last night, and rewrote the whole Gita on us."

Sure enough its wisdom had once again morphed.

What I am trying to say here is that, nothing is just what it is in finitude. It seems to be a mixture of what it is as well as who is looking at it.

So yes indeed, like you have stated, truth is a process in finitude. But I have witnessed another Truth as well, a Truth that is Complete and Unchanging.

Because Ultimate Truth is Ever Present, it doesn't manifest like a process. Ultimate Truth is "All at once," just like Eternity its other name. It is what the Ancient Chinese have called, "The Gateless Gate," and it is always wide open with absolutely nothing blocking it.

Self Realization isn't stale or empty. Only the human mind, which cannot see beyond finitude, imagines this Eternity not to be there (except conceptually), or even as a kind of dead darkness. Therefore being "empty of finitude" does not mean being "empty of Eternity."

Humanity, finitude, is a process of seeking a goal that is constantly moving away from it. This is what "becoming" is all about.

Again, in a similar fashion 'yes' we seek balance. But this is unattainable, because its very nature is to CONTINUE seeking balance.

In fact, a healthy body requires this dynamic of fluctuating between imbalance and a balance once again found. But balance is not one thing. It is a dynamic between two ways of being off balance.

If you arrived at a stasis once and for all, what you called final balance, your body would immediately begin to grow weaker. Seeking balance is what keeps everything working properly. (More like a pendulum than a pole.)

I can't imagine anyone saying that those who went before us on this path haven't dropped breadcrumbs along the way for us to follow. So I must be misunderstanding you. Please explain further. : ^ )

It is very possible that humanity is Spiritual evolving. But each individual is also evolving at his own personal pace as well. (I might add individually maturing Spiritually too.) There is a history of other Golden Ages in the Hindu way of seeing it. These take place between the day and the night of Brahman. This time span is made up of a number of Yugas, which are each an exceeding long span of time. The Golden Age being one of them. (Our life span is like a fruit flies in comparison.) : ^ )

I too believe in the yin/yang, and consult the I Ching, as a book of wisdom rather than trying to know the future.

I am interested in your ideas about the future, or is it an enlightened universe as a whole, which included humanity? I certainly don't rule any of this out. However, it would still be events within finitude. Wouldn't it?

I look forward to your reply. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

I am having a little trouble understanding everything you say here S9. It seems that in a couple of instances you are giving the impression that you have misunderstood a few things I have said.

So just let me restate what I have supposed on those things that I think you may have confused as my point of view.

First of all I am in agreement that there is Ultimate truth. However what you said about the Bhagavad Gita seeming to change with your perceptions of things leads me to question what you mean by Ultimate Truth if you believe truth is a matter of perception. These two views seem to be in contradiction. please clarify.

You also spoke of the evolution of hu,humanity as though you thought that I implied that there is no individual evolution at all. If that is what you thought I said I must correct you.

I think that the individual life force of every person evolves, from one lifespan to another, and that it is through this individual evolving of individual life forces that humanity evolves as a whole.

However, I do not think that we should try to identify ourselves with our physiology. There is no self in my opinion, only consciousness. Self is the perception we have of our physiological circumstance, but it is psychological, and not reality. It is our brain trying to make sense of what is incomprehensible to it. Our brain tells us that we are someone and we recognize ourselves as this entity that the brain creates. We identify ourselves with a imaginative creation of our brain.

In reality, that identity will end with the demise of this physical form just as the organs and every other facet of this biological structure will. The person of this lifespan in this body is slowly decaying and dying in exactly the same way that every other physical thing on this planet is. Pathfinder will not survive beyond this brain and this body. So there is no self.

What will continue is the consciousness that this body is using in this life span. The life force that brought this body into being is the consciousness that was used by the previous incarnation and those before that. That is our identity S9.

We are not who we think we are. We are what we actually are.

we are life forces of consciousness that transcend from one incarnation to another evolving further with each incarnation based upon the experiences and opportunities of each one. We use infidividual incarnations to accomplish this evolving process, but we do not continue as any one incarnation or identity, we continue only as the life force that we began as. As this life force I will continue in a new incarnation, as another person, with new experiences and opportunities. But in this lifespan I use this body and person to enhance and nurture the consciousness that will be transferred to the next.

Life is like a gadget that is passed in succession to new owners with each incarnation, and while owned by an incarnation at any given time, each one is responsible to add something new to this gadget while they have it to increase its potential and ability, that they will then pass on to the next owner. Life is this force that is being shared and passed along and evolved and enhanced during the process. Our identity is that life force, not any one of the incarnations during the process. That is what I meant by avoiding the trap of assigning oneself a spiritual identity. I do not see each person as having a spirit that is identified by their present incarnation. If that were so, how would one be reincarnated? If S9 is a spirit within this body he has now, who or what will he be after death and/or in another life?

I say that what we become as we evolve is not individual person/spirit, but instead is a more evolved life force which will ultimately bring humanity as a whole to greater heights of communion. Our identity is not as individuals, but as humanity. And I think there is a far greater truth ahead that involves humanity reaching this level of understanding and communion that will not be realized until we get there. And no titty man, I do not think it will be as soon as 2012, and I will misspewll many things along the way in here if you want to try to keep up.

This balance that I spoke of is not some goal of reaching a perfect balance at some end of the quest. It is the fine line between what we think is real and what the actual truth is. It is the balance of the journey of life to stay on the path of truth and not fall into delusions. It is the balance between the brain and the mind, the body and the life force that body contains. It is the balancing act of living, not the goal of some hypothetical state of balanced perfection.

Those who are on that path ahead of us know the meaning of this balancing act. And they have had much more practice at it and are therefore far more skilled than we are at it. And for some reason they leave us to learn that skill in the same way, through practice, experience and performance. It is something that we each must go through in order to get to those further positions on that path. If you think about it, if we are all evolving, and we are at this level of intellect that we have reached now, imagine how far some others could be ahead of us. What do they know? What have they seen? What are they experiencing? If evolution is a matter of lifespans, than we must assume that there are many reincarnations ahead of us. Why would we assume that our present lifespan is the highest and most advanced?

I believe that there is an evolved consciousness far ahead of our own, that we are simply a point on a long lineage of evolution, and that higher consciousness is always our next step. Somewhere out there, far advanced from our comprehension, those ahead of us know the truths that lie ahead of us. There are no crumbs to leave behind because it is not a matter of following their footsteps, it is a matter of evolving ourselves as this life force that is a part of the whole continuum regardless of time or proximity.

We have one obligation to our life force, and it is not self identity, it is the harmonization of our humanity as a whole.

@richrf,

TT Man,

So you think that there is only one self? Is this self TT Man AKA is the one self your physical/mental manifestation only, or is it also combined with a more spiritual half of your self as well?

Perhaps Ramakrishna has meant his words to speak in many different ways to the many different people. Maybe his worlds are like a rose that goes from a bud to a bloom as you do.

I am in both camps. I believe that the mind can enlighten itself in this way. By reasoning and observation, as well as experience, mind can come to understand more every day.

However, Spiritual Enlightenment is a whole n’other ball of wax. This enlightenment is more like a "waking up" and realizing that your body/mind was merely a dream being within finitude and therefore only temporary.

Both of these go on at the same time. But when finitude falls away, your eternal self becomes more obvious. Some persons can wake up within this dream, whereas some only discover Spiritual Self after death.

Do you consider yourself a metaphysician or a naysayer?

Of course we should use dictionaries and other references. But we should also understand that they are not omnipotent. In the end I am always the final arbiter of what I will accept. Like I said before, dictionaries are growing all of the time AKA a process. We too must remain flexible and adaptable like a young tree in the winds of time.

There are few people, not counting Scrabble players, that open their dictionary or consult Google on a word more than I do. Perhaps this is because I love words. But than, maybe it is partly because I am so lousy at spelling.

; ^ )

I am NEVER at a loss for words. In fact, I never shut up.

: ^ ) But I guess that is not a news flash.

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

Pathfinder,

While studying the mystical portions of most of the major religions, I noticed that these different schools often used their own words to describe what they were looking at. So that although they might be seeing the very same thing, you wouldn’t suspect that fact at first glance. You might even suspect that the other schools were wrong altogether.

