as i see it - Pt. III

[Twilight Bark]

The people who work hard a produce real food, cloths, cars and buildings mostly think that writers are parasites that make money by writing stuff. Every drop of their sweat is not worth a hundred books written by writers because writers and philosophers mostly produce this intangiable things. Moreover, the writers and philosophers earn their money from these middle and high class who are completely irrational to pay money for some intangiable ideas that made no good whatsoever. And by being that irrational as to pay for these books these, middle and high class people have some imbalance in their brain. I mean why would you pay money to buy a freakin' philosophy book when you can buy another car or watch more movies or basketball or buy some more stuff to your kids.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Your attempt at sarcasm (we're still on this?) notwithstanding, the fatal flaw in the analogy you are trying to make is that thinkers have shaped today's world in very tangible ways. The hard-working slobs that are producing the "stuff" are living and working in a conceptual and physical landscape whose blueprints owe their existence not to people wielding guns, or going "ummm", but serious thinkers, philosophers and scientists. But all that is beside the point. Even if each and every writer, thinker, scientist, and engineer that ever lived on the planet were a b.s. artist, that would not change anything about the original claim that what is experienced by mystics is a psychological state and has nothing to do with fundamental truths. I cast it as an uncertainty, and Mr. B cast it as a more acidic (or "sarcastic" as you perceived it) and unequivocal pseudo-insult. A "comeback" to Mr. B, regardless of its truth value or the emotional satisfaction it provides you, has no bearing on the original issue: there is no "external", convincing evidence showing that what the mystics are experiencing is indeed getting in touch with a benevolent, caring God, rather than a "psychological state".

[Armen]

Your attempt at sarcasm (we're still on this?) notwithstanding, the fatal flaw in the analogy you are trying to make is that thinkers have shaped today's world in very tangible ways.  The hard-working slobs that are producing the "stuff" are living and working in a conceptual and physical landscape whose blueprints owe their existence not to people wielding guns, or going "ummm", but serious thinkers, philosophers and scientists.

Don't put the real scientists in the same group with those philosophers and empty thinkers. Their work is of no material value whatsoever.

But all that is beside the point.  Even if each and every writer, thinker, scientist, and engineer that ever lived on the planet were a b.s. artist, that would not change anything about the original claim that what is experienced by mystics is a psychological state and has nothing to do with fundamental truths. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

I know a lot of ordinary people for example that say what writers have "experienced" is a complete nonsense.

[Twilight Bark]

Their work is of no material value whatsoever.

You are trying to drag the issue to the emptiness and meaninglessness of materialism. Good try, but no cigar. That's not the issue at all. Mysticism is not the only alternative to dumb materialism.

 

I know a lot of ordinary people for example that say what writers have "experienced" is a complete nonsense.

And I bet all those ordinary folk voted for Bush.

Maybe you should change whom you hang out with.

 

And what is it that those writers "experienced" anyway?

[Armen]

You are trying to drag the issue to the emptiness and meaninglessness of materialism.  Good try, but no cigar.  That's not the issue at all.  Mysticism is not the only alternative to dumb materialism.

No, I am trying to make a different point. The view of mystics by writers like Mr.B is exactly like the understanding of Mr.B by the ordinary folk. Besides, lot of great scientists of humanity (Plato, Aristotel, Euclides to name a few) have derived a lot of their knowledge from mysticism. I could bring some facts if there is a need.

[Twilight Bark]

No, I am trying to make a different point. The view of mystics by writers like Mr.B is exactly like the understanding of Mr.B by the ordinary folk. Besides, lot of great scientists of humanity (Plato, Aristotel, Euclides to name a few) have derived a lot of their knowledge from mysticism. I could bring some facts if there is a need.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I have my own assessment of Mr. B as well, but that has nothing to do with whether the mystics communicate with God. Ditto about the mystic thread in Greek philosophy. When the ancient Greeks came up with a durable idea, it had nothing to do with mysticism per se, regardless of its possible inspiration. What has endured the test of time is based on solid reasoning.

Edited November 14, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[Armen]

What has endured the test of time is based on solid reasoning.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, the real mystics never lost the sense of reason (or else mysticism becomes an illusion) because in their initiation they passed a strong training in mathematics.

