Guest guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Share Posted March 21, 2002 Dear Andrew, I appreciate your pointing out the unreality of the chooser/believer and consequent nonsensicality of the question. But let's play fair here. By the same logic, you ought to also point out the unreality of the one raising this objection (I am afraid this would be you), and consequent nonsensicality of the objection. Don't you see that by postulating unreality for one side you are eo ipso postulating it for the other? So let's turn out the lights and let's all go home. :-) Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: andrew macnab [a.macnab] > Gesendet: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 01:55 > An: > Betreff: Re: Sigh... (was:Blaise Pascal's Bet on God) > > > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Share Posted March 21, 2002 The bet involves individual and God in a subject object relationship. Its an argument for one belief based on another belief, without acknowledging that the other belief is a belief. The existence of an individual, with the power to choose, has to be established before it makes sense to talk about what choices are beneficial or detrimental to that individual. It really doesn't matter how that got pointed out. Good night, andrew MikeSuesserott wrote: > > Dear Andrew, > > I appreciate your pointing out the unreality of the chooser/believer and > consequent nonsensicality of the question. But let's play fair here. > > By the same logic, you ought to also point out the unreality of the one > raising this objection (I am afraid this would be you), and consequent > nonsensicality of the objection. > > Don't you see that by postulating unreality for one side you are eo ipso > postulating it for the other? > > So let's turn out the lights and let's all go home. :-) > > Michael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Share Posted March 21, 2002 Hello Dan and Michael, Thank you for the exchange thus far. I feel that the resolution of opposites is to acknowledge both, and, I feel that resisting them preseves them. When opposites are accepted they dissolve. When opposites are resisted they persist. Opposites are 'qualities' of '________'. A 'quality' of '________' is opposites. I am not saying that they have to be resolved or resisted - I am observing the 'play'. Love, James , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > 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.