Perhaps this is why one of the great minds, Aldous Huxley, wrote a book called ‘The Perennial Philosophy’ to dispel some of these misunderstanding. But then, maybe I am preaching to the choir in telling you this? ; ^ )

I’m sure that I am misunderstanding some of the things you are saying. I think that is why I tend to be quite long-winded, my self, on this particular subject. Because it is so difficult to say it in a way that other people will see what you are trying to convey.

The reason that the Bhagavad Gita seemed to change over time is that, my own particular understanding was deepening over a period of decades. When I started out, I thought that S9 was going to become united with Spirit through a perfecting of S9, somehow. I also thought that I was going to capture Truth in a net of words like it was an object that I could own, a trophy. I studied frantically, over many years, with the motivating belief that one day I would hear a statement of truth, and that it would push me over some invisible line into (owning) Enlightenment. Some have referred to this way of thinking as being Spiritual Materialism.)

What I mean by Eternal/Ultimate Truth is more of a Realization of Who I Am. (Very much like Ramana has stated.)

To me Ultimate Truth has nothing to do with the mind’s perceptions I don't believe. It comes closer to being similar to a feeling, in the same way you can feel your own leg and know that it is your own leg, without working it out mentally as a concept that it if fact your leg. In this same way I know Self to be my very Self immediately, without any need to think on it or question it.

Actually I thought you might be thinking that personal Spiritual Evolution combined in some way with the 'whole of human spiritual evolution', inseparably. Am I wrong in this?

Oh sure, in that paradigm, one person might be running out ahead of the pack sometimes, but this would be more like an Indian guide might venture out ahead in order to direct the early settlers across to their new homes out west. No single person would graduate.

Much earlier in my life, I shocked a work friend by saying that, “I didn’t think that I was S9. I thought that S9 was my lesson this lifetime, AKA my path. I believed that the soul, more archetypal that the individual life, was transmigrating. I still believe this. But now I have added an addendum. Just like I am not the body/mind, I am not the transmigrating soul either. Both of these are like clothes, that we as Self, can put on and take off, or like a dream can wake up from.

I believe I do see you a little better now, than I did before. Thanks for taking that effort to correct me. It certainly saves time “not to be fixing what isn’t broken,” if you know where the other guy is standing.

The Buddhist writings teach us about “no self.” But I believe that many people misunderstand this doctrine. I believe it points at the ego as not being the real Self. This IMO would be similar to your shadow, even though it seemed a lot like you in many ways and follows you many places that you go, is not really your Essential You. Your shadow is simply borrowing from your Essence to exist temporarily. On a cloudy day the shadow may be gone altogether, but you do not die. ; ^ ) So it is with Spirit when this dream world ceases.

I see the soul a little bit like a plant, starting with a seed (a first life) and finally over time coming to bloom. But this is a dream plant (AKA soul) and doesn’t change Spirit ‘one little bit.” Spirit/Real Self is the Unchanging.

Some have said that there is only God, and that He creates everything out of His Own Being or Self. This would be like if there was only water. Sometimes water is thunder clouds, sometimes gentle rain, sometimes a roaring river, etc. But each of these manifestations finally makes it back to its essentisl being and becomes the ocean once again.

When you study the ocean, you cannot find the clouds or the rain in it being simply united but still mantaining its formal ways of being. This is because they were always the Ocean/Self, all along and the lines of demarkation dissolve.

In this same way, when you study Self, you will not find S9 united with It. You will only find Self, the Self of All. Self is All “Life.” Each person is just a dream vehicle or container.

So, I hope you can see in my explanation, that I am not assigning identity to S9, the ego being.

I do not identify myself as being one cell of humanity either, unless of course you are speaking about S9 within this dream world. Then I could agree that S9 is a cell in this dream identity.

So yes, you have put it excellently when you said, “We are not who we think we are. We are what we actually are.”

I have read so many books that say so many things. One said that earth was the insane asylum for the universe. ; ^ )

I have heard it said that staying on this path, the path being so narrow, that it is like walking on a razors edge.

