The Philosopher's Tao

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[thelerner]

Nikolai1 - that is the most condescending piece of crap I have ever read on this forum; Maybe your time would be better spent working on finding your own 'final truth'.

I'm having quite the opposite thought on Nikolai's writing. Seems deep and thoughtful to me.

[Stosh]

I'm having quite the opposite thought on Nikolai's writing. Seems deep and thoughtful to me.

You have GOT to be kidding!

[thelerner]

You have GOT to be kidding!

Really. His writing is smoothing out some knots I've had trying to understand a few spiritual concepts.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Stosh]

Really. His writing is smoothing out some knots I've had trying to understand a few spiritual concepts.

Well Ok Tl ,,but if you look instead for self contradictions they are abundant.

There is a chance though that you are making more of the pieces presented than the whole.

And thats a plus.

 

So be it.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stosh

[Nikolai1]

but if you look instead for self contradictions they are abundant.

 

Contradiction is an important concept in spiritual philosophy so maybe we can talk about that a bit.

 

The two men at the coffee cup rejected each others view because it could not be reconciled with their own - in other words they were keen to avoid contradiction.

 

The rest of us in our spiritual wisdom are able to see that the handle of cup is 'on the left hand side therefore not on the left-hand side' We are comfortable with this statement even if the words, taken literally, present a paradox.

 

The 'handle is on the left hand side and not the right-hand side' is logically more coherent, and we can accept it up to a point - but most of us would prefer the first paradox because it seem to contain a more universal truth.

 

We all therefore live with and accept paradox, indeed we recognise that recognition of paradox can be a pre-requisite of a certain type of wisdom.

 

Most intelligent people can accept paradox even in important existential fields like morality. What's good for the hunter is bad for the hunted. But when it comes to the fundamental structures of thought, like time and space, paradoxical statements becomes much harder to understand and much more threatening to our sense of intellectual security.

 

Paradox in spiritual writings.

 

"He reached out his left hand and picked up the cup and then he put it down and he picked it up with his right hand before he picked it up again with his left hand"

 

There is only one personal pronoun 'he' in this sentence, but because of what we know from this thread and this scenario we are able to let the same word 'he' signify two different people and be switching erratically between them. Our spiritual wisdom allows us to follow the action smoothly and the varying meaning of the same word 'he' is followed intuitively.

 

In spiritual teachings, whether books or interactions, the personal pronoun is so often 'You'. "You should try this and not that". But just as 'he' meant two different things, 'You' means two different things; the egoic you that corresponds to the form perspective, and the non-egoic You that corresponds with the emptiness perspective.

 

Now unless you understand from personal experience how you and the world both exists and doesn't exist, you are going to seriously struggle understanding a lot of spiritual advice. It is going to sound utterly comprehensible, and even if you understand the words you will find it painfully contradictory. Much harm and spiritual confusion results when people try to implement advice egoically in the world when the advice was presented to our spiritual identity.

 

If you do already understand both perspectives on 'you' you will be able to follow spiritual teachings smoothly and intuitively.

 

So if you find yourself reading ancient and revered texts and find yourself despairing of all the paradox, it is a good indication that you are lacking an important understanding. Its amazing how one year you can find something completely impenetrable, and then a year later it is so crystal clear it is like a close friend wrote it just for you. The text hasn't changed, the writer hasn't become more logical...but you have learnt to understand and accept the paradox.

 

best wishes

Edited August 8, 2013 by Nikolai1

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Stosh, consider a pilot's HUD. It's useful for the pilot to see numbers and lines superimposed on the landscape while he's flying, but he doesn't see them when out of the plane on the ground - if he does, he should see a doctor! Which view is 'right' and which 'wrong' out of the one with the HUD and the one without?

 

You exist because, well, of course you do. But also, you are relative as experienced by different people (including yourself) and 'exist' only due to a set of causes, with no innate characteristics or existence independent of other things. Thus, you exist and don't exist.

 

Any conception of reality is, like the pilot's HUD, relative truth; while absolute truth is non-conceptual.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Seeker of Tao

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Stosh]

Contradiction is an important concept in spiritual philosophy so maybe we can talk about that a bit.

This is a point on which we differ , leaving many contradictions IMO isnt assisting anyone to new better clearer understanding, it is perpetuating confusion ,, there is a point where folks do give up resolving them though.

 

 

The two men at the coffee cup rejected each others view because it could not be reconciled with their own - in other words they were keen to avoid contradiction.

Keen to avoid confrontation rather ,, the contradiction still remains , and they must overlook yet again a subject that they might have been able to concur on.

 

 

The rest of us in our spiritual wisdom are able to see that the handle of cup is 'on the left hand side therefore not on the left-hand side' We are comfortable with this statement even if the words, taken literally, present a paradox.

 

The 'handle is on the left hand side and not the right-hand side' is logically more coherent, and we can accept it up to a point - but most of us would prefer the first paradox because it seem to contain a more universal truth.

Yes the unnecessary paradox does make people think that it is a deep wise thing (when what it actually is nonsensical)

 

We all therefore live with and accept paradox, indeed we recognise that recognition of paradox can be a pre-requisite of a certain type of wisdom.

You need to pick the paradox before I can agree there is wisdom in accepting it.

 

 

Most intelligent people can accept paradox even in important existential fields like morality. What's good for the hunter is bad for the hunted. But when it comes to the fundamental structures of thought, like time and space, paradoxical statements becomes much harder to understand and much more threatening to our sense of intellectual security.

 

Paradox in spiritual writings.

 

"He reached out his left hand and picked up the cup and then he put it down and he picked it up with his right hand before he picked it up again with his left hand"

Please pick a better paradox ,confused words alone , does not a paradox make.

 

 

There is only one personal pronoun 'he' in this sentence, but because of what we know from this thread and this scenario we are able to let the same word 'he' signify two different people and be switching erratically between them. Our spiritual wisdom allows us to follow the action smoothly and the varying meaning of the same word 'he' is followed intuitively.

 

In spiritual teachings, whether books or interactions, the personal pronoun is so often 'You'. "You should try this and not that". But just as 'he' meant two different things, 'You' means two different things; the egoic you that corresponds to the form perspective, and the non-egoic You that corresponds with the emptiness perspective.

 

Now unless you understand from personal experience how you and the world both exists and doesn't exist, you are going to seriously struggle understanding a lot of spiritual advice. It is going to sound utterly comprehensible, and even if you understand the words you will find it painfully contradictory. Much harm and spiritual confusion results when people try to implement advice egoically in the world when the advice was presented to our spiritual identity.

 

If you do already understand both perspectives on 'you' you will be able to follow spiritual teachings smoothly and intuitively.

Maybe ,,, folks dont like to be pushed around , accused , found wanting , held up for examination like a guinea pig etc , and so the use of some other target ,, be it a He , She , One , or 'the Sage' makes the instruction less onerous.

 

So if you find yourself reading ancient and revered texts and find yourself despairing of all the paradox, it is a good indication that you are lacking an important understanding. Its amazing how one year you can find something completely impenetrable, and then a year later it is so crystal clear it is like a close friend wrote it just for you. The text hasn't changed, the writer hasn't become more logical...but you have learnt to understand and accept the paradox.

I dont despair at the paradox or nonsense, I try to reconcile it ,, if I can do that , I begin to have faith in it. If I cannot find a way to reconcile it I look to see why it should be an unavoidable and unresolvable paradox .

 

Irony is a sentiment - situation ,,where one understands intuitively both the rightness or appropriateness ,of the thingie ,, and the inappropriate wrongness of the thingie at the same time.

Some things are Ironic and unavoidably so. But usually the irony is due to preconceptions about what is right or wrong , expected or unexpected ,, leaving the resolution attainable.

 

 

best wishes

Same back at you , You have some fans , dont let em down, theyre nice people.

[Marblehead]

When you say "I prefer the concept of fullness" you are saying something that, philosophically speaking, is quite crude. But as I said, this does not mean that you aren't redressing the error in other areas of your practice.

 

best wishes

Thanks for the wishes. Back at cha'.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on the other stuff. Marbles are hard. Marbleheads are equally hard. I'm on a good horse. I'll continue to ride her and take good care of her.

[Marblehead]

Crude? What is crude?

Yes, I am crude. What do you expect after twenty years in the Army? A Mother Teresa?

[Marblehead]

Nikolai1 - that is the most condescending piece of crap I have ever read on this forum; the only thing missing is the pat on little MH's head. Maybe your time would be better spent working on finding your own 'final truth'.

Hehehe. I'm okay with it. It has happened manytimes here on this board when someone wants to convert me to Buddhism. Southern Baptists down here where I live do the same thing.

 

I am at peace with my Self and that is all that matters.

 

All others are welcome to live their illusions and delusions if they wish to do so.

[Marblehead]

I'm having quite the opposite thought on Nikolai's writing. Seems deep and thoughtful to me.

Yes, if you consider it looks like a Buddhist is trying to convert a Materailistic Taoist to Buddhism.

 

I don't need a teacher, I have done very well on my own. I can always use more friends though.

[Marblehead]

Thus, you exist and don't exist.

 

 

I must speak.

 

Yes, Stosh exists. And so do I and so do you. We all are in the Manifest aspect of Tao. Did we ever not exist? Of course! Before we were born we did not exist. Will we ever not exist again? Of course! When we die. We are not permanent. But that does not mean we don't exist. It only means that we will exist for only a short period of time.

 

Are we self-sustaining? Of course not! We are dependant on countless things. We could not live without air, water and food. But luckily for us these things exist as well. Tao is full. It can never be used up. But yes, it takes different forms over time.

[Stosh]

Yes, I am crude. What do you expect after twenty years in the Army? A Mother Teresa?

Didnt you tell me once way back that the military could be a good vehicle for teaching wu wei?

If anybody around here is going to be crude its me! ( Ok , yes ,and a few others )

[Marblehead]

Didnt you tell me once way back that the military could be a good vehicle for teaching wu wei?

