Spiritual Suicide

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What do you see as the danger of destroying the ego-self-construct?

Is there not a danger in the ego-self-construct tricking the "wave" that it has joined the "ocean" when it in fact it has not? How would one know the difference?

What do you see as the danger of destroying the ego-self-construct?

Inability to navigate in the relational world of maya, or to have a “base” from which to relate to others (even compassionately) who think they are only the somebody-self they have learned to be—or to allow them to relate to “you.” Perhaps you forget to eat, to love, to enjoy...

Inability to enjoy the dance of maya—which is not of itself “delusion.” (Note: I use the words “illusion” and “delusion” differently, even though the dictionary may not, and some use them interchangeably.)

The illusion of thinking you have escaped maya because you wander around in some pseudo-ethereal “non-self,” which cannot relate to anyone else.

The ego-self develops precisely because it allows you to survive in the world of maya. Even if it is flawed, treat it (“yourself” ) with some compassion. Once you realize it is a construct, you can alter it’s parameters; it’s boundaries are not so solid and fixed. Or, rather, once “it” realizes it is not the whole, it becomes more resilient. (This is a very difficult way of talking, I realize.)

Is there not a danger in the ego-self-construct tricking the "wave" that it has joined the "ocean" when it in fact it has not? How would one know the difference?

Yes. As long as you are wave, you will have an individuated perspective—the ego-construct is part of that, and serves that. In a sense, the “I” is no more than this perspective on the world. The problem is when you begin to think it is more than that.

The wave has never been separate from the ocean. When you “return,” the wave no longer is, nor the perspective that comes from being a wave.

Enjoy being this wave. Once you have seen through the illusion of maya, you can enjoy the maya itself, without clinging/clutching.

If someone says that they are no longer “wave,” but have re-joined the “ocean,” wonder why they are even talking to you. The bodhisattva is one who could enter into nirvana, but chooses to remain in the phenomenal world of maya out of compassion for those who do not realize that maya is not the ultimate reality.

The key is realization. The realization is pre-conceptual. You are not a concept, nor the ideas you have about yourself.

Behind/before the makings of the mind—what?

If you find that, perhaps you will be able to express it in concepts/language better than I am.

Or—

Can you develop the so-called “witness”? Can you dispassionately observe your ego-construct/somebody-self from a pre-conceptual awareness? The way you would observe a flower or a bird, or any other phenomenal aspect of maya?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]What do you see as the danger of destroying the ego-self-construct?

Inability to navigate in the relational world of maya, or to have a “base” from which to relate to others (even compassionately) who think they are only the somebody-self they have learned to be—or to allow them to relate to “you.” Perhaps you forget ...[text shortened]... ness? The way you would observe a flower or a bird, or any other phenomenal aspect of maya?[/b]

This is an interesting construct, yet I can't help but wonder if elimination of the ego-self-construct shouldn't be viewed as the next step to be taken in the progression. I can't help but wonder if enjoyment of the material world, no matter how unattached one perceives oneself, only gets in the way of compassion, love, justice, truth, etc.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is an interesting construct, yet I can't help but wonder if elimination of the ego-self-construct shouldn't be viewed as the next step to be taken in the progression. I can't help but wonder if enjoyment of the material world, no matter how unattached one perceives oneself, only gets in the way of compassion, love, justice, truth, etc.

Do you think joy is opposed to compassion? Would it be uncompassionate to help someone else enjoy material things--such as food?

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you think joy is opposed to compassion? Would it be uncompassionate to help someone else enjoy material things--such as food?

I could take these questions in several different ways, so maybe I'll just make a statement. I see all transgressions of man against man as rooted in the desires of the self. I would include the enjoyment of material things in that. Most seem to believe that love is rooted in helping another to 'feel good'. I see love as rooted in truth. Reading this over, I'm guessing you might find some of this ambiguous. Please feel free to ask for clarification.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I could take these questions in several different ways, so maybe I'll just make a statement. I see all transgressions of man against man as rooted in the desires of the self. I would include the enjoyment of material things in that. Most seem to believe that love is rooted in helping another to 'feel good'. I see love as rooted in truth. Reading this over ...[text shortened]... m guessing you might find some of this ambiguous. Please feel free to ask for clarification.

I hope that one the ways you didn’t understand my questions was as sarcastic. I have been a bit pressed for time and so have to keep my response short—

I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean when you say you believe “love is rooted in truth”. Unless you mean that compassionate and caring action is guided by rationality. You seem to want to remove emotion—not just from consideration in our actions—but totally.