It is my experience that these masters that go before us are screaming ‘Truth’ from the housetops. Millions of housetops! It is we who just don’t get it, yet, when we aren’t ready to hear it. That is one of the things that really amazed me when I finally saw it. It is ubiquitous, this Truth, or as the Hindu’s say, “ It is reaching everywhere, even down into the lowest of hells."

Or how the Christian’s say it, “The mercy of God is not strained, it falls from heaven like the gentle rain.”

I don’t believe that our present life span is the highest expression of this manifest we call life. But I do believe that some of us are able to witness our Essential Self as being Spirit, even as we continue to wander through these evolutions that you speak of.

I also believe that there is great variety in this expression of finitude and it isn’t limited to merely progressing. Transmigration for instance brings us into multiple ways of seeing.

The ancient Greeks even believed that we might do a space of time being the controlling consciousness of a planet, like the soul of Mars. I don’t know if I can buy that last one. I pretty much try to keep my feet on the ground by only buying into what I, myself, can witness as being true.

When I say breadcrumbs, in a way I could easily have said map. Those ahead of us, say what they are witnessing. When you begin witnessing this to, you think “Oh yes, this is what he was saying.” It does save a lot of confusion and actually adds to the delight.

We need not reinvent the wheel. We can stand on their shoulders by listening closely to them and being open to this new way of being.

I wonder if seeing human life as an obligation of any sort, isn’t simply a wish to be part of something larger than our one individual life, or the search for meaning? This of course would be a legitimist need of ego mind.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95853 wrote:

Pathfinder,

While studying the mystical portions of most of the major religions, I noticed that these different schools often used their own words to describe what they were looking at. So that although they might be seeing the very same thing, you wouldn't suspect that fact at first glance. You might even suspect that the other schools were wrong altogether.

Perhaps this is why one of the great minds, Aldous Huxley, wrote a book called 'The Perennial Philosophy' to dispel some of these misunderstanding. But then, maybe I am preaching to the choir in telling you this? ; ^ )

I'm sure that I am misunderstanding some of the things you are saying. I think that is why I tend to be quite long-winded, my self, on this particular subject. Because it is so difficult to say it in a way that other people will see what you are trying to convey.

The reason that the Bhagavad Gita seemed to change over time is that, my own particular understanding was deepening over a period of decades. When I started out, I thought that S9 was going to become united with Spirit through a perfecting of S9, somehow. I also thought that I was going to capture Truth in a net of words like it was an object that I could own, a trophy. I studied frantically, over many years, with the motivating belief that one day I would hear a statement of truth, and that it would push me over some invisible line into (owning) Enlightenment. Some have referred to this way of thinking as being Spiritual Materialism.)

What I mean by Eternal/Ultimate Truth is more of a Realization of Who I Am. (Very much like Ramana has stated.)

To me Ultimate Truth has nothing to do with the mind's perceptions I don't believe. It comes closer to being similar to a feeling, in the same way you can feel your own leg and know that it is your own leg, without working it out mentally as a concept that it if fact your leg. In this same way I know Self to be my very Self immediately, without any need to think on it or question it.

Actually I thought you might be thinking that personal Spiritual Evolution combined in some way with the 'whole of human spiritual evolution', inseparably. Am I wrong in this?

Oh sure, in that paradigm, one person might be running out ahead of the pack sometimes, but this would be more like an Indian guide might venture out ahead in order to direct the early settlers across to their new homes out west. No single person would graduate.

Much earlier in my life, I shocked a work friend by saying that, "I didn't think that I was S9. I thought that S9 was my lesson this lifetime, AKA my path. I believed that the soul, more archetypal that the individual life, was transmigrating. I still believe this. But now I have added an addendum. Just like I am not the body/mind, I am not the transmigrating soul either. Both of these are like clothes, that we as Self, can put on and take off, or like a dream can wake up from.

I believe I do see you a little better now, than I did before. Thanks for taking that effort to correct me. It certainly saves time "not to be fixing what isn't broken," if you know where the other guy is standing.

