The Choice - Page 3

Nick_A · #21 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

This appears to be a shadow on a wall as viewed by a prisoner.

In the Cave Allegory what the prisoners saw was their reality at the moment. The allegory is about education and the stages of enlightenment. It's not about perversion into escapism.

We will probably always disagree on this. Granted the shadows comprise our subjective reality but it is the chains or fetters that keep us attached to them and deny freedom from them. They deny turning to the light or what Christianity defines as metanoia or seeing in a new way by turning towards an inner direction..

The fetters are imagination and as Simone remarks in notes taken during her lectures as recorded in the book "Lectures on Philosophy:"

Quote:

"There is reality outside the cave that is to say outside space and time, outside man's mental universe. Corresponding to this reality at the center of the human heart is the light that enters the cave - the longing for the absolute, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in the cave. Our minds make our chains by twisting old gripes and new fantasies around false images cast by the elite. Introspection sees a fretful self image."

We have no idea how much we are controlled by imagination until we make genuine attempts at awakening. Yet it is imagination that denies the natural attraction towards conscious awareness for man. Such is the human condition.

I find it interesting that the great traditions are forced to lie about this reality to compensate for the resistance of secular egotism. Jacob Needleman explains in his conversation with Richard Whitakker and I can see how the secular mind could become highly insulted at such a suggestion:

Conversations.org: Interviews With Social Artists

Quote:

What does he mean by a "numinous experience"? In Plato's Republic there is the famous Allegory of The Cave. Socrates says that the person who finally comes out of the cave and sees the Truth-the reality of the sun-is obliged to go back down into the cave and try to help the cave dwellers. He is obliged. That doesn't mean it's nice to do that, it means it's part of the law. You don't keep it for yourself, you must share it. Then that touches on the question of skillful means, which is another root of this question-a big root out there, having to do with the transmission from one person more attained to one less attained. This is matter of communicating in a way that actually helps you feel something, touch something, glimpse something in your heart and your intuition. It troubles you in a right way, intentionally. So skillful means. I'm just trying to expose the roots of this question.
RW: Yes. It is helpful.

JN: The Buddha goes to help people who are suffering in hell, and in order to communicate to those who are living in hell, he has to speak in the form of a lie. He speaks the truth in the form of a lie because they would never understand the truth as it is. A famous example of that is called "the lie of kama" which is love. "The Kamatic lie" which is how you communicate the truth. People are asleep. People are deluded. If you tell them really straight out what the situation is... He likens it to a house being on fire where there are children in the house on the second or third floor. You've got to get them out but they don't know the house is burning. You might try to scare them, you could try to plead with them, but they might not listen to you. You have to say something that will really make them listen. You tell them there are toys in the street. Jump! They would be afraid to jump, that you might not catch them. There are many toys down here! And so they jump and you catch them. They see then that there are no toys, but their lives have been saved. So you have to communicate knowing the levers that you have to press. Skillful means could be called, aesthetic communication. That could be part of the roots of this whole big question. Do you know Kierkegaard's thought at all?

Skillful means is something I'll have to improve upon the more I get involved with what I believe to be the necessity of supporting conscious influence in the world, Socrates is right that the world as a whole cannot tolerate people suggesting the reality of the human condition but it is such a pleasure to read intelligent people dialogue on this matter that raises so many secular growls. Do I really have to practice my technique in furthering the "kamatic lie" to lessen the secular nastiness of this day and age in response to honesty? I hope not. But with my luck??? If Simone can take the growls I guess I can as well.

Lightkeeper · #22 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 05:49 AM

We see what we are.

shaw-n · #23 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 08:00 AM

Tact is often better than blunt confrontation.
The merry pranksters idea was to prank people into awareness.
Most never got it.
Over their heads.
They thought the pranksters were crazed because of too many drugs.
But why is it that those drugs which shock the system into self-awareness are all illegal and those which numb and dissipate are "social lubricants"?

aged hippy · #24 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_A

[ .... ]
This is the choice we have. We can either build on secular lies or seriously make the efforts to experience what "Know thyself" means at the expense of our egotism. This is rough but unfortunately world conditions are such that humanity needs more of those with the courage and willingness to be open to reality. Our collective survival depends upon it.

Much depends upon how "Know Thyself" is perceived and defined.

Quote:

The Soul; and the Substance of Existence
Part 1

1. OUR theme is that which is at once the supreme subject and object of culture, and the necessary basis of all real religion and science. For it is the substance of existence, the Soul, universal and individual, of humanity. Only when we know the nature of this, can we know what we ourselves are, and what we have it in us to become. For our potentialities necessarily depend upon the substance whereof we are made.

2. This is not Matter. Wherefore a science which, in being restricted to the cognition of phenomena is a materialistic science, cannot help us to an understanding of ourselves. But, on the contrary, to such understanding such science is, in its issues, the greatest enemy. Matter is not God: and in order to understand ourselves, it is necessary to understand God. God is the Substance of existence. Be that substance what it may, it still is God; and of God no other definition is possible or desirable, but all conditions are satisfied by it. To know God, then, is to know this substance; and to know this, is to know ourselves, and only by knowing this can we know ourselves.

3. Such, and no other or less, was the meaning of the famous mystic utterance inscribed on the temple porch at Delphi - Know thyself - a sentence which, notwithstanding its brevity, comprehends all wisdom. An attempt, it is true, has been made to improve upon it in the saying - Ignore thyself, and learn to know thy God. By that which is intended in the latter, is, albeit unsuspected by its framer, comprised in the former. For, as is known to the Mystic - or student of Substance, such is the constitution of the universe, that man cannot know himself without knowing God, and cannot know God without knowing himself. And as, moreover, only through the knowledge of the one can the knowledge of the other be attained, so the knowledge of the one implies and involves that of the other. For, as the Mystic knows, there is but one substance alike of man and of God.

The Perfect Way - Lecture the Second

Emphasis mine

Anna Kingsford seems - to me - to define and explain the term quite well -- and how to achieve it.

The above is a very short extract from the second lecture of The Perfect Way, the entire Text of which can - if so desired - be read here: The Perfect Way - (725.6Kb) .... as well as other places on the www, of course

Nick_A · #25 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 04:57 PM

LK writes:

Quote:

We see what we are.

AH writes:

Quote:

Much depends upon how "Know Thyself" is perceived and defined.

Quote:

"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself" -ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY

Jacob Needleman writes in the conclusion to the preface of his book: "Lost Christianity"

Quote:

"Whether it is conventional religion or secular humanism, or any other modern program of morality or inner betterment, the question remains: Can there be any hope or our becoming what we are meant to be without first becoming fully and deeply aware of what we in fact are, now, here, in just this moment of our lives? Whether religious or not, is there any hope for man who has lost this capacity, or forgotten the need, to know himself and to be alive and present in himself?

The great ideas and ideals of Christianity continue to offer hope and comfort to the world, as do the ideals of Judaism and Islam -- and all the world's great religions. And as do the ideals of humanistic morality, with its passionate commitment to justice and to human rights. Yet we see, we see, we cannot help but see that now, as ever, something is missing, something has been forgotten about ourselves and in ourselves. Our children see it as clearly as we sometimes do; more clearly! The words of St.Paul never sounded more distinctly than they do now in the lengthening shadows of our civilization.

For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do......Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? -Romans 7"

This is the crux of what I've defined as our choice. The danger of secularism and its acceptance of cave life assures we can never come to know ourselves as described in the excerpt posted by AH. As a result its emphasis is on what we do rather than what we ARE. What we ARE is a measure of how well we know ourselves. The continual change in what we do is evidence of our hypocrisy

To know thyself begins with the recognition of our nature; by understanding the parts of ourselves (mind-body-emotion), how they become aligned and how they fall out of alignment. This leads to the potential conscious experience of ourselves and this experience is what it means "to know."

We are as we are but can we change what we are? Meister Eckhart suggest it is possible and it is the essence of Christianity:

Quote:

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works."

Even some in modern psychology see that what we are is relative since we are not ourselves:

Quote:

Man's main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become what he potentially is. -- Erich Fromm

This is poison to secularism that considers all paths equal. They are equal in their imagination and only a source of consolation to serve cave life. The inability to recognize "quality" as it relates to the ancient traditions must consider them equal since in its eyes it is only imagination to consider what our insignifacance in relation to higher consciousness and higher human purpose.

However it is the imagination normal for cave life that denies the need and willingness to know thyself and is unaware that the devolution of the great traditions into secularism is the real result of imagination. The seeker is then compelled to go backwards to find the esoteric substance of the tradition before the secular experts dictated their "improvements" in support of cave life.

So we have a choice. We can celebrate how wonderful we are or come to see that we don't know ourselves and it is only because of this simple fact that we are governed by hypocrisy that actualizes the cycles of life for us including the cycle of war and peace We can continue to worship the impotent platitudes of secularism or admit to what we are; unable to "know thyself" and beginning to understand what this means, its value, and how one can begin.

Lightkeeper · #26 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 05:22 PM

Nick,

What is your definition of secularism? Is it separation of church and state or skepticism? Are you trying to tell us that there is only one path? Are you trying to tell us that Christianity is the only path and your interpretation of it?

Can you give us your short definitions without quoting others?

You come across as having a very low and dark opinion of humans. You have interpreted the cave allegory in a way others don't interpret it. At the same time you are sayng that your interpretation is the only correct one. It's like you can't let the light in. You seem to spend so much time thinking about the human condition. What each of us needs to do is heal ourselves.

Here is an assignment for you. I would like to hear your thoughts and not Simone Weil's or anyone else's thoughts. I think if you work more with your own thoughts you will find you way out of the cave. I would like to see at least 5 posts where you don't quote anyone else.

sendy47 · #27 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 05:51 PM

Nick...i second LK's post to you...i also would love to hear from you...YOUR thoughts....do you know how to reach them...

Nick_A · #28 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Nick,

What is your definition of secularism? Is it separation of church and state or skepticism? Are you trying to tell us that there is only one path? Are you trying to tell us that Christianity is the only path and your interpretation of it?

Can you give us your short definitions without quoting others?

You come across as having a very low and dark opinion of humans. You have interpreted the cave allegory in a way others don't interpret it. At the same time you are sayng that your interpretation is the only correct one. It's like you can't let the light in. You seem to spend so much time thinking about the human condition. What each of us needs to do is heal ourselves.

Here is an assignment for you. I would like to hear your thoughts and not Simone Weil's or anyone else's thoughts. I think if you work more with your own thoughts you will find you way out of the cave. I would like to see at least 5 posts where you don't quote anyone else.

Secularism is the "world" referred to in Christianity. It is the "CAVE" described by Plato and the "Burning House" described in Buddhism. Secularism is the exoteric level of existence, attached to the earth, that lives in imagination so is separate from higher consciousness and serves only the purpose of the rest of organic life which is the transformation of substances through the life processes. The escapism of mysticism at this level is fantasy

Secular religion strives to bring God down to our level in contrast to the sacred traditions that aid the "being" of fallen man to regain what has been lost and become closer to its source. The distinctions between the sacred traditions exist only on the exoteric level. At the transcendent level or where they originated, they are the name.

The only reason it seems that I have a dark opinion of humans is because I recognize and admit the human condition in myself and in the world. To egotism it appears as a dark opinion but actually it is the recognition of the value of human potential. Man can serve a necessary conscious purpose but imagination keeps him unaware of it.

There are two possible interpretations. One of which is the secular where we are as we are so all that is important is what we DO. The other is that we are unaware of objective psychological human meaning and purpose from what all the ancient traditions describe in one way or another as being asleep to reality so attached to incidentals at the expense of our conscious potential.

This is our choice. The secular route is easier because we go with the flow and feel as part of society. The esoteric level which begins with the inner recognition of the meaninglessness of the exoteric, strives to awaken at the expense of what feels good from our preconditioning.

Conscious human evolution now depends upon a sufficient minority able serve as an awakening influence within the world as a whole. Secularism unconsciously seeks to kill this influence through its imaginary self importance so as to preserve the status quo. Which direction we take is our choice.

Lightkeeper · #29 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 06:08 PM

Thank you, Nick. It's very refreshing to hear your thoughts. One thing I would question is that imagination is all bad. We need our imagination to invent and move forward. It may be a word you need to replace in your theory.

What is your definition of mysticism? I see religious mysticism as a process of quieting one's mind so that we find the higher Self (Christ consciousness, etc.) within us.

Nick_A · #30 (**permalink**) 13th July 2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Thank you, Nick. It's very refreshing to hear your thoughts. One thing I would question is that imagination is all bad. We need our imagination to invent and move forward. It may be a word you need to replace in your theory.

You are referring to conscious creative thought as in pondering. Imagination is its opposite

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: