Christianity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Eudaimon
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:31 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;65749 wrote:
But it is true that not everyone needs the same experiences or thinks the same way, and vive la difference!

But this means that those mystical experiences does not contribute to happiness. Otherwise, if we can become happy only through them, we should all sit in meditation or contemplate yantras, or repeat prayers.
Thus, if these expereinces are not necessary for happiness, then all you are talking about is a mere hobby, just like photography or sightseeing...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:35 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;65641 wrote:

Mysticism does not suit all. It requires some transcendental experiences which most part of us do not have.


Rigorous mystic practice does not suit all, that is very true. But to say that transcendental experience is not familiar to most people, I think, is untrue. Transcendence is what happens when we go beyond mere physical existence. Transcendence in some form is a central aspect in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
So, neither affirm it, nor reject I cannot, just because I cannot prove some one he does not have his experiences.


And this position is the only one that makes sense.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
The other thing is to investigate why and how people turn to it. Is it not because they are so dissatisfied with their lives that they need new drug -- new transcendental experiences?


Yes, people turn to a great many different things when they are dissatisfied with their lives. Someone dissatisfied with their health might start running regularly or instead they might swim. A person dissatisfied with their job might go back to college or start a small business. A person dissatisfied with their spiritual life may look to mystic teaching.

A drug is not a solution to some dissatisfaction, but a means by which a person can ignore and push out their dissatisfaction for a moment. Regular running or swimming are real solutions to dissatisfaction with health. Going to college or starting a new business are real solutions to dissatisfaction with a job. Mysticism seems to be a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.

As you say, you cannot reject mysticism. Because you cannot reject mysticism, you cannot reject mysticism as a possible real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction. To compare mysticism with a drug is to deny mysticism as a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
There are very few who may claim they had visions their life long, others accquired them because of fear before every day life.


Fear is sometimes part of the motivation to spiritual practice. But this is clearly not the only force motivating people to spiritual practice. Others might be motivated by beauty or love, or by regret and hardships. Most of the time, I think, people are not motivated to spiritual practice by one reason, but by many reasons. Humans are complex animals, and the full complexity of their motivations is not easily estimated.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
However, what do they change?


What do people change when they seriously devote themselves to spiritual practice? Depends on the person, the teaching, and the dedication. As you say, you cannot prove or disprove that someone has transcendental experiences. Nor can you or I prove that the practices involved with these experiences and the experiences themselves are not positive to a person's spiritual life.

When we look at noted spiritual teachers, we begin to notice just how many focus on transcendence. Again, transcendence is a major part of the world's largest faith traditions. Until we try the practices for ourselves, and personally experience the results, how can we say definitively that they do not help people? When we meet again and again good and loving people who make use of these practices, there is no way that we can judge these practices to be ineffective. Until we find out for ourselves, we have to admit that these practices might be useful.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
Maybe in future we'll have a great deal of this drugs even without years meditations and prayers. Just eat a tablet (without side effects now), and thou wilt get into fourth dimension, meet God, Trinity, Buddha, expereince bliss... But is this keif what we need?


People have wondered about this for a long time. In the 1960's Tim Leary and Alan Ginsberg worked hard to usher in a new era of psychedelic transcendence. They thought they found the pills to eat that showed you God, enlightenment, ect. And what did they discover? We all learned that even though psychedelics cause transcendence, that users directly experience a world beyond everyday physical existence, this transcendence is not the same as spiritual transcendence. In the wake of this mistake, uncounted thousands were left crippled by drug abuse. The spiritual materialism (looking to a pill rather than inward) of Tim Leary and crew proved to be a disaster.

What have we learned? We have learned that at least some psychedelics can be useful for spiritual practice, like the ritual use of peyote among Native Americans. But we now know that these substances can only be a part of the spiritual life, and when they are part of the spiritual life that their use needs to be well-controlled by an adept teacher, and not a drugged up ex-college professor.

Mostly, we learned that spiritual growth is best sought away from drugs. We have learned that sober, serious practice is still, since the beginning of time, the best path.

Eudaimon;65922 wrote:
But this means that those mystical experiences does not contribute to happiness. Otherwise, if we can become happy only through them, we should all sit in meditation or contemplate yantras, or repeat prayers.


First: even if happiness can be found without the aid of mysticism, it does not follow that mysticism does not contribute to happiness. It might be that happiness can be attained through mysticism as well as some other way.

Second: Religion typically teaches people (monks, preists, and lay people) that spiritual practice (whether this is meditation, prayer, or active practice) is imperative. This is true of mysticism as well as non-mystic variations of spiritual practice.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:
Thus, if these expereinces are not necessary for happiness, then all you are talking about is a mere hobby, just like photography or sightseeing...


I know of no religion that does not place transcendence of some kind as central to spiritual life. Even fundamentalist Christians place transcendence at the heart of their faith by focusing on the necessity of being "born again" which is a transcendent experience by which a person is spiritually reborn into the family of God.

This conversation relies on two important terms: mysticism and transcendence. Mysticism is essentially the spiritual path that works vigorously toward transcendence, and mystic traditions usually exist within larger religious traditions. Transcendence is the experience of going beyond mere physical existence, and is an important part of most (if not all) religion.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:57 am
@Eudaimon,
The Way has never been arranged for your convenience.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:56 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;65923 wrote:
Rigorous mystic practice does not suit all, that is very true. But to say that transcendental experience is not familiar to most people, I think, is untrue.

No that's true, because most part of people does not belong to any religion except the religion of flesh.

Didymos Thomas;65923 wrote:
People have wondered about this for a long time. In the 1960's Tim Leary and Alan Ginsberg worked hard to usher in a new era of psychedelic transcendence. They thought they found the pills to eat that showed you God, enlightenment, ect. And what did they discover? We all learned that even though psychedelics cause transcendence, that users directly experience a world beyond everyday physical existence, this transcendence is not the same as spiritual transcendence. In the wake of this mistake, uncounted thousands were left crippled by drug abuse. The spiritual materialism (looking to a pill rather than inward) of Tim Leary and crew proved to be a disaster.

Everything we experience in this life has its manifestation in brain and causes electrical impulses and so on (ask Krumple, he's an expert), and I doubt that if we could imitate those impulses, create them artificially, there would be any need in any spiritual practice...

Didymos Thomas;65923 wrote:
Yes, people turn to a great many different things when they are dissatisfied with their lives...
A drug is not a solution to some dissatisfaction, but a means by which a person can ignore and push out their dissatisfaction for a moment. Regular running or swimming are real solutions to dissatisfaction with health. Going to college or starting a new business are real solutions to dissatisfaction with a job. Mysticism seems to be a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.
To compare mysticism with a drug is to deny mysticism as a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of mysticism and 'transcedence'. For me it means that we are receiving some images of God, experience bliss etc. But all this just what drugs (or let's say future advanced drugs) may give. And this is not a solution: this is again attachment to some images, feelings etc. I am convinced that if every one had those experiences we should never ascribe such significance to them. God, Buddha, Christ, Krishna... So what? Can their existence or non-existence free me from greed, from lust, from anger -- the things that really make our life so terrible. Therefore mysticism is exactly an escape from problems into 'the fourth dimension', not a real solution of our problems, and I am convinced that could we live longer, we should eventually get dissatisfied with those 'transcendental images'. This is what I understand by mysticism and if thou hast another understanding, correct me.
And yes, I agree again that neither affirm, nor reject the existence of those images I can't. The only think I can do is to show their meaninglessness as well of all another experiences during one's life. Does it matter, indeed, whether one has another ways of perception?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:57 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
No that's true, because most part of people does not belong to any religion except the religion of flesh.


This does not mean that people cannot have an experience in which people experience something beyond themselves. Herd behavior is an example of transcendence. One need not have any involvement with religion to have a transcendent experience.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
Everything we experience in this life has its manifestation in brain and causes electrical impulses and so on (ask Krumple, he's an expert), and I doubt that if we could imitate those impulses, create them artificially, there would be any need in any spiritual practice...


Marsh Chapel Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that we have the drugs to do this. However, we have learned that higher consciousness cannot be sold for five dollars a hit. We have learned that the practice is integral to true spiritual transcendence.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of mysticism and 'transcedence'. For me it means that we are receiving some images of God, experience bliss etc.


Mysticism is the pursuit of direct experience of God or the Divine. Transcendence is going beyond - going beyond one's self, or ego - and is related to the conception of God as being a being that transcends, or goes beyond, physical reality.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
But all this just what drugs (or let's say future advanced drugs) may give.


The problem with saying that drugs can give 'images of God' to man is that we remove the role of God. Instead of direct experience of God, we have direct experience with the drug. No drug is God.

And this is what we learned after watching Tim Leary. We realized that no matter the apparent similarities between spiritual transcendence and drug induced transcendence, there is a difference between the two. One immediately apparent difference is stability: someone who seeks direct experience of God through serious spiritual practice does not lose their experience, whereas drugs lose their influence of transcendence as the drug wears off.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
And this is not a solution: this is again attachment to some images, feelings etc.


But it does not seem to be an unhealthy attachment: the mystic experience is not an attachment to worldly pleasure, it is not ignorant, it recognizes that something more than ceremony is necessary, and it is not egocentric.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
I am convinced that if every one had those experiences we should never ascribe such significance to them. God, Buddha, Christ, Krishna... So what? Can their existence or non-existence free me from greed, from lust, from anger -- the things that really make our life so terrible.


I'm not so sure. Everyone has a first kiss, yet the universality of the experience does not diminish the significance we ascribe to the experience.

The mere existence of the Buddha, Jesus or any other teacher cannot free you from greed, lust, or anger. Mysticism holds that the individual has to practice as those teachers practiced in order to achieve what they achieved: freedom from greed, lust and so forth. That's the basic idea: through practice, we can overcome the suffering of this life.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
Therefore mysticism is exactly an escape from problems into 'the fourth dimension', not a real solution of our problems, and I am convinced that could we live longer, we should eventually get dissatisfied with those 'transcendental images'. This is what I understand by mysticism and if thou hast another understanding, correct me.


Mostly I would point out that Mysticism does not teach that the existence of Jesus or any other teacher can free you from greed, ect. What Mysticism teaches is that through certain practices, we can be free from greed, ect.

Mysticism cannot be an escape from our problems because typical mystic practices involve directly addressing the problems we want to be free from. From example, in High Buddhism there is a mystic tradition which holds that each sentient being contains an embryo of enlightenment. Cultivating that essential embryo of Buddha-nature consists of a variety of practices which are most certainly not escapist as they are quite difficult: instead of simply reading teachings, Tibetan Buddhism often focuses on the impotence of oral transmission of teaching, passed from teacher to student. This sort of transmission may take only a moment for a short mantra, or it may take many months as the student learns large sections of Scripture. Tibetan Buddhism also focuses on analytic meditation where the practitioner focuses on what he has been taught and considers doubts about the teaching. Tibetan Buddhism places a great deal of importance upon doubting Buddhist teachings, while also promoting guru devotion; while this may seem paradoxical, Tibetan Buddhism speaks at great lengths about carefully selecting a teacher - a Buddhist may study with a teacher for decades before accepting the teacher as his guru. These practices seem to be the opposite of escapist.

Eudaimon;65995 wrote:
And yes, I agree again that neither affirm, nor reject the existence of those images I can't. The only think I can do is to show their meaninglessness as well of all another experiences during one's life. Does it matter, indeed, whether one has another ways of perception?


This is an important point: for the same reasons you cannot confirm nor reject the existence of mystic experience, you are also unable to show mystic experience to be meaningless. Without having the experience for yourself, without having devoted considerable time to practice, there is no way you can possibly know with certainty the meaning of the experience for those who have it.

Yes, I think perception matters a great deal. There is a huge difference between perceiving the world as if altruism were true and perceiving the world as if egoism were true.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:59 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
This does not mean that people cannot have an experience in which people experience something beyond themselves. Herd behavior is an example of transcendence. One need not have any involvement with religion to have a transcendent experience.