The Buddhist writings teach us about "no self." But I believe that many people misunderstand this doctrine. I believe it points at the ego as not being the real Self. This IMO would be similar to your shadow, even though it seemed a lot like you in many ways and follows you many places that you go, is not really your Essential You. Your shadow is simply borrowing from your Essence to exist temporarily. On a cloudy day the shadow may be gone altogether, but you do not die. ; ^ ) So it is with Spirit when this dream world ceases.

I see the soul a little bit like a plant, starting with a seed (a first life) and finally over time coming to bloom. But this is a dream plant (AKA soul) and doesn't change Spirit 'one little bit." Spirit/Real Self is the Unchanging.

Some have said that there is only God, and that He creates everything out of His Own Being or Self. This would be like if there was only water. Sometimes water is thunder clouds, sometimes gentle rain, sometimes a roaring river, etc. But each of these manifestations finally makes it back to its essentisl being and becomes the ocean once again.

When you study the ocean, you cannot find the clouds or the rain in it being simply united but still mantaining its formal ways of being. This is because they were always the Ocean/Self, all along and the lines of demarkation dissolve.

In this same way, when you study Self, you will not find S9 united with It. You will only find Self, the Self of All. Self is All "Life." Each person is just a dream vehicle or container.

So, I hope you can see in my explanation, that I am not assigning identity to S9, the ego being.

I do not identify myself as being one cell of humanity either, unless of course you are speaking about S9 within this dream world. Then I could agree that S9 is a cell in this dream identity.

So yes, you have put it excellently when you said, "We are not who we think we are. We are what we actually are."

I have read so many books that say so many things. One said that earth was the insane asylum for the universe. ; ^ )

I have heard it said that staying on this path, the path being so narrow, that it is like walking on a razors edge.

It is my experience that these masters that go before us are screaming 'Truth' from the housetops. Millions of housetops! It is we who just don't get it, yet, when we aren't ready to hear it. That is one of the things that really amazed me when I finally saw it. It is ubiquitous, this Truth, or as the Hindu's say, " It is reaching everywhere, even down into the lowest of hells."

Or how the Christian's say it, "The mercy of God is not strained, it falls from heaven like the gentle rain."

I don't believe that our present life span is the highest expression of this manifest we call life. But I do believe that some of us are able to witness our Essential Self as being Spirit, even as we continue to wander through these evolutions that you speak of.

I also believe that there is great variety in this expression of finitude and it isn't limited to merely progressing. Transmigration for instance brings us into multiple ways of seeing.

The ancient Greeks even believed that we might do a space of time being the controlling consciousness of a planet, like the soul of Mars. I don't know if I can buy that last one. I pretty much try to keep my feet on the ground by only buying into what I, myself, can witness as being true.

When I say breadcrumbs, in a way I could easily have said map. Those ahead of us, say what they are witnessing. When you begin witnessing this to, you think "Oh yes, this is what he was saying." It does save a lot of confusion and actually adds to the delight.

We need not reinvent the wheel. We can stand on their shoulders by listening closely to them and being open to this new way of being.

I wonder if seeing human life as an obligation of any sort, isn't simply a wish to be part of something larger than our one individual life, or the search for meaning? This of course would be a legitimist need of ego mind.

Subjectivity9

Hi S9,

I am intrigued by your passion for this interest. So I take you seriously.

Can I ask you to define what you believe is your spirit in any more detail?

I also note that you keep referring to finitude. What exactly do you mean by this?

From what I am gathering from your writing so far, I am guessing that you are exactly where I was not long ago until I was forced to look deeper into the whole concept of identity and transmigration.

I would certainly like to pick your brain a little longer to see if there is anything that I might learn there.

I am definitely not willing to argue the point you make about those ahead of us attempting to tell us what is ahead. I can neither deny that nor confirm it so I am open to whatever revelations on that issue might come forth.

To answer your question about the difference between the evolution of individual and humanity as a whole, I think that both have the same goal of harmony, but I do not see the individual evolution as some unity of oneness as the thesophists see it if thats what you mean. However you seem to be suggesting some sort of a oneness like that. What is your view on the connection between the individual human and the species as a whole or of creation as a whole?

