Explanation of paradigm differences

Discussion in 'Hinduism' started by Senthil, Jun 6, 2015.

  1. Senthil

    Senthil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    79
    Certainly a goal is to rid oneself of the ego 'I', and become more soul-like in nature. So if it doesn't speak occasionally, I guess we're getting nowhere. But it can 'speak' in a sense, to the ego-self, in the form of flashes of insight. Intuition and direct cognition are the languages of the soul. So this would remain silent within the individual, as the minute it comes out telling others, it is no longer from the soul, but from the ego-self, and this is often termed a spiritual ego ... and another reason why mystics are taught to keep quiet.

    It is a long road.
     
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,647
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Indeed, and nicely put. This I would say is the 'dark knowing', that is often written off as 'blind faith' simply because it does not arise from the normal intellectual process.

    One of the big questions I have with the modern world is the priority of 'objectivity'. It's become something of a holy grail, and yet whilst there is objectivity, there is duality. Non-duality is a non-egoic subjectivity.

    At the start, subjectivity is an impediment because it is ego-oriented, so the virtues to be practiced, detachment, humility, meditation, prayer etc., are the disciplines of 'putting the self to one side', as it were, and of course suggest objectivity.

    At some point it switches, and with the ego properly disposed towards the cosmos, then one can appreciate authentic and trans-egoic subjectivity, or rather a state in which their is neither subject nor object...
     
  3. Senthil

    Senthil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    79
    Too much analysis for me, I'm afraid. The mystic intellect is full of dense fog. I need to go dig in the garden.
     
  4. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    62
    This reminds me of the Zen saying, "What do we do before enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water. What do we do after enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water."
     
    StevePame likes this.
  5. Senthil

    Senthil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    79
    Two renowned sages met, and sat together in silence for a few hours. Later a devotee asked, "Why didn't you say something?"
    "Nothing to say," was the response.
     
  6. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    565
    I get stuck here, where do duality-non-duality and subjectivity-objectivity intersect?
    And do subjectivity necessarily imply ego-orientation? I understand how it does in the many topics that have popped up over the years, but I don't think my own subjectivity is so much a result of my ego as much as the general chaos of the world, that is the lack of objectivity.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,647
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    They don't. They can't. subject-object is dual.

    I think it's fair to say the general tendency is 'look after no.1'

    Objectivity might well be the illusion. :D

    The distinction might well be between 'me for me' subjectivity versus 'me for thee' subjectivity. That's the difference between 'eros' and 'agape' in Traditional Christian metaphysics.

    In general terms I wonder if what psychology designates 'the ego' is just the self which sees the world as something there at its disposal. Someone who 'transcends the ego' is simply someone with a tad more empathy or altruism?
     
  8. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    162
    Generally agree to your post. The only way to get out of the illusion is to take help of science.
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,647
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Ooh, steady :D There's some scientists who propose that science is subject to certain illusions! There was a lengthy article in New Scientist recently in which a group of scientists were arguing that certain accepted axioms of science are not 'written in stone' and might well be illusory ... the data is right, but because of our preconceptions we read it the wrong way ...

    But I agree, with the reservation that we rely on science only so far as its axioms declare it reliable. Beyond that, it's faith.
     
  10. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    I have come to realize that science contains its own religious fervor and zealots.you
     
  11. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    162
    You mean beyond that it is one's fancy? :D
    No, wil. I am well aware of the short-comings of science.
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,647
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Well when people start making claims for science that the science itself does not make.

    Sometimes it's fancy. Sometimes its misunderstanding. Sometimes I think it's a claim made to boost book sales. Stephen Hawking seems to have a sharp eye for the latter. :rolleyes:
     
  13. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    565
    Yes I see, but I don't really know. Is 'me for me' subjectivity more common than 'me for thee' subjectivity? It's hard test these things, all we can go on is our experiences I guess. There must be a something equivalent in Objectivity? People using a system for their own purpose? Either a ego-centric system or a corruption of any other system.

    I believe the human is what the human is, the system whether it is subjective or objective will only reflect what is already there. Be it 'me for me' or 'me for thee'.

    That I think is the 'Id', unless you where talking about psychology that completely reject Fraud's thoughts. I don't know enough about this to make a trustworthy description but I'm thinking 'the ego' is more the self-aware part of the psyche.
     

Share This Page