I don't argue against this.

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
It appears that we have the drugs to do this. However, we have learned that higher consciousness cannot be sold for five dollars a hit. We have learned that the practice is integral to true spiritual transcendence.

If someone hit thy head with a stone, what will remain of those experiences? Through some devices scientists can make the feel what ever they want.

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
Mysticism is the pursuit of direct experience of God or the Divine. Transcendence is going beyond - going beyond one's self, or ego - and is related to the conception of God as being a being that transcends, or goes beyond, physical reality.

If I met God or Christ, or Buddha, it will not change anything in my life. These images seem to be very valuable for mystics just because life is so short that they cannot become fed up with them.

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
And this is what we learned after watching Tim Leary. We realized that no matter the apparent similarities between spiritual transcendence and drug induced transcendence, there is a difference between the two. One immediately apparent difference is stability: someone who seeks direct experience of God through serious spiritual practice does not lose their experience, whereas drugs lose their influence of transcendence as the drug wears off.

That's not true. Were it so, monks wouldn't need new dose of prayer.

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
But it does not seem to be an unhealthy attachment: the mystic experience is not an attachment to worldly pleasure, it is not ignorant, it recognizes that something more than ceremony is necessary, and it is not egocentric.

I am recalling a book by Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu "Handbook for mankind" where he taught that we should not have attachments even on supramundane plane...
I have a friend who was Buddhist (he lived in Russia, then in Thailand, then again come to Russia, then returned to Thailand). So he said he had constant quarrels with his grandparents because 'he wanted to meditate all the time and they made him do something'. However rediculuous it may sound, it proves that every attachment is harmful, because it is conditioned, time and space. Rely on nothing, as, if I am not mistaking, said the Buddha.

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
The mere existence of the Buddha, Jesus or any other teacher cannot free you from greed, lust, or anger. Mysticism holds that the individual has to practice as those teachers practiced in order to achieve what they achieved: freedom from greed, lust and so forth. That's the basic idea: through practice, we can overcome the suffering of this life.
Mostly I would point out that Mysticism does not teach that the existence of Jesus or any other teacher can free you from greed, ect. What Mysticism teaches is that through certain practices, we can be free from greed, ect.

I should say that we could never know what was the real teaching of the Buddha, Christ or so, but this is ganz another story... Some teachings say we should repeat a certain amount of prayers in a certain order, others that we should meditate on Buddha, others -- on Non-dual Self or Brahman, others that we should have skilful sex, others -- that we should kill people, as worshippers of Kali did... Which is right? Or shall we say as Ramakrishna: every path leads to God? Even consistent atheism...

Didymos Thomas;66045 wrote:
Yes, I think perception matters a great deal. There is a huge difference between perceiving the world as if altruism were true and perceiving the world as if egoism were true.

And I think we should perceive the world as it is, not through altruism or egoism.
And no, I am not rejecting any practice at all, just as I don't reject art, for example. Seeing Buddha may indeed bring joy for a certain period of time, but not for ever. Happiness is deeper than any external experience.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:21 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;66064 wrote:

If someone hit thy head with a stone, what will remain of those experiences? Through some devices scientists can make the feel what ever they want.


It is possible to lose some memory from head trauma, I suppose. But that's beside the point: the drugs will wear off in a few hours, whereas the experiences rooted in practice linger.

There is also the matter of understanding experience. Spiritual practitioners spend a great deal of time not just trying to have the experience, but also preparing so that when the experience does occur, they will understand it, so that they can reap all of the benefits of the experience.

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
If I met God or Christ, or Buddha, it will not change anything in my life. These images seem to be very valuable for mystics just because life is so short that they cannot become fed up with them.


How can you know with certainty that this is true?

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
That's not true. Were it so, monks wouldn't need new dose of prayer.


How do you know that is not true? You have, by your own admission, not had such an experience.

Monks continue to practice after early success because the spiritual path is not a quick hike, but an epic personal journey.

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
I am recalling a book by Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu "Handbook for mankind" where he taught that we should not have attachments even on supramundane plane...


