Guest guest Posted March 19, 2002 Report Share Posted March 19, 2002 MikeSuesserott wrote: > > Dan, > > this was not about winning at all, nor was it a debate. More like a > desperate cry from one who is getting tired of being fed the same cliche > phrases again and again. > > Like you say "good morning", and sure as hell someone is going to send a > message to the effect that there is no morning, or how can there be a > morning if no observer exists, or some such pearl of wisdom. But Michael, you weren't saying good morning, you were talking about making a rational choice to believe in God, on the grounds that such a belief brings benefits to the believer; that a rational being should believe in God for selfish reasons. In such a context, pointing out the unreality of the chooser/believer and consequent nonsensicality of the question seems legitimate even if it's repetitious. If someone asks where the bathroom is, are you going to tell them, even if it's been said many times before, or are you going to make up something just to be original? andrew > Remember Eliza, one of the early computer programs that simulated the > behavior of a psychologist? You would input some personal problem, and the > computer would repeat part of it back to you and then say, "tell me more > about it." Just a very few stored-up phrases and simple pre-programmed > behaviors were sufficient to make people believe that they were > communicating with a live psychologist. > > Can you guess how there might be an analogy here? :-) > > Take care, > > Michael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2002 Report Share Posted March 20, 2002 Dear Dan, thanks for your note. There are two points I would like to add. For one thing, don't you agree that anyone can effortlessly kill any line of reasoning by saying that this or that has no real existence, because in some way it will always be true? To me, this is poor man's one-size-fit-all argument, available for free everywhere - prior thinking permitted but not required. :-) But here is another, more important aspect. IMHO, the main thing is that before attempting to speak like Sri Ramana we should become like Sri Ramana first. This does indeed tie in with your question as to when do words really come alive, which is a very valid and central question. It seems to me that one yardstick would be the degree of realization of those words by the person uttering them, which in turn determines the authenticity with which they are being spoken. On the other side of the coin, the use of words that might be intellectually understood but not yet realized may give us a false sense of wisdom. We think we know all about what's real and what's not, and in our own minds we may feel that we have this spirituality thing licked; however, all this talk about illusion may just lead to delusion. I remember reading about an incident in the life of Swami Vivekananda during his stay in the US. He had given an inspiring talk about the Infinite being the only reality when he was approached by a Western disciple with the question, "Swamiji, according to what you said, doesn't it follow that ultimately I am the Infinite?" However, it seemed that Swami Vivekananda didn't like this question, because for some time thereafter he used to poke gentle fun at this devotee, like greeting him with, "Sooo, here comes the Infinite!", or, "Did the Infinite have a nice day today?" Paramahansa Yogananda, too, used to say that only when we can take in deadly poison without being affected by it have we earned the right to say that this world is an illusion, not before. Otherwise, this train of thought may just lead to false satisfaction, to the mistaken belief of having realized a truth while in actual fact one has only succeeded in fitting an intellectual concept into a mental framework he happens to feel satisfied with. Warmly, Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: dan330033 [dan330033] > Gesendet: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 01:17 > An: > Betreff: Re: Sigh... (was:Blaise Pascal's Bet on God) > > > Dear Michael -- > > Yes, I see your point. > > And what it means to me is that > regardless of what Andrew may > or may not have been saying, > his words came across to you as stale > and repetitious of things you > heard before. You didn't sense > life in what was said, just > predictable copying of other > things that had been said before. > > Now, I don't know whether or not this is > what was really the case. For > me, the interesting question that > arises here is: what is really not > stale, what is truly alive, what > doesn't repeat the past? > > It seems to me we reach a limit with words > and thought, because any idea, no matter > how innovative, repeats patterns of the past. > > To be truly free of repetition, staleness, > and triteness requires a leap beyond the > contents of thought, a leap which thought is unable > to take. > > So, thought dissolves and peace/freedom/energy is. > > Thought's dissolution doesn't mean thought has > no application, and shouldn't arise. > > It means that thought isn't being taken as something > it is not. > > If anything said here by anyone can be a springboard > into and as what is beyond thought, then there is > the new, the eternal, the