Authority and Believability

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/05 2:09:06 PM, anders_lindman writes:

 

 

> - In Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> > To deconstruct belief, we must first deconstruct

> > authority and believability itself. Do we believe

> > any proposition because we trust the credibility

> > of the source (say, a guru.)  Can a speaker

> > add in any way to the veracity of a statement?

> >

> > Does truth, if voiced by a liar become a lie, and

> > vise versa? It's obvious, that the veracity of a

> > statement depends only on the statement itself,

> > and that to trust in authority is self-deception.

> > Why so? Because authority is just a deceitful

> > transfer of power.

> >

> > Ultimately, we are the authority, we are the

> > those who deems the proposition true, those

> > who deems the speaker truthful. This is

> > inescapable. To   believe anything, we must

> > trust that we have understood what was said.

> >

> > Uor level of understanding will always color

> > what we hear. So all knowledge has to be

> > regarded as provisional. All knowledge will shift

> > to and fro with our level of understanding.

> > There is no other authority.

> >

> > Pete

> >

> >

>

> Al: Just recognize the shallowness of thought and there will be no need to

> deconstruct anything. Maybe it can be fun to deconstruct concepts e t

> c, but for the mature spiritually inclined person that game is to be

> taken lightheartedly. For the serious spiritual devotee a radical and

> deep recognition of thinking as being fighting mental windmills must

> take place for any radical liberation to happen.

>

P: Al! Are you taking this medicine you are prescribing? Do you promise

you will believe so next month, do you believe it right now, or was this

just something you wrote on the spur of the moment? So do

you really grasp that all you think as true, is only so, based on your

level of understanding at the moment, and therefore subject to change?

 

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/05 8:43:50 AM, anders_lindman writes:

 

 

> >I wrote this to be a bit provocative. But fighting mental windmills is

> a good illustration of how thought relates to itself. What would

> happen if one began to see one's thoughts as powerless? That's the

> >experiment I am ponting to here.

>

P: Al! What world do you live in? Thoughts are not powerless, they kill.

They kill thousands of people all over the world every day. Every time

someone pulls a trigger, a thought, moved the finger which pulled the

trigger. It's also your thoughts that trigger your fear. Learn to

control your thoughts, Al

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/05 11:15:04 AM, anders_lindman writes:

 

 

> A: I have found that my thinking is _always_ happening in a state of

> dissatisfaction with what is. Even so called happy thoughts are about

> moving away from what is.

>

P; Can there be dissatisfaction without comparison? Is not comparing

always a proccess of matching imagination and memory to the now.

Is not this thinking acting as the critic, the commentator of our life?

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman writes:

 

 

> A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous knowledge so

> that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison there

> would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed,

>

P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I don't compare

what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just writes itself, and I

let

it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels.