Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Second-The Jumps.<br>[....contd.]<br>What I am struggling with right now is the process that converts personal understanding to social understanding.<br>That is what you called the Jump.<br>It is not a jump-but a logical step forward.<br>Of course, I can never claim to have understood the forces at work here-life is too short for it.<br>My quest is to understand how the understanding of these forces can be made into social awareness in such a way that the energies and will of people is focussed on changing the social relations, rather than sit around in a room (or a chat room) and discuss the secrets of nature and atma at an abstract level.<br><br>I am here to find whether spiritualism has that answer or not.<br><br>"Hope, you are not telling all to just go on and do "something" with the society with this sort of "pro-" or "anti-" conditioned personal awareness ?"<br><br>Not at all. It is important to have an understand first of all.<br>As I had said earlier, we all being humans that we are, always fall prey to the conditions and environment around us in such a way that our views become reactionary and 'circumstancial'.<br>And it is a constant struggle to avoid falling into this pit.<br>That is why there is a need to constantly re-examine our views.<br><br>"Do you have the first hand experience of this? If so, please share with us your experiences of this preliminary step as many of us here are stuck at this initial hurdle itself. Looking forward to your post, find them very refreshing."<br><br>Yes, I do, to a limited extent.<br>In my experience, it is important to change from 'self-awareness' to social awareness.<br>Self awareness is subject, or a subset of, social awareness.<br>Social consciousness is all individual consciousnesses extrapolated and synergised.<br>As Marx wrote in 'Theses on Feurbach', "Philosophers have interpreted the world in so many different ways; the point, however, is to change it."<br>Thus, just as the contradictions in our social relations are manifested as contradictions in our mind, similarly the resolution of those social contradictions will be manifested in our minds as freedom from greed, personal possessions and exploitation.<br><br>I have often come across abstract discussions (in this group and several others) about the need to eliminate greed and ego and possesiveness from our mind and soul.<br>It is interesting to note that this idea (of personal possession and greed for wealth) is so inextricably tied to the condition of private property and the defense and increase of private property throughout our civilisation.<br>To the extent that we cannot imagine a society that does not have the institution of private property; yet it was not always so.<br><br>This is one example of how social relations and the conditions of production and distribution in society produce instiutions (private property) and how those institutions shape our consciousness (greed, possessiveness, unwillingness to share, etc.).<br><br>Of course, there can be many [many] more examples.<br>But I will stop here for now. Hope I have answered your queries without hampering anyone's saadhna.<br>Please feel free to continue the discussion in the spirit of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Thank you very much for the detailed replies which upon analysis have helped to understand better, your approach of "extrapolation of personal understandings."<br>First some clarifications and then the issues...<br><br>""What I am struggling with right now is the process that converts personal understanding to social understanding.<br>That is what you called the Jump.<br>It is not a jump-but a logical step forward.""<br><br>One clarification here that it is only termed as a 'jump' when the personal understanding is flawed or incomplete otherwise it IS a logical step as you said. The logical question here arises <br>"WHO validates this personal understanding to be correct or without flaws?"<br>is it corrobration by a certain no. of people?<br>or is it a gut feeling ?<br>or something else...<br>The flaws in Hitler's ideology are visible today to us but weren't to so many at that point of time which proves that what appears to be very logical and true today is simply a projection of the present state of evolution of the individual (and hence society)<br>Am afraid that until this personal understanding is fully validated it would be futile and maybe dangerous(as in the case of Hitler) to 'jump' on to the second step of 'extrapolation'.<br><br>contd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 "The logical question here arises <br>"WHO validates this personal understanding to be correct or without flaws?"<br>is it corrobration by a certain no. of people?<br>or is it a gut feeling ?<br>or something else..."<br><br>I would say empirical evidence.<br>Empirical evidence gathered over hundreds of years of human civilisation.<br><br>I know most people will say to this that history can be [and frequently is] falsified.<br>However, the falsification reduces as you advance in time.<br>Hitler and his goons falsified history, but now we know better.<br>Stalin and his goons did the same, but now we know better.<br>The British falsified history during their occupation of the Indian subcontinent, but now we know better.<br>Similarly history is being falsified even today, but we shall know better.<br><br>I think the ultimate test of a theory would be if it can explain the progress of human civilisation, which includes the progress of the productive forces, as well as thought (including religion, philosophy, arts and culture, etc.).