Remember that "attachment" is the typical English translation of a technical term in Buddhism.
Up?d?na - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
I have a friend who was Buddhist (he lived in Russia, then in Thailand, then again come to Russia, then returned to Thailand). So he said he had constant quarrels with his grandparents because 'he wanted to meditate all the time and they made him do something'. However rediculuous it may sound, it proves that every attachment is harmful, because it is conditioned, time and space. Rely on nothing, as, if I am not mistaking, said the Buddha.


Thank you for sharing that interesting story.

It is possible to misuse meditation.

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
I should say that we could never know what was the real teaching of the Buddha, Christ or so, but this is ganz another story... Some teachings say we should repeat a certain amount of prayers in a certain order, others that we should meditate on Buddha, others -- on Non-dual Self or Brahman, others that we should have skilful sex, others -- that we should kill people, as worshippers of Kali did... Which is right? Or shall we say as Ramakrishna: every path leads to God? Even consistent atheism...


Hence the importance of finding out for yourself. And yes, I think the atheist can find God, even though the atheist will use a different name.

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
And I think we should perceive the world as it is, not through altruism or egoism.


Altruism and egoism are moral theories. They determine what we should and should not do, and this shapes our perception of reality.

Eudaimon;66064 wrote:
And no, I am not rejecting any practice at all, just as I don't reject art, for example. Seeing Buddha may indeed bring joy for a certain period of time, but not for ever. Happiness is deeper than any external experience.


Right, than any external experience - which is exactly why Mystics have taught for thousands of years that we have turn inward, go beyond ourselves, and have the (as Robert Thurman says) "inner revolution" of experiencing the Divine directly.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:25 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;66068 wrote:
How do you know that is not true? You have, by your own admission, not had such an experience.

Monks continue to practice after early success because the spiritual path is not a quick hike, but an epic personal journey.
How can you know with certainty that this is true?

How can it be otherwise? What is the cause of desire? Misunderstanding of good and evil, is it not? So if I met shinig Buddha or God, it will not change my misunderstanding, rather it will create tension between my desire to follow the ideal and my misunderstaning which does not vanish.
Who knows, maybe I also had those experiences... And I agree, this is pleasant... But these are mere experiences, and we should not be attached to them, should not to rexperience them, otherwise this begets suffering. This I know very well. If they come, it's good. But this is not that...
Any mystical practice depends on conditions. Thou wantest to meditate, what if I switch on heavy metal... Happiness, real happiness is deeper than any practice, any experince. It must not be disturbed by any conditions.

Didymos Thomas;66068 wrote:
Hence the importance of finding out for yourself. And yes, I think the atheist can find God, even though the atheist will use a different name.

Life is so short, how many wrong paths shall I follow until I find the real one?.. Moreover, vipashyana needs years, hear, decades so as to achieve any result. None can guarantee, I shall find anything, or that I shall not die before, en route... That would be incredibly cruel, if we had to seek in darkness. What if I am following a wrong one, this only moves me away from the right one...

Didymos Thomas;66068 wrote:
Altruism and egoism are moral theories. They determine what we should and should not do, and this shapes our perception of reality.

I try to apply in my life only what life taught me to be contibuting to my own happiness. This sounds much as selfishness, egoism. But surprisingly this things has much in common with altruism... So what concept do I have: altuistic egoism? Whtever it may be, it is not belief.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 09:09 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;60654 wrote:
And if a Christian fanatic may be stopped by his own scripture, others, from sects where distribution of belief is approved in every wise, may only be inflamed with their writs.

Hey, Dave, I think that after our discussion of Christianity with Avatar, I should drop my positive attitude to Christianity. It appears now that Christians absolutely don't care what there 'Lord' and 'Saviour' said. There is no good religion, I think now...
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:10 am
@Eudaimon,
Well it's no surprise that most Christians feel that aligning themselves with the gestalt values of other Christians is more important than considering the example set by Christ.

