Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the Good

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 29th, 2019, 12:43 am 

It is important to remember how our conversation relates to the topic of the thread. Is the Overman the ultimate product of human evolution?

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man. ` Nietzsche


If I understand you correctly it really doesn't matter. thee is nothing to be gained by welcoming chaos. Dpn't think and just be happy.

I take the view that the overman as the ultimate expression of the earth is not the limit of human evolution but has the potential for conscious evolution. Instead of acquiring the will to power necessary to rule, the Overmn can be a philosopher king and serve universal purpose.

Man's being is relative connecting Man with the overman.but who in the age of technology can give birth to the dancing star?
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 29th, 2019, 9:05 am 

Nick -

I was going to write two posts too. There are a couple of points that have been lingering unaddressed from previous posts.

1) I'm not New Age. That's a thought movement. I had to look it up in Wiki. Very long and complicated. I don't feel averse to most of it in real terms but I don't do labels and thought movements. So I'm not New Age or anything else like that.

2) You said consciousness is not its content, or vice versa.

When you think about something is the thought different from what you're thinking about? Remove the subject-matter and where is the thought?

The thought is what its thinking about. It's not like a container that remains if you remove the contents. The activity of the mind IS the mind.

I know it's an old philosophy that says consciousness is not its content. I say otherwise. The contents are all we know, everything in the psyche of man. That is the consciousness of man and that is also the content. Remove one and the other is gone too.

It's true there's something when that happens but we're back to the unknowable, the inexperienceable. If there's no experiencer, which is the consciousness, what is there to experience?

This is why reality is not an experience, it's simply there. Test this out and you'll see for yourself.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 29th, 2019, 9:13 am 

Nick -

You are confusing conscious attention with mechanical attention


I'm not confusing anything. Either you're in a state of attention or you're not. Either you're attentive or you're not. Either you're completely with something, or you're half-there, or you're somewhere else entirely!

You're complicating something very simple. When you're very interested in something you're right there with it. If you're not, you drift off. Simple as that.

You can force yourself to pay attention to something but that's not attention. Attention arises naturally with interest. When you were watching the Simone video or the Jones one weren't you attentive? Naturally.

But is there a state of attention that has no particular object? It's the same attention as the other one except it's not focussed on anything in particular. The mind is naturally attentive, awake. There's no effort involved, it's not an achievement and it can't be brought about artificially.

A simple life is a life not caught up in activism as in politics for example and expressions of self importance as all to common in what for some reason is called the world of art. Such a person accepts their responsibilities and lives a good life free of the dramatics. Such a person is often far more advanced than all these politicians, artists, and gurus since they are not victims of self deception which destroys the seed of the soul


I don't disagree but a simple life begins inwardly. Living a life with few possessions etc has no meaning unless there's inward simplicity. Anyone can put on a show and think they're simple but that's not it. It's the person who has to be utterly simple, clear, not their life. But it will show in their life.

So what have you come to understand?


What I'm writing here.

You don’t know what it means to die to yourself, your personality, as opposed to a physical death.


Oh, that all happened when I was in my 20s. But I won't discuss myself, I don't like it. I don't like credentials. Go by what I say.

Esoteric Christianity is part of the perennial tradition which always was. It wasn’t invented by Man.


You must be joking. I won't even comment on that. It's theology.


“antisocial behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world of conformists.”? Nikola Tesla


That's not true. Nobody who has love, beauty, compassion, and so on, is anti-social. Anti-social behaviour is anti-people, it upsets them and is destructive. And you go to jail for it. I'm not saying there aren't very good reasons why a person or a child becomes anti-social, there usually are, but let's be clear that it's a problem, not something wonderful.

However, I don't think that's what Tesla meant. It's a romantic quote about a different kind of behaviour. One has to question everything, all the values, the state of the world, and oneself. That is intelligence. From that one may have a different point of view and way of living.

But it's not rebellion. In a child it may amount to that because they're unable to express their feelings properly but there's a difference between that and destructive behaviour. The adult may not conform to many things if they're at all awake but it's not rebellion. It's not throwing bombs. That's is rebellion and it's misguided. Violence isn't the way to peace.

Which quality of love do you refer to?


Oh, lord, here we go.

We just talked about joy in the last posts. The other day I was walking home. Near the house there's a lone tree on a patch of grass. It was a lovely evening, warm, and all the leaves were waving gently in the breeze. Suddenly, for no explicable reason, there was great joy.

I could tell you about that and you'd scratch your head and say 'Now what kind of joy was that? Was it efrtige, hudmiv, or tubdoce?

I hope you see the point!

Don't think and just be happy.


No, it's not as simple as that! Wouldn't that be lovely!

You've got to think, which really means looking. Think hard, question, explore, stretch the brain. Question everything man has put together, including his absurd philosophies. Work very, very hard at it, otherwise you just drift along with the mass.

It may not make you happy at all, it may be totally and thoroughly disturbing and unsettling. And one HAS to be thoroughly disturbed, shaken up, jolted out of one's complacent grooves. Only such people discover life, only such people live.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 29th, 2019, 4:47 pm 

I'll reply to your last post later but now I'd like to comment on how secularism celbrating the Great Best as the ultimate in human evolution is actually a religion so it belongs here.

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:

The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.


The Great Beast functions as a supernatural entity for all those who bow to it. Secularists have their earth God and their religion or beliefs. Universalists have their God as the source and purpose of our universe. Who is the secular religion sufficient for?
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 29th, 2019, 7:21 pm 

First, I see we have someone to thank, possibly Vat, for changing the title of this thread to encompass the current discussion rather than locking it. So, credit for that and thank you.

Great Beast


Yes, all right, the collective man and all its horrors. But we know about that. Anybody who's more or less aware understands that. It's got nothing to do with superior education either; it's on the telly!

But the collective is just all of us human beings together. It doesn't 'transcend' us, it's what we are, how we behave, how we live.

You see, I refuse to objectify the world as something 'over there'. The world is not over there, it's here, we're in it, of it. It is what we are, we ARE it. Whatever kind of human being one is, one is still part of all this. Only beings from Pluto, Mars or Jupiter aren't. They have an excuse, we do not.

But that's not the point. The point is to go beyond it. That is, transcend the conditioning we all share. Unless one does that we remain ignorant prisoners. To go back to Plato, bless him, we remain in the cave ignorant of anything else.

But, if we do that, we are still here in the world, we haven't died or disappeared. But the difference is we are then bringing to the world a different quality. That's what matters.

PS. That's why you like Simone Weil and people like that :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 12:33 am 

Charon

I cannot seem to make clear. the difference between when our attention is mechanically attracted by the external world and the human potential for conscious attention as an act of will. Here is a description of conscious attention provided by Simone Weil.

"Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty and ready to be penetrated by the object. It means holding in our minds, within reach of this thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with it, the diverse knowledge we have acquired which we are forced to make use of. Above all our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything, but ready to receive in its naked truth the object which is to penetrate it."

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "


Prayer is what takes place once the binary mind is put to sleep and the needs of the inner man become dominant.

Esoteric Christianity is part of the perennial tradition which always was. It wasn’t invented by Man.


You must be joking. I won't even comment on that. It's theology.


You are providing the normal secular reaction which IMO is extremely limited. First of all we don’t know the origin of the essence of Christianity.

The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones


A secularist cannot accept the premise of perennial philosophy which is really normal for a universal perspective

Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis), also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in modern spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.


Not to get too heavy here but if you read a little of this link it is obvious that existence requires a conscious source. The purpose of philosophy is to help us remember what has been forgotten and it is also the same for the essence of religion.

Normally we live on the exoteric level of psychological reality described in Plato’s cave analogy. Seekers of truth desire to become part of the esoteric path which leads to the highest quality of psychology or the transcendent level. All the disputes take place at the exoteric level while the single metaphysical truth resides at the transcendent level.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/slide ... tailID=373

From William Stoddart's introduction to Ye Shall Know the Truth: Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy. Stoddart writes:

The central idea of the perennial philosophy is that Divine Truth is one, timeless, and universal, and that the different religions are but different languages expressing that one Truth. The symbol most often used to convey this idea is that of the uncolored light and the many colors of the spectrum which are made visible only when the uncolored light is refracted. In the Renaissance, the term betokened the recognition of the fact that the philosophies of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus incontrovertibly expounded the same truth as lay at the heart of Christianity. Subsequently the meaning of the term was enlarged to cover the metaphysics and mysticisms of all of the great world religions, notably, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.


There are many man made interpretations of divine truths all over the world at the exoteric level so you are right to say that Man invents them. But the perennial truth always was so must be remembered which is why Plato taught remembrance and why seekers of truth must advance from arguing opinions to the united search for perennial knowledge

Apparently I am more tolerant of antisocial behavior than you are. I admire genius, not to be confused with dingbats, regardless of how antisocial it often becomes. Take Bobby Fisher for example. A more antisocial person would be hard to find. I can stick my nose up in the air and condemn such attitudes or put them aside and enjoy some of the most profound and beautiful chess games ever played. A pain in the ass by itself is just a pain. But if this pain is capable of genius in chess, music, or math for example it suggests that it was somehow necessary. It may not be PC but I am not PC.

You don’t seem to sense the different qualities of love. I recognize three basic qualities. The first is physical love or basic animal attraction of types. The second and the lowest form of love is romantic love. It takes place when another enables the lover to feel the emotion. It is the lowest because it doesn’t last. Once the lover loses interest they blame the other resulting in all sorts of problems.

The highest form of love is conscious love which is the ability to provide the quality of energy which helps another to become themselves. It is the love of the purpose of life itself which as we have seen must be rejected by the majority

You've got to think, which really means looking. Think hard, question, explore, stretch the brain. Question everything man has put together, including his absurd philosophies. Work very, very hard at it, otherwise you just drift along with the mass.

It may not make you happy at all, it may be totally and thoroughly disturbing and unsettling. And one HAS to be thoroughly disturbed, shaken up, jolted out of one's complacent grooves. Only such people discover life, only such people live.


Can you look and question with detachment as Simone Weil describes it?

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." - Simone Weil
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 30th, 2019, 9:27 am 

Nick -

conscious attention as an act of will


If it's an act of will it's not attention.

When you were watching the Jones and Weil documentaries you were presumably paying a great deal of attention, right? Were you forcing yourself? Were you saying 'I must look at this, I must pay attention!'?

That's what will implies, that's what a conscious act of will is. It's deliberate. But that's not attention. Attention comes naturally when there's interest. You don't even say 'I am attending', you're simply there.

This is simple, isn't it? You only make yourself look at something when you don't want to look at it, otherwise it's effortless and just happens naturally.

Prayer is what takes place once the binary mind is put to sleep and the needs of the inner man become dominant.


Therefore prayer is silent, right?

First of all we don’t know the origin of the essence of Christianity.


The origin is one thing, the man-made theology that springs from it is another.

A secularist cannot accept the premise of perennial philosophy which is really normal for a universal perspective


That depends what you mean by perennial philosophy.

As I said right at the beginning of our posts all this has been around since the year dot. It's not new. East and West, it's the same - the human condition and the need to transcend it. That's all.

It can be dressed up in as many fancy versions as there are pebbles on the beach but in the end there's only one thing in different words. I'm not belittling it, this is so. If one has the eyes for it, that is.

Apparently I am more tolerant of antisocial behavior than you are. I admire genius, not to be confused with dingbats, regardless of how antisocial it often becomes. Take Bobby Fisher for example. A more antisocial person would be hard to find. I can stick my nose up in the air and condemn such attitudes or put them aside and enjoy some of the most profound and beautiful chess games ever played. A pain in the ass by itself is just a pain. But if this pain is capable of genius in chess, music, or math for example it suggests that it was somehow necessary. It may not be PC but I am not PC.


Missing the point. There are some human beings with extraordinary capacities and they flout society's mores. Okay, but so what? They're still conditioned people.

I recognize three basic qualities (of love)


You mean your intellect makes a list and categorises them. When you see two people canoodling do you say 'Oh, that's a rather low form of love'? How do you know?

Either love is love or it's not love. Love means no self. If there's self it's not love. It may be expressed in many different ways but don't let's become confused about expressions. Expressions vary but the source is more important. Either the source is love or it's not. And it's not for us to judge others. Don't be a love snob!

Can you look and question with detachment as Simone Weil describes it?


Naturally. Questioning with attachment isn't questioning. One must be free to question. That means no attachment to anything.

Committed religious believers are always asking questions. I've met dozens of them. But if you ask them why they believe in anything at all they run away.

Here you are:

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/08/22 ... hristians/

They never say 'Why the hell am I mixed up in this nonsense at all?'.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby TheVat on April 30th, 2019, 12:15 pm 

Hello. Thread seems to be exploring territory covered by Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy.

Huxley's Introduction to The Perennial Philosophy begins:

The metaphysic that recognises a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being — the thing is immemorial and universal.

Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions. A version of this Highest Common Factor in all preceding and subsequent theologies was first committed to writing more than twenty-five centuries ago, and since that time the inexhaustible theme has been treated again and again, from the standpoint of every religious tradition and in all the principal languages of Asia and Europe.


In the next paragraph, Huxley summarises the problem more succinctly, saying: "Knowledge is a function of being." In other words, if you are not suited to knowing something, you do not know it. This makes knowing the Ground of All Being difficult, in Huxley's view. Therefore, he concludes his Introduction with:

If one is not oneself a sage or saint, the best thing one can do, in the field of metaphysics, is to study the works of those who were, and who, because they had modified their merely human mode of being, were capable of a more than merely human kind and amount of knowledge.

For me, Huxley begged several questions.

