agnosticism

[Lunitik]

Methinks Lunatik just enjoys slinging fecal matter. Personally, I prefer paintballs.

If this is the best way you have found to write off what I say, so be it.

 

[Lunitik]

Does this look like a man you should fear?

Jung could not face him, he went on to state that a Western audience should avoid everything about Eastern thinking... this amount of fear shown is a man renowned for psyco-analysis? Give me a break...

If the West knew more of Indian philosophy, there would be no Jung at all because the minds of people would be far healthier. It is his very method which is at the root of insanity - this over-analysis of things which simply do not actually matter. Bring people to see the absurdity of clinging to a dead thing - the past - and there is no more a problem at all for Jung to write about.

 

[seattlegal]

Jung would simply discover the nature of the delusion and concentrate you on it, he knows nothing of getting people out of them. Maybe through the analysis you might change your perspective through different insights, but those insights are from mind as well so it is just a surface change - the issue remains, you just might look at it differently.

One must identify what to drop before one can drop it and how to properly dispose of it, no?

Zen is about dropping dreams and illusions and finding the real, it is exactly the basis for saying Jung is describing an unenlightened man, because Zen teachings will actually help to overcome these things,

Indeed.

A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
​

nothing of Jung will do that.

It can be useful in focusing in on exactly what you are clinging to, so you can understand the suffering you get from even subconsciously clinging onto something, and you can deal with it and let it go.

Dhammapada 1:1-6
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.​

The first two lines deal with the general, whereas the third and fourth lines deal with the specific. Jungian models can be useful in focusing on specifics.

 

[Servetus]

I am not interested in arguing semantics, but I do not accept the first half of your statement. Agnosticism, as I understand, is a claim, or proposition, that one does not or cannot know. It therefore impresses me as nonsense, or as at best paradoxical, to say that “agnosticism is the only way to actually know.”

You have began the semantic dispute, now you are saying you don't want to discuss it?

No. I am notifying you, in advance, that if the discussion degenerates into a semantic dispute, I shall lose interest. I did not begin a semantic dispute. To the three categories which you proposed in response #18, I offered a fourth, gnosticism.

Agnosticism means you don't know, it says nothing about not being able to know.

If agnosticism means one doesn’t know, how is it the only way to actually know? The contradiction, semantic or otherwise, in the statement seems evident.

Gnosticism is the opposite, it says you do know …

Exactly. That is why I introduced the term.

Gnosticism is the opposite, it says you do know - this is plainly egoistic …

Of course it is egoistic. Who else, other than oneself, is claiming to not know, in the case of agnosticism, and to know in the case of gnosticism? Egos, after all, claim to be theists, atheists, agnostics and gnostics and, for that matter, discuss the differences between and among the terms.

, what do you know?

Very little, and, at this point, it is safe to say that I am learning even less.

I thought you just said that agnosticism is the only way to actually know.

I did, because it says you don't already, thus now you can discover it... if you have decided you already know, there is nothing to discover. That is what gnosticism says though, there is nothing more to discover.

This is circuitous. What is the “it” in this case to be discovered? Is it knowledge? If, according to your definition, an agnostic discovers “it,” and it is knowledge, does he or she become a gnostic, or one who knows, in the process of discovery? If so, is it true that gnostics say that there is nothing more to discover?

Gnostics in general, I would suggest, make no such claim. A child, for instance, who emerges from the womb of the world and remembers, that is to say, knows the experience does not claim to have nothing more to learn. Thus it is with a gnostic.

Well, in the apocrypha, Jesus is actually quoted as saying truth is no longer valid or necessary. Seems a contradiction, can you show where he has spoken in favor of truth for me?

Maybe it is just an initial stutter-step we’ve started upon, which often happens in discussions of this sort, but we seem to be having a difficult enough time with the definition of agnostic. Perhaps, with your permission, and although I really only wanted you to identify the scripture to which you were referring in your above post, it would be best, for now, to abstain from discussions of scripture. They are, by their nature, potentially discursive, and I did not introduce them into this discussion.

 

[Lunitik]

One must identify what to drop before one can drop it and how to properly dispose of it, no?

The Buddhist word oft-translated as desire more correctly means "discontent", this is the nature of insanity - you are remembering something you want to change or desiring something better in the future, all the time missing the present where happiness can happen.

The disease has been diagnosed and a cure established for 2500 years, but of course the West hasn't adopted it so we are left with the insanity of the Christian faith and its many problems, thinking them to be just normal things which happen to people. It is duality that creates problems in the mind - past and future being one dual notion, but the most fundamental for the West is good and bad. Now, good and bad are not real things, they are concepts, and they are interconnected. If you try to increase good, how will you do it without emphasizing bad? They are meaningless without the other, because they simply describe different levels of the same thing.

This is the whole problem, trying to separate reality when it is inseparable.

It can be useful in focusing in on exactly what you are clinging to, so you can understand the suffering you get from even subconsciously clinging onto something, and you can deal with it and let it go.

Nothing is let go by giving it more attention, that is just stupidity. This is exactly what Buddha is saying, drop these thoughts completely, just do not give them any energy. If you let them die, then they will leave of their own accord. One of the fundamental Buddhist meditations is simply to watch your thoughts and acknowledge them, permit them to be but do not attach. In the West, we go on repressing these things though, then Jung has to come and dig them out and we praise him. Once it is brought out though, simply acknowledge, otherwise you will make the matter worse because you are again giving the thought wings.

I imagine this is why his student committed suicide, Jung probably tried to hypothetically treat him and actually dug up some past damage and caused the student to obsess about it. The psychologists love him, of course, because if you never cure your business will be very profitable - just keep letting people give energy to their problems and you are set for life. In reality the whole problem is fabricated...

The first two lines deal with the general, whereas the third and fourth lines deal with the specific. Jungian models can be useful in focusing on specifics.

There are no specifics that are important when dealing with mind, else it will take millions of years to undo the damage society goes on doing. These hangups of feeling you have been wronged or whatever, these things which have caused the mind to become stuck in the insane, they needn't be emphasized at all. Certainly, they need to be brought to the forefront, but now all that is necessary is to acknowledge and permit. It is repression which causes the problems, loose the problem from its dark corner and let it float away - it was you all along keeping it trapped, trying to control it!

 

[Lunitik]

If agnosticism means one doesn’t know, how is it the only way to actually know? The contradiction, semantic or otherwise, in the statement seems evident.

I do not understand why you are having an issue with this... if you think you know, you will not think there is anything more to know. You are satisfied now, even though you may actually know nothing at all.

Of course it is egoistic. Who else, other than oneself, is claiming to not know, in the case of agnosticism, and to know in the case of gnosticism? Egos, after all, claim to be theists, atheists, agnostics and gnostics and, for that matter, discuss the differences between and among the terms.

Ego does not like to find it doesn't know something, watch it!

It is the whole basis for the joke of a man lost in his car, refusing to ask directions, insisting constantly that he actually does know where he is its just a shortcut...

The ego is very satisfied when it finds it does know something, and telling yourself beforehand that this is absolutely truth, the ego will be very happy to know it has discovered this thing. It is comical, I have tried it on myself, watched mind feeling very smug about utter crap - how much easier when you haven't concocted the experiment yourself?

This is what religions capitalize on though, of course.

This is circuitous. What is the “it” in this case to be discovered? Is it knowledge? If, according to your definition, an agnostic discovers “it,” and it is knowledge, does he or she become a gnostic, or one who knows, in the process of discovery? If so, is it true that gnostics say that there is nothing more to discover?

It is truth, but it is not a knowledge.

Yes, when you have known, you can freely state you are now a gnostic, before though you have not known so you are agnostic even if you are attempting to find out.

Once you have found it, certainly there is nothing more of value to discover, but until it is found, you should not settle into thinking you know.

Gnostics in general, I would suggest, make no such claim. A child, for instance, who emerges from the womb of the world and remembers, that is to say, knows the experience does not claim to have nothing more to learn. Thus it is with a gnostic.

If you know a thing, why study it further?

Maybe it is just an initial stutter-step we’ve started upon, which often happens in discussions of this sort, but we seem to be having a difficult enough time with the definition of agnostic. Perhaps, with your permission, and although I really only wanted you to identify the scripture to which you were referring in your above post, it would be best, for now, to abstain from discussions of scripture. They are, by their nature, potentially discursive, and I did not introduce them into this discussion.

I have not even wanted to discuss it, in the current discussion, gnostic and theistic are exactly the same - both are claims to know without genuine encounters. Those who actually know will know just how little they really know, it is the paradox. Knowing the nature of existence, yet the impossibility of actually constructing it into a coherent statement. Whatsoever words you choose, it is not complete, it does no justice to the reality of it.

That is why the mystics go on giving devices of how you can know, but first step is always to drop whatsoever you think you already know. Now, with empty canvas, you can approach it... no baggage can come along though, absolutely nothing of your current perceptions or identifications, nothing.

 

[seattlegal]

The Buddhist word oft-translated as desire more correctly means "discontent", this is the nature of insanity - you are remembering something you want to change or desiring something better in the future, all the time missing the present where happiness can happen.

The disease has been diagnosed and a cure established for 2500 years, but of course the West hasn't adopted it so we are left with the insanity of the Christian faith and its many problems, thinking them to be just normal things which happen to people. It is duality that creates problems in the mind - past and future being one dual notion, but the most fundamental for the West is good and bad. Now, good and bad are not real things, they are concepts, and they are interconnected. If you try to increase good, how will you do it without emphasizing bad? They are meaningless without the other, because they simply describe different levels of the same thing.

This is the whole problem, trying to separate reality when it is inseparable.



Nothing is let go by giving it more attention, that is just stupidity. This is exactly what Buddha is saying, drop these thoughts completely, just do not give them any energy. If you let them die, then they will leave of their own accord. One of the fundamental Buddhist meditations is simply to watch your thoughts and acknowledge them, permit them to be but do not attach. In the West, we go on repressing these things though, then Jung has to come and dig them out and we praise him. Once it is brought out though, simply acknowledge, otherwise you will make the matter worse because you are again giving the thought wings.

I imagine this is why his student committed suicide, Jung probably tried to hypothetically treat him and actually dug up some past damage and caused the student to obsess about it. The psychologists love him, of course, because if you never cure your business will be very profitable - just keep letting people give energy to their problems and you are set for life. In reality the whole problem is fabricated...



There are no specifics that are important when dealing with mind, else it will take millions of years to undo the damage society goes on doing. These hangups of feeling you have been wronged or whatever, these things which have caused the mind to become stuck in the insane, they needn't be emphasized at all. Certainly, they need to be brought to the forefront, but now all that is necessary is to acknowledge and permit. It is repression which causes the problems, loose the problem from its dark corner and let it float away - it was you all along keeping it trapped, trying to control it!

Ahem:

Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose?
(Buddha's closing summary of this discourse)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."​

Concentration comes first, knowledge and understanding next, then disenchantment, dispassion and release.

You have to pay attention first in order to skillfully release.

 

[Lunitik]

Agnostic can also mean "not learned", truth cannot be learned.

Gnosticism is about knowledge gained, but it is utterly of mind, what use is it really? If you discover nothing, you are just memorizing what others discovered - what is the use of that? You can earn money utilizing their knowledge, but it is still not your knowledge, it is something borrowed, learned.

Nothing valuable in life is learned.

 

[Lunitik]

Concentration comes first, knowledge and understanding next, then disenchantment, dispassion and release.

You have to pay attention first in order to skillfully release.

Buddha has been perhaps the greatest master to ever live, but I must say it is very frustrating that you keep quoting him as if to instruct me...

My problem with Buddhist texts is that they go on creating a task, they keep the wheel turning longer than it needs to. I have pointed you towards Tilopa and Saraha for exactly this reason: enlightenment happens in an instance, it is not something which needs to be built up to at all.

Mind enjoys this set timetable though, it can compare against a list and know it must be advancing through its work. Know that Buddha has set about these things to appease your mind, eventually you have to understand the absurdity of even his words.