 

This is what Steiner said about that:

 

"But it is only that which exists in space and time and has extension in this sense, which may be thus mathematically expressed. As soon as we rise to the higher worlds where it is not only in this sense that Extension must be understood, the science of Mathematics itself fails to afford any immediate expression. But the method of perception which underlies mathematical science must not be lost. We must attain the faculty to speak of the realms of Life and Soul, etc., quite as independently of the particular objective entity, as we are able to speak of the “circle” independently of the particular circle drawn upon paper.

 

As it is true that only so much of real knowledge exists in Natural Science as there is Mathematics in It, so it is true that on all the higher planes knowledge can be acquired only when it is fashioned after the pattern of mathematical science."

 

If you have a strong base in mathematics you will never lose the ture perseption of reality. It is safe to start this "journey" if you have that base.

[THOTH]

People have their preconceived ideas of God which are quite primitive and false.

 

hm we agree on something...

[ara baliozian]

I think same goes for writers. They are harmless and a little bit sick people. They don't produce any valuable goods like food, cars or sex. And their writings failed to change the human being even a bit in all these many thousand this world exists.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

then explain if you can the influence of Marx on several continents...from china to cuba. / ara

 

 

p.s. by the way, stalin would agree with you,

[Sasun]

p.s. by the way, stalin would agree with you,

style_images/master/snapback.png

Armen is only mimicking your line of thought, he doesn't mean what he says.

The fact is, Stalin agreed with you repressing churches and people of faith. He also considered them useless and illusionary people.

[Sasun]

Sasun,

You have not addressed anything I said in any way other than the age-old cliche "God works in mysterious ways".  Fine, if that's good enough for you.

 

Really? I think I have addressed in a logical manner. If I have missed something then please let me know what I haven't addressed adequately.

As for God working in mysterious ways, it is true in some cases and not true in other cases. At any rate that is not what I have been saying. I have been saying quite the contrary, that many things that are believed by some and referred to as mysteries and disbelieved by others as unreal nonsense, are neither mysteries nor unreal. Yoga allows one to have that knowledge where a mystery is no longer a mystery but only an application of a certain spiritual law. Spiritual laws are the bases of natural laws, and therefore natural laws can be bent (hence miracles) by an appropriate application of a spiritual law.

 

If mysticism's proof is the prediction of the futue, then I suggest they predict the stock market's behavior half an hour in the future, extract billions of dollars from the selfish critters running the system on a daily basis and use the money to do endless amounts of good all over the planet.  Absent that, I must assume that either they don't give a hoot just as the god they presume to touch, or they fall short of their claim.

 

There is a common pattern of the fallacy I described before: first you assume that God is supposed to do certain things that in your opinion are good, then you observe that these things are not happening, then conclude that God does not exist. You are now using the same fallacy for mystics. But who said that a mystic would behave like a Robin Hood?

1) You are suggesting a mystic to cheat, which no true mystic will ever do.

2) A true mystic is God's conscious instrument. If God allows material inequalities then a mystic will never interfere with that order. You are assuming God made a mistake creating an unequal world where some are rich and others are poor, and you are suggesting the mystic to correct that "error". It is not going to happen.

3) Money is not what makes people happy. From a mystic's point of view, the key to happiness is freedom and detachment from the material world and desires. If there is extreme poverty the cause problem lies in human nature, not in the lack of money. You may steal somebody's money and give it to the poor and think that you did good, but in fact you did evil. Not only you didn't solve a problem but added a new problem by being a cheater.

4) A mystic will say - help the poor with your own means, and thank the poor person for the opportunity to help him and be unselfish thus changing your selfish nature, and thank God that you are able to do it.

 

More likely, they deal with a fairly uniform and predictable kind of person to begin with, and if they even have a 10% success rate with predicting their "future" (the 90% walking off discouraged or disgusted), that is a mighty big number of new customers.

 

You are again showing that you don't know about any of real mystics. Perhaps you know something about charlatans, there are many charlatans. It is a mistake to assume that everyone who calls himself a mystic is a charlatan.

The predictions by mystics that I am talking about are nothing like what you are describing. They are very precise, 100%. And very specific. I was recently reading about one such case, I suggest you read it. This passage is about Lahiri Mahasaya - a yogi (a practicioner of mysticism) with a very high level of realization. While you may still choose to disbelieve, it will help to at least talk about the same thing.

http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/31.asp .

