Guest guest Posted March 22, 2002 Report Share Posted March 22, 2002 Andrew, IMHO no deeper understanding is gained by employing all these bombastic word shells for an argument that basically goes like this: Wife: I am going to the grocery store to get a few tomatoes. I bet they will taste nice. Hubby: The choice you take in this bet is based upon the existence of tomatoes, upon which, in turn, their taste depends. If tomatoes don't exist, it makes no sense to bet about their taste. Wife [deeply moved]: Thanks so much for pointing this out to me. [They hug. Curtain.] Michael :-) > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: andrew macnab [a.macnab] > Gesendet: Friday, March 22, 2002 01:54 > An: > Betreff: Re: Sigh... (was:Blaise Pascal's Bet on God) > > > 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 > > > > > /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 22, 2002 Report Share Posted March 22, 2002 I see it going more like this, I bet my imaginary friend would like some tomatoes... lol andrew MikeSuesserott wrote: > > Andrew, IMHO no deeper understanding is gained by employing all these > bombastic word shells for an argument that basically goes like this: > > Wife: I am going to the grocery store to get a few tomatoes. > I bet they will taste nice. > > Hubby: The choice you take in this bet is based upon > the existence of tomatoes, > upon which, in turn, their taste depends. > If tomatoes don't exist, it makes no sense > to bet about their taste. > > Wife [deeply moved]: > Thanks so much for pointing this out to me. > > [They hug. Curtain.] > > Michael :-) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2002 Report Share Posted March 22, 2002 Good morning Andrew -- Yes. The assumption of a choosing individual is self-contradictory. If that is known, then the assumption is dropped. Before the self-contradiction is clear, it isn't dropped, and the bet can be discussed. The contradiction involves placing something outside of the field of totality, which is then supposed to be able to choose what to believe about the nature of the field. Betting all or nothing, Dan , andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > 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@t... 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 22, 2002 Report Share Posted March 22, 2002 Hi James, You wrote, in part: > 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'. It's the only play in town :-) And there is no observer of the play, which is not the play itself ... Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Hi Michael -- > I fully agree that logic and reasoning are limited; they cannot answer all > questions or solve all the riddles of the universe. However, when used at > all, these tools should be used correctly, don't you think so? Maybe. It all depends on how you conceptualize the use at the time. For example, poetic use will differ from a computer technician's use. An acrobat stands on his head and then jumps up. "Silly, you don't use a head to stand on," says the hatmaker. "But, I love it!" says the acrobat. The crowd cheers. And not only > should they be used correctly, but also in an intellectually honest manner, > not trying to impress others with mysterious-sounding philosophical > mumbo-jumbo. That's totally an inference. How can you know the motive is to impress others? You're quessing, based on your inference from your experiential reference point. The motive might just as easily be love. > You are asking why I said that before people start speaking like Sri Ramana, > let them become like Sri Ramana first, and you ask what is gained by such > "comparison". I think what is gained is again honesty - spiritual honesty. Perhaps there is mischief being done by comparing one to another and supposing one should be more like the other. Perhaps the honesty and wholeness would be in accepting each as is. Of course, one can accept each and accept oneself who is comparing -- but then one will be forced to laugh, no? > Let us ask ourselves, are we on a par with Sri Ramana, have we attained > Oneness with God, that we can speak about God, about infinity and reality, > with authenticity? Exactly. Let us ask ourselves. Let us not infer about others their state of oneness or disunity with God. It is much easier, don't you think, to point to splinters in others' eyes, then to look to the beam in one's own ... (Who said that? I don't think it was Ramana. Who am I to say something like that?) If not, then let us speak about what we are competent to > speak about, and quote the scriptures and the sages where we are not. This is for you to assess, with regard to yourself. But in this moment, when you have assessed yourself as incompetent to speak directly from "what is," what have you done? Perhaps this is the key moment to learn directly from/as who you are. If moving too quickly to the assumption that "I'm incompetent to know God directly, and must quote an authority whom I assume does," one might notice one has discounted one's own direct knowing of this present moment. If one isn't competent to know "what is" directly, then how can one assume one is competent to recognize an authority who has? Wouldn't one have to know God directly to recognize one who has? Further, the asssumption that God is known in the past by someone else, and not now, here, by me, is a mighty big assumption, don't you think? It places God in the past, and makes God the property of one person's knowing and not another's ... > There are strict rules in academia on what is considered the right way to > identify one's own work as well as the work of others. It seems to me that > we have to guard against a kind of "spiritual plagiarism" wherein we > mistakenly ascribe realizations to ourselves while in reality we just juggle > mental concepts in some way or other. Again, this is what can be addressed directly here, by me. > In this thread, we were discussing why it is that sometimes words sound > stale, or trite, or repetitious, even though they may bet true. I believe > that an important part of the answer may be found in this point of spiritual > authenticity. O.K. Sounds good to me. Would you like to say something authentic, that isn't stale or repetitious? I'd be glad to listen. Thanks for the dialogue, Michael. Peace upon you, 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.