An Interesting Feedback Discussion found @ www.myspace.com/53442258
There
has been an interesting series of comments under another
blog that I wanted to bring up to the surface, for
discussion. For the full back and forth please check out
the following link but the following might be enough.
Insanity, ego and the truth of the now.
I do not believe that I am doing this for the sake of my ego but rather since this view is so different then mine I want to embrace it instead of simply pump my chest and make a useless challenge. If I am mistaken on anything I'm willing to address it. However, I'm not sure that is going to be an easy task.
Please share your thoughts and the following in blue are 'The Witness' words and the ones in brown will be mine.
"I forgot to check up on your response until today. You completely don't understand where i'm coming from and i was bracing myself to explain more clearly but then i remembered, i don't know who you are and i don't have the time for this! I will say whatever I can get out in ten minutes."
"I do not know you either but I've not had any issue responding to your thoughts to the best of my ability. The fact we disagree does not mean that I am wrong or that you are or correct. Neither does it mean the reverse of this but apparently we are not on the same page. Instead of just giving enough to apparently attempt to inflame me in some way why not lets have a real discussion?"
"I recommend you read ken wilber and generally study integral philosophy. "
"I have read many authors and am inspired by some more then others. I do like Ken Wilber and have read several of his books but why should I study integral philosophy? Is it so that I can come to an awakening that you are correct in your view and that I'm ignorant? I have a great deal of interest in Alan Watts who was interesting one of Ken Wilber's and Elkhart Tolle's great inspiration teachers. I suggest in reply that you check out Alan Watts."
"My spiritual teacher is Andrew Cohen btw. "
"Good for you...I have a feeling that you expect me to be more impressed then I am."
"A lot of what you're saying just isn't the case and no one who specializes in those fields would agree with you, e.g., people from the past are basically just as intelligent and rational as us today, holy shit that's so far from being untrue it's probably close to being true again. "
"I think it is a bold statement that cannot be true when we say things like 'always', 'never' and other such types of words. Can you really speak for all of the fields you speak of with authority? I do not believe that humans have been less intelligent or rational for the last thousand years then they are today. There is ample evidence to counter what you suggest as well but I'm not sure how deep you want to go into all of this.
Clearly, not everyone thousands of years ago were icons or rational or logical thought but honestly I'm not sure that we are looking at anything much better in todays society. We have access to more information but does that really make us smarter?"
"There are only a thousand studies by sociologists, developmental psychologists, and cultural philosophers to challenge that and actually literally none that maintain that people from the past think like we do. "
"Hmm... Just how to sociologists, psychologists and philosophers study how smart and capable people where thousands of years ago? Do they send a IQ test back in time? I would have to go by what they did leave behind and things like the ancient wonders of the world, written language and the brilliant writing of the origonal Buddhists (since that is start of this) are very clear and show a depth that is rare even today.
Let me ask you a question. Do you have to have a degree in philosophy to be able to discuss it in a meaningful way? You seem to feel this way and if you do feel this way you are really missing a depth that I doubt you'll allow me or anyone to show you but I hope that I'm mistaken."
"At certain points in history logic was impossible. At certain points of history abstract thought was impossible. Logic didn't change from aristotle to the beginning of the 20th century when it was revisited by the logical positivists. Each historical period has its own definition of truth, beauty, and goodness, and their concomitant epistemology. "
"When was this time? Was it shared by everyone or could there had been pockets of people with the depth and insight to understand things as we do today or perhaps even with more clarity since they would have less bullshit pumped into their heads?
You are speaking of paradigms of thought and world view and we are in one now and just like every other time period that has thought they know everything I suspect we don't know anything.
Perhaps in 10,000 years they will look at us today and think that we had the audacity to think we understood logic, rational thought and more but at the same time destoyed the planet that we require to live on. Ofcourse, this is assuming humanity will exist that long..."
"And I do not think the future is better than the past. I just have experienced that I am this process coming awake to itself. There is only one Self, who we each all are. Who else is running the show? Maybe your individual persona isn't controlling much, and no we can't necessarily guarantee the avoidance of succumbing to an earthquake or car accident, however, that exaggerated example hardly refutes my point. We do have a great deal of influence on our lives which is not intelligently reduced to mere passing victims. "
"The only thing we have control over is the present and even that can fall outside of our control at times. If we are dwelling on something from the past we are not living in the present so then where are we? If we are focused on the future which tends to be a reflection of our desires and thus our ego then we are not fully in the present either. Memories and imagination are not all that different from each other in that they are filtered through our conditioning, expectations, assumptions, desires and more. Memories in the past and Imagination for the future force us to fall within to a state of not being fully aware and conscious.
This is not to say that memories are bad but rather they should be kept within the realm they exist and accept that the only power that they have on us is the power we give them. Dwelling on the future reward and desires is not going to give them to you. You are not going to one day achieve your goals and your dreams but rather when that time comes it will be 'now'. Ambitious people do not talk about what they are going to do in the future but rather what they are doing right 'now'."