 

**************************************************************

One of Lahiri Mahasaya's disciples, the venerable Kali Kumar Roy, related to me many fascinating details of his life with the master.

 

"I was often a guest at his Benares home for weeks at a time," Roy told me. "I observed that many saintly figures, danda swamis, arrived in the quiet of night to sit at the guru's feet. Sometimes they would engage in discussion of meditational and philosophical points. At dawn the exalted guests would depart. I found during my visits that Lahiri Mahasaya did not once lie down to sleep.

 

"During an early period of my association with the master, I had to contend with the opposition of my employer," Roy went on. "He was steeped in materialism.

 

"'I don't want religious fanatics on my staff,' he would sneer. 'If I ever meet your charlatan guru, I shall give him some words to remember.'

 

"This alarming threat failed to interrupt my regular program; I spent nearly every evening in my guru's presence. One night my employer followed me and rushed rudely into the parlor. He was doubtless fully bent on uttering the pulverizing remarks he had promised. No sooner had the man seated himself than Lahiri Mahasaya addressed the little group of about twelve disciples.

 

"'Would you all like to see a picture?'

 

"When we nodded, he asked us to darken the room. 'Sit behind one another in a circle,' he said, 'and place your hands over the eyes of the man in front of you.'

 

"I was not surprised to see that my employer also was following, albeit unwillingly, the master's directions. In a few minutes Lahiri Mahasaya asked us what we were seeing.

 

"'Sir,' I replied, 'a beautiful woman appears. She wears a red-bordered sari, and stands near an elephant-ear plant.' All the other disciples gave the same description. The master turned to my employer. 'Do you recognize that woman?'

 

"'Yes.' The man was evidently struggling with emotions new to his nature. 'I have been foolishly spending my money on her, though I have a good wife. I am ashamed of the motives which brought me here. Will you forgive me, and receive me as a disciple?'

 

"'If you lead a good moral life for six months, I shall accept you.' The master enigmatically added, 'Otherwise I won't have to initiate you.'

 

"For three months my employer refrained from temptation; then he resumed his former relationship with the woman. Two months later he died. Thus I came to understand my guru's veiled prophecy about the improbability of the man's initiation."

***************************************************************

 

This book has many such stories, more importantly it tells what yoga is about. Very interesting and inspiring book for many reasons.

 

Having said all that, I still profess ignorance, and hope that others find the humility to do the same.  Oh, as an aside, I don't mind at all if my little kids start from Christianity in their intellectual journey to make sense of the world.  It's ultimately up to them to find their way and find their answers.  When they ask me questions of "cosmic" kind, I have always found ways to "explain" things without shattering the beliefs in their innocent minds.  As a last resort I say "well, the wise men of the religion say ...".

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, just to be sure, unfortunately Christian religion does not have much of mystic tradition, it has instead a volume of dogmas. Don't confuse theology and mysticism. A theologian can be a very ignorant person without any spirit, just hypothesizing things intellectually and creating mental beliefs and so confusing it with faith (much like Ara Baliozian).

What has become of Christian religion is unlike Jesus Christ, one of the greatest ever mystics of all times.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Sasun

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Sasun,

Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply. Unfortunately, you have not addressed any of my statements or questions in a way that fits my definition of "logical". Clearly, we have differing understandings of what constitutes a "logical" argument. I respect the fact that you have your beliefs, and you certainly are entitled to them. I am not trying to change them, except for one. I wouldn't want you to believe that you have logical answers to the issues I raised. And that's alright, lack of answers implies objective uncertainty, not definite falsehood.

I respectfully wish to be done with this subject, if you don't mind.

Best,

TB

[Sasun]

Dear Sasun,

Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply.  Unfortunately, you have not addressed any of my statements or questions in a way that fits my definition of "logical".  Clearly, we have differing understandings of what constitutes a "logical" argument.  I respect the fact that you have your beliefs, and you certainly are entitled to them.  I am not trying to change them, except for one.  I wouldn't want you to believe that you have logical answers to the issues I raised.  And that's alright, lack of answers implies objective uncertainty, not definite falsehood.

