Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

neologist wrote:

Feel Free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Are you saying that the world's problems can be solved if everyone comes to a stage of self enlightenment?

Its not necessary that everyone become completely enlightened. The standard of living in a developing country can improve if only a small fraction of the populace become educated. Similarly, if there are enough people in society who begin to free themselves from ego identification, they will have a very beneficial influence on those around them. The overall consciousness of the world can start to improve.

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment. What you are referring to is empathy and selflessness. Either that or your definition of an enlightened being fathoms quite widely

.

This is the crux of the argument. In my opinion IFF has moved from the "selflessnes" which I understand is synonymous with "enlightenment" to "Self" (capital S) which is a some sort of "sacred embodiment" or "communion with higher consciousness" which has either "benign intent" or "benign outlook". It is this move which is problematic because without it, "transcendence" is equally applicable to "problems" AND "solutions". They both dissipate since from the "no-self" vantage point "time" and hence "events" have no value in themselves since they are the seamless fabric of "the whole". There is simply nothing to say or as Wittgenstein put it

Quote:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

(Perhaps at this point the "IFF" will observe that it is the "iff" who writes here. Smile

)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Coolwhip wrote
In my opinion IFF has moved from the "selflessnes" which I understand is synonymous with "enlightenment" to "Self" (capital S) which is a some sort of "sacred embodiment" or "communion with higher consciousness" which has either "benign intent" or "benign outlook". It is this move which is problematic because without it, "transcendence" is equally applicable to "problems" AND "solutions". They both dissipate since from the "no-self" vantage point "time" and hence "events" have no value in themselves since they are the seamless fabric of "the whole". There is simply nothing to say or as Wittgenstein put it

Quote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

What does it mean to be "selfless"? It is the realization that you are not the conditioned mind, the result of your past history and the collective cultural mind-set you inherited. You are not the voice in your head that comments, speculates, judges, compares, complains, likes, dislikes, and so on. So, what are you then? You are the silent witness to all experience, the inner stillness and peace, the state of pure consciousness, the higher Self. When you realize this, you do not become distant, or fall into some kind of trance. Rather, the screen of concepts, labels, images, words, judgments, etc., are lifted and you are able to enjoy true relationship.

0 Replies

NO. The "you" that enjoys subsequent relationship is not transcendent. It is a changed version of a the original individual...one that is perhaps a little wiser having glimpsed something other than the categories it is now dealing with once again...one that has some inner reserves to cope with loss or personal conflict.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

NO. The "you" that enjoys subsequent relationship is not transcendent. It is a changed version of a the original individual...one that is perhaps a little wiser having glimpsed something other than the categories it is now dealing with once again...one that has some inner reserves to cope with loss or personal conflict.

No, that's the whole point of spiritual awakening. You discover who you really are. The personality, mind, emotions, body, etc., continue to change, but you are no longer identified with them. There is a shift in your sense of identity. You can try to argue that it is just an illusion, but that is the experience of the individual, and it has profound consequences for their conscious experience. The inner Self is transcendental because it is unaffected by anything that happens externally. It is beyond the phenomenal world. That is what's meant by transcendental.

0 Replies

IFF,

...then you are saying little more than "a born again Christian" would except for not evoking Jesus. That's why you are getting flak from the atheist and rationalist lobby.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

. . . the source that sustains and connects us all . . .

Bingo, Mr. Ego Supreme tips his hand--he wants us to believe in a higher consciousness which is discrete and separate, which is essentially god, but he hasn't the courage of the honesty to name it god.

Just as we have nothing but pointless blather from IFF about "consciousness" and "awakening" and "spiritualism," so we cannot expect a plausible, rational explanation for the nature and origin of this "source that sustains and connects us all."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

IFF,

...then you are saying little more than "a born again Christian" would except for not evoking Jesus. That's why you are getting flak from the atheist and rationalist lobby.

I don't think so. My impression of born-again Christians is that they advocate a particular belief system -- accepting Jesus as your savior, reading and adhering to the bible, following the precepts of Jesus, living in a Christian life, etc. What I'm advocating is direct personal experience of your inner Self, independent of any beliefs you may hold. An atheist, for example, could undertake these spiritual practices without acknowledging the existence of God.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

An atheist, for example, could undertake these spiritual practices without acknowledging the existence of God.

Ahahahahaha . . .

Yeah, all she'd have to do is abandon everything she knows about logic and rational discourse.

Ah, the comic relief.

0 Replies

Weather you like it or not, Setanta is right on the money...

*Edit: @ IFF

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
. . . the source that sustains and connects us all . . .

Bingo, Mr. Ego Supreme tips his hand--he wants us to believe in a higher consciousness which is discrete and separate, which is essentially god, but he hasn't the courage of the honesty to name it god.

I avoid the word "God" because it often means something very specific to different people, and those meanings are generally not what I am talking about. In general, I don't want to talk about religion, because it brings up people's sense of identity relative to their particular religion. This just reinforces the ego.

