The great beast

[Nick_A]

Oh yes, very much so. I have always loved that quote.

Within this relative world there are good and evil, truth and falsehoods, but ultimately there can only be that which is.

I know it sounds so terribly advaitic (sp?) but the understanding that is happening here, in this body/mind seems to accept no less.

( I'm keeping open on the whole thing though )

Quite true. Plato's cave, the domain of the Great Beast is quite sophisticated and produces many great teachers. However there are those that seek the good beyond the assertions of all these teachers and experts in supporting the Beast in the cave.

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"The difference between more or less intelligent men is like the difference between criminals condemned to life imprisonment in smaller or larger cells. The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like a condemned man who is proud of his large cell.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

 

[citizenzen]

...assuring your place as a representative of the "Great Beast," it will be a step in the right direction...

Well then, as his agent I want my 10%.

 

[Nick_A]

Well then, as his agent I want my 10%.

It is guaranteed. The Beast always pays those who voluntrily sell their souls what they deserve.

 

[citizenzen]

Then what is the relationship between compassion and truth? (non-illusion)

When one strips away the layers of illusion that we live under Compassion and Wisdom are what remain.

These two forces are always with us, most of the time buried in the background of thought, concept and emotion.

But when we "come up for air", when as another member described, they turned into a saltdoll(?) in a grocery store, we have come into contact with Wisdom and Compassion.

 

[citizenzen]

It is guaranteed. The Beast always pays those who voluntrily sell their souls what they deserve.

The Beast can have me. I ain't worth a plugged nickel.

 

[seattlegal]

When one strips away the layers of illusion that we live under Compassion and Wisdom are what remain.

These two forces are always with us, most of the time buried in the background of thought, concept and emotion.

But when we "come up for air", when as another member described, they turned into a saltdoll(?) in a grocery store, we have come into contact with Wisdom and Compassion.

Fair enough, citizenzen.

 

[Paladin]

When one strips away the layers of illusion that we live under Compassion and Wisdom are what remain.

These two forces are always with us, most of the time buried in the background of thought, concept and emotion.

But when we "come up for air", when as another member described, they turned into a saltdoll(?) in a grocery store, we have come into contact with Wisdom and Compassion.

I really liked the way David Carse puts it: "Perfect brilliant stillness...outpouring."

 

[seattlegal]

Isn't there a subtle dualism to the concept of Truth?


"From the first, not a thing is" - Hui Neng

When one strips away the layers of illusion that we live under Compassion and Wisdom are what remain.

These two forces are always with us, most of the time buried in the background of thought, concept and emotion.

But when we "come up for air", when as another member described, they turned into a saltdoll(?) in a grocery store, we have come into contact with Wisdom and Compassion.

I really liked the way David Carse puts it: "Perfect brilliant stillness...outpouring."

Ok, then is Wisdom associated more with "relativistic truth" and Compassion associated more with "absolute truth," or can such a sharp distinction really be made? (Methinks not--really sorta fuzzy and/or slippery when you really get down to it.)

 

[Nick_A]

The Beast can have me. I ain't worth a plugged nickel.

You say that now but the beast is skilled in making a sow's ear out of a silk purse which is far more beneficial to it than a plugged nickel. Don't underestimate societal technique for performing this function. People can actually become worthy of thirty pieces of silver. It isn't easy and takes real effort, but it can be done. Don't sell yourself short.

 

[Netti-Netti]

In Buddhism, that interference is entirely created in the mind, therefore illusion.

My solution to these linguistic ambiguities about real/unreal things is simple: There are gradations of reality with varying degrees of permanence.

Einstein said "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." What Buddhists call "unreal/illusion" can be seen as various objects within the world of forms that are less real - i.e., less persistent - than than essences. But even very fleeting phenomena like thoughts and emotions have at least a temporary neurological reality. Karma can be seen as a kind of "particulate" that may be fleeting as well, but is nevertheless real within a time-space continuum, which I consider to be G-d Creation. I believe karma is more real than our thoughts and emotions. In fact, our thoughts and emotions will tend to reflect our karma - which of course is the opposite of the Buddhist view.

Rather than talk in terms of a real/unreal dichotomy, I think we should probably be talking about gradations of reality. At a personal level, a person becomes more authentically themselves as they approximate their essence. Karma is what separates them from their essential being.

Btw, the Buddhist NO-SELF doctrine has been disputed to my satisfaction. The Buddhists threw out the baby with the bathwater when they said there is no soul. The empirical self is transient. But the soul is G-d within Creation.

 

[citizenzen]

Rather than talk in terms of a real/unreal dichotomy...

Buddhists are very much believers in the "real".

That's why so many zen stories end with somebody smacking somebody...

"Everything's an illusion, eh? Is this fire poker an illusion?"

*BONK!*

It is. But it isn't. But it is.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Buddhists are very much believers in the "real".

That's why so many zen stories end with somebody smacking somebody...

"Everything's an illusion, eh? Is this fire poker an illusion?"

Smacking someone and causing them pain illustrates my point about gradations of experiential reality.