One, how does a reader, with any intellectual integrity, accept the claims of saints and sages to a more advanced state of being and greater epistemic access? The discussion here has touched on this problem several times, and has been often tarnished with prejudicial dismissals of any skeptical question as "secularism." Simply applying blanket terms to individal humans is problematic. One person may entertain beliefs both secular (metaphysical naturalism, say) and spiritual, and deal with whatever dissonance arises in quirky ways.

Two, what are the practical details of modifying a "merely human mode of being?" Is prolonged meditation (which participants here have come at from different angles) necessary but not sufficient? Are there definable elements of grace? luck? early childhood training? Traumas that shrink the ego?
I would share Charon's reservations about simply studying a sage and then just buying into their pre-packaged mysticism.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Brent696 on April 30th, 2019, 2:35 pm 

One of the most difficult aspects of a true spiritual walk is that of non-attachment. When we study we are seeking to absorb, to "attain" something, and this in and of itself is not wrong. Yet driven by the senses we are always seeking pleasure at the avoidance of pain, this is simply how the body, and our consciousness as it identifies with the body, works.

The first true huddle of the spiritual path is to see, truly understand, you are a soul, a gravity well as it were of consciousness, a small "I am" in the midst of a sea of consciousness. And the body merely the interface with this coarse world of physicality. This idea of being a soul does not mean one is eternal or immortal, a mistake so very commonly made, but rather the substance of your being is simply superior to the physical nature of the body. In essence God created the Heavenly (soul) sphere along with the Earthly (physical) sphere or plane. Unfortunately the vast majority of human being stop at merely being religious, and do not really attain to this self knowledge, hence when they read of "resurrection" in the scriptures, a Greek word that more accurately translates as "lifted up", they do not understand it as the soul being raised in the quality of its Being but rather the body returning to life as it is now but with perhaps less defects, basically reincarnation into a superior body.

Back to non-attachment, this is a mind that chooses to be inner actualized rather than outer reactive, ideally choosing to be who and what you are, despite your circumstances. Think of the Freudian ID verses the Ego, the Ego is the outer self while the ID is the inner self, most everyone is not comfortable with their Id, so they develop and Ego, outer personal to deal with the world, this in itself is not bad but we migrate our sense of Being to the outer Ego, as if we are more truly the Ego than the Id, this shields us from the shame and self deprecation that comes with admitting our true self. This is what the scriptures have referred to as double mindedness, as we are not one within ourselves, as we are not honest with ourselves, so do we hold a bias and can never see the truth for what it is.

As Jesus stated, "Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness."

"evil" does not refer to an amoral state, rather like wickedness, which is probably the root word in this case, it means twisted, as in a wicker basket.

The Ego and the Id, and bringing them into alignment, does not mean one simply acts out all the evil within them, but it does mean they begin to "acknowledge" that to be their true self, what you THINK, is what you are, whether you act it out or not, in the Id lies your BEING.

Now a religious man repents, thinking in terms of the ACTS he has done, a spiritual man repents, truly and honestly understanding the nature of his own Being, His Id. The religious man insults God as if He would blind to our inner self, therefore God does not allow him to see truth, but to the man who is honest within, humble, non duplicitous, this man has the ability to accept truth.

Here is a truth, it is impossible to be "good" before God, we can hide our sin nature in our Id, hide it in time as if that happened a long time ago, hide it in any number of types of compartmentalization. But what we can be is honest, transparent, refusing to insult God as if He were not existing simultaneously throughout time as well as space, both inwardly as outwardly. Then we walk in this world, manifesting (acting out) what good we can and not denying of ourselves the Id that lies within us. This is akin to acknowledging our demons, NAMING our demons, and thus taming our demons. But a duplicitous soul, seeking to live only in the Ego, always bartering, manipulating, insinuating, usually through their psychological defense patterns, will always be allowing the demon within to manifest.

Ignoring the rats in the wall only allows them so come out at night.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm 

TheVat » April 30th, 2019, 5:15 pm wrote:Hello. Thread seems to be exploring territory covered by Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy.


Hello, Vat. Yes, I looked at that (as much as I looked at anything) in the 60's sometime. It was one of the better ones. But, you know, Aldous took drugs like mescalin, etc, and I'm not sure about that. It casts doubt on his seriousness.

Huxley's Introduction to The Perennial Philosophy begins:

The metaphysic that recognises a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being — the thing is immemorial and universal.

Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions. A version of this Highest Common Factor in all preceding and subsequent theologies was first committed to writing more than twenty-five centuries ago, and since that time the inexhaustible theme has been treated again and again, from the standpoint of every religious tradition and in all the principal languages of Asia and Europe.


That's what I'm trying to tell Nick, that this stuff's as old as the hills.

If one is not oneself a sage or saint, the best thing one can do, in the field of metaphysics, is to study the works of those who were, and who, because they had modified their merely human mode of being, were capable of a more than merely human kind and amount of knowledge.


Yes, it's the perennial problem as well :-) People want to read about it as though it were History or Economics or something. It's second hand, right? You read about all these people... and then what?

how does a reader, with any intellectual integrity, accept the claims of saints and sages to a more advanced state of being and greater epistemic access?


Precisely. How does one know anything about these people? Maybe they're deluded or pretentious. Maybe they've done a bit of this or that, had an experience or two, and all that business. I've no doubt some of it is genuine, there are some very extraordinary stories about certain sages and saints, both East and West, but I don't see what relevance it has to our own actual daily lives. Probably absolutely none. I'm serious. So reading about it is just an amusement, really.

The discussion here has touched on this problem several times, and has been often tarnished with prejudicial dismissals of any skeptical question as "secularism." Simply applying blanket terms to individual humans is problematic. One person may entertain beliefs both secular (metaphysical naturalism, say) and spiritual, and deal with whatever dissonance arises in quirky ways.


Yes, I can't comment on what Nick may have meant by that word. I always get thoroughly confused between secular and non-secular anyway. Secular seems to imply religion to me but apparently it means worldly. But most religions are completely worldly anyway so maybe it doesn't make any difference.

what are the practical details of modifying a "merely human mode of being?"


Ah! Are you really interested in this? A modified human being is still the same, only modified, that is, slightly changed. Modified selfishness is still selfish, so I wouldn't bother with modification.

Is prolonged meditation (which participants here have come at from different angles) necessary but not sufficient?


It depends entirely on what one means by meditation. Playing silly tricks on oneself is not meditation, of whatever system. Real meditation is the inquiry into oneself, into life and living, so it's never something divorced from our actual daily thought and action.

I don't think we realise that. We've fallen prey to propaganda, the hype that says you have to go off into a corner and practice some idiotic thing someone invented. 'Enlightenment' was all the rage back in the day, along with drugs. And, like all fads, it gradually disappeared, thank god.

Are there definable elements of grace?


I have no idea. Some might call it luck but the Catholics are very hot on it. Probably they have no idea what it is although they preach about it.

reservations about simply studying a sage and then just buying into their pre-packaged mysticism.


Quite.

People think, as I tend to dismiss this stuff, that I'm ungodly, or a materialist, or something. Not so, but one has to be very, very careful in a world that's full of godly ideas and yet is in the utterly confused and violent mess it's in.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 3:52 pm 

Charon

When you were watching the Jones and Weil documentaries you were presumably paying a great deal of attention, right? Were you forcing yourself? Were you saying 'I must look at this, I must pay attention!'?

That's what will implies, that's what a conscious act of will is. It's deliberate. But that's not attention. Attention comes naturally when there's interest. You don't even say 'I am attending', you're simply there.


Again, you are describing mechanical attention attracted to what appears interesting. It isn’t your attention but rather that force of attention moves through you.

Conscious attention in contrast originates with you. It is your attention. Regardless of your acquired interests conscious attention requires the will to direct your attention even to that which is not interesting. Simone Weil wrote a famous essay on attention in schools studies. It is studied by education majors in schools welcoming these ideas. I’ll post it for those interested in such things.

http://www.hagiasophiaclassical.com/wp/ ... e-Weil.pdf

The origin is one thing, the man-made theology that springs from it is another.


Very true. The link you posted on questions is a good example. It has nothing to do with Christianity and only argues conceptions of Christendom.

That depends what you mean by perennial philosophy.


Vat posted from Aldous Huxley’s book. If you are unfamiliar with the Great Chain of Being and the relativity of being it is impossible to make sense of the perennial philosophy which refers to the essential truth all the major traditions initiating with a conscious source have devolved from.

Either love is love or it's not love. Love means no self. If there's self it's not love. It may be expressed in many different ways but don't let's become confused about expressions. Expressions vary but the source is more important. Either the source is love or it's not. And it's not for us to judge others. Don't be a love snob!


I value an awareness of a sense of scale and relativity which seems unimportant for you. Words like love, art, Christianity etc all differ in their objective quality in relation to the chain of being. Society seems to have lost its recognition of objective quality

Naturally. Questioning with attachment isn't questioning. One must be free to question. That means no attachment to anything.


Read her again

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." - Simone Weil


Detachment is psychologically painful so we suppress it. But the value of detachment comes from witnessing our emotional reactions which oppose it. Wer have the conscious potential to see them for what they are. We simply are unaware how much we are controlled by hatred and lying and what this dependency denies us.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 4:08 pm 

Vat and Charon

Secularism is not a dirty word. It refers to an acquired psychological perspective limiting ones feeling for reality to the domain of the senses. Universalism includes a quality of intellect which is open to the greater level of reality beyond the domain of the senses from which the senses devolved. The crime of secularism when it takes place is the process of destroying eros, what is between Man and its source, in the young because it doesn't understand them.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm 

Nick -

It isn’t your attention


Then whose is it?

Conscious attention in contrast originates with you.


Obviously.

conscious attention requires the will


I've said that.

You haven't understood a single word of this, have you? Come on, Nick, apply it for once. Yes, you can make yourself attentive but that is willed effort. Is that really attention?

You didn't answer my question. When you were watching the films, or anything else that holds you, did you have to make yourself pay attention? Why not?

Deliberate, cultivated attention is not attention, it's a partial focussing distorted by the very effort made to do it. That's not attention, it's silliness.

You're no longer a schoolchild being commanded by the teacher to 'pay attention'. So why in god's name should you ever try to force yourself to be attentive?

I don't know, maybe you do walk around trying to make yourself attentive. This is becoming absurd. Why can't you be simple and truthful about these things?

I value an awareness of a sense of scale and relativity which seems unimportant for you.


When you say scale it implies a comparative, measuring process. Can you measure love? Is love comparative?

It's the mind that measures and compares but love has nothing to do with the mind; the two are not connected to each other. The mind can think about love, or imagine love, but that's not love.

a quality of intellect which is open to the greater level of reality beyond the domain of the senses


The intellect can never touch what is beyond the senses. Intellect is thought and thought cannot travel beyond its own reaches.
Last edited by charon on April 30th, 2019, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 30th, 2019, 7:41 pm 

Nick_A » April 30th, 2019, 9:08 pm wrote:
Secularism... refers to an acquired psychological perspective limiting ones feeling for reality to the domain of the senses.


No, it doesn't, it means the rejection of religion especially with regard to affairs of state.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 11:00 pm 

Charon

N. It isn’t your attention


C. Then whose is it?


Attention is force determining reactions, Simone Weil describes it at the beginning of her essay on the Iliad

http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf

1. The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force. The force that men wield, the force that subdues men, in the face of which human flesh shrinks back. The human soul seems ever conditioned by its ties with force, swept away, blinded by the force it believes it can control, bowed under the constraint of the force it submits to. Those who have supposed that force, thanks to progress, now belongs to the past, have seen a record of that in Homer’s poem; those wise enough to discern the force at the center of all human history, today as in the past, find in the Iliad the most beautiful and flawless of mirrors.

2. Force is that which makes a thing of whoever submits to it. Exercised to the extreme, it makes the human being a thing quite literally, that is, a dead body. Someone was there and, the next moment, no one. The Iliad never tires of presenting us this tableau:


There is nothing conscious in the interactions of life in the jungle. It happens mechanically in accordance with interacting forces. Organic life in the world reacts horizontally in the world through mechanical attention. Conscious attention has the potential for the vertical connection between Man and its Source which is unnatural for natural organic life on earth. It is a human potential. The truly intelligent human being has the capacity to understand the mechanics of universal laws and put them into a conscious perspective. These people are few and far between.

You didn't answer my question. When you were watching the films, or anything else that holds you, did you have to make yourself pay attention? Why not?


Because I wanted to watch the movies. My attention was the result of a reaction to desire as opposed to conscious will.

Deliberate, cultivated attention is not attention, it's a partial focussing distorted by the very effort made to do it. That's not attention, it's silliness.


Mechanical attention is a reaction to desire while conscious attention is an action of will. I cannot seem to explain the difference.

A mob is an example of a collective mechanical reaction. The mob is fixated on the poor unfortunate it seeks to kill. Its attention is focused. A mob could never be the collective result of conscious action. Consciousness and its relationship to objective values would never allow it. However giving your attention to a person suffering would be a conscious action.

“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil


I don't know, maybe you do walk around trying to make yourself attentive. This is becoming absurd. Why can't you be simple and truthful about these things?


Walking around and reaction with mechanical attention to universal forces is a good life for a dog but not for a human being who is drawn to be a conscious human being as opposed to a reacting animal.

When you say scale it implies a comparative, measuring process. Can you measure love? Is love comparative?


Of course. Animal love or selective love is a reaction to complimentary types. Conscious love is the ability to give a quality of energy to another for their benefit and is the highest form of human love. Romantic love is a reaction to imagination so is unreal. Marriages based on romantic love often end in quick divorce since the initial attraction was the result of image, not essence.

The intellect can never touch what is beyond the senses. Intellect is thought and thought cannot travel beyond its own reaches.


That is our essential difference.

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil


Noesis is a higher form of intellect than duality based binary thought. So once the intelligent person reaches the end of binary thought they can open to the experience of noesis which makes possible the reconciliation of the contradiction beyond the limitations of binary thought
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 11:08 pm 

charon » April 30th, 2019, 7:41 pm wrote:
Nick_A » April 30th, 2019, 9:08 pm wrote:
Secularism... refers to an acquired psychological perspective limiting ones feeling for reality to the domain of the senses.


No, it doesn't, it means the rejection of religion especially with regard to affairs of state.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism



Merriam Webster

Definition of secularism

: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations


Religious considerations include anything sensed above Plato's divided line which limits the senses. Of course secularism must reject it. To accept the possibility nullifies the dominance of secularism.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on April 30th, 2019, 11:23 pm 

A question for you. Read the following account. Do you consider it rubbish or could there be truth in it not just in her change but in the quality of a communication which took place. It happened as Simone was already quite ill.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on April 30th, 2019, 11:50 pm 

Nick -

Attention is force determining reactions


Nick, I don't want to be rude but I have zero idea what you're on about. Paying attention is paying attention. You are or you're not. It's simple.

What you're talking about is complete claptrap to me and has nothing to do with any reality I know, it's just words. That's the way it is. I don't know why you can't just use ordinary language like most people do.

There is nothing conscious in the interactions of life in the jungle. It happens mechanically in accordance with interacting forces. Organic life in the world reacts horizontally in the world through mechanical attention. Conscious attention has the potential for the vertical connection between Man and its Source which is unnatural for natural organic life on earth. It is a human potential. The truly intelligent human being has the capacity to understand the mechanics of universal laws and put them into a conscious perspective. These people are few and far between.


That sounds like one of those New Age BS generators. Have you seen one? Good for a laugh.

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

My attention was the result of a reaction to desire as opposed to conscious will.


Personally I just think 'Oh, that looks interesting', turn it on, and enjoy it. If I'm not enjoying it I turn it off and watch something else. It's dead easy, everyone should try it.

You must think I'm one of those worldly, cynical, materialist types who scoff at things they don't understand because they're stupid. I'm beginning to sound like that.

But I have a problem. I don't believe for a single minute that anyone with any feeling for people or life would talk like this. In fact I'd say it was near impossible.

Do you actually talk like that too? Or do you just say 'Hi' like everyone else? I'd love to see a video of you going about your life. I think it would be most illuminating.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon


No, I don't think it's rubbish, but I think he's a bit carried away. I never laugh at or query accounts of peoples' experience because I don't know. If they say so, fine.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 1st, 2019, 12:03 am 

I'll tell you what's on my mind at the moment. I'm wondering what would happen if I went into town and started talking Swahili or Icelandic to everyone. Not much, probably.

Tell me why, when you know I don't understand your language, you keep using it? I'm asking myself 'If this guy wants to convey his deep meaningful thoughts about life to me, why doesn't he just say it plainly so I understand?'

That's my problem. You posted something by Einstein some time ago. Nice and clear, even when translated from German. Anybody could get it.

But here, no. It's in double Greek and only you know why.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on May 1st, 2019, 12:13 pm 

charon » May 1st, 2019, 12:03 am wrote:I'll tell you what's on my mind at the moment. I'm wondering what would happen if I went into town and started talking Swahili or Icelandic to everyone. Not much, probably.

Tell me why, when you know I don't understand your language, you keep using it? I'm asking myself 'If this guy wants to convey his deep meaningful thoughts about life to me, why doesn't he just say it plainly so I understand?'

That's my problem. You posted something by Einstein some time ago. Nice and clear, even when translated from German. Anybody could get it.

But here, no. It's in double Greek and only you know why.


It will help me to understand you better if you tell me how you define philosophy and what it means to you. For example, I define philosophy as the love of wisdom. its purpose is to help Man remember what has been forgotten as opposed to learning anything new. In this way it reflects the perennial traditions which strive to remember the essential truth all the great traditions have in common at their source.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 1st, 2019, 2:17 pm 

tell me how you define philosophy


Oh, no, now we're looping. I never do that. We've already discussed what philosophy means several times.

And you haven't addressed my point about language. Two whole posts on it and not a squeak. I take it you saw the post above the one you quoted? I did two.

It will help me to understand you better


It's not you who needs to understand me, Nick, I just use everyday English. It's evidently the other way round, isn't it?

In this way it reflects the perennial traditions which strive to remember the essential truth all the great traditions have in common at their source.


But which is more important, tradition or truth? Tradition is something repeated year after year, handed down, generation after generation. Is that truth? Does it help us discover what truth is? Truth is not in the past, it's what actually is and is not a static thing.

Will the worship of tradition bring about truth? That's what they do in most countries. They repeat the books, the prayers, the rituals, the symbols. A mind caught in tradition is a very dull mind indeed, just following a satisfying, comfortable pattern, year in, year out.

Is that the way? Or are we all asleep?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on May 1st, 2019, 8:05 pm 

charon » May 1st, 2019, 2:17 pm wrote:
tell me how you define philosophy


Oh, no, now we're looping. I never do that. We've already discussed what philosophy means several times.

And you haven't addressed my point about language. Two whole posts on it and not a squeak. I take it you saw the post above the one you quoted? I did two.

It will help me to understand you better


It's not you who needs to understand me, Nick, I just use everyday English. It's evidently the other way round, isn't it?

In this way it reflects the perennial traditions which strive to remember the essential truth all the great traditions have in common at their source.


But which is more important, tradition or truth? Tradition is something repeated year after year, handed down, generation after generation. Is that truth? Does it help us discover what truth is? Truth is not in the past, it's what actually is and is not a static thing.

Will the worship of tradition bring about truth? That's what they do in most countries. They repeat the books, the prayers, the rituals, the symbols. A mind caught in tradition is a very dull mind indeed, just following a satisfying, comfortable pattern, year in, year out.

Is that the way? Or are we all asleep?


It's not you who needs to understand me, Nick, I just use everyday English. It's evidently the other way round, isn't it?

Yes but your English is without a sense of scale and relativity which distinguishes between wholeness and fragmentation. That is what the Beauty thread is about. The OP uses quotes to describe two approaches to experience the source of beauty. Without a sens of scle and relativity philosophy must be limited to secularism.

I thought it helpful if as it relates to philosophy if you are more attracted to wholeness or fragmentation. Neutrality is impossible for the fallen human condition. I am more drawn to wholeness which is why I believe in the necessity for a perennial philosophy.

But which is more important, tradition or truth? Tradition is something repeated year after year, handed down, generation after generation. Is that truth? Does it help us discover what truth is? Truth is not in the past, it's what actually is and is not a static thing.


