Spiritual Humanism

[Guest guest]

Moller,

 

And the point of your book I believe in comparison to what I see

happening with some of these " nondual " guys around the net here is

that they have bypassed the necessary dismantling, they've figured

out the puzzle so to speak, and they prattle all these non-dual

truths, ie, " look how cute I am " , still yet avoiding their humanness.

They don't really know what it is. They're " up there " and they think

that's where its at. So when you talk of " human " , they don't want to

go there. How sadly they miss. They haven't arrived fully in their

body. Their heart has yet to be broken. There's one in particular,

you may know who I'm talking about, he's pretty famous around the net

here, who I've sussed out and called him on it, and it showed up with

his " blaming " stance he took with the war. Obviously he still doesn't

get it, and he continues to " prattle " his nondual truths like he

*knows* something. I think not! And the problem is that others are

now mimicking him, like they know something, as if nondual truths

were merely an intellectual matter.

 

So, the point being is not in *prattling* nondual truths, but

pointing back to a person's humanness and their suffering, which

these so-called nondual teachers yet are avoiding themselves, so

consequently they think it's all about avoiding it too. It's like

having desert without having to eat your spinach. Does not make for a

healthy body.

 

Judi

 

Spiritual_Humanism/

[Guest guest]

And here's the example, found on another list.

 

Moller:

What Spiritual Humanism proposes is that none of these qualities are

not already present as either realized or unrealized potential

within human nature. We are as much capable of Love and compassion,

Intelligence, Wholeness and Nonduality as what has been ascribed to

our gods.

 

S:

Curious who is this " we " that is being alluded to?

 

 

M:

These are profoundly human qualities, and once liberated from

their 'godliness' they could become manifest as nothing other than

human potential and human living reality.

 

Such a truly Humanistic view of the complete fulfillment of human

life serves our deep quest for spirituality in a practical and self-

evident way. Instead of starting our investigation from the point of

view of God as the Perfected One, we remain realistic and look at our

lives from the point of view of our suffering, discontentment,

unfreedom and confusion, and follow the Buddha's advice as suggested

in the four noble truths.

 

The Buddha admits that there is suffering in the world - which

means , to some or other degree we are all subject to, and have the

potential for, suffering. Having realized the depth and profound

subtlety of this aspect of our humanity, he then takes the cautious

route and advises us first of all to look at the causes of our

suffering, before we attempt to project answers to relieve us from

our suffering.

 

In other words, the Buddha takes the humanist view. He rejects all

metaphysics, including the separate self-sense and any notion of the

Great Other as nothing other than integrally part of our human

suffering and confusion, and instead proposes that we start afresh

and look at what we do to ourselves which brings about our

suffering. This is also the view of Spiritual Humanism which I

explore and describe in detail in my book: Spiritualtiy Without God.

 

Spiritual Humanism therefore proposes that before we project as some

kind of revealed truth all sorts of Ultimate notions about the nature

of human existence, we first accept our suffering as real,

 

 

S:

Since suffering is a suffereing only to a sufferer,..............what

you are suggesting is that the " sufferer " is to be taken as real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

and explore what it is we do that makes us suffer. And this

exploration can only take place in the context of our humanity. As I

said before, our suffering is not a Metaphysical problem. It is a

human problem, and needs to be looked at from a human perspective.

This is why self-observation and self-understanding form such

integral parts of the meditative and contemplative practices I

describe in my book. If unenlightened living is based on a series of

errors or false perceptions, (leading to the notion of illusion or

Maya) no movement towards clarity is possible until the

identification with these uninspected aspects of ourselves have been

fragmented and eradicated through insight, and other forms of inner

work.

 

 

S:

How about a suggestion Moller, that there is never a movement towards

clarity, irrespective of whatever work inner or outer that gets to be

done?

 

That the so called movement to clarity,............even the state of

total clarity................. is yet another halo that the sense of

the entity creates around itself.

 

 

 

M:

Spiritual Humanism therefore makes it absolutely clear that work is

to be done.

