Greg/Methods in Western Philosophy

[Guest guest]

>>This is true for most of these thinkers. In thinking that Western

>>philosophers don't use methods or have salvific motives, I was using a

very >>narrow, academic notion of "Western Philosopher." Such as, if you

major in >Philosophy at a university, who do you study? Usually not

mystics, poets, psychologists or theologians. In that narrow academic

respect, only Plato, Socrates and Wittgenstein would be considered

philosophers. And the only real method that emerges from them is the

Socratic method. In most Western teachings about Socrates, this method is

seen as a way to gain wisdom. But yes, the others in the list above were

serious about transforming human experience and talked somewhat about how

to do it.

 

I remember studying the Western Theosophical/Anthroposophical mystic Rudolf

Steiner years ago. He has fascinating and quite specific things to say

about the astral and "spiritual worlds," and used lots of Vedantic concepts

in his lectures. But most of his students complain that he gives very very

little insight on how others may have the same visions of the universe as

he did.

 

--Greg

 

Dan: Greg, yes, I recognized you were talking about the academic version of

philosophers. And I'm guilty of having a little fun with it. Although I

still think that sitting in a cave and looking at shadows from a fire is as

good a method as any for promoting insight. You said Wittgenstein doesn't

present a method, but if you follow his line of thinking, don't you come to

a realization of the limitations of words to express reality? I haven't

studied him formally at all, but this has been my impression. If so, that

alone seems very valuable.

 

Now, you raise what I see as a crucial issue when you say about Steiner

that "most of his students complain that he gives very very little insight

on how others may have the same visions of the universe as he did."

Because that statement gets to the core issue of *imitation*. Essentially,

if I want a method, it is so I can imitate someone else. I think that this

someone else has gotten somewhere where I should be, or could be, or would

be better off being (as compared with where and who I am). So a method

gives me a technique to replicate that person's experience or even "way of

being." And I agree that in the "East" the idea of a "science" for

spiritual realization has generally had support (although not from

everyone). To me, the key problem here is that by using a method, I place

myself in a comparative relationship with truth (he has it more than me, so

I need his method to get where he is), and this approach will automatically

be limited by its assumptions. My conclusion here would be that

methodology has its uses, but that its uses can never include producing the

simple uniqueness of a moment, the creative freedom of all that is, or the

undivided nature of reality. So, from my perspective, the "All" that we

generally term "spiritual" isn't dependent in any way on methodology of any

kind. From this perspective, there is no judgment about Eastern or Western

approaches (or Northern or Southern) being

"better" at spirituality - none can produce reality, and each has had value

for a given culture and historical context. As cultures and contexts

change and evolve, the give and take between East, West, North, and South

will hopefully be fruitful in generating perspectives to meet our current

perceived needs.

-- with love -- Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

Thank you for your clear commentary on this topic. Especially the

concept of +imitation+.

 

Lynne

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

>snip<

>methodology has its uses, but that its uses can never include producing the

>simple uniqueness of a moment, the creative freedom of all that is, or the

>undivided nature of reality. So, from my perspective, the "All" that we

>generally term "spiritual" isn't dependent in any way on methodology of any

>kind.

 

No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use _any_

method.

>Essentially,

>if I want a method, it is so I can imitate someone else. I think that this

>someone else has gotten somewhere where I should be, or could be, or would

>be better off being (as compared with where and who I am). So a method

>gives me a technique to replicate that person's experience or even "way of

>being."

 

By this criterion, we shouldn't teach people anything at all... driving a

car, doing math, etc., etc... because it's only imitation. Let them do

their own thing! )

 

But of course, we are human very much _because_ we can remember what we

have done and pass on that experience to others... If I want to learn

something, I don't try to invent the whole field myself... I start by

looking to see what's already been done and what look like the best sources

and methods for doing/learning it.

 

When I teach meditation, I just teach people how to put the lower bodies to

sleep and stay fully conscious. But I don't determine what's going to

happen to them then... what they're going to discover, what visions they

may see on the inner planes, what music they may hear. I can offer a

couple of suggestions after they have much experience and are adept at

going inside and moving about among the various planes/states of

consciousness... but while they're getting that experience, they can be

learning anything, meditating on anything. I just teach a technique for

accessing the inner planes.

 

After I had active K., I studied for a while with a young teacher, because

he had some techniques I wanted to learn. Physically active, overt

Kundalini was new to me, and I saw some specific techniques for using it

and developing it... for "putting my resources on line," as he said. I

didn't want to become what he was... or have the experiences he has had...

and today I am in disagreement with him on many things... but immensely

grateful for the techniques.

 

Love,

Dharma