I respectfully wish to be done with this subject, if you don't mind.

Best,

TB

style_images/master/snapback.png

You are just trying to win an argument (a logical thing to do???)

[Twilight Bark]

You are just trying to win an argument (a logical thing to do???)

style_images/master/snapback.png

Argh. Sasun.

I am not "trying to win an argument". I thought we were having a discussion, and not a "who can piss farther" race. We can continue this discussion until the cows come home, and we both would still think that the other is not being logical. Why bother? Just drop it, and remain friendly. Mysticism probably can accomodate such a thing, I trust. <_<

[Sasun]

You said:

I am not trying to change them, except for one. I wouldn't want you to believe that you have logical answers to the issues I raised. And that's alright, lack of answers implies objective uncertainty, not definite falsehood.

 

If true, this is quite troubling. But you can't say this, profess ignorance, and profess humility at the same time. If you think that I believe in definite falsehood then you are sure that God doesn't exist, that mysticism is lunacy, etc... This is logic to me.

 

Argh.  Sasun.

I am not "trying to win an argument".  I thought we were having a discussion, and not a "who can piss farther" race.  We can continue this discussion until the cows come home, and we both would still think that the other is not being logical.  Why bother?  Just drop it, and remain friendly.  Mysticism probably can accomodate such a thing, I trust.  <_<

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Please don't take my comments as unfriendly or disrespectful (and what were you expecting, that I should have to always please you with my replies?). I am not trying to piss you off, but you on the other hand are not too averse to do that. I have observed intellectual arrogance in some of your discussions (unless I am hallucinating <_<), and now with me. I spent time to reply to you, but the humble man that you claim to be do not even bother to say what my "logical errors" are. Well, I personally never thank anyone for doing this.

One of thease days you should really teach me your logic.

[Twilight Bark]

You said:

I am not trying to change them, except for one. I wouldn't want you to believe that you have logical answers to the issues I raised. And that's alright, lack of answers implies objective uncertainty, not definite falsehood.

If true, this is quite troubling. But you can't say this, profess ignorance, and profess humility at the same time. If you think that I believe in definite falsehood then you are sure that God doesn't exist, that mysticism is lunacy, etc... This is logic to me.

What i said is not equivalent to stating that you believe in definite falsehood. But that proves my point. Your understanding of what constitutes "logical" is different from mine. How much more accomodating can I be?

 

Please don't take my comments as unfriendly or disrespectful

Oh but that's what they were, and that how they are below. But that's alright as long as you find the restraint to end this discussion in a friendly way. Soon.

 

(and what were you expecting, that I should have to always please you with my replies?). I am not trying to piss you off, but you on the other hand are not too averse to do that. I have observed intellectual arrogance in some of your discussions (unless I am hallucinating <_<), and now with me. I spent time to reply to you, but the humble man that you claim to be do not even  bother to say what my "logical errors" are. Well, I personally never thank anyone for doing this.

One of thease days you should really teach me your logic.

style_images/master/snapback.png

A few words on arrogance. There are times when it is justified but rude, there are times when it is justified and deserved by the receiving end, and there are times when it is simply useful as a communication "device" (and of course there are times when it is unjustified, useless, and rude all at the same time). If you want to match a perceived arrogance, that's up to you. I never claimed that you were hallucinating, insane, deranged, or other things that you are implying. If I sound arrogant, that is because I have confidence in the logic of what I say. And if I have been arrogant unjustifiably, ascribe it to my being imperfect. But then, I never claimed to touch the divine. Which brings me to the subject of arrogance on your part, but I'll drop it here. Life is calling.

 

I am done, whether you are or not. And I still hope that we are on friendly terms in other subjects that are perhaps not so dear to you.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, October 08, 2005

********************************

Fanatics in one camp will invariably create counter-fanatics in the opposite camp, and a fanatic's favorite solution is extermination.

*

Those in power will tend to misrepresent their fanatics as moderates with the result that moderation and tolerance will be seen as treason and critics of extremism will be branded as enemies.

*

Whenever a fellow Armenian tells me, "Please, don't write about this," I think: Why shouldn't I? It is my duty to do so. Let better men than myself deal with the problem of reforming and educating Turks. My ambitions are far more modest.

#