How is joylessness “rooted in truth”? If you experience any physical enjoyment today (or, how a bout the mental enjoyment, sat, of playing chess?) is that untruthful? A “sin” (as in error or failure)? Do you really think that counseling others to avoid all physical enjoyment is rooted in either truth or love?

I do not see how one can live a flourishing, thriving life in the midst of this world of maya without joy—without en-joyment. I do not see a message of joylessness—especially preached to those who have little joy in their lives—as either compassionate or just. In order to accomplish more justice in the world, why do you have to destroy joy?

I choose to enjoy the dance of maya. I choose, for example, to enjoy the love and intimacy I share with my wife.

Anguish/suffering comes from clinging/clutching (the Second Noble Truth). Including clinging to illusion.

Originally posted by vistesd
I hope that one the ways you didn’t understand my questions was as sarcastic. I have been a bit pressed for time and so have to keep my response short—

I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean when you say you believe “love is rooted in truth”. Unless you mean that compassionate and caring action is guided by ratio ...[text shortened]... ffering comes from clinging/clutching (the Second Noble Truth). Including clinging to illusion.

Yes, including clinging to illusion.

Sometimes one needs to 'step away' to understand what things are.

We have a way of making things into things they aren't. For example, food is often seen as something it isn't. Some time ago I saw a documentary on eating disorders and possible causes. A half-dozen or so pre-schoolers were put in a room with some coloring books and an assortment of crackers. The children were told they could color and eat whatever they wanted. So they colored, interacted and would occasionally grab one of the various crackers. Another group was told that they could color and eat whatever they wanted, except for the 'goldfish crackers'. For these they'd have to wait FIVE minutes. So they just sat there wide-eyed with anticipation. Some could hardly contain themselves. They didn't color or interact with each other or eat any of the other crackers. They just looked at each other and waited. After the five minutes was done, they gorged themselves exclusively on the goldfish crackers. The goldfish crackers had become a special reward and it made them feel special to eat them.

A diamond bracelet is given as an expression of 'love'. Is this really love? Making someone 'feel special' is given as an expression of 'love'. Is this really love? 'Pleasure' is given as an expression of 'love'. Is this really love?

What is intimacy? What is love?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes, including clinging to illusion.

Sometimes one needs to 'step away' to understand what things are.

We have a way of making things into things they aren't. For example, food is often seen as something it isn't. Some time ago I saw a documentary on eating disorders and possible causes. A half-dozen or so pre-schoolers were put in a room with some ...[text shortened]... expression of 'love'. Is this really love?

What is intimacy? What is love?

Have you read Zorba the Greek?

Originally posted by vistesd
Have you read Zorba the Greek?

No. Saw the movie though. Why do you ask?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No. Saw the movie though. Why do you ask?

The film is good (Anthony Quinn is terrific), but it does not nearly capture the philosophical depth of the novel. Also, the novel continues with a long and important denouement beyond the dancing on the beach, which ends the film.

The narrator (called “Basil” in the film) is a Buddhist. Zorba is more “pagan” in outlook.

Or, in Nietzschean terms (Kazantzakis once wrote a thesis on Nietzsche), Basil is the Apollonian man; Zorba the Dionysian man. These distinctions are not “hard” however—they are not cardboard characters. And then there are Dame Hortense, the widow, etc.

(Shavixmir reminded me recently of a spiritual rascal who sometime ago suggested that the best spiritual archetype would be a kind of Zorba-Buddha.)

Not that I agree with all of Kazantzakis’ philosophy, but I think it might be a helpful exercise to read the book with this discussion we’ve been having as background, and ask yourself questions such as the following—

—Which character (or characters) is the most compassionate? The most loving? The most just? The most joyful?

—Which character (or characters) is the least clinging/clutching? Which the most free? (Once again, the Second Noble Truth—and the fact that discord, disharmony is rooted in that).

—Who, if anyone, is closer to the “truth”? Is truth basically propositional in nature? Or is it more like the Greek word translated as “truth”: aletheia, that which is uncovered or unhidden or disclosed? Or more like the Sanskrit sat/satya, with the underlying sense of being or reality? Or the English word “true,” which etymologically has the underlying sense of trust, faithfulness, steadfastness?

It is a book that I have endeavored to re-read every year or so, for many years now. I find it to be as “spiritual” (or perhaps, “spirited” ) in its way as the Tao Te Ching or the Upanishads.