 

 

S:

:-)

 

Doing gets done, but is there a doer of the doing?

 

It is only to a sense of a doer,............ that doing is " work to

be done " .

 

 

M:

How we go about it is of crucial importance, because if we are not

cautious, our work may soon turn out to be nothing but a

strengthening of the very delusions we are attempting to gain insight

into and free ourselves from. Our task is to find ways which will

free our being from the main cause of suffering ie the separate self-

sense, (in all its various manifestations) without strengthening it.

 

 

S:

That there is someone to be freed from suffering...........is the

very root of the sense of suffering.

 

That there is someoen to be freed from bondage, .............arises

from the premise that there is someone bonded.

 

And the very attempt to free, is the perpeuation of the apriori

assumption of the existential reality of the bondage.

 

 

Round and round the self-created, self-sustained, self-

perpetuated....mulberry bush.

 

 

 

 

 

M:

And this quite possible. We need only to allow ourselves to be

sensitized to this possibility and not be intimidated by those who

are adamant that any work within the relative is fruitless since it

can only be from the disposition of the 'I' and therefore of

necessity counter productive.

 

 

S:

Not really counter- productive, but really as effective as trying to

pick up yourself by your own boot-straps.

 

You may no doubt see Samadhic colours, enlightened stars floating

about,................ on account of having busted a blood vessel or

two, in the attempt.

 

But sooner ot later the absurdity of it..............hits.

 

 

 

And no doubt there are experts and graduate schools where techniques

and methodologies of handling boot-straps are taught.

 

Even successes of having hauled yourself up by your own

britches....... claimed and advocated.

 

 

 

 

 

M:

Once we are free from the God-notion, we have only our humanity to

fall back on.

 

 

S:

And the notion of humanity itself?

 

 

 

 

 

M:

And in truth there is nothing suspect about human nature. In

potential, always ready to become our living reality, it is all

here. Nothing holds us back but the delusions we have about our

natural condition. And integrally part of these delusions are not

only our gods and saviours, but our uninspected attempts to deal with

the problems facing us - attempts we have come to know as our

religious and spiritual traditions. To be truly spiritual is to be

truly human.

 

 

 

S:

To be truly spiritual is the apperception that there being no such

distinction as " spiritual " and " human " ....

 

.....the very concept of the state of spirituality, either now, or yet-

to-be-in-some-distant-future-as-a-consequence-of-some-inner/outer-

work.......

 

........is just another conceptualizing.

 

 

 

 

Did you know the term spiritual comes from the Latin root

word " spiritualis " .

 

Which means breathing.

 

The ethereal connotations are mere add-ons.

 

 

 

Just some few cents

 

** end of post

 

*************

Do you guys see what I mean, " S " here, taking the nondual stance,

entirely misses, (avoids), humanity, humanness, doesn't want to go

there. He even asks Moller, what is this " we " you're referring to?

Very " clever " , but he misses.

 

And here's a little poem of Wayne's that explains S's condition.

 

 

Ram Tzu knows this..

 

A few of you very clever ones

have figured out

the metaphysical puzzle

and boy are you ever proud.

 

You condescendingly watch

the fools flounder about

their wretched little lives

ignorant of the Truth

as you know it.

 

Meanwhile,

you grow incresingly isolated

you sit cold and aloof

in your lofty domain.

 

Until

one day you realize

you're old

and alone

and afraid

 

and oh so very clever.

 

**

Judi

[Guest guest]

TheEndOfTheRopeRanch , " Judi Rhodes "

<judirhodes@c...> wrote:

> And here's the example, found on another list.

> >

> S:

> Curious who is this " we " that is being alluded to?

>

>

********

It's " relationship " buckwheat, what do you think all this is?

 

Does " nondual " ring a little dingy for ya, oh Mr.NondualOne?

 

Ha!

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...>

wrote:

> Moller,

>

> And the point of your book I believe in comparison to what I see

> happening with some of these " nondual " guys around the net here is

> that they have bypassed the necessary dismantling, they've figured

> out the puzzle so to speak, and they prattle all these non-dual

> truths, ie, " look how cute I am " , still yet avoiding their humanness.

> They don't really know what it is. They're " up there " and they think

> that's where its at. So when you talk of " human " , they don't want to

> go there. How sadly they miss. They haven't arrived fully in their

> body. Their heart has yet to be broken. There's one in particular,

> you may know who I'm talking about, he's pretty famous around the net

> here, who I've sussed out and called him on it, and it showed up with

> his " blaming " stance he took with the war. Obviously he still doesn't

> get it, and he continues to " prattle " his nondual truths like he

> *knows* something. I think not! And the problem is that others are

> now mimicking him, like they know something, as if nondual truths

> were merely an intellectual matter.

>

> So, the point being is not in *prattling* nondual truths, but

> pointing back to a person's humanness and their suffering, which

> these so-called nondual teachers yet are avoiding themselves, so

> consequently they think it's all about avoiding it too. It's like

> having desert without having to eat your spinach. Does not make for a

> healthy body.

>

> Judi

 

 

Hi, Judi:

 

Are you like a realized master or something? You speak with such

authority. Are you " enlightened " ?

 

Sincerely,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> --- >

> Hi, Judi:

>

> Are you like a realized master or something? You speak with such

> authority. Are you " enlightened " ?

>

> Sincerely,

>

> fuzzie

 

*********

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...>

wrote:

> Moller,

>

> And the point of your book I believe in comparison to what I see

> happening with some of these " nondual " guys around the net here is

> that they have bypassed the necessary dismantling, they've figured

> out the puzzle so to speak, and they prattle all these non-dual

> truths, ie, " look how cute I am " , still yet avoiding their

humanness.

> They don't really know what it is. They're " up there " and they think

> that's where its at. So when you talk of " human " , they don't want to

> go there. How sadly they miss. They haven't arrived fully in their

> body. Their heart has yet to be broken. There's one in particular,

> you may know who I'm talking about, he's pretty famous around the

net

> here, who I've sussed out and called him on it, and it showed up

with

> his " blaming " stance he took with the war. Obviously he still

doesn't

> get it, and he continues to " prattle " his nondual truths like he

> *knows* something. I think not! And the problem is that others are

> now mimicking him, like they know something, as if nondual truths

> were merely an intellectual matter.

>

> So, the point being is not in *prattling* nondual truths, but

> pointing back to a person's humanness and their suffering, which

> these so-called nondual teachers yet are avoiding themselves, so

> consequently they think it's all about avoiding it too. It's like

> having desert without having to eat your spinach. Does not make for

a

> healthy body.

>

> Judi

>

> Spiritual_Humanism/

>=================

I'm lost. No alarm, this is nothing new.

But is this a duality group for humanism and animalism?

If it is then I'm just as lost as I have always been with all my

dualities.

 

gp

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...>

> wrote:

> > Moller,

> >

> > And the point of your book I believe

> > <snipped>

> > Judi

>

>

> Hi, Judi:

>

> Are you like a realized master or something? You speak with such

> authority. Are you " enlightened " ?

>

 

Hi, fuzzball:

Are you really daft or something? You write with such imbecility. Are

you " ignorant " ?

 

(just funnin' witcha, fuzz...)

 

But, to continue the funnin'...

 

No one can BE enlightened, surrounded by quotation marks or

otherwise, anymore than someone can BE non-enlightened, similarly

surrounded or not.

 

People discuss these " favorite " terms, in the same exact way and for

the same exact reason, other people discuss their " favorite " sports

team players - because it's fun to talk about stuff, especially out

loud (and on paper, or email qualifies as being " out loud " ). It - the

mechanical act of - releases pleasurable chemicals and neuropeptides

that circulate in the brain, that we educated humans can call, " fun "

and others know what we mean.

 

(Everybody knows what " fun " means and can communicate an episode of

fun to another human, with ease. Conversely, NO ONE knows what

" enlightenment " means nor can communicate an episode to another

human... though many still (unbelievably) believe otherwise, which is

why so many still waste oodles of time on these email lists, wasting

more time trying to do it...)