"See i dont get why anyone here is so excited by your blogs. If you read spiritual literature you're just articulating the orthodoxy of a certain point of view. "
"I'm not sure that they are excited and I'm honestly honored that anyone even cares about what my thoughts are let alone finds any sort of inspiration.
What you don't understand and that perhaps what some others are responding to is that I am inspired by wonder and perhaps pass that on to them in some greater or lesser degree? I ask questions and seek the truth even if it is not what I want it to be. It might also be in part that while I know that I have an ego I'm not overly self-indulgent regarding my self and my thoughts and focus on having ideas then beliefs. Perhaps I make people want to ask more and deeper questions instead of pretending that I have impossible answers.
I'm not sold into believing that the truth is held by a few pious few and the dharma can be found everywhere and in all forms. I am a philosopher that a certificate or degree of any kind would simply insult and serve little purpose and certainly believe that there is no 'logical' path to the truth. Much of my views are framed within a great deal of eastern thoughts and while I don't agree with everything and certainly acknowledge a great deal of cultural baggage is present within the teachings they have been asking these questions for thousands of years and if you take the time to learn more you'll see that these ancient people were way ahead of their time.
Your teacher may be Andrew Cohen but my teacher is everything and most certainly nothing."
"That's okay but there is something more that we can understand today because consciousness does evolve throughout history. It doesn't stagnate and stay the same. People in ancient greece, or medieval europe, the renaissance, or contemporary post modern america do not, fundamentally, look at the world through the same mental structures. To have a better understanding of this perhaps you could research Spiral Dynamics and understand the pattern of how developmental psychologists and sociologists have come to understand this evolution of the interior of the cosmos - of consciousness. "
"Hmm... I have a great deal of understanding and respect for scientists of all types but in reality phychologists and sociologists focus on what is called 'soft' science. They do not nor can they work within the realm of empircal evidence when it comes to much of what they do. You speak of the evidence in the past like they could run tests and refer to nameless studies but what studies and how could they have been done?
Consciousness is a very strange thing and to assume that you know all, or even much, of the answers via these nameless people seems rather profound of a statement. Buddha has taught and shown a great deal about consciousness and reality that science is only catching up to and no now. In many ways he was one of the best phychologists that has ever lived.
Many spiritual teachings speak of the evolution of consciousness and certainly the way we experience reality is directly related to this. On this front we do agree but only on the surface.
It does take a few to break through the illusion to help guide others. Clearly, the moment the first person who developed a sense of self-awareness, in humanities ancient history, didn't automatically cause everyone else alive to become self-aware but it had to begin sometime and in some way. This person would have seemed to have special insights and power and perhaps be inspired by the divine but none of these were true.
It does stand to reason that the more beacons of light and truth that exist the easier for others to follow but are we really at that point? What if the light you are following leads to a delusion? What if there are a million lights and literally nothing to show 'from' it?"
"Everything is evolving. At this point if darwin emerges in your mind banish the thought because he is not representative of evolutionary thinking. "
"Why exactly should I banish the thought of Darwin with relation to Evolution? Certainly, the concept didn't become a part of our collective consciousness before his book regarding evolution. I think this requires a bit more explanation before I 'banish' anything.
Enlightenment is, even as you articulated it, as well as how it was articulated by the pre modern mystics, a state of consciousness. Your own understanding of it does not contradict that. Now people are learning how to interact in groups in an enlightened formation where they share one collective intelligence while simultaneously preserving their autonomy - this is something unique and new. Enlightenment was previously just an individual attainment.
This makes little sense to me. Enlightenment is not something that you can be taught or something that you can do with your buddies. Rather, it is something that requires you to shed the illusions of the self and something that requires that you move beyond your teacher, concepts, thoughts and everything else that is a reflection of our false sense of self.
I really don't see how we are so much more capable of being enlightened now then before. As now we have far more distractions and perhaps even more suffering do to being consumed by our desires.
If enlightenment is a state of consciousness what state would that be? Personally, I feel that enlightenment is a state of being and not something we can attain or achieve but is rather the grandest of ephanies. It lies beyond thoughts, feelings, form and more. A group of people could find death together far more easy to achieve then enlightenment. However, in the end both of these have to be done alone and both require the loss of everything you thought you were.
Perhaps our definitions of enlightenment are different but I'm going with the eastern one that is just as revalent today as it was 2,500 years ago and beyond.
Ponder this... If I ever become enlightened it will not be nor can be in a group as it as personal as birth and death. You can have someone share everything with you up to the point of death but in the end it is the self having to face its end and that can only be done alone."
"No one can be born, die or awaken for you or with you."
~Silver
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ยง 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author or owner of an article or video that I have made available through THEINFOVAULT.NET and you do not wish to have your article or video posted on theinfovault, please contact me and I will remove the item.