@Pathfinder,

Just some random thoughts I found hastily scribbled in the little notebook I carry around for just such a purpose, perhaps apropos of nothing . . .

There is often a certain desperation in the search for enlightenment (by the non-secular definition).

Is enlightenment ultimately self-referential and therefore void in terms of what people are suggesting is spiritual advancement, whatever that means?

What does it mean to be anesthetized by transcendence?

I'm thinking about the phrase, "It is easy to be a holy man on top of a mountain." Why does that phrase seem so meaningful?

These are just little thoughts I've jotted down recently. Perhaps I should just keep such thoughts to myself.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

There is often a certain desperation in the search for enlightenment (by the non-secular definition).

I think this is often the case. It is ironic since if one believes in the transcendental soul, there should be no rush to enlightenment whatever it might be.

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

Is enlightenment ultimately self-referential and therefore void in terms of what people are suggesting is spiritual advancement, whatever that means?

Enlightenment does have a tinge of this. While many people search for enlightenment or believe that they have been enlightened, I cannot help but to believe that it is a marketing gimmick - something like heaven. Personally, I think that each time we learn something new, or create something new, we are enlightened.

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

What does it mean to be anesthetized by transcendence?

Not sure. It probably has some very specific meaning for someone who has observed something specific. Transcendence, for me, is a sense of relief that there is no rush to get everything done in a single lifetime. I think this is how one might find some peace.

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

I'm thinking about the phrase, "It is easy to be a holy man on top of a mountain." Why does that phrase seem so meaningful?

I guess that is for you to answer, since it is meaningful to you. As for me, mountains are there to climb, if one wishes.

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

These are just little thoughts I've jotted down recently. Perhaps I should just keep such thoughts to myself.

Why?

Rich

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;95898 wrote:

What does it mean to be anesthetized by transcendence?

Why would you suppose it means anything?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95923 wrote:

Why would you suppose it means anything?

I'm not always sure what I meant by some of the hasty little notes I leave myself when I find them later. I'm sure they meant something to me at the time.

However . . .

When I scribbled this notation down in my little notebook I'm reasonably certain I was thinking about some of the things some people (on this particular thread in specific, and elsewhere in general) have to say about this whole business of transcendence and enlightenment and how a lot of it strikes me as often being an attempt to evade responsibility for one's place in, and acceptance of, the here and now, and how there can be a danger of becoming so far disconnected from the actual physicality of where one is at a particular moment that it becomes as though one were, at least metaphorically, anesthetized.

For the record, I have nothing against a little escapism or daydreaming, in fact, I think it can be healthy to spend a certain amount of time each day just staring out the window and letting your thoughts fly where they want, but when make-believe becomes let's believe, I start to get a little twitchy.

I just tonight finished my first (of what will be many) read-through of G.E. Moore's "Defense of Common Sense" and there is a line there that seems as though it may be of some relevance here:

"And similarly, whereas some philosophers have held that there is good reason to suppose that we, human beings, shall continue to exist and be conscious after the death of our bodies, I hold that there is no good reason to suppose this."

The Moore piece, by the way, is excellent. I'm a little unclear on a few points, but I'm hoping further study will bring further understanding. I wish I'd been exposed to this kind of thinking years ago.

TTM

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;95957 wrote:

I'm not always sure what I meant by some of the hasty little notes I leave myself when I find them later. I'm sure they meant something to me at the time.

The Moore piece, by the way, is excellent. I'm a little unclear on a few points, but I'm hoping further study will bring further understanding. I wish I'd been exposed to this kind of thinking years ago.

TTM

I suppose that you mean that you believed they meant something at the time. I am sure you did. But, of course, that doesn't show they did.

Yes, we can all learn a lot from reading Moore on how philosophy should be done. Carefully, and with attention to detail. And no going off the deep end.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;95957 wrote:

I'm not always sure what I meant by some of the hasty little notes I leave myself when I find them later. I'm sure they meant something to me at the time.

However . . .

When I scribbled this notation down in my little notebook I'm reasonably certain I was thinking about some of the things some people (on this particular thread in specific, and elsewhere in general) have to say about this whole business of transcendence and enlightenment and how a lot of it strikes me as often being an attempt to evade responsibility for one's place in, and acceptance of, the here and now, and how there can be a danger of becoming so far disconnected from the actual physicality of where one is at a particular moment that it becomes as though one were, at least metaphorically, anesthetized.

For the record, I have nothing against a little escapism or daydreaming, in fact, I think it can be healthy to spend a certain amount of time each day just staring out the window and letting your thoughts fly where they want, but when make-believe becomes let's believe, I start to get a little twitchy.

I just tonight finished my first (of what will be many) read-through of G.E. Moore's "Defense of Common Sense" and there is a line there that seems as though it may be of some relevance here:

"And similarly, whereas some philosophers have held that there is good reason to suppose that we, human beings, shall continue to exist and be conscious after the death of our bodies, I hold that there is no good reason to suppose this."

The Moore piece, by the way, is excellent. I'm a little unclear on a few points, but I'm hoping further study will bring further understanding. I wish I'd been exposed to this kind of thinking years ago.

TTM

TT,

Maybe what you should scribble into your notepad is for you to question why you yourself feels the need to run from the metaphysical with such haste. Perhaps there is more wisdom to be found in understanding why you have a distaste for something instead of why others have particular tastes.

No good reason to suppose! Hmmmmmmmmm

whoops, did I just suppose by mistake? sorry bout that hmmmmm, whooops did it again,,hmmm cant seem to help myself for some reason. hmmmmm

The key to what Moore said is simply based in this one word TT, 'continue'...

What makes him, and obviously you, choose to decide that what now exists must not somehow continue.

Do you not see it as just a little illogical to look at a thing and realize its very real existence, and then in the next instant decide that it could not possibly continue to exist beyond what you see.

If a life can begin from out of thin air, than why would you come along and say that it cannot happen again. Because with the stand that you are taking that is exactly what you are doing. You are looking life in the face, daring it to happen again, and when it does refusing to accept it.

What we are doing is not escapism. It is looking at the same thing you are looking at, and instead of denying it, we are embracing it.

@richrf,

Ken,

Philosophy means the love of wisdom.

There is no particular way that philosophy "SHOULD BE DONE," that is unless you want to narrow her scope down. But wouldn't that too define narrow mindedness?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 07:20 AM ----------

TT Man,

There are only 2 basic reasons to visit a metaphysical thread: (1) to learn through sharing, and/or (2) to prove to yourself just how clever you are compared to these bozos. No excuse me, there is a 3rd, to fight old battles.

For instance, some of us were brought up in Christian households (even basically fundamentalist sometimes), and being a little bit brighter than the answers that we received in these circle simply had to rebel, because these were not just answers offered with all good will, but answers literally stuffed down our throats under threats.

But just because in your early years religion was a boogie in our life, don't mean that if it was well understood, even pursued at length and in detail, that it couldn't at some level (mysticism) prove rewarding even meaningful.

I, as a Jnani, have used my mind as my path in this endeavor. I dare say that I didn't use it simply daydreaming. I think if you will check back on my writings, that you will find I have invested a great deal of personal thought into this area as well as investigation.

Mysticism isn’t religion. It may appear to you that mysticism grows out of religion. But mysticism left religion behind and moved out for better answers much like perhaps you did. Mysticism is actually a rebellion from traditional thought.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 07:48 AM ----------

Rich,

I think that your emphasis on “not being in a rush” is laudable, and is often a lesson hard won by many of us.

Some people, perhaps most, first come to mysticism as a form of escapism and rebellion. Perhaps it takes that momentum or motivation initially in order to bust out of the indoctrination/programming that we suffer under from our culture and parents.

However, as our search ages (like a good wine), we begin to realize that everything that we ever needed is right here with us and always was, right now. Now this doesn’t mean that nothing has changed at/all and that our search was a complete waste of time, but rather that our whole perspective has taken “a 180.” Everything is exactly opposite of what we first imagined to be true when starting out on this journey

So we simply stop our race towards a progress, which never arrives, and begin rather to sink more deeply and satisfactorily into the now of who we are, or what some have referred to as the Eternal Present.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 07:53 AM ----------

Pathfinder.

