|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Apr 11, 2001 01:24 AM
by dalval14
|
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 DearM. Perhaps
this might help. See below Dal ================ -----Original Message----- ========== Dallas wrote partly: If the rules and speculations of modern psychologists,
philosophers, savants, etc... have large gaps in their explanations, then where
shall I acquire any certitudes? It is difficult to
build on clouds of imagination, or hopes that are dashed every moment by
"fate or fortune." So why are we in this situation? Wat
it to be learned from it, if anything ? I observe order and sequence around me, am I to negate that?
I thought Gerald's response to that seemed as if it had basic
relevance. Of course I don't have first-hand Knowledge about any kindof
more-specific Relevance, other than maybe on some conjectural/limited level,
possibly, if such a level can even be thought of as somehow linking with some
sort of "higher" Relevance. Gerald's response, again: <<The only one who has "certitude" is a Buddha,
because only a Buddha, almost by definition, is omniscient. We need to
"learn" that we are all basically ignorant of what is really going on
around us and within us and that Knowledge is not in gaining facts so much as
in seeing what is real. This kind of Knowledge frees us from the causal bonds
of karma because karma acts via our ignorance - ie unconsciously.>> The first part of Gerald's sentence: "We need to
"learn" that we are all basically [basically?] ignorant of what is
really going on around us and within us . . . " seems to (purposely?)
single out and emphasize: "to learn that we are all basically ignorantof
what is going on . . ." My attempt to "more-specifically" delve into possible
alternate meanings of the above: I wonder if, instead of LEARNING
that we're all IGNORANT of WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, could we also approach this
matter (at least partly?) with wording that might, possibly, have the objective
of presenting for consideration the subject of cultivating states of
mind/spirit that might somehow transcend or begin to transcend FORMS of
ignorance on our more-familiar intermediate levels (?): by allowing for
and taking into account ADMISSIONS of our limitations in a way that, at the
same time, individually emphasize our best-effort overview-relevance to
EVERYTHING, (in terms of evaluation, at least in some personally-meaningful
sense?), INCLUDING so-called "ignorance" within that overview
that, from one's best-effort perspective, might be tentatively referred to as
one's present Overview or Higher Manasic perspective. That kind of
best-effort approach (possibly?) promoting the benefits of somewhat more
realistic limited/dualistic forms of personally-relevant/applicable
realism/Realism? Something like that? I seem to feel that thereare
forms of best-effort that can transcend various limitations (in broader
"Realistic" terms, if not in Broad realistic terms), such as might be
"normally" referred to as forms of short-comings. In other words: we all have our WAYS of coping with meaning, lack
of meaning, adversity, etc., EVEN THOUGH most of us might often have some
kind of trouble (in the "heat of battle", as it were) defining to
ourselves, on a more-conscious level, just what it is that actually Keeps
us looking for Meaning.
DTB The Buddha stated
in the DHAMMAPADA that one who knows his limitations is to that extent
wise. If we have as part of our
make-up the full 7 Principles (and we do) then, it is the WISE BUDDHI aspect
that throws light (through the MIND) on to the follies of the desire and
passional nature (Kama) Kama
without the mind to assist has no way of foreseeing the potential disaster that
unrestrained desire does. It is the
mind faculty that, relying on past experience (BUDDHI-wisdom) makes the
blunders and ambitions of KAMA plain to the astute person. =================================== It occurred to me that those statements from you, Dallas,
(starting with "If the rules and speculations of modern psychologists . .
.") seem suggestive of (in a sense?) what I suspect is a common impasse
for many of us: that "proof seekers" after such as
"transcendent/theosophic-RELATED proofs" seem to often have a
tendency of somehow mistaking the trees for the forest, in a sense. Not to
imply that that's a PARTICULAR failing in your case--- Or is
it? What do you think? Of course we all have our own
ways DTB Try defining any
“excellence” on its own and do not permit any other virtue or quality to enter
your attempt. It will be impossible. Inevitably all other beings are
involved in any choice we make. So
it better be optimum or the chooser and his entourage will suffer. ========================================= I suspect that, among other things, we're here on earth in order to learn how to
meaningfully transcend to some state of Higher mind/spirit in which something
more-relevant comes into conscious recognition than the kind of logic-limited
"proof-related" (cyclic/dualistic) "reasoning" that we're
relatively "familiar" with. For example, in order to even think about transcending our
dualistic limits, certain kinds of meditation (in the "just-being"
sense) seem appealing and more-meaningful to some, as if such meditation might
address our ("deep felt"/potential) Basic Impasse MORE-DIRECTLY
somehow? So my feeling is that life's challenges have an aspect to them
that, if addressed in a certain way, has the effect of promoting forms of
preparatory understanding and conditioning on the Path. For example, I
find that, even though my participation in these theosophic discussion lists
seems essentially endless, (potentially, in a sense), the opportunities to
delve into/around subjects of "essential meaning" seem to at
least indirectly POINT to links with Fundamental Meaning. So why not apply that same kind of
"state-of-mind/spirit" (each in their own way, of course) into all of
our life's daily activities in order to (among other things?) DEAL with EVERYTHING, so that life's
inconsistencies, contradictions, non sequiturs, diffusions, lacks, surfeits,
etc., etc., might be seen from some sort of (personally current-relevant)
Vantage-type more-universal perspective, instead of often getting
(more-typically?) caught up in various essentially dualistic/limited wranglings
and circuitous cyclical (or dead?) ends (i.e., instead of getting too
disadvantageously caught up in life's "normal/average" fare)? I wonder if we tend to selectively gravitate towards
elements of "chaos": do we have a built-in
"recognition" on some level of the "reality and potential"
of "chaos": is duality (law/structure) to be called the
"Karmic field of experience-matter" out of which we
learn-experience/evolve toward something beyond duality: toward forms
of Significance within forms of Chaos?: In other words, I wonder if "Chaos" might represent
"Potential": For example, isn't abstract art
("especially", in a sense?) a representation of intended potential,
in basic terms, pending application/interpretation by the viewer?
Similarly, much of what we find in life would seem to consist of both
chaotic and structured elements, with the chaotic elements basically affording
us potential opportunities for evolution in keeping with the extent by which we
apply ourselves into various interpretations/applications of those various
apparent "chaotic opportunities." And so I wonder if "freedom to choose" is
really a necessary co-component (from a Higher perspective) of
Chaos/Karma? And is Space a form of chaos in a comparative
sense? So without (Comparative) Chaos/Space, how could we have
"freedom to choose?" Is Chaos really, in a sense, a field of
Potential: much like the "Emptiness" (Potential/Space?) of that which
might be experienced beyond duality? DTB You state the
position rather well: Chaos, perception, COSMOS. The mind makes sense by using Logic, meditation, universal
facts and laws so as to arrive at a viable assessment of the present, or any,
condition. If our Universe had no
law we could not be here asking these questions. So conclusion is ?
The 3 non-excludable certainties I ALREADY ADVANCED. 1. YOU
EXIST 2. THE
UNIVERSE EXISTS 3. INTER-RELATIONS
are either conducted under LAW or they are not. There is no 50/50 position of “perhaps or maybe possible” in
defining these, or CHAOS REVERTS.
So far it has not. Dal Something like that? |