That is his whole purpose though, in that recognition you can be released from discontent. He is playing on your mind deeply to help you realize its stupidity.

His whole teaching can be summed up easily: no-mind.
More generally, all Eastern thought can be summed up easily too: witness

Mind is not the witness for it too can be watched, find the witness!

 

[seattlegal]

Buddha has been perhaps the greatest master to ever live, but I must say it is very frustrating that you keep quoting him as if to instruct me...

If you say Buddha says one thing, and the actual texts say another, it would be useful to compare your claim to the texts.

My problem with Buddhist texts is that they go on creating a task, they keep the wheel turning longer than it needs to. I have pointed you towards Tilopa and Saraha for exactly this reason: enlightenment happens in an instance, it is not something which needs to be built up to at all.

Mind enjoys this set timetable though, it can compare against a list and know it must be advancing through its work. Know that Buddha has set about these things to appease your mind, eventually you have to understand the absurdity of even his words.

It is a set of tools.

That is his whole purpose though, in that recognition you can be released from discontent. He is playing on your mind deeply to help you realize its stupidity.

Indeed.

His whole teaching can be summed up easily: no-mind.
More generally, all Eastern thought can be summed up easily too: witness

Mind is not the witness, find the witness!

Please post a Buddhist source to back up your claims regarding Buddhism, thanks. No more strawmen, please.

 

[Lunitik]

Viewing Buddha as a philosopher is the worst mistake you can make...

Buddha has tried to create a happening in people, but to do that, he has to still your mind. Eventually, you will have spaces between thoughts, and those spaces are where it happens.

Viewing Buddha as a philosopher is flawed because now you are stuck in mind analyzing things, you will cling to what you have read or heard thinking the words are something worthwhile... Buddha's words are utterly useless, they are just a nonsense to keep you busy while you drop your mind.

The Sage I posted earlier, Maharshi Ramana is best known for his silence. He has gone on saying that every word he has spoken is merely for those who cannot understand his silence. So it is with Buddha, but you are to understand the silence, not cling to the noise.

 

[Lunitik]

If you say Buddha says one thing, and the actual texts say another, it would be useful to compare your claim to the texts.

They don't say anything different at all, you are just looking at the boat where I am saying that the river is so shallow you can walk it.

Please post a Buddhist source to back up your claims regarding Buddhism, thanks. No more strawmen, please.

It is described as Buddha-nature... it is the whole purpose of the texts and you are questioning whether they are genuine? This really emphasizes how much you miss of Buddha...

No-mind is used most in Zen, but Buddha makes many references as well, including:

Anger and pride should one forsake,
all fetters cast aside,
dukkha’s none where no desire,
no binding to body or mind
- dhammapada v221

 

[Lunitik]

Uhh, chapter 17 verse 221

 

[Etu Malku]

It is funny though, you start out defending Jung because my statement of patient suicide is "slander", now you say it is perfectly normal for patients to commit suicide - I merely point out that the guy has not helped anyone.

You misunderstood my post (having lot's of practice obviously), my slander comment wasn't directed at the patient suicide aspect.

He goes back to analyze the past which CANNOT be changed. Every patient of his can be cured simply by saying "do not worry about the past, it is dead, let it rest" but no, he goes on analyzing the patients very issue. The issue is not the real problem at all, it is the CLINGING to the issue that is the problem.

Being that your clueless about psychology, this tirade is excusable.

The Jungian system has at it’s core the concept of an unconscious aspect to the human psyche. This consists of the personal unconscious - relating to ones own life history - and a collective unconscious - comprising symbols shared by all humanity. These symbols - or archetypes - allow humans to perceive and relate to the world in species-specific ways. This occurs both within the individuals’ life and between individuals separated in time and space. It is the conscious mind’s choice to ignore these archetypal behaviour patterns that cause psychological problems. The task of Jungian therapy is therefore to redress the balance by helping people to understand the influence of specific archetypes in their lives.