The "higher consciousness", or rather, state of pure consciousness I'm speaking about is neither discrete nor separate. It is not discrete because it is without form yet "sustains and connects us all". It is not separate because it is your own Self. (How can you be separate from yourself?) Call it God if you like. Personally, I think that tends to bring out too many personal associations with the word that I'd like to avoid.

Quote:

Just as we have nothing but pointless blather from IFF about "consciousness" and "awakening" and "spiritualism," so we cannot expect a plausible, rational explanation for the nature and origin of this "source that sustains and connects us all."

The origin of the Self is not something that I can speak about. Its nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Call it God if you like. Personally, I think that tends to bring out too many personal associations with the word that I'd like to avoid.

Yes, i'm sure you would like to avoid that--it wouldn't allow you to take the elitist tone of which you are so fond. Additionally, you'd find yourself obliged to defend an indefensible position.

Quote:

The origin of the Self is not something that I can speak about. Its nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom.

Your evidence that any of this is so, is . . . ?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
An atheist, for example, could undertake these spiritual practices without acknowledging the existence of God.

Ahahahahaha . . .

Yeah, all she'd have to do is abandon everything she knows about logic and rational discourse.

Ah, the comic relief.

There are two kinds of atheists. The first refuses to believe in God because they don't see any objective evidence to support that belief. I can respect that. The second type of atheist is someone who derives their sense of identity from being an atheist. They are attached to the idea. They will purposefully attack any notion that sounds even vaguely spiritual or religious because it threatens their identity, their sense of self. That is an egoic position that I cannot respect. The first type of atheist is someone that I can usually have a conversation with. I can say, "If you do this practice, you'll have this experience." It has nothing to do with beliefs or whether there is a God. It is a question of being open to the range of human experience without making any assumptions about their meaning.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Call it God if you like. Personally, I think that tends to bring out too many personal associations with the word that I'd like to avoid.

Yes, i'm sure you would like to avoid that--it wouldn't allow you to take the elitist tone of which you are so fond. Additionally, you'd find yourself obliged to defend an indefensible position.

Its because the word "God" means something different to me than it does to a lot of other people. I don't want to defend their use of the word, and I don't want to to have to go through a long discussion of the meaning I assign to it. Its not important to me.

Quote:

Quote:
The origin of the Self is not something that I can speak about. Its nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom.

Your evidence that any of this is so, is . . . ?

Personal experience, supported by a study of the literature from various spiritual traditions.

0 Replies

It is always, of course, easy to dismiss those who disagree with you by putting them in a little box which you then label "insignificant."

Do you have an answer yet to the question of how you know that: "Its [sic--"It" referring to the self, with an alleged distinction of "Self"] nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom."

What is your evidence that this is true?

0 Replies

Funny. I'm a bible thumper who enjoys my discourse with the atheists on this board.

I find their disbelief and disdain for organized religion refreshing.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is always, of course, easy to dismiss those who disagree with you by putting them in a little box which you then label "insignificant."

Do you have an answer yet to the question of how you know that: "Its [sic--"It" referring to the self, with an alleged distinction of "Self"] nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom."

What is your evidence that this is true?

See my previous post.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Its because the word "God" means something different to me than it does to a lot of other people. I don't want to defend their use of the word, and I don't want to to have to go through a long discussion of the meaning I assign to it. Its not important to me.

It is pretty damned probable that "god" doesn't mean the same thing to any two people--which is the basis of my objection to the drivel you have been posting here--it is personal, idiosyncratic and interpretive, involving an interpretation which you cannot assert will occur to everyone who pursues the same "methods" about which you so vaguely prate.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
The origin of the Self is not something that I can speak about. Its nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom.

Your evidence that any of this is so, is . . . ?

Personal experience, supported by a study of the literature from various spiritual traditions.

Precisely--you are referring to personal and idiosyncratic interpretations of your experiences for which you can provide no common basis for a discussion of the merits of what you choose to believe. In essence, we have only your word for the meaning of things to which you have imprecisely alluded, but which we are to take on "faith" have the deep, spiritual and transcendent significance which you allege.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
It is always, of course, easy to dismiss those who disagree with you by putting them in a little box which you then label "insignificant."

Here, Bubba, i didn't want you to miss this point.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
It is always, of course, easy to dismiss those who disagree with you by putting them in a little box which you then label "insignificant."

Do you have an answer yet to the question of how you know that: "Its [sic--"It" referring to the self, with an alleged distinction of "Self"] nature is formless, unbounded, eternal, blissful, the source of all manifest existence. It is experienced as inner silence, spaciousness, love-bliss, restful alertness, a sense of freedom."

What is your evidence that this is true?

See my previous post.

That's no answer--what you claim you have experienced is not evidence, it is merely anecdote.

0 Replies

Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know