Because it's so much easier.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 04:56 pm
@Eudaimon,
none of it has real meaning if it is just a projection or a speculation. Only what is lived has real meaning, for better or for worse.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 02:35 pm
@Dave Allen,
Eudaimon;66154 wrote:
How can it be otherwise?


If you have not had the experience, you could not possibly know one way or the other.

Eudaimon;66154 wrote:
So if I met shinig Buddha or God, it will not change my misunderstanding, rather it will create tension between my desire to follow the ideal and my misunderstaning which does not vanish.


How could you know what it would be to meet the Buddha if you have not ever done so? Isn't this pure speculation?

Eudaimon;66154 wrote:
Any mystical practice depends on conditions. Thou wantest to meditate, what if I switch on heavy metal...


Heavy metal music would make it more difficult. So what?

Eudaimon;66154 wrote:
Happiness, real happiness is deeper than any practice, any experince. It must not be disturbed by any conditions.


I agree. But how do you imagine we arrive at happiness if not by some sort of practice?

Eudaimon;66154 wrote:
Life is so short, how many wrong paths shall I follow until I find the real one?.. Moreover, vipashyana needs years, hear, decades so as to achieve any result. None can guarantee, I shall find anything, or that I shall not die before, en route... That would be incredibly cruel, if we had to seek in darkness. What if I am following a wrong one, this only moves me away from the right one...


No one said the spiritual path was easy.

Dave Allen;66197 wrote:
Well it's no surprise that most Christians feel that aligning themselves with the gestalt values of other Christians is more important than considering the example set by Christ.

Because it's so much easier.


And you know this as a matter of fact?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:52 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;67198 wrote:
And you know this as a matter of fact?

It's a conviction, fairly solidly held, and I feel that I'm entitled to my opinions even if they are based on no more than a passing hunch. However, particularly in relation to a converstation on a philosophy forum where most people will have at least a passing familiarity with Cartesian thought or phenomenology, I'd shy from saying just about anything was a 'matter of fact'.

Do you know that 'no one said the spiritual path was easy' is a matter of fact? I'm fairly sure there have been people who claimed just such a thing. I've certainly seen a documentary on Hindu ascetics who claimed their spiritual journeys, including feats such as holding a left arm in the air for a decade when not sleeping, were 'no big feat' (though I would find it so).

If you've got evidence or ideas to the contrary by all means share them. However, the game of "how do you KNOW that" is one that we can both play, and which I suspect would get pretty boring before long.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:33 pm
@Eudaimon,
Quote:
None can guarantee, I shall find anything


So what do you want to be given? Isn't this the very meaning of acting in good faith? - The fact that you are willing to commit yourself to a worthwhile cause without knowing for sure how it is going to end up? Maybe there is nothing to find, but the act of commitment is worthwhile all the same. "Happy is he who has nothing further to seek' said Rinzai.

You will still be having this conversation in 10 years, and nothing will have changed. And that is guaranteed for sure.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 07:14 pm
@Eudaimon,
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 05:20 am
@jeeprs,
Didymos Thomas;67198 wrote:
If you have not had the experience, you could not possibly know one way or the other.
How could you know what it would be to meet the Buddha if you have not ever done so? Isn't this pure speculation?
Heavy metal music would make it more difficult. So what?

What if I had? All experiences are fleeting and to prolong them we need new dose... What if we have no conditions to do that, as I said heavy metal is disturbing or grandparents make distract thee, or what if those experiences don't come again? That is to say, what if I haven't an ability to satisfy my drive to experiences? Is it different from attachment to worldly things? To drugs (if they didn't cause physical addiction)?
Here is that book of Thai monk. Read that: amongst religious ones it is one of the most sound, esp. the VII chapter:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddasa.pdf
Didymos Thomas;67198 wrote:
I agree. But how do you imagine we arrive at happiness if not by some sort of practice?

Through discrimination between true good and true evil. If I know what is really good to me, what for do I need practice. I dare suppose that if one needs parctice, this shows only that he wants to deceive his own nature. Look here: I see that people are worshipping new teacher: Buddha, Christ or whomever; I see they respect him, I don't know why. But I believe that if crowd says he is real teacher, it is so. Thus, without clear understanding of his words I start forcing my nature so as to arrive at the same level as the teacher. Teacher says: be celibate, and I without understanding why I should, start forbidding me sex. Teacher says: be non-violent, and I, without understanding why I should, start forbidding myself violence. There is conflict here, is it not? And the conflict is between two understandings of good: my previous understanding is not removed, yet I want to establish the new one. Thou followst that? A monk may say: I don't want to have sex because my teacher, Christ or Buddha, forbade me; yet on the other hand he says I do want to have sex, because my flesh want that. And there is conflict within him. The conflict, to sum up, is the struggle of two different ideas of happiness. When the idea of 'flesh happiness' is not removed, there is struggle and one needs practice to overcome that violently. This is violence, is it not? It's just an attempt to deceive ourselves, but it is not easy, because our nature wants the things which are deemed to be contributing to happiness. (In reality they may be not, but we have an idea of them as being such). Now, if one sees how sex makes him stupid, irrational, if one sees how violence deprives him of mental peace, is there any need in practice?

Didymos Thomas;67198 wrote:
No one said the spiritual path was easy.

Well... I hoped the world is just... that every one has access to happiness, where he had been born.


jeeprs;67469 wrote:
You will still be having this conversation in 10 years, and nothing will have changed. And that is guaranteed for sure.

So what should I do, jeeprs?! Rush to a meditation class? Or to church? Or to India? Which path is preferrable? I cannot accept anything on faith.

jeeprs;67536 wrote:
What am I going to get out of it?

The whole point of spiritual practice is to overcome your basic self-centeredness. This is nothing personal. Everyone is naturally self-centered - it is a result of evolutionary biology. Spiritual teachings have always recognized this. It is one of the many interpretations of the Myth of the Fall. This is the very nature of the battle - there is nothing new in this. We are all in precisely the same position. IN Christian parlance, we are all 'sons of Adam'.

So - to overcome self- centeredness obviously means, not being concerned with yourself any more. From the viewpoint of the ego, this is obviously always going to be a bad deal. So ego will naturally say, 'what is in it for me'? The answer is, in the case of spiritual development, 'nothing'. But the ego is always bound for ultimate dissolution anyway, via death, which is the source of the underlying anxiety, or dukkha, about existence. So it kind of knows it has to look at this, in spite of itself.

I cannot see the harm of self-centredness. On the contrary, we should be self-centred as much as possible so as to understand our true nature, true good. Death does not cause anxiety, it's all about our false beliefs. Read Epicurus?

jeeprs;67536 wrote:

I cannot accept that. There are so many paths, and some of them seems to me so disgusting, as I 've said somewhere above. Do they all lead to truth? Or is there any criterion, which ones are right?
On the 'spiritual teachers', I can't help citing Jiddu Krishnamurti again:
Quote:
Question: You have realized reality. Can you tell us what God is?

Krishnamurti: How do you know I have realized? To know that I have realized, you also must have realized. This is not just a clever answer. To know something you must be of it. You must yourself have had the experience also and therefore your saying that I have realized has apparently no meaning. What does it matter if I have realized or have not realized? Is not what I am saying the truth? Even if I am the most perfect human being, if what I say is not the truth why would you even listen to me? Surely my realization has nothing whatever to do with what I am saying and the man who worships another because that other has realized is really worshipping authority and therefore he can never find the truth.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:31 am
@Eudaimon,
I agree completely with what Krishnamurti says here.

Nevertheless I think that Krishnamurti did not have a good teaching method, and it is easy to read Krishnamurti and feel you have nothing further to seek but actually there is a need to make an effort, even though Krishnamurti might say all effort is futile. Maybe you can only find out effort is futile by making an effort and truly knowing the futility of it, rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting for somebody to guarantee it for you.

But I won't try and convince you of that Eudaimon. Some things you have to find out for yourself, and you won't know in advance if it will work out or not.

Very inconvenient, I know.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 03:29 pm
@jeeprs,
Eudaimon - "discrimination between true good and true evil" is not a practice? You must be doing something if you are discriminating - this must be some kind of practice.