<br>It is just that karma as a theory cannot explain any of this.<br><br>"The flaws in Hitler's ideology are visible today to us but weren't to so many at that point of time which proves that what appears to be very logical and true today is simply a projection of the present state of evolution of the individual (and hence society)"<br><br>Exactly. That is what I said about truth becoming apparent many years after the event.<br>However, even at that time there were people who could see through his propaganda and knew what he was really made of.<br>Similarly Stalin and his goons. There were people at that time (one of them being Trotsky) who knew what Stalin was really made of.<br><br>Fascism and Stalinism is an example of what happens when one depraved man (or a class) becomes too powerful.<br><br>However, these are just examples, illustrations.<br>It is important to look behind the veil and understand the true nature of forces at work here-<br>what are the forces that create contradictions in society?<br>What are the contradictions that produce conflict?<br>What are the contradictions that produce conflict in the mind of an individual?<br>What is the real base, the economic base, of that contradiction?<br>Will removing the source of that contradiction also remove the conflict (in mind and in reality)?<br>If yes, what is the best way to go about it?<br>Individual/personal action or collective action or debate/discussion?<br>These are some of the questions that we need to find answers to.<br>But, before finding answers, we need to ask these questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 <<<br>I would say empirical evidence.<br>Empirical evidence gathered over hundreds of years of human civilisation.<br><br>I know most people will say to this that history can be [and frequently is] falsified.<br>However, the falsification reduces as you advance in time.<br>Hitler and his goons falsified history, but now we know better.<br>Stalin and his goons did the same, but now we know better.<br>The British falsified history during their occupation of the Indian subcontinent, but now we know better.<br>Similarly history is being falsified even today, but we shall know better.<br>>><br>These are perceptions. They are presumed as truth or facts until someone somes up with something even better or different. Where do you think you wil put a full stop to it. Every people in their time thought just as you are doing now.<br><br>Besides, other's knowlegde gathered is just an opinion of the individual at that time. What you get over a period of time is just a collective opinion made accurate over the collective opinion.<br>It never means that the collective opinion, just because they are collective , are facts.<br><br>One's own experiences with practice are the best means to find an answer rather than taking other's opinion and perceptions and imposing them with your own.<br><br><<<br>However, these are just examples, illustrations.<br>It is important to look behind the veil and understand the true nature of forces at work here-<br>what are the forces that create contradictions in society?<br>What are the contradictions that produce conflict?<br>What are the contradictions that produce conflict in the mind of an individual?<br>What is the real base, the economic base, of that contradiction?<br>Will removing the source of that contradiction also remove the conflict (in mind and in reality)?<br>If yes, what is the best way to go about it?<br>Individual/personal action or collective action or debate/discussion?<br>These are some of the questions that we need to find answers to.<br>But, before finding answers, we need to ask these questions<br>>><br>The answer to all these are attitudes, perception and not getting emotional losing third party unselfish status. You will understand what I am saying better if you have an idea of Patanjali's yogasutra. In otherwords meditation in otherwords the effort is called Saadhana.<br><br>- Seshadri. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 <<perception and not getting emotional losing third party unselfish status.>><br>perception and not getting emotional not losing third party unselfish status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 not everything can be proven by empirical evidence. Some things must just be taken on faith. That is the leap in love, mirabai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Yeah, and I agree with that.<br>There are several things that do not require evidence and logic.<br>The best example is love.<br>Love for a friend, or spouse, or any fellowman does not require any proof or empirical evidence.<br><br>However, when you set out on the path of discovering the truth and seek to find ways of making your life and those of others better, i think, we need a path or a theory that has real basis and can in fact indeed do real and everlasting good, rather than just please the person who is doing it.<br><br>That is why I seek truth in real object and material conditions and not in abstract concepts, because they are a reflection of the material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Abstract is subjective. Even 1+1 can be abstract if you can't comprehend/define what one is. For the other person who can comprenehd and apply it, its not an abstract. :-).<br><br>Its as simple as that. To understand subtle things, observation and ability to see the right thing is very important.<br><br>Just because one cannot see the brain of a person doesn't mean he hasn't got one nor should it mean he should always and must be dissected for one to understand. Deduction through knowledge and reasoning and then through expeiments and practice can get the same results.