 

Caustic-to-a-fault (JR) may be having fun talking through her hat

about " you name it " , in the same way Thin-Veneer (SVP) does, and

countless others do, but to suggest she/he/anybody IS what

she/he/anybody might claim to be, is just silly.

She isn't, you isn't, it isn't.

 

No one can BE a word, and words are all there is going on here, in

print, in email. Words in print, black dots stimulating transient

neural episodes in your own head as you hear/read them, that you can

neither control, predict, or comprehend, are more like mist, vapor,

clouds, than anything substantial, like people. They just happen, and

when they do - on their own schedule - you have fun... or you don't

(like when somebody, say, screams curse words at you and calls you

stupid, ugly, and worthless).

 

A better question to ask somebody - and then listen carefully to what

they reply, if at all - is, WHY do you talk about these words, as if

they are real, as if anybody who has at least half a functioning

cortical intellect gives a goddamn about it?

 

Ask JR, or SVP, and then watch 'em squirm, shuffle their feet, hum

and haw, and >>change the subject<<.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > Moller,

> > >

> > > And the point of your book I believe

> > > <snipped>

> > > Judi

> >

> >

> > Hi, Judi:

> >

> > Are you like a realized master or something? You speak with such

> > authority. Are you " enlightened " ?

> >

>

> Hi, fuzzball:

> Are you really daft or something? You write with such imbecility. Are

> you " ignorant " ?

>

> (just funnin' witcha, fuzz...)

>

> But, to continue the funnin'...

>

> No one can BE enlightened, surrounded by quotation marks or

> otherwise, anymore than someone can BE non-enlightened, similarly

> surrounded or not.

>

> People discuss these " favorite " terms, in the same exact way and for

> the same exact reason, other people discuss their " favorite " sports

> team players - because it's fun to talk about stuff, especially out

> loud (and on paper, or email qualifies as being " out loud " ). It - the

> mechanical act of - releases pleasurable chemicals and neuropeptides

> that circulate in the brain, that we educated humans can call, " fun "

> and others know what we mean.

>

> (Everybody knows what " fun " means and can communicate an episode of

> fun to another human, with ease. Conversely, NO ONE knows what

> " enlightenment " means nor can communicate an episode to another

> human... though many still (unbelievably) believe otherwise, which is

> why so many still waste oodles of time on these email lists, wasting

> more time trying to do it...)

>

> Caustic-to-a-fault (JR) may be having fun talking through her hat

> about " you name it " , in the same way Thin-Veneer (SVP) does, and

> countless others do, but to suggest she/he/anybody IS what

> she/he/anybody might claim to be, is just silly.

> She isn't, you isn't, it isn't.

>

> No one can BE a word, and words are all there is going on here, in

> print, in email. Words in print, black dots stimulating transient

> neural episodes in your own head as you hear/read them, that you can

> neither control, predict, or comprehend, are more like mist, vapor,

> clouds, than anything substantial, like people. They just happen, and

> when they do - on their own schedule - you have fun... or you don't

> (like when somebody, say, screams curse words at you and calls you

> stupid, ugly, and worthless).

>

> A better question to ask somebody - and then listen carefully to what

> they reply, if at all - is, WHY do you talk about these words, as if

> they are real, as if anybody who has at least half a functioning

> cortical intellect gives a goddamn about it?

>

> Ask JR, or SVP, and then watch 'em squirm, shuffle their feet, hum

> and haw, and >>change the subject<<.

 

 

I'm dumber'n a rock, Kid. I aint got sense enough to come in outta the

rain. I just thought Big Mama Judi was fully enlightened, like me. I

am totally enlightened. Have been goin' on a couple a months, now.

Aint nothin' to it. It's totally awesome.

 

 

fuzzie

 

P.S. I know, I know... everybody's rappin' aint nobody enlightened,

and, that's true, to an extent. But, you gotta be enlightened to be

able to tell there aint nobody enlightened, otherwise, you wouldn't

know that, you dig what I'm sayin'?