Dave Allen;67300 wrote:
It's a conviction, fairly solidly held, and I feel that I'm entitled to my opinions even if they are based on no more than a passing hunch. However, particularly in relation to a converstation on a philosophy forum where most people will have at least a passing familiarity with Cartesian thought or phenomenology, I'd shy from saying just about anything was a 'matter of fact'.


Yes, you are entitled to any opinion you like.

And yes, passing familiarity. However, that isn't the point, is it?

You made a claim about "most Christians" that was rather negative. You said that "most Christians" are more concerned with being in the cool club than with actually learning from the teachings attributed to Jesus. Remarkably cynical.

I won't even debate that "most Christians" do not align themselves with the cool club more often than refer to the teachings of Jesus, but to make such cynical assumptions about the motivations of such a wide group of people is unnecessary, unfounded, angry.

Dave Allen;67300 wrote:
Do you know that 'no one said the spiritual path was easy' is a matter of fact? I'm fairly sure there have been people who claimed just such a thing. I've certainly seen a documentary on Hindu ascetics who claimed their spiritual journeys, including feats such as holding a left arm in the air for a decade when not sleeping, were 'no big feat' (though I would find it so).


No - as a matter of fact, I know that some people have said otherwise. However, I hoped that people would pick up on the context and recognize that I'm not literally speaking of everyone the world over and throughout history.

As far as the Hindu asceticism (I saw that documentary, too - cool huh!), I think we might want to distinguish between ease of practice and the sort of attention the practice deserves. We all know that holding one's arm up for such a period of time is not easy - however, it is wise for the man to call it "no big feat" to avoid undue attention, essentially ego-stroking.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 06:13 pm
@Eudaimon,
This is a gloss on a Hindu anecdote I heard somewhere once (ashram humour, methinks).
---------------------------------------------------------

Two ascetics were sitting in meditation by the river. They had been there for so long that tree roots were beginning to grow around their legs. Suddenly the God Brahma appeared to both of them. He said 'Due to your diligence, you shall both be freed from the cycle of birth-and-death in only 3 more lifetimes'.

One immediately responded '3 lifetimes! That seems an awfully long time. How dissappointing. I am growing weary of this practise.'

There was a moments silence. Then the second ascetic said, '3 lifetimes! How marvellous! How wonderful! This practise has indeed been most beneficial. I shall relish every moment'.

The God Brahma looked at the second ascetic.

'You are free to go now', He said, with a smile.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 07:47 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;68373 wrote:
Eudaimon - "discrimination between true good and true evil" is not a practice? You must be doing something if you are discriminating - this must be some kind of practice.

:bigsmile: It seems to me there is difference, though it is very difficult to catch it. Say, practice deals not exactly with what leads to happiness but with some side things. Surely there is much difference between knowing what is what and prayer, or meditation (in the Eastern sense) or sexual practice of Daoists and Tantrists.

Didymos Thomas;68373 wrote:
You made a claim about "most Christians" that was rather negative. You said that "most Christians" are more concerned with being in the cool club than with actually learning from the teachings attributed to Jesus. Remarkably cynical.

I won't even debate that "most Christians" do not align themselves with the cool club more often than refer to the teachings of Jesus, but to make such cynical assumptions about the motivations of such a wide group of people is unnecessary, unfounded, angry.


The more conversations with "Christians" I'm recalling, the more I agree with Dave. This is mere a statistics: I have NEVER seen a Christian who is really committed to non-resistance. Everyone used some ruses so as to justify violence, yet some were against sex. This proves only that superficial differences can never reflect inner state and it is an idle thing to seek a teacher.

Didymos Thomas;68373 wrote:
As far as the Hindu asceticism (I saw that documentary, too - cool huh!), I think we might want to distinguish between ease of practice and the sort of attention the practice deserves. We all know that holding one's arm up for such a period of time is not easy - however, it is wise for the man to call it "no big feat" to avoid undue attention, essentially ego-stroking.

Is it O.K. to lie?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 09:09:11