<br><br>Applied, this potential can hasten the learning capability and the knowledge so much in a given space of time, that the individual can be far more productive in his goals because of the potantial than others.<br><br>I apologise. No offences intended. I am trying to address your dislike for what you call abstract.<br><br>- Seshadri. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 what could be real and do everlasting good more than love?? I do not love to please myself, i love because that is what i am. I am love, created by love, for loves sake. Put aside your intelligence for a moment...think of something you have found true love for in your heart (unless you love your intelligence more, in which case this wont work:) go in your mind to this thing you have chosen, the thing you love more than anything and sit in that feeling for a few moments. I would be interested to hear what you feel in that moment, or if you choose instead to tear it apart intelligently? love is everything....there is nothing else in love, mirabai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Greetings Meerabai,<br><br>Again, I agree. But I think we are talking of two different things here.<br>Yes, I love. I am also for love, by love.<br>I love my friends, I love my family.<br>But how can you use this love to alleviate the suffering of people.<br>It is not intelligence vs love. Really, it is not.<br>If I love my fellowmen, how am I going to use that love to make life better for those who are downtrotten and suffering.<br>Of course, I can't do it alone.<br>But as a society, how can we use love to make things better for all.<br>It is not just by loving everyone-good and bad.<br>It is by changing the world in a way that the causes of evil are rooted out.<br>then only can love blossom in a way that makes the earth like a heaven.<br>all this is IMVHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Greetings,<br><br>While I understand your example of 1+1, I think you are discussing abstract vs real on a different plane.<br>When I compare abstract vis-a-vis real, I meant that which originates in the mind vis-a-vis that which has basis in the interaction between man and object (that is defined as real).<br>Ideas arise as a result of man's interaction with external objects, collectively known as nature.<br><br>Let me use another example:<br>We all know that during the very primitive societies (early hunting and farming tribes) they used to worship elements of nature, such as fire, wind, thunder and the Sun.<br>Why was it so?<br>Scientific materialism contends that those beliefs arose as a result of man's interaction with those natural elements.<br>Man's interaction was essentially for the purprose of production.<br>During those times, man was scared of those elements.<br>Hence he made fetishes out of them and worshipped them.<br>The contradictions that arose in his mind during those interactions with elements of nature manifested themselves as fear and respect for those elements. Therein we find the origins of religion.<br><br>Today, many thousands of years later, those fears and ignorances are gone.<br>Yet those fetishes haven't. Also, several other fetishes have developed.<br>As man continues to work with nature and master it, new contradictions arise in this mind, which take the form of fetishes.<br>Private property is one such fetish.<br>Think about it: so [so] much of modern life is organised around private property-so many laws, so many contradictions, so many conflicts, an entire jurisprudence exists in every society to support and nurture this fetish.<br><br>Why do you think it arose?<br><br>This is an example of exploring abstract reasons vs real reasons.<br>Please, I am not insisiting that this is the real reason.<br>I am merely stating a theory, just as all of you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 Let me correct and extrapolate.<br>Its not the private property that is the issue. It is the property. Even if it were public property, the assumedroles in the society will behave in thesame way as individuals do. Now what is property. An object or a set of objects. Now why is there emotions twords it, because of want. Now what is this want? its kaama. Second why is the want so strong, its because of attachment twords it. What is attachment? its moha. Now some people are not happy with just some they got, they want more than what they can get and keep. This is a personal matter. But still, this want of more than what is necessary is because of security or uncontrollable desire for it. What is it? Its greed known as lobha. You see, its not the material that will create the mind or its impressions. Its the attitudes. Even if a guy is devoid of senses, he will still react and show attitudes and attributes given a chance and stimulus. <br><br>There are two things here. Material just provides stimulus. Its the mind that reacts to it. Mind is not guided by the stimulus. Which is why many people react to the same thing in different way. Some show absoloutely mature behaviour and some wild behavour. which is why the catagorisation of character into Tamasil, rajasik and satvik. The attitudes that make them up are the arishadvardas.<br><br>Have you seen the extrapolation as you think and call it? Its a lot more complicated than a simple matter dictates the attitude of the mind. Its a lot more.<br><br>Please read patanjali's yogasutras once and re-analyse again. You will be surprised. But to comprehend, you will have to follow and practice the yogasutras.<br><br>Hope these helps,<br><br>Seshadri. 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.