I don't think I ever said it that way although it is likely that I may have said that I had encountered some in the Army who thought they could just sit on their ass and let others do all the work.

[Stosh]

I dont exist??

If I dont exist ,who is it that is not existing ?

and who said I dont exist.

I exist alright ,

the thing that should be made clear is that,, there is the really misleading

phrasing that a person is not existing , and the idea that ones persona

is a subjective situation subject to alteration, and somewhat independent of

physical variables.

[Stosh]

I don't think I ever said it that way although it is likely that I may have said that I had encountered some in the Army who thought they could just sit on their ass and let others do all the work.

Oh no no no ! dont you make me go back and search it Up,

it isnt nice to dredge up old posts

[Marblehead]

Oh no no no ! dont you make me go back and search it Up,

it isnt nice to dredge up old posts

It wouldn't matter. I would likely deny it or claim that I was drunk when I made the post.

[Stosh]

It wouldn't matter. I would likely deny it or claim that I was drunk when I made the post.

You ol' snow leopard you..

[Nikolai1]

Hi marblehead

Yes, if you consider it looks like a Buddhist is trying to convert a Materailistic Taoist to Buddhism.

 

Oh no, please don't think that! I said at the beginning of the thread that for most people the philosophical Tao is quite unimportant and unnecessary, you can manage perfectly well with other ways. Plenty of spiritual people have achieved full realisation while holding thoroughly materialistic views. I don't know if you have read Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi, but his whole system and that of his teachers is thoroughly materialistic, but their Kriya Yoga compensates for their philosophical dubiety with a physical yoga based on breathing techniques for example.

 

This approach will only chime with some people, but I'm perfectly fine with that. If, for whatever reason, you are interested in why the philosopher goes beyond materialism I'd be happy to discuss that further. I would however, be drawing heavily on Buddhist teachings on this question, but that doesn't make me a Buddhist, still less some kind of evangelist!

 

With my best wishes!

[三江源]

.

Edited April 20, 2015 by 三江源

[Nikolai1]

Hi Cat,

 

 

Nikolai can you explain to me how Yogananada and the Kriya yoga tradition is thoroughly materialistic? How does Sri Yukteswar going off planet and communicating this position after his earthly demise translate as thoroughly materialistic?

 

The system is materialistic because everything is talked about in terms of existence, and doesn't also recognise the interpretation of non-existence, as would a philosophical system.

 

Subtle energies materially exist, it's just that we are not able to see them; angels, goblins and beings from the demi-world are likewise described in the book as really existing...but in parallel worlds that we haven't yet learnt to travel to. People may die, as did Yogananda's guru, but still continue to exist in realms that we cannot normally see.

 

You'll notice that supernatural claims, and the book has many of them, are not necessarily non-materialistic.

 

While all these supernatural experiences are common to anyone who develops spiritually...the philosopher would still remain agnostic as to to their existence or non-existence. It is only this that would satisfy his naturally sceptical spirit - even supernatural experiences with his own 'senses' must be doubted. It is only with the transcendent recognition that all things can be explained either in terms of existence or non-existence that he will find intellectual peace.

 

 

And on another note I am currently wondering how the philosopher that laughs at misfortune yet cultivates that which he favours, is not merely sliding into superfical rationalisation and denial which leaves his emotional body sorely under nourished.

 

Anybody who is able to see that no calamity can befall them is already fully emotionally healed.

 

To be under the one-sided illusion of individuality and mortally in time and space IS itself emotional undernourishment.

 

And furthermore, anyone who knows that they are beyond misfortune themselves is free to assist anyone who is not lucky enough to share the same vision. Insight into the emptiness of our own ego and compassion for others are simultaneous processes. Where help is needed, help is forthcoming. For most, self-interest prevents the offering of help...

 

But when you 100% know that you are beyond misfortune, it becomes the rational and instinctive course to help those who are vulnerable to misfortune. There is no other direction for the wise person to go. Water must flow somewhere. Self-help is no longer rational if you don't need the help. Calamity is followed by the remediation of calamity, just as night follows day. If the calamity is not yours then you find yourself remediating another persons.

 

These are general remarks. If one can preserve one's physical self at no cost to others then why wouldn't the wise person do so? But in a 'last lifejacket on a sinking ship' scenario the wise person may see no real need to take it for themselves.

 

Best wishes

[Marblehead]

Hi marblehead

 

Oh no, please don't think that!

Yeah, well, that's what it felt like.

 

But no, I wouldn't be interested. I am a happy Atheist and Materialist. I am exactly where I am supposed to be so I don't even have anywhere to go to find anything I don't need or want.

 

And I will rarely say that Philosophical Taoism is the only way (Yes, I have said it before just to piss a person off with whom I was having a heated disagreement) but it is MY way.

 

So if you ever wish to learn how to live a good life without all the BS let me know and we can have a short discussion. It wouldn't take long to explain. Maybe thirty minutes, maybe less, depending on your comprehension level.