unimaginable. > > Thanks for your clear explanation, Michael, > and blessed be -- > > Love, > Dan > > > > > > Dan, > > > > this was not about winning at all, nor was it a debate. More like a > > desperate cry from one who is getting tired of being fed the same cliche > > phrases again and again. > > > > Like you say "good morning", and sure as hell someone is going to send a > > message to the effect that there is no morning, or how can there be a > > morning if no observer exists, or some such pearl of wisdom. > > > > Remember Eliza, one of the early computer programs that simulated the > > behavior of a psychologist? You would input some personal problem, > and the > > computer would repeat part of it back to you and then say, "tell me more > > about it." Just a very few stored-up phrases and simple pre-programmed > > behaviors were sufficient to make people believe that they were > > communicating with a live psychologist. > > > > Can you guess how there might be an analogy here? :-) > > > > Take care, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: dan330033 [dan330033] > > > Gesendet: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 01:47 > > > An: > > > Betreff: Re: Sigh... (was:Blaise Pascal's Bet on God) > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > Who won this debate? > > > > > > You or Andrew? > > > > > > Namaste, > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > what's "what"? > > > > And what's a "person"? > > > > What's "reality"? > > > > And what's "assuming"? > > > > > > > > No offense, I hope ("offense" is a mere label, anyway), > > > > but any sixth-grader can play this kind of game > > > > (a "game", in case you didn't know, is but a dream within a dream). > > > > > > > > Pray tell me (but don't forget "you" have no "real" existence) > > > > the purpose (though there is no "purpose" in pure beingness) > > > > of such input. > > > > > > > > Anyone of us who graces this list will be able to talk about the > > > fact that > > > > the world is illusive/delusive/non-existent/mayic etc. We can, all > > > of us, > > > > mouth more or less glibly the pertinent truisms. > > > > > > > > I am sure you meant well, but the next time anyone > > > > plays this game again you will see a grown man cry. > > > > > > > > Take care > > > > (but remember there "is" no one to "take care", > > > > nor to "be taken care of"), > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > > > > Von: andrew macnab [a.macnab@n...] > > > > > Gesendet: Monday, March 18, 2002 00:12 > > > > > An: > > > > > Betreff: Re: Re: Blaise Pascal's Bet on God > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's "a (rational) person"? > > > > > And what is "we"? > > > > > If the reality of such things is assumed > > > > > then the reality of another thing called God > > > > > is something that can be debated. > > > > > If it isn't assumed, the question doesn't occur. > > > > > > > > > > andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, > > > sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and > > > exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves > > > rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from > > > Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come > > > and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart > > > Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A > > > true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, > > > spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, > sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and > exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves > rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from > Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come > and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart > Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A > true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, > spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to > a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Share Posted March 21, 2002 > But Michael, you weren't saying good morning, you were talking about making a rational > choice to believe in God, on the grounds that such a belief brings benefits to the > believer; that a rational being should believe in God for selfish reasons. In such a > context, pointing out the unreality of the chooser/believer and consequent > nonsensicality of the question seems legitimate even if it's repetitious. If someone > asks where the bathroom is, are you going to tell them, even if it's been said many > times before, or are you going to make up something just to be original? > > andrew Why look for the bathroom, when the hat you are seeking is already in your hand? Striving for originality, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Share Posted March 21, 2002 Hi Michael, > Dear Dan, > > thanks for your note. There are two points I would like to add. > > For one thing, don't you agree that anyone can effortlessly kill any line of > reasoning by saying that this or that has no real existence, because in some > way it will always be true? Yes, I do. I also think it is a reality that any any moment, one may suddenly and unexpectedly die. The assumption of ongoing continuity is limited. There is a certain satisfaction