____________________________

Yes, giving pleasure can be an expression of love. So can caring for the beloved when they are sick. So can encouraging them in their own quest for a flourishing life.

For me, intimacy involves a loosening of the ego-boundaries, such that the “I-Thou” becomes a kind of “we.” Not just in sexual intimacy, but there too. Also, the experience of reality sans the veils of conceptual thought, the non-separability of the wave and the ocean. Actually, that, too, is ultimately ineffable. But since it is also an experience of the coherent harmony of the Tao, it is also enjoyable.

Maya is illusion, but not falsehood. Or, rather, the illusion is to recognize only the manifold phenomena, and not the ground of the whole—only the waves and not the ocean of which they are—and the reverse would also be illusion. One is perhaps more physicalist, the other more spiritualist.

(Note that I use the word “maya” somewhat flexibly—sometimes referring to illusion itself, but often just the phenomenal side of the illusion; this flexibility seems to be found in the general literature on the subject. Hopefully context helps.)

Originally posted by vistesd
The film is good (Anthony Quinn is terrific), but it does not nearly capture the philosophical depth of the novel. Also, the novel continues with a long and important denouement beyond the dancing on the beach, which ends the film.

The narrator (called “Basil” in the film) is a Buddhist. Zorba is more “pagan” in outlook.

Or, i ...[text shortened]... exibility seems to be found in the general literature on the subject. Hopefully context helps.)

Sounds like it might serve as a good foundation for our discussion, but I rarely read fiction. Actually I rarely read at all. Hopefully we can do without.

I no longer have as broad a definition of love as I once did. Perhaps I've stepped too far away to see it anymore. Or perhaps I've gained perspective. I'd like to think it's the latter, but then again...🙂 Ideally love would involve the sharing of truth - truth as in the ultimate reality. Barring that, sharing truth as what one sincerely believes to be true. How many are intimate enough with each other to completely share that? Most are too afraid to go there, so instead share pleasure, are supportive, etc. I can't help but see these as substitutes for love. They end up sharing at the level of the ego-self-construct. What seeks pleasure, seeks support in this world, etc?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sounds like it might serve as a good foundation for our discussion, but I rarely read fiction. Actually I rarely read at all. Hopefully we can do without.

I no longer have as broad a definition of love as I once did. Perhaps I've stepped too far away to see it anymore. Or perhaps I've gained perspective. I'd like to think it's the latter, but then ag ...[text shortened]... the level of the ego-self-construct. What seeks pleasure, seeks support in this world, etc?

Basically, I agree. Intimacy involves self-disclosure, sharing what one sees as the truth about oneself with the other. So, I think I see what you're saying.

Originally posted by vistesd
Basically, I agree. Intimacy involves self-disclosure, sharing what one sees as the truth about oneself with the other. So, I think I see what you're saying.

Actually I was trying to suggest more than that. That there is a progression from the ego-self-construct to ultimate reality. That beyond recognition of being the "wave" is freeing oneself from the desire of being the "wave" and finally to fully joining the ocean. That "love" also follows this progression. However I don't consider "love" on the ego-self-construct level to be love at all. It's merely a "goldfish cracker".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually I was trying to suggest more than that. That there is a progression from the ego-self-construct to ultimate reality. That beyond recognition of being the "wave" is freeing oneself from the desire of being the "wave" and finally to fully joining the ocean. That "love" also follows this progression. However I don't consider "love" on the ego-self-construct level to be love at all. It's merely a "goldfish cracker".

What if I were to say that—even as we are conceptually stuck in our “waveness” (thank you for understanding that metaphor!)—love is an intimation of our being ultimately of (as well as in and from) the “ocean”?

Originally posted by vistesd
What if I were to say that—even as we are conceptually stuck in our “waveness” (thank you for understanding that metaphor!)—love is an intimation of our being ultimately of (as well as in and from) the “ocean”?

It's probably more realistic to think of it that way, though I find it easier to roll things around in my mind by thinking in terms of truth and love - with love being "truth in action" (the verb of truth if you will).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes, including clinging to illusion.

Sometimes one needs to 'step away' to understand what things are.

We have a way of making things into things they aren't. For example, food is often seen as something it isn't. Some time ago I saw a documentary on eating disorders and possible causes. A half-dozen or so pre-schoolers were put in a room with some ...[text shortened]... expression of 'love'. Is this really love?

What is intimacy? What is love?

I'm surprised they didn't color the crackers and eat the crayons.