You may have found a way that works for you, that has helped you see yourself more clearly. Well that is truly wonderful. But sometimes we have to observe that there are others that have reached similar conclusions by walking a completely different path and rightly so, we all have our unique perspective and contribution in this world. Ultimately there can only be One complete Truth and we arrive at this in our own way, at our own pace, rythmn and timing and for you to suggest that we are not sincere in our approach is most arrogant of you and it is this arrogance of yours that puts people at arms length. There will always be those that oppose your words, and you can choose to see that opposition as a challenge and grow or you can choose to see it as their ‘self importance’. Up to you.
Humility recognises that it holds no key to the secrets of life. Humility is like water, it always searches for the lowest ground, it always stands back and listens.
I never discuss my path in negative settings. It’s not a matter of my way or your way. What is so annoying about me is I dare to suggest what all the great traditions assert in that we are asleep. By suggesting it for some reason it is assumed, no matter how many times I deny it and admit being in Plato’s cave, that somehow I feel I am exempt. Who am I to make such a claim and the growls begin. But yet all the horrors mankind is free to cyclically indulge in are due to this same tendency for gullibility and suggestibility that finds comfort in this form of sleep. It is why we do not exist as individuals with respect for the importance of essential human individuality. The idea of individuality now is seen as some sort of inhuman creature that destroys everything in sight but in reality it is sleep that does it. It is the true individual that is capable of compassion outside of selective standards.
The whole idea of the esoteric Religion board is to respect our search for individuality. to discover ourselves and not be restricted to the dictates of the “Great Beast” as Plato described and Simone Weil so incredibly built upon that force us to turn in circles inviting the lawful horrors of such a gullible mindset.
Yes, we are not sincere. If you accept the Buddhist idea of transient states you know we can sincerely decide to do one thing and as our states change, we do the opposite. We can sincerely decide to diet in the morning and eat a box of chocolate chip cookies at night because someone insults us. Where is the sincerity? People sincerely speak of peace but it is meaningless because their changing states manifest the opposite. When a person realizes this and admits it in themselves the illusory nature of platitudes is obvious.
This isn’t “my way”, it is a human response that all the esoteric traditions invite us to see in ourselves. It is part of self knowledge.
It is not a matter of opposing words, that is discussion and essential, but a refusal to be open and nasty rejection to this most basic tenant of the essence of religion: the realization of our sleep and as a result we reside in Plato’s cave. This is true humility.
I’m not being critical here but just consider the following:
I said
Quote:
Have a good day Nick. I’m off to play in the woods.
Play in the woods eh? Will you remember the forest or get lost in the trees? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Have a good day.
Nick
[/quote]
You replied:
What is so insulting? Where is the desire for inclusive communication? My goodness I even included a smiley. It is this idea that we are not what we think we are and cannot remain present that is so insulting. This is one of the reasons that humor has degenerated so far into comedy and insult. This is why so many of Mark Twain’s classic one liners such as “A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.” would be deemed so politically incorrect". It suggests the freedom to not take our egotism seriously but to value ourselves. It is the calling of the experience to be real. Yet it is considered as insulting. Who am I to insinuate such a thing? This is the essential calling of religion but became perverted into a power trip as the exoteric level around the esoteric began to form and secularization became dominant.
Humor as an extension of our ability to collectively admit our failings may be totally out of fashion being replaced by comedy and sarcasm but there is still a minority that are open to admitting the realities of our collective nature. This would be natural humor for the esoteric board leaving the comedy and sarcasm for the secular.
It is essential humility. It is not one group against another or one way or another. It is the acceptance of the human condition open for anyone willing to look inside and verify what is there. It isn’t “bad.” It just is what is. Is it bad that we don’t know how to play piano? No. If a person desires to play piano they have to admit they cannot and practice for the goal of eventually being able to play. If we desire to be truly human it requires first admitting that we are not and then practicing what is necessary to awaken into human understanding. But the beginning is to simply be open to admit that we are not what we think we are and fight so hard to defend. This is the beginning. When the contrast is seen Meister Eckhart’s observation becomes meaningful:
The theme of the board as it now stands is concern for what we do. The esoteric traditions assert our inability for consistency since our sleep makes us suggestible to the changing group emotions that produce war for example. This is why the esoteric emphasis is on what we are. This requires admitting that we are not what we think we are and the search on how to experience the essence of philosophy beyond words.