“Truth is sought not because it is truth but because it is good.” ~ Simone Weil


Tradition is like a river leading from the perennial core gradually losing its potency in society. Seekers of truth strive to return to the source of tradition rather than just go with the flow. However those needing to feel the “good” seek the source of truth.

The author of this video which puts Simone’s observation in the context of a great painting. The viewer gets the sense of what the truth can lead to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyXHmA3yYSo
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 1st, 2019, 9:04 pm 

Nick -

your English is without a sense of scale and relativity which distinguishes between wholeness and fragmentation.


But you wouldn't understand it if I did write with scale, would you? You don't understand the simplicity of attention, you think it's something you have to will. You don't understand the difference between conscious and non-conscious. And so on.

I am more drawn to wholeness which is why I believe in the necessity for a perennial philosophy.


Wholeness of what?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 2nd, 2019, 10:02 am 

All right, I'll do something on wholeness and fragmentation... I hope you appreciate the scale!

(deep breath)

Wholeness of what? Presumably, as this is a philosophy forum, we're not discussing whole wheat or whole milk. Although we could.

I take it we're discussing the wholeness of life. I won't say the wholeness of the universe because the scientists are floating the idea of multi-universes. So it seems they've taken the idea of Absolutely Everything and divided that also.

But I don't think anyone would argue with the idea of the wholeness of life. I don't know why, but that seems to pass the test. So let's stick to that.

What is life? And why, like universes, aren't there many 'lifes'? We've divided everything else but apparently this one's not so easy. I don't think anyone has floated the idea of more than one life. More than one individual life, yes, because the concept of many lives is very old, but not more than one Life. Let's capitalise it.

What is life? The scientists have a specific definition of that to do with the ability to grow, etc, which is distinct from something which is dead.

There are individual lives, the period between birth and death, which doesn't only apply to ourselves. Any living thing has a span of life.

Some say that life is another word for God but I don't think we should go down that route, at least not yet.

So, if you think of it, the phrase 'the wholeness of life' doesn't have a lot of meaning unless it refers specifically to one thing. I think we should simplify it and talk about our own life, our own existence, because that would probably include all the other definitions too.

We exist. Here we are, no doubt about it. We are physical and mental. We have body and brain. The body has its own existence but, far more important, we are conscious. We know we're here. We think, feel, suffer, and everything else that goes on in an individual life. And death we call the ending of that life, although many say that consciousness does not end with physical death.

So life, as we know it, is what happens every day. Let's deal with what is known, otherwise we get lost in indeterminate notions. What is our life? Is it whole? And is that a word one can apply to it?

I'd suggest that 'the wholeness of life' refers to everything that exists and its inter-connectedness. That is, nothing is literally unconnected from everything else, it's all one thing.

Within that oneness there are visibly separate things - the bird is separate from the tree, you and I are physically separate - but they exist within a oneness which I would call life. Things come and go but the whole which contains them is unaffected. And that also, I believe, is called the universe.

The universe, in the sense of everything which exists, is not fragmented, it is a whole. Maybe the word whole is not quite right. It implies a single, discrete thing, almost with a boundary round it. I don't think it's like that; it's just there. However...

If the universe became fragmented it would cease, die, blow apart, but it never does. But things within it can become fragmented. If we drop a plate on the floor it shatters. We can split the atom. Once a thing is fragmented, broken, it can never be made whole again. The plate can be glued together but it's never the same.

And we ourselves can become fragmented. Our thinking can separate and divide things. We're doing this constantly. Our world, this world, is hopelessly divided and fragmented because of the way we think. There are separate and divided nations, religions, cultures, classes, cultures, and all the rest of it. And this way of thinking has produced chaos. Wars are a distinct result of the fragmentation produced by ourselves.

So, whereas the universe is a whole, the human being is a dangerous animal. He is not whole. Not only has he fragmented his own world but he is also fragmented within himself. He thinks in compartments, he is contradictory. And where there is division and contradiction there is suffering. This is obvious.

So can the individual ever be made whole? He is whole when fragmentation ceases, when he is no longer broken up within himself. But is there such a thing? That's the question.

Why are we fragmented at all? What has produced it? Why do we think this way and continue with it? Is it natural, the way we are born? Are we supposed to be that way? Is it, in fact, perfectly normal, is it the way nature intends it?

It's a good question and open to much speculation. But the fact remains that we are and its results are deadly. So is the notion of wholeness simply unreal? Is it just a wishful thought, an ideal? Because we're very good at that kind of thing, thinking in terms of opposites and therefore producing yet another fragmentation, another contradiction.

This is a problem that we are trying to solve with our minds, the same mind that has produced the problem itself. The mind, being fragmented, now thinks in terms of the opposite of itself and wants to achieve it. But it has projected that idea itself and merely created another fragmentation in thought.

Is this because the mind, as it is now, is itself a fragment? Therefore whatever it does is fragmentary? A problem cannot be solved by the same tool that created it. If the mind itself is a fragment all it can do is fragment. So there is no wholeness as a concept.

But if fragmentation were to cease then what is left can be called wholeness. Is that possible? Can the mind which is fragmented, divided, cease to act fragmentarily?

So what is the mind? The mind, as we understand it, is the thinking principle. It is a movement based entirely on knowledge, which is memory. Memory and knowledge are themselves fragments because we don't know everything. What we know is limited. When we add more knowledge it's still limited. It's never finished, never complete, never whole. So any thinking springing from that incompleteness must also be incomplete, therefore fragmentary, therefore it will inevitably produce fragmentation in all its activities.

And we have used the mind for everything. Everything man has created is the result of limited knowledge. All his inventions are the result of that. All his literary and artistic endeavours are that. All his philosophies, his imaginary beliefs, his dreams, hopes and fancies are that.

So, when his whole life is founded on that principle, there must inevitably be fragmentation in it. He has created a fragmentary world, divided in itself, at war with itself. And obviously the individual likewise must be divided in himself and therefore at war with himself.

All our problems arise from this. All the psychological problems are the result of this. All the social problems are this. All the political and religious divisions are this.

So what's to be done? We can't change the world but we can address the problem to ourselves. Which means: can you and I ever be whole, non-fragmented? Is that at all possible?

We started with the wholeness of life. Life may be whole but we are not, so it means we are never in touch with life as a whole, we have no relation with all that surrounds us, with the universe itself. Only when the human being is one, whole, undivided, has he a relationship with everything around him.

Now, is that possible? How is a human being to be made whole? He has spun theories about this, he's invented many ways he thinks this could be achieved. He has fasted, tortured himself, meditated, to try to reach that state and apparently never succeeded.

Is that because all his efforts, springing from the mind which is itself a fragment, are fragmentary? Therefore they can never succeed.

So it needs something else, something which is not a theory, not a fragmentary action. I say there is such an action, which is love.

The mind is necessary, we need to be able to know and do things, but it has its place. The problem is we've used the mind to conduct our relationships with each other. That means our relationships are bound to fail, disintegrate. When relationship is based on fragmentary activity there can never be a whole relationship.