I haven't forgotten you, but am just even now going to write a well considered reply (in kind) to you last well considered questioning.

: ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 08:56 AM ----------

Back at ya, Pathfinder,

I too am delighted with our sharing of insights. : ^ ) I have a good deal of respect for your obvious wisdom.

WOW, people have written whole books defining Spirit/Self. But let me try to explain a little about how I see it, and then you can fine-tune me as to what you want to know in this area.

I use the word Spirit to differentiate it from the soul. I do not however see Spirit as being separate from Self, my Eternal Self (not my ego self) however, nor do I see Spirit like some omnipotent guy in the sky or an autocratic God, which is separate from me.

In the 60’s it was popular to say that we should get “centered.” There was some truth in this statement, esp. if it is understood beyond a psychological definition of being centered.

It is said of Spirit/Self that it is everywhere center or omnipresent. I also believe that we do not come upon this centered Self as a mind object, or something we look at, but rather something that we look out of.

This world is going on all around us. Yet at the same time, we are not actually this finite world.

Perhaps you can picture it in this way. We are the very Essence of the world, a bit like the sun is the essence of the sunrays happening all around the sun. But the sunrays are not the actual sun itself but a projection short lived. Am I making myself understood? So in a way this world is our Spirit-rays. Questions?

Finitude is what comes up and goes down, a process much like a single lifetime. Whereas, “Eternity” does not begin and therefore does not end. Eternity is not a process, but rather a Constant Presence. Coming up and going down is often used as litmus to know which is which.

Could you explain both where you see/believe me to be standing on this path and how you differ from me, or esp. where you think/believe that I need deepening, please? I would certainly find that helpful, esp. if you are correct in your estimation. Thanx

: ^ )

How do you see identity and transmigration as apposed to my take in that same area?

Be careful not to pick too much of my poor aging brain. I find that I need the little that is left (more and more) just to dress and feed myself.

; ^ ) I too will pick your brain, trying not to pick on you by accident. : ^ )

I know I have the better of this deal.

I also try to stay away from too much unfounded speculation. You are wise in so doing.

Speculating, for intellectuals such as myself, can be a little like a kid in a candy store. Perhaps this is why the Buddha refused to do it. : ^ )

I believe like the Taoists that paradoxically we individuals are both separate and not separate in this way. No man can stand alone. He came out of his parent's loins, is surrounded with an air pressure that keeps his from exploding, eats his own environment in order to survive etc. So he is a part of this network that supports him on every side. Yet at the very same time, he seemingly adjusts to these separately from his neighbor and often in his own unique ways.

In this very same way what we think is made up in part from what we have burrowed while we also go on to creatively think differently from others, as well.

Spiritually we are both the ocean and the many rivers within finitude. But we also return at some point to the ocean from which we came.

Certainly there is a harmony in this. In finitude harmony may be a goal. In Spirit, Spirit is Harmony. Spirit has no goal, simply because Spirit is Complete unto Its Self.

Finitude is Eternity seen incorrectly. So they are not one in this respect. One is a mistake.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95980 wrote:

Ken,

Philosophy means the love of wisdom.

There is no particular way that philosophy "SHOULD BE DONE," that is unless you want to narrow her scope down. But wouldn't that too define narrow mindedness?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 07:20 AM ----------

Subjectivity9

Well, "love of wisdom" is the original meaning of the word in the Greek. But, as you know, the meanings of words change though time, and I don't think that is how the word is used now. The way a word is actually used, and what people claim it means, are often very different. People are good at using words (and they should be, since it is their language) but that doesn't mean that people are good at being able to define the words they use.

I think that there is a tradition in philosophy which we find in Socrates, and Hume, and in recent philosophers like Dennett, which gives what is called, "a definition in use" of "philosophy". If anything is the right way of doing philosophy, I think that an adherence to that tradition is it. I don't think that is narrow. If we just call any way of philosophizing "doing philosophy" then, "doing philosophy" becomes so vague as to be useless.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Know Thyself?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know