Dividing it into two boards gives those that want to share wonderful thoughts or clever demeaning attacks the freedom to do so while developing their ideas. This is what is wanted. Those that want to discuss what we have witnessed in ourselves, also expressed in the great religious and philosophical traditions, will have the freedom also without ridicule, noses in the air, and selective scorn so as to develop our insights. This is also what is wanted. What is so horrible about that? It is the essential love of and respect for wisdom.
Nick, some of us recognize the difference between talking about it and living it. Life is a bit more than intellectual blah, blah, blah. Do us all a favor and leave us with our ‘corrupt egos’. Go find a place where suspension in intellectualizing is considered life. You’ll be happier there and the rest of us can wander around in Plato’s cave. I think that’s the best answer.
This is why I am suggesting the separate board. The basic consideration of this essential idea of humility expressed in the ancient philosophical and religious traditions is repulsive to the secular mind. Exactly this reaction is spoken of by Plato in the cave allegory.
Is there really no place on ILP that those wishing to explore the depths of the union of religion and philosphy described by Prof. Needleman and what is the hidden side of religion by, as you see, by the necessity for survival?
It really would be an interesting and meaningful board.
We really do appreciate you taking the time to post your suggestion here and elaborate on what it would involve. It’s possible that in the future we would put your suggestion into practice but as you can see, at the moment it does not have the staff support which is crucial when starting new projects.
Your contribution to the forum is invaluable so please continue to post your thoughts and inspire discussion in the main religion forum.
Reading between the lines I get the impression that though those around you are closed, you are open minded towards the distinction I am making. Secondly, I am not really all that horrible. Progress!!
It seems like such a natural distinction I am surprised at the negative reaction. What is the reason for the heavily moderated philosophy board and the regular philosophy board? The heavily moderated board requires a “form” that is traditional for logical debate. In theory at least, it desires to reflect what was expressed by Kierkegaard:
Freedom of thought it seems, requires a certain degree of logic to be meaningful in traditional philosophy
Where the distinction in traditional philosophy and casual philosophy exists as form, in religious depth or distinguishing the real from the illusory as in the esoteric traditions, the distinction is “intent”. Is the intent to assert and argue about what we believe we know or begin with the premise that we don’t know and understand? Casual religious debate begins with our self importance; what we believe we know and defend to validate ourselves and prestige. The esoteric traditions begin with the assumption that we don’t know or understand as is possible for a human being so becomes open to new impressions; putting new wine into new bottles.
Naturally then, on a website where communication is limited to written language leaving us open to misunderstanding, it is necessary to have a certain attitude towards language.
If the intent is to share from the agreed upon mutual desire to become open and respecting openness so as to expand philosophy for ourselves through its inner verification, how we experience it impartially, then the use of language is a key feature.
Where language is used to vent personal frustration in secular exchanges as in sarcasm, it is useless when sharing on the validating experiences of philosophy. The goal isn’t glamorizing complaints but in the attempt for the experience of reality that our psychological defenses deny us.
So on such a board, the following page would be an advisable stickey. There is nothing cutsey pooh about it inviting any politically correct jargon or denying speech, it merely suggests the value of speech itself in freeing oneself from the defense mechanisms that deny the desired quality of communication.
Again, the focus is on intent. Take the following excerpt for example:
While on the secular board, precisely such sarcasm etc. is natural since it is a part of culture, if the intent of the esoteric is beyond culture, a different tone is required where humor would replace sarcasm for example. Just bring six people together initially that understand the value of considering philosophy in the context of inner verification, the goal of esoteric traditions, and others appreciating the sincerity would begin to join in since it is just natural as opposed to pretense or agendas.
Now there is too much rejection but if you should ever want to draw this distinction of intent in the religious format inviting the esoteric ideas as complimentary to the distinction of form in philosophy, I’ll help.