Physical pain is more real than whatever mentalism the persons is caught up. So causing someone pain will address the question: what do you want to identify with at this moment: the physical pain or the nebulous thought you were conjuring up (or maybe neither)?

If you think there's some larger metaphysical meaning, I'd like to hear about it. As I understand it, the pain inducement is intended to get people out of their head.. or maybe to keep them awake if they're dozing off.

 

[citizenzen]

As I understand it, the pain inducement is intended to get people out of their head.. or maybe to keep them awake if they're dozing off.

Maybe Buddhists are just sadists.

 

[seattlegal]

Speaking of throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Buddhists are very much believers in the "real".

That's why so many zen stories end with somebody smacking somebody...

"Everything's an illusion, eh? Is this fire poker an illusion?"

*BONK!*

It is. But it isn't. But it is.

Smacking someone and causing them pain illustrates my point about gradations of experiential reality.

Physical pain is more real than whatever mentalism the persons is caught up. So causing someone pain will address the question: what do you want to identify with at this moment: the physical pain or the nebulous thought you were conjuring up (or maybe neither)?

If you think there's some larger metaphysical meaning, I'd like to hear about it. As I understand it, the pain inducement is intended to get people out of their head.. or maybe to keep them awake if they're dozing off.

...all this goes back to these posts on the "How to Meet God?" thread:

Sorry, this is just philosophy and linguistics, Paladin. How about some quick, easy steps for how to meet G-d?

Give birth to a child. No guarantees that it would work, though. {Oops! You said quick and easy! Doh!}

It ain't quick. It ain't easy. Hard labor, and more than enough pain to make anyone get out of their head and their body. Experiential reality at an intense level. If anyone dares to call that an illusion or not real, they deserve a good reality smack!

 

[Nick_A]

I began using the term Transcendent Interfaith since in Society the term exists only as secular Interfaith which is really just a way of puffing up the "Great Beast." Yet From a temporary conscious perspective awakened from influences outside the cave that experiences the beast within ourselves, the reality of the human condition and what it denies us becomes experientially evident. When it does, the objective value of Interfaith that allows individuals to transcend the Beast from whatever path becomes clear.

Kierkegaard understood the beast well.

SK:The Crowd is Untruth

The crowd is untruth. Therefore was Christ crucified, because he, even though he addressed himself to all, would not have to do with the crowd, because he would not in any way let a crowd help him, because he in this respect absolutely pushed away, would not found a party, or allow balloting, but would be what he was, the truth, which relates itself to the single individual. And therefore everyone who in truth will serve the truth, is eo ipso in some way or other a martyr; if it were possible that a human being in his mother's womb could make a decision to will to serve "the truth" in truth, so he also is eo ipso a martyr, however his martyrdom comes about, even while in his mother's womb. For to win a crowd is not so great a trick; one only needs some talent, a certain dose of untruth and a little acquaintance with the human passions. But no witness for the truth - alas, and every human being, you and I, should be one - dares have dealings with a crowd. The witness for the truth - who naturally will have nothing to do with politics, and to the utmost of his ability is careful not to be confused with a politician - the godfearing work of the witness to the truth is to have dealings with all, if possible, but always individually, to talk with each privately, on the streets and lanes - to split up the crowd, or to talk to it, not to form a crowd, but so that one or another individual might go home from the assembly and become a single individual. "A crowd," on the other hand, when it is treated as the court of last resort in relation to "the truth," its judgment as the judgment, is detested by the witness to the truth, more than a virtuous young woman detests the dance hall. And they who address the "crowd" as the court of last resort, he considers to be instruments of untruth. For to repeat: that which in politics and similar domains has its validity, sometimes wholly, sometimes in part, becomes untruth, when it is transferred to the intellectual, spiritual, and religious domains. And at the risk of a possibly exaggerated caution, I add just this: by "truth" I always understand "eternal truth." But politics and the like has nothing to do with "eternal truth." A politics, which in the real sense of "eternal truth" made a serious effort to bring "eternal truth" into real life, would in the same second show itself to be in the highest degree the most "impolitic" thing imaginable.

Objective Individuality that doesn't support the whims of the beast is poison to it. The crowd had no other choice but to say "Give us Barabas." If there were a choice, Jesus' mission would nave been unnecessary.

Kiekegaard wrote

And to honor every individual human being, unconditionally every human being, that is the truth and fear of God and love of "the neighbor"; but ethico-religiously viewed, to recognize "the crowd" as the court of last resort in relation to "the truth," that is to deny God and cannot possibly be to love "the neighbor." And "the neighbor" is the absolutely true expression for human equality; if everyone in truth loved the neighbor as himself, then would perfect human equality be unconditionally attained; every one who in truth loves the neighbor, expresses unconditional human equality; every one who is really aware (even if he admits, like I, that his effort is weak and imperfect) that the task is to love the neighbor, he is also aware of what human equality is. But never have I read in the Holy Scriptures this command: You shall love the crowd; even less: You shall, ethico-religiously, recognize in the crowd the court of last resort in relation to "the truth." It is clear that to love the neighbor is self-denial, that to love the crowd or to act as if one loved it, to make it the court of last resort for "the truth," that is the way to truly gain power, the way to all sorts of temporal and worldly advantage - yet it is untruth; for the crowd is untruth.

