|
28045. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 5:37:10 PM I understand tful, but here are some other things to ponder . . .
The big mind in which we must have confidence is not something which you can experience objectively. It is something which is always with you, always on your side. Your eyes are on your side, for you cannot see your eyes, and your eyes cannot see themselves. Eyes only see things outside, objective things. If you reflect on yourself, that self is not your true self any more. You cannot project yourself as some objective thing to think about. The mind which is always on your side is not just your mind, it is universal mind, always the same, not different from another's mind. -Shunryu Suzuki
Everything that's visible hides something else that isvisible.We see the world as something outside ourselves, when, actually, we have only the imprint of it in our heads. Thrust from the earth toward the sun, a tree is an image standing for a kind of joy. To comprehend that image we must be quite still, like that tree. When we move, it is the tree that becomes the spectator. In the forms of chairs, a table or a door the tree continues to keep watch over the agitated spectacle that is our life. Later, when the tree has become a coffin, it disappears into the ground again. And when it is consumed by flames, it vanishes into the air. -anonymous
Philosophy is the question: from which side shall we look at life, God, the idea, or other phenomena. Everything one looks at is false. I do not consider the relative result more important than the choice between cake and cherries after dinner. The system of quickly looking at the other side of a thing in order to impose your opinion indirectly is called dialectics, in other words, haggling over the spirit of fried potatoes while dancing method around it. If I cry out: Ideal, ideal, ideal, Knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, Boomboom, boomboom, boomboom, I have given a pretty faithful version of progress, law, morality and all other fine qualities that various highly intelligent men have discussed in so many books, only to conclude that after all everyone dances to his own personal boomboom, and that the writer is entitled to his boomboom: the satisfaction of pathological curiosity; a private bell for inexplicable needs; a bath; pecuniary difficulties; a stomach with repurcussions in life; the authority of the mystic wand formulated as the bouquet of a phantom orchestra make up of silent fiddle bows with philtres made of chicken manure. With the blue eye-glasses of an angel they have excavated the inner life for a dime's worth of unanimous gratitude. If all of them are right and if all pills are Pink Pills, let us try for once not to be right. An excerpt from "Dada Manifesto 1918" -Tristan Tzara
Rainer Maria Rilke:
Extensive as the "external" world is, with all its sidereal distances it hardly bears comparison with the dimensions, the depth dimensions, of our inner being, which does not even need the spaciousness of the universe to be, in itself, almost unlimited. It seems to me more and more as though our ordinary consciousness inhabits the apex of a pyramid whose base in us (and, as it were, beneath us) broadens out to such an extent that the further we are able to let ourselves down into it, the more completely do we appear to be included in the realities of earthly and, in the widest sense, worldy, existence, which are not dependent on time and space.
From my earliest youth I have felt the intuition that at some deeper cross-section of this pyramid of consciousness, mere being could become an event, the inviolable presence and simultaneity of everything that we, on the upper, "normal," apex of self-consciousness, are permitted to experience only as entropy.
The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in ther primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion. -Albert Einstein
Fernando Pessoa
A Shrug of the Shoulders
"We generally give to our ideas about the unknown the color of our notions about what we do know: If we call death a sleep it's because it has the appearance of sleep; if we call death a new life, it's because it seems different from life. We build our beliefs and hopes out of these small misunderstandings with reality and live off husks of bread we call cakes, the way poor children play at being happy.
But that's how all life is; at least that's how the particular way of life generally known as civilization is. Civilization consists in giving an innapropriate name to something and then dreaming what results from that.
And in fact the false name and the true dream do create a new reality. The object really does become other, because we have made it so.
We manufacture realities. We use the raw materials we always used but the form lent it by art effectively prevents it from remaining the same. A table made out of pinewood is a pinetree but it is also a table. We sit down at the table not at the pinetree. ..."
[An excerpt from "The Book of Disquiet," written in the 1920's, first published in 1982 by Atica in Lisbon.]
And finally, my favorite story . . .
"Excuse me," said an ocean fish.
"You are older than I, so can you tell me where
to find this thing they call the ocean?"
"The ocean," said the older fish, "is the thing you are in now."
"Oh, this? But this is water. What I'm seeking is the ocean" said the disappointed fish as he swam away to search elsewhere.
28046. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 6:51:25 PM sorry wiz...this stuff is a little to 'w' like for me...the idea of creating one's own reality. Nuh uh.
Though clearly there is much to be learned by the things the zen masters have achieved...but again I'm looking for evidentiary understanding of that which we do not yet understand.
To quote albert einstein back at you, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehendable." 28047. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 6:59:36 PM "w" like" ????
Every person, all the events of your life are there because you have drawn them there. What you choose to do with them is up to you.
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours. [Richard Bach]
Have a nice day. 28048. alistairconnor - 3/16/2006 7:17:16 PM Message # 28039 The problem that we're having with your position, Wiz, is that you seem to be positioning "atheism" as equivalent to the various faith-based belief systems (Christianity, Buddhism, scientology, what have you), as if it were an arbitrary system of beliefs.
Which it manifestly isn't. It is the negation of an arbitrary system of beliefs.
As for the argument that "atheists" are missing out on something, yes, I get that, but I find that one can experience those glorious moments of transcendence without a faith-based rationalisation for them. 28049. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:27:39 PM Rather, AC, my experience of religion has been just the opposite...that it stands in the way of and prevents those 'glorious moments of transcendence'. Religions I've had exposure to have been all very stifling. Thus I'm much happier without one. 28050. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:39:30 PM As a side note on religion, jon stewart had on a fellow last night...darned if i can remember his name or the name of his book, but it was about all the things that christ didn't say or something like that. He did a study of the early texts of the bible, most of which were scribed during the first 300 yrs a.d. which revealed the various stories and fables that were added over the years by various scribes along the way. He used, for example the story of the prostitute that was stoned...apparently that was not in the earliest texts of the new testament but was added later.
Author went into this being a fundamentalist who took the bible literally and has come out of this with a deeper understanding of the bible and its essence which is not to be taken so literally. 28051. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 7:50:49 PM The problem that we're having with your position, Wiz, is that you seem to be positioning "atheism" as equivalent to the various faith-based belief systems (Christianity, Buddhism, scientology, what have you), as if it were an arbitrary system of beliefs.
Which it manifestly isn't. It is the negation of an arbitrary system of beliefs.
As for the argument that "atheists" are missing out on something, yes, I get that, but I find that one can experience those glorious moments of transcendence without a faith-based rationalisation for them.
First, Alistair, what's with your use of this "we" in "we're having with your position. . . "? Are you a multiple personality or do you presume to speak for the others here?
Secondly, I don't recall holding a position–or mentioning atheism for that matter.
Moreover, I was asked to explain what I meant, so I tried. I understood tful to mean that she only trusted empirical facts which is, to some degree, what Zen teaching is all about.
My point was that any concept that is held in my mind, can prevent one from appreciating the actual experience.
Personally, I create illusions for a living and I have come to a point in my life where Maya (the Hindu idea) is proving itself to be a very good rule of thumb for appreciating and savoring the multiple patterns of energy we call life. That is to say that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
So, needless to say, I'm a bit puzzled by your somewhat presumptuous response. 28052. judithathome - 3/16/2006 9:04:42 PM And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.
THIS!! I can't understand why they do that, either...but too many have done so for me to think it's mere stupidity alone which makes them do it.
28053. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 9:16:18 PM No, it's not stupidity. It's holding a different world view. It's like the shocking things I've had gopers say to me which to them is a given, and the shock with which they've responded to things I've said which to me are a given.
Just like Jen not thinking god is manmade, yet I can't see it any other way. 28054. alistairConnor - 3/16/2006 9:33:17 PM Wiz, I suppose I picked up on Pelle's "we atheists". I am speaking for myself, of course.
To quote you :
Christianity is a concept whereby God is perceived as the Master Potter of the Universe. Science supplants that illusion with a just as phony a concept whereby the Universe becomes an autimatic cosmic pinball machine of cause and effect.
... so yes, you explicitly identified "science" (not atheism, my bad) as being on the same level as Christianity, with respect to phony concepts. Your bad. I strongly disagree with this.
Yes, conceptualising stuff can get in the way of experiencing it. As Thoughtful points out, this is probably more of a problem for those who are bound by religious strictures, than for those who are free of such baggage. 28055. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 10:24:55 PM ... so yes, you explicitly identified "science" (not atheism, my bad) as being on the same level as Christianity, with respect to phony concepts. Your bad. I strongly disagree with this.
There you go with your presumptions again. You're missing my point–or as those who stink of Zen like to say: "If I point to the moon, don't dwell on my finger."
I wasn't saying science is phony, I was implying that one bias replaced by another is just as false. The Enlightenment, became vogue because it allowed humanity to escape the tyranny of an angry, judgemental and (worst of all) a voyeuristic God who destroyed all innocence. Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes. Is it any wonder why Christians are filled with fear and dread and want the judgemental God back?
I'm not advocating any concepts, philosophies or religion. Moreover, I am not advocating atheism. I'm advocating that you dance your dance--once you discover what it should be and finally, to remember that one dances to dance and not to arrive at a specific place on the ballroom floor. The saddest thing to witness are people who imitate other dancers because their heads are filled with concepts and ideas that make them too self-conscious to just let go, drop their illusions, trust in their own equipment and surrender to the universe. Maybe that's just my definition of faith–but I'm not asking anyone else to subscribe to it.
Or as my wife (who just left public service after 27 years of dealing with corrupt politicians and their cronies) likes to say when asked what she will do now: "I don't want to do anything–I just want to be!."
28056. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 10:45:18 PM see wiz, my inflexible mind has trouble with these 2 statements:
- Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes
- I'm advocating that you dance your dance
In my view these are necessarily contradictory...living to the mantra that one dance their own dance necessarily translates into 'anything goes'.
28057. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 11:05:49 PM Christ! Now I remember why I just like to do drive-bys!
Don't get defensive . . . or literal!
Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes
Ironic exaggeration that allowed for my explanation of the insecurity/fear-based compulsion for rules and dogma.
I'm advocating that you dance your dance
Dancing was meant as a metaphor for intuitively trusting your own intelligence for tapping into one's own unique rhythm and joy to live a life without rules and fear.
And contradictions are okay, tful, trust me. Eastern thought accommodates contradictions quite handily. They call it "the mutual arising of opposites."
You can't have hot without cold, light without dark, love without hate. It's a conspiracy of the universe--this on and off thing (here I'm implying what death is, btw–death is the flip side of life and inextricably linked.
Basta–I'm otta here!
28058. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 11:30:39 PM sigh. 28059. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2006 12:00:03 AM And what, eggzackly, do you mean by that sigh? 28060. thoughtful - 3/17/2006 12:06:17 AM You must remember this,
A kiss is just a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh.... 28061. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2006 12:21:24 AM HAHAHA! Very good!
28062. anomie - 3/17/2006 12:47:51 AM What is the Buddha?
Three pounds of flax. 28063. Jenerator - 3/17/2006 4:42:48 AM Thoughtful,
Jen, (I'm always amazed at what seems obvious to you is a mystery to me and vice versa.)
Ha ha ha. I know what you mean - we are very different when it comes to this area.
it takes a conscious sentient being to ponder its own mortality, its own awareness of itself and to question the reason for its own existence. dogs, cats, fish cannot and do not ponder such things. they cannot communicate such things with each other. for them there is only now..
I agree and have stated such things many times before. Their inability for higher thinking and spirituality are two areas which set us apart from them.
perhaps, as wiz is talking about, they are in the perfect zen state, being only what they are. they do not think of god, they do not worship god. they do not communicate with each other about god. such a concept is beyond them.
Well, I think that is an insult to Zen. Inability to ponder shows no form of understanding. The mentally retarded, the comatose, the braindead are all Zen in that case.
Man has created the concept of god(s) to help understand and cope with their present and the future, to help understand the why of existence and to give purpose and hope to man's activities, just and injust.
I disagree.
The god(s) man created have changed over the millennia to suit their culture and lifestyle.
I agree.
For example, many agriculturally based ancient civilizations worshiped female goddesses...mother earth, goddesses of fertility as they relied on earth to generate the food for survival. Many hunter/nomadic tribes worshiped male gods for their strength and agility not only for their ability to hunt, but also because in their roaming they were more likely to run into other tribes leading to conflict.
Yes, I know. The same is true of Greek mythology, etc.
What god is and what our concept of god is comes to us from our exposure to words and works of other people.
Not entirely true. You need the clarifier ' and from God Himself'.
Perhaps to translate it into your terms, who wrote the bible? Men wrote the bible. Sure you can argue that their words were inspired by god if you wish, but it's still men's words written down and still men's words interpreting what was written. As such, god is manmade.
On the pedantic level I can agree with you in that a human hand wrote down the words, but you are neglecting thevery nature of the author. If your mother spoke to you and said 'write down what I am saying,' and you did meticulously, you could not say that the book was exclusively your creation.
Take for example, the roman gods. I presume you believe they were false gods and that they do not exist and that there is only one true god.
You presume correctly.;-)
Well, then where did these incorrect concepts come from?
Who knows - man attempting to define the world in his own terms without God? Satan? Who knows.
Were they not manmade?
Yes and no - here's where it gets tricky. I believe that without the head and heart knowledge of God, men are deceived and suceptible to evil.
And in the same way, isn't our understanding of the concept of a monotheistic god also manmade?
Not necessarily. Your assumption is that God does not exist, therefore anything written or recorded about him is a priori false because it is not grounded in a reality. I disagree with your assumption.
What do you mean what about some evidence? Please don't start with the ways in which you feel god or have interpreted certain actions and results as part of god's plan and so on. That is all your personal experience based on personal interpretation.
Well, you're right to basically state that I cannot prove the existence of God to you if you deny the miraculous.
And as I said about faith, if you question it, it necessarily means it is no longer faith.
No it doesn't. Man by his nature questions things. I ask God for more faith all of the time. I question what I believe. I don't understand everything.
Getting from faith to fact necessarily means that faith is the first thing out the window as it requires questioning and testing that point. If I test it and it proves false than continuing to accept it 'on faith' is not faith but stupidity. If I test it and prove it right, then it is no longer faith but fact.
Well the fact of the matter is that Jesus lived and walked the earth and we have a record of his life and of his miracles. We have 2,000 years of faith, scholarship and archeology that testify to his nature and his claims. Where you and I part ways is in the very assumption that what is recorded is true (or not true.)
You believe Homer existed, Nero existed, and Aristotle existed and you believe what is attributed to them but you deny the veracity of the claims of the NT -a d that boils down to your prejudice against the miraculous and/or the supernatural. If you start your position claiming that no such thing as God exists, I cannot prove God to you because his nature includes the miraculous.
Blazes once said that if Jesus Christ said to her personally to worship Him, she wouldn't.
I honestly don't believe that anything would constitute proof to people who deny the possibility of the miraculous - even the miraculous! For just as the Pharisees plotted against Jesus after observing him performing miracles with their own eyes and in person, I believe you would deny any proof.
That is why so many religions wrap themselves in mystery and faith and teaching their followers to accept without question.
Christianity does not encourage faith without thinking and that really is an insult to presume that it does. We reason through the scriptures, we study them and part of that is naking sense of what they claim.
Many of their points will not stand up to questioning.
Especially if the starting positions are irreconciliable.
28064. Jenerator - 3/17/2006 4:46:11 AM Sorry for typos.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
