Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Dear Dan, from the terminology you were using in your recent posts ("assumption", "self-contradiction", "inference", etc.) I gathered the impression we were sort of reasoning about things. Now that you are saying we are to allow for poetic interpretations, "using our heads for standing on them while the crowd cheers," then of course the restrictions one would place on the use of logic no longer apply, and anything may be expressed. Yes, it is correct to say that I can only judge about my own competence, or lack of it, regarding God and Realization. All I can say is that I am, at this point in time, certainly not another self-realized divine being like Sri Ramana, and that if there is one such among us, I have been too blind to recognize him or her. And you are certainly right that I have plenty of splinters in my own eye. :-) Warmly, Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: dan330033 [dan330033] > Gesendet: Saturday, March 23, 2002 23:06 > An: > Betreff: Re: Sigh... (was:Blaise Pascal's Bet on God) > > > 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 > > > > /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 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Hi Michael -- > Dear Dan, > > from the terminology you were using in your recent posts ("assumption", > "self-contradiction", "inference", etc.) I gathered the impression we were > sort of reasoning about things. Now that you are saying we are to allow for > poetic interpretations, "using our heads for standing on them while the > crowd cheers," then of course the restrictions one would place on the use of > logic no longer apply, and anything may be expressed. I was referring to the post by Andrew, although I sometimes lapse into poetry, too. And poetry has its own kind of logic -- some poems speak more clearly to us than others ... And I agree, when using logic, I do my best to be clear, straightforward, and nonconfusing. In such a way, one may use logic to come to the point where logic doesn't apply. This is similar to using physics to tracing the evolution of the universe back to microseconds after the Big Bang, but not being able to say what conditions were prior to the event. The use of logic to reach the limits of logic can be quite useful, as far as I'm concerned. > > Yes, it is correct to say that I can only judge about my own competence, or > lack of it, regarding God and Realization. All I can say is that I am, at > this point in time, certainly not another self-realized divine being like > Sri Ramana, and that if there is one such among us, I have been too blind to > recognize him or her. The key here isn't whether you recognize another one, it's whether you recognize yourself. Unless you recognize yourself, when Ramana makes a claim to know himself, you accept him on faith, or you reject him on supposition. Either way, you don't know for sure what he means. Faith isn't the same thing as direct knowing, as I'm sure as a logician you would agree ... > And you are certainly right that I have plenty of splinters in my own eye. > :-) Well, I don't take that teaching as an accusation of any kind. I take it as a direction. It's a way of saying, "look to yourself -- there's not another about whom to be concerned regarding 'this'. Looking to make judgments about others will only distract you from the appropriate work." > Warmly, > > Michael I appreciate your warmth and am glad to have shared this communication. Peace in, 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.