How much this reminds me of Simone's observation:

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil
“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles​

The crowd is incapable of what religion suggests. The beast is severed from its connection with the higher assuring that collective human interaction will continue to be governed by power and force that periodically favors one side of the beast over another until it is time to reverse positions in accordance with responding to external conditions.

But he who acknowledges this view, which is seldom presented (for it often happens, that a man believes that the crowd is in untruth, but when it, the crowd, merely accepts his opinion en masse, then everything is all right), he admits to himself that he is the weak and powerless one; how would a single individual be able to stand against the many, who have the power! And he could not then want to get the crowd on his side to carry through the view that the crowd, ethico-religiously, as the court of last resort, is untruth; that would be to mock himself. But although this view was from the first an admission of weakness and powerlessness, and since it seems therefore so uninviting, and is therefore heard so seldom: yet it has the good feature, that it is fair, that it offends no one, not a single one, that it does not distinguish between persons, not a single one. A crowd is indeed made up of single individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he is, a single individual; no one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd around oneself, is on the contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.

It is the goal of the Christian amongst others: "to be." Some begin to experience this need that suggests our connection with higher human meaning and purpose. But the first step is for the person to experience that they are in Plato's cave and what is being lost by it. Then real possibilities begin.​

 

[citizenzen]

I began using the term Transcendent Interfaith since in Society the term exists only as secular Interfaith which is really just a way of puffing up the "Great Beast." Yet From a temporary conscious perspective awakened from influences outside the cave that experiences the beast within ourselves, the reality of the human condition and what it denies us becomes experientially evident. When it does, the objective value of Interfaith that allows individuals to transcend the Beast from whatever path becomes clear.

Ah yes... clear as a bell... buried in the mud... on a foggy night.

Man, and I thought zen could be obscure!

Sometimes I just want to whack him with a fire poker.

But I might just be a sadist.

 

[Nick_A]

Ah yes... clear as a bell... buried in the mud... on a foggy night.

Man, and I thought zen could be obscure!

Cheer up, it gets worse.

Collosians 3

9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

When the transcendent perspective is alive within a group, a commonality exists between people that is impossible without it. I've experienced it so I know it to be true. Yet it is impossible for those that draw their need for "meaning" from facets of the collective

 

[Paladin]

My solution to these linguistic ambiguities about real/unreal things is simple: There are gradations of reality with varying degrees of permanence.

Einstein said "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." What Buddhists call "unreal/illusion" can be seen as various objects within the world of forms that are less real - i.e., less persistent - than than essences. But even very fleeting phenomena like thoughts and emotions have at least a temporary neurological reality. Karma can be seen as a kind of "particulate" that may be fleeting as well, but is nevertheless real within a time-space continuum, which I consider to be G-d Creation. I believe karma is more real than our thoughts and emotions. In fact, our thoughts and emotions will tend to reflect our karma - which of course is the opposite of the Buddhist view.

Rather than talk in terms of a real/unreal dichotomy, I think we should probably be talking about gradations of reality. At a personal level, a person becomes more authentically themselves as they approximate their essence. Karma is what separates them from their essential being.

Btw, the Buddhist NO-SELF doctrine has been disputed to my satisfaction. The Buddhists threw out the baby with the bathwater when they said there is no soul. The empirical self is transient. But the soul is G-d within Creation.

I hear you Netti, we can talk about anything you wish but wouldn't you rather we be genuine? I mean what you call simply Philosophy, linguistics and ambiguities are something else entirely to me.
But that doesn't interest you, and those things I mention you are uncomfortable with. So how can we talk, how can we exchange what is so very real to us unless we risk something.
Sure I have seen the unreality of this thing that is called "mark" but it is also a role I play too, a very real role in this world.
On a quantum level we know a table is not solid yet it appears so, and thus we enjoy its "tableness"
Your beliefs are important to you and thus are important to anyone who values your friendship.
Will you extend that same to another? I would like to think so.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I mean what you call simply Philosophy, linguistics and ambiguities are something else entirely to me.

Hi Paladin,

You evidently know what irony is:

The irony!

And then there's self mocking irony.

But that doesn't interest you, and those things I mention you are uncomfortable with.

Like I said, and then there's self mocking irony.

So how can we talk, how can we exchange what is so very real to us unless we risk something.

I was risking failure with my attempt at self-mocking irony. The person who posted after you was nice enough to let me know it was indeed a flop. Which actually was intended since it served the purpose of moral self-exoneration.

Your beliefs are important to you and thus are important to anyone who values your friendship.

Realistically, I seriously wonder whether anyone actually cares what anybody else thinks, especially in this online linguistic realm where we don't really know anyone and they don't really know us. This is so far removed from real life. A person is so much more than a text file.

 

[greymare]

please please please... dont confuse me... I dont know who needlman, weil, and keirkegard are?? and where the heck is Platos cave....

NickA can you please explain it to me , without quoting, and in simple english.
Belittle me if you will, i dont care,, but i am curious... You say alot but none of it I understand.......
Love the Grey