But love is not fragmentary. It's not a part of a part, it doesn't divide up life into good and evil, sin and salvation; it is whole in itself and therefore acts wholly. This is not a theory, it is so. It can be made into a theory but when you actually love it's not a theory.

So what is love? When love is of the mind it is not love. So it's not a question of getting rid of the mind but of putting it in its right place and keeping it there. Then it can be used when necessary and otherwise not interfere.

When it doesn't interfere then the heart is open, then it is free to love, to grow. Now it is stifled by theories, ideas, all the problems arising from the domination of thinking which has got out of place.

To see what is the right place and what is not the right place is intelligence. Intelligence is seeing, perception, not thinking. Thinking, thought, does not see, it's only a mechanical process of memory. Seeing is not that, it's something wholly different. So one can see where thought is necessary and where it is not, and it is not necessary in the area of relationship between man and man. When thinking is the means of our relationship then such relationship becomes imaginary, fictitious.

All this requires meditation. Meditation is not a trick invented by gurus or tradition, it's the insight into all this. It's the understanding of life, the life that we have so despoiled. We've neglected self-study. We've taken things for granted and drifted till all life has become a dreadful crisis. Only then, when we're at the cliff's edge, do we wake up and start seeking salvation. And there are a million ways, paths, ideas, formulas, to help us do it, and they've all failed because they're the result of fragmentary thought.

But love is not that. Love is simple, uncomplicated, free, whole. Only when one discards with great insight the whole fragmentary approach to life is there love. One doesn't have to seek it, it's there naturally when the other thing is banished.

Then the universe is God, or whatever one cares to call it. Without love that becomes a mere concept, useless and deceptive. But where there's love then there's the wholeness of life, then that very life itself is God.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on May 2nd, 2019, 3:37 pm 

We are living in times in which fragmentation and specialization is glorified and wholeness is ignored. It is dangerous to speak of these things in depth because it attracts people in white coats to take you away. However since there are a number of respected scientists like Einstein, Niels Bohr, Basarab Nicolescu and David Bohm for example who have studied the Vedas and admit its understanding of particle physics, the relationship between wholeness and fragmentation remains alive and well though hidden from polite company.

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” ~ Albert Einstein.


The result of increasing fragmentation vivifies and justifies separation since all concepts of value are now related to fragmentation.

I’ve found the relationship between wholeness and fragmentation easily explained by a color wheel.

The wheel begins with the vibratory frequency of white light The perception of colors or fractions of the whole are made possible when vibrations slow down. Each color perceived is a distinct vibration. As the wheel devolves into primary and secondary colors, they produce mixtures. These are all lawful fractions of the whole. The whole color wheel simultaneously exists. White light and colors exist together. It isn’t one or the other.

It is the same with our universe. At its core and the primary concern of the perennial philosophy is a frequency of vibrations beyond what can be measured. Each level of reality devolving from the core manifests as a basic material vibration. In this way the higher levels of reality exist within the lower. The universe consists of a hierarchy of conscious intention. The quality of matter at the higher levels of reality contains more consciousness and less dense matter. The quality of matter below Plato’s divided line is more dense which is why it is visible for us

The attention of the body and of animal emotions respond to existence below the line while the quality of attention necessary for conscious contemplation and prayer directed above the line is unnatural for animal life and requires a quality of attention animal reaction struggles against

As you see we agree that the universe is a whole. I see it as levels of reality which provides its meaning rather than just one entity. For me a miracle is defined as a normal phenomenon for a higher level of reality manifesting on the next lower.

Once a person senses the universe as a hierarchy, conscious evolution or the evolution into a higher level of being is just common sense.

We live by animal love so limited to the limitations of selective love. The finest intentions won’t change it. Since we are as we are, everything remains as it is. I know individuals can change what they are and become more human. I just don’t think society can change regardless of the finest platitudes. The attractions to fragmentation and what it promises are just too attractive.

Yes well meaning people do get together to discuss the danger of fragmentation. I just can’t see why it will change anything on a large scale. Change or conscious evolution of human “being”requires the help of grace which fragmentation and its slavery to how Simone described Force struggles against.

https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpre ... avid-bohm/
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 3rd, 2019, 2:57 am 

The only thing that meant anything to me in that post was the Einstein quote. Perfectly right, so simple and clear.

But we ought to talk about death. I did suggest it but there was no reply.

We know life, our life. We don't know it very well, and we're not very good at it, but that's what we have, that's what we know. And it is what it is, conflicting, problematical, arduous, violent, and all that.

It can all be explained, and various clever people have explained it, but explanations don't seem to change anything at all. We nod wisely and it makes no difference. Perhaps there are a few here and there who have understood but not many.

So our life is hard, challenging, problematical, and waiting there at the end of it is this thing called death. Most of us say we're not very frightened of dying itself, more of the process of decline leading up to it, the illness, deterioration, pain, and all that.

But of actual death, the moment of departure, we know nothing. I suggest that's because we've never died, but more of that later.

So there's the thing called death with all it implies, the loss of everything we know, that we're attached to, that we value and cherish, and the things we say we love. People, things, ideas, and perhaps also nature.

Why are we so afraid of losing them? Death is inevitable, it's a fact of life for all of us, so one day it's going to happen whether we like it or not. But we're afraid, not of death itself because we don't know it, unfortunately, but of losing what we have. And why?

I suppose some would say if we weren't anguished at giving up everything we have it means we don't care for them, that we have no love. Is that so? It seems death must be accompanied by tears and pain otherwise we're not quite human.

So why? Or rather why are we so identified with all we have that letting it go is so frightening? So we invent another life. There may be such a thing but we invent it anyway. From there we can stay in touch with what we've known here... and so on.

But why, again, are we so identified and attached? This is not Buddhism. They're very hot on attachment, but I'm just asking. Maybe we should all ask this. Why? Does this identification actually mean we love? Is attachment love?

We think it is, we say it is, but is it? With attachment obviously goes the fear of losing, pain, problems, inner turmoil, yet we say we love. We don't, we want to hold on desperately to all we're attached to but not have any loss. Which is all very childish and silly.

What would happen now, in this life, if we were not attached? Does that mean there's no love? You see the point I'm making ? We think if we're free we won't love. For us, love is attachment, the fights, squabbles, making up, all the rubbish that goes on, but it's never allied with freedom.

But love is freedom and freedom love, they can't be separated. Unless the mind and the heart are free, untrammelled, open as the skies, how can there be any love, any beauty in life? So what is freedom?

Now we regard freedom as the ability to do as we wish. That is certainly a kind of freedom, one doesn't want to be constantly harassed, told what to do, controlled, and so on. So there is that kind of freedom. But we're talking about freedom in relationship. You are free and the other person is free, whatever that relationship is.

What is that freedom? Freedom from what? Obviously from the problems that come with identification, physical and inward dependency, the constant fear of losing, insecurity, and so on. Probably that's all we know and that's regarded as normal, usual, which it is, unfortunately.