I have to say though, your Eastern posturing is almost as boring as the christians'

 

[Lunitik]

The Jungian system has at it’s core the concept of an unconscious aspect to the human psyche. This consists of the personal unconscious - relating to ones own life history - and a collective unconscious - comprising symbols shared by all humanity. These symbols - or archetypes - allow humans to perceive and relate to the world in species-specific ways. This occurs both within the individuals’ life and between individuals separated in time and space. It is the conscious mind’s choice to ignore these archetypal behaviour patterns that cause psychological problems. The task of Jungian
therapy is therefore to redress the balance by helping people to understand the influence of specific archetypes in their lives.

The actual situation is that it has influence because they cannot let it go - it's as simple as that. We create guilt in everyone as a society, and now they have repressed something. This grows and grows until they are completely obsessed... in reality, Jung is merely teaching people how to live after amputation, but is still letting people sit with their legs hanging over the platform at a train station.

I do not need a psychology degree, I have mastered my own mind! I have already shown Jung has not even managed this, yet you justify what he has said about others?

 

[Etu Malku]

The actual situation is that it has influence because they cannot let it go - it's as simple as that. We create guilt in everyone as a society, and now they have repressed something. This grows and grows until they are completely obsessed... in reality, Jung is merely teaching people how to live after amputation, but is still letting people sit with their legs hanging over the platform at a train station.

I do not need a psychology degree, I have mastered my own mind! I have already shown Jung has not even managed this, yet you justify what he has said about others?

The Jungian process of Individuation is meant to clear all the past baggage so to speak in order that the person will be balanced. This is very Eastern in philosophy, I don't understand where or why you're comprehending otherwise.

 

[Lunitik]

The Jungian process of Individuation is meant to clear all the past baggage so to speak in order that the person will be balanced. This is very Eastern in philosophy, I don't understand where or why you're comprehending otherwise.

No it isn't, not at all.

Eastern philosophy is centered around maya - everything that has happened is false, only God is real.

It is people like Jung that have made karma such a complicated concept, now you have to go through everything but you are accumulating more and more all the time. How will you ever actually balance everything? It would be impossible...

I really had a good chuckle about this, Jung is more so what the East warns against these days. You name it, bare none in the last century, the East has called Jung a moron... now you say his thinking is very Eastern? Laughable.

 

[Etu Malku]

In developmental psychology - particularly analytical psychology - individuation is the process through which a person becomes his/her 'true self'. Hence it is the process whereby the innate elements of personality; the different experiences of a person's life and the different aspects and components of the immature psyche become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole. Individuation might thus be summarised as the stabilizing of the personality.

Individuation is a process of transformation whereby the personal and collective unconscious is brought into consciousness to be assimilated into the whole personality. It is a completely natural process necessary for the integration of the psyche to take place. Individuation has a holistic healing effect on the person, both mentally and physically.


You're just confused . . .

Jung, individuation and Buddhism - YouTube

 

[Lunitik]

The East is not about personality, it is about dropping this persona utterly.

Buddha has talked directly and extensively about no-self, so the whole grounds of his argument in this video is wrong. For Buddha, the ultimate is becoming absolutely nothing, if you think you have a soul then that too is another illusion and another clinging - you simply are not.

 

[seattlegal]

They don't say anything different at all, you are just looking at the boat where I am saying that the river is so shallow you can walk it.



It is described as Buddha-nature... it is the whole purpose of the texts and you are questioning whether they are genuine? This really emphasizes how much you miss of Buddha...

No-mind is used most in Zen, but Buddha makes many references as well, including:

Anger and pride should one forsake,
all fetters cast aside,
dukkha’s none where no desire,
no binding to body or mind
- dhammapada v221

That's about giving up clinging and attachments.

Here are two other translations for comparison:

Abandon anger, be done with conceit, get beyond every fetter. When for name & form you have no attachment — have nothing at all — no sufferings, no stresses, invade.

Kodhavagga: Anger

221. One should give up anger, renounce pride, and overcome all fetters. Suffering never befalls him who clings not to mind and body and is detached.

Kodhavagga: Anger

​

Mushin is also about about the mind being unattached--free from anger, fear, and micromanaging--getting out of your own way, so to speak. It is not about nullification of mind, it is about a purified mind.