in pursuing a line of reasoning to various conclusions, which lead to new hypotheses and speculations, and other lines of reasoning. However, there is also a recognition that no line of reasoning is truly complete, and that any line of ongoing reasoning is subject to sudden and inexplicable dissolution. Reasoning is a process, and depends on the intent to continue and maintain a line of reasoning to its conclusion, which will lead to other lines of reasoning. So, in conclusion, no logical conclusion is sufficient to know allness, yet may be pursued for the enjoyment of the logical discussion. To me, this is poor man's one-size-fit-all > argument, available for free everywhere - prior thinking permitted but not > required. :-) Maybe so. It really all depends on the discussants. Manipulation of abstract variables, knowledge, logical abilities -- these vary according to individual capacities. Death comes to rich and poor, smart and stupid alike. Resolution of the problem of birth and death can't come from logical arguments, although these may assist one to reach the place where the problem can be dropped. Dropping birth and death is the solution to the problem of birth and death. This is like saying that dropping beliefs and assumptions is the solution to all logical problems. Of course, that's not satisfying to the logician, who intuitively knows that there can be ever better and more complex logical problems to solve, on and on, and discussions with finer and finer minds, on and on. > > But here is another, more important aspect. IMHO, the main thing is that > before attempting to speak like Sri Ramana we should become like Sri Ramana > first. Why not just speak, and not worry about who one is speaking like? In other words, what is to be gained by making such comparisons? > > This does indeed tie in with your question as to when do words really come > alive, which is a very valid and central question. It seems to me that one > yardstick would be the degree of realization of those words by the person > uttering them, which in turn determines the authenticity with which they are > being spoken. Well, the other aspect of it is whether there is realization on the listening side. I would go so far to say that you can never know for sure what someone meant when he or she uttered some words. And, he or she may have changed in the intervening time. All you can know for sure is the sense you make of these words now, as they are read. And of course, that includes whatever concept you make of the state of mind of the speaker. > > On the other side of the coin, the use of words that might be intellectually > understood but not yet realized may give us a false sense of wisdom. True. Or, they could represent wisdom that we inuit as a potential, but which we haven't yet "owned." We > think we know all about what's real and what's not, and in our own minds we > may feel that we have this spirituality thing licked; however, all this talk > about illusion may just lead to delusion. It may. And talk is only a kind of stepping-stone. It's not an end in itself. Knowing the right words is a limitation, if these are taken as something one knows and has. > > I remember reading about an incident in the life of Swami Vivekananda during > his stay in the US. He had given an inspiring talk about the Infinite being > the only reality when he was approached by a Western disciple with the > question, "Swamiji, according to what you said, doesn't it follow that > ultimately I am the Infinite?" > > However, it seemed that Swami Vivekananda didn't like this question, because > for some time thereafter he used to poke gentle fun at this devotee, like > greeting him with, "Sooo, here comes the Infinite!", or, "Did the Infinite > have a nice day today?" The point you're making seems to me to be that if you identify with knowing yourself as the infinite, you are stuck with that identification. If you identify with wise words and a nondual point of view, then you are stuck there. There are all kinds of ways to get stuck. Being unstuck isn't a matter of having the right words or beliefs, it's being unstuck. > > Paramahansa Yogananda, too, used to say that only when we can take in deadly > poison without being affected by it have we earned the right to say that > this world is an illusion, not before. I don't see it that way. Saying that the world is an illusion is also illusory. Gaining special powers is also illusory. To know what is illusion and what is reality isn't an announcement to be made by a dream character to other dream characters. It is the end of identification in the dream. Made into an announcement, it's just another aspect of the dream. Otherwise, this train of thought may > just lead to false satisfaction, to the mistaken belief of having realized a > truth while in actual fact one has only succeeded in fitting an intellectual > concept into a mental framework he happens to feel satisfied with. Yes. That's so. Not to be identified with a false reality, can't come about by knowing the right words or the right formulae. Depending on one's words and formulae for reality is itself a false reality. > Warmly, Yes, I appreciate the warmth of your response. And peace to you, Michael -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.