But I wonder if we've ever known what it is not to suffer all that and yet not be alone, isolated, without partnership or a friend? We can have all the friends we like and perhaps a closer, intimate relationship with someone and yet be free. Freedom is not the denial of relationship, quite the contrary. There's probably only any real relationship when there is that freedom, and all that means love.

But we're not free, we don't know what it means. There's too much fear, too many conflicts, too much confusion, too much unhappiness, for that. Which means we have to start with ourselves. Two people who are in the state of confused unhappiness trying to have a relationship are obviously going to have a problem, probably many of them, and that's a good reason our relationships don't last.

But when all that is cleared away, which is maturity, then things are quite different, then there can be a lasting ongoing partnership.

What has all this to with death? Would we fear losing if we had that maturity and freedom? When there's love is one concerned with death? It will come one day but that's all right, it's understood. So to die is not just the ending physically but to become very, very clear in oneself.

As long as we remain tied and bound to each other and to our possessions, including our beliefs, hope, faith, ideologies, ideals, and all that - or indeed our money - there will always be fear and the dread of losing. So when we talk about freedom we're talking about something very radical, a very serious change of mind and heart indeed.

But probably that's too much, too serious for most of us, we'd rather not bother. But if we can find that freedom then life is quite different, then love and life go together. Then death is not a problem because one is ending every day; it's not a thing in the future to be worried about. Where there's love there is death, and all that is freedom.

You may say 'What am I to do? How can I get there?'. But you don't have to do anything, you just have to see the point, see the truth of it, and let it take root in you. Then that seed will grow, you can't help it.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on May 3rd, 2019, 10:26 pm 

Charon

It is hard to answer your post with the depth it deserves. Let me begin with a basic idea and build from there. If I read you correctly you are describing the Crucifixion. Jesus invited the Crucifixion voluntarily and consciously in order to experience the basic struggle between the agony of the Crucifixion and the conscious will to transcend the normal cycles of life and death for the purpose of conscious evolution and the return to his origin. Jesus' conscious death invited the help of the Holy spirit which in turn helped Jesus' followers.

I agree that love of God is a part of it but this quality of love is beyond natural Man. But we do have the potential for conscious attention and just that practice can lead to freedom from the cycles of animal life and death which takes the seed of the soul with it.

Socrates died according to his principles. Simone Weil did the same. It seems unnatural for people who value preservation of the body as the ultimate good. They are closed to the reality that human being is more than just a physical body. Only a rare few can live by this reality. Most are compelled to live by attachments.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 4th, 2019, 8:09 am 

Nick -

If I read you correctly you are describing the Crucifixion.


I can assure you that's the very last thing I was talking about.

Simone Weil did the same.


As far as I know she committed suicide by self-starvation aggravated by TB.

The coroner's report said that "the deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil#Last_years
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby Nick_A on May 4th, 2019, 10:18 am 

charon » May 4th, 2019, 8:09 am wrote:Nick -

If I read you correctly you are describing the Crucifixion.


I can assure you that's the very last thing I was talking about.

Simone Weil did the same.


As far as I know she committed suicide by self-starvation aggravated by TB.

The coroner's report said that "the deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil#Last_years


Sites like Wiki cannot understand esoteric truths so it is naive to assume they can understand Simone. These kinds of people live and die by principles which normal people speak of and avoid at the same time. these kinds of people welcome experience rather than avoid it. Naturally Simone seemed absurd for the attending doctors.

Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed who feels what is happening. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand. Simone Weil


Simone needed to experience world hunger by being part of it rather than sit in a university and complain about it. Oppression is a part of the human condition. Dying to it by consciously experiencing it is a way of transcending it. This is idiotic for a secular doctor.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the

Postby charon on May 4th, 2019, 12:11 pm 

Nick -

Sites like Wiki cannot understand esoteric truths so it is naive to assume they can understand Simone. These kinds of people live and die by principles which normal people speak of and avoid at the same time. these kinds of people welcome experience rather than avoid it. Naturally Simone seemed absurd for the attending doctors.


Perhaps. However, it's wise to be sceptical. Intelligently sceptical, that is, not cynically sceptical. There's too much of that.

I know it's unwise to judge the spirit by material appearances but I don't believe in mysteries. I believe in real mysteries but not the mysteries we create for ourselves.

I think it's fairly obvious that those who consider SW to be some kind of mystic or saintly figure will attach spiritual or mystical motives to her death but that's to be expected. We don't really know whether she 'died for love' or was simply self-neglectful.

You know, mystics don't commit suicide. They may, like Socrates, be put to death, and even go willingly, but that's not suicide. Mystics, if by that we mean those privy first-hand to things not of this world, have no need of suicide for obvious reasons. Suicides are generally the result of despair or depression.

If SW was to be of any real use to the cause and people she believed in then she'd have done more good staying alive. It's all very well to come out in sympathy and live on rations as they did but not at the expense of her own life.

If that's what happened then it wasn't martyrdom, it was foolish. I find it interesting that the coroner, who was certainly aware of her reputation, brought in that verdict. He couldn't attribute it to uncertain spiritual causes even if thought there were some.

You'll notice that he said 'while the balance of her mind was disturbed'. That may have been his own interpretation. On the other hand there may have been evidence for it by independent witnesses. I'd prefer to see a transcript of the inquest.

I've looked very carefully at the photographs of SW. She may have fixed people with an unflinching translucent gaze. That may have been a manifestation of intense spirituality; on the other hand it may have been the stare of a fanatic.

Mystics, as far as I know, are shy and retiring and seldom seek the limelight. There was the video you posted of her carrying an injured or dead child. I saw that, as soon as she noticed the camera on her, she started bawling and crying right into it, presumably to make her feelings clear to the world.

I'm not a cynic but my own sense said that was a political move. I may be wrong, and I'm not going to judge, but there's something about this whole thing that I distrust.

I've no doubt that her intellect was far greater than her physical strength but, as I've said many a time, the intellect is a danger. It's only a part of our total being. When a part assumes an overriding dominance over the whole it becomes a neurosis. And that is not mysticism. Either that or many of the so-called saints and mystics were in fact odd and neurotic.

But this is all speculation and opinion and I don't care for either. They're not relevant to our own lives. In fact, discussing this sort of thing, which we can't really know anything about first-hand, becomes a nice distraction from ourselves. We can neatly avoid talking about the one thing that really matters, our own reality.

She wouldn't be the first person to side with the oppressed and get highly emotional about it. But, if you don't mind my saying it, that is her affair. It's funny how most of them end up dead, too. Martyrs to the cause every one!

That's not the point of our life at all. The point of our life is not to get political but to live with as much clarity and compassion as possible. Where we are will do, we don't need to go on the world stage for that.

So I don't think any of this is relevant, sorry. She may have been wonderful, a lot of people are, but it's beside the point.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests