"Smorgasbord" Religion, Being of a Faith, and the Personal Journey

[ciberpy]

Hopefully others are seen as non different than ourselves. This is part of a healthy sense of self as I understand it.

Hopefully. There are some out there who insist on driving down the wrong side of the road. I discovered an entire island full of them. Bloody 'ell.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Ciberpy

I see an illusory foundation in Simone. To illustrate: Can Simone describe who, where, when, why, and how you will love someone? No? Then neither does Simone choose who, where, when, why, and how God will love others. She is using the name 'God' in vain. I submit that she does not choose who, when, where, why, and how anyone will love anyone... except herself. Am I wrong? She can certainly proclaim who loves who, where when, why, and how... but that will be her illusion.

The difference between animal and spiritual love is one of scale and discrimination. An animal loves selectively. This is good and necessary for animal life on earth. However, spiritual love is the love of life itself that seeks the evolution of life becoming its potential. So from this perspective there is no discrimination as to what to love and not to love on earth. This same idea is at the basis of the idea of what it means to love the sinner but not the sin. Divine love supports human conscious evolution so it is the love of the comparative nothing that we are in support of its potential.

This love of course doesn't originate at the level of the earth but has a higher conscious origin. this quality of love isn't mechanical reaction as with an animal but rather conscious recognition of living evolution.

I think it can be shown that kids who see themselves as what they know, or as what their capability is, have a learning disability compared to those who see themselves as someone who can learn and earn new talents. The 'nothing' you describe, or that Simone describes, is no different than saying that a child is an 'F', or that a person is their status, education, rank, income, etc... It is merely stripping a person of all possession, of all capability, and then saying the person is that emptiness.

This is true for secular standards. If a kid sees themselves as an "F" in relation to societal standards then they have a negative self image that can be psychologically harmful. What she refers to as does the man in my story, does not concern societal standards but the ability to be master of themselves so as to become themselves rather than being judged by another. Such an attitude has no fear of new skills that is often a result of societal conditioning. This not societal but rather the objective psychology of "being" or what we are in relation to our potential inner unity.

The question raised during Jesus' temptation by the devil is not societal but psychological. The devil admits that Jesus is at the stage now where he could dominate the world through manipulation and the prince of darkness would gladly help in this cause. However Jesus chooses to serve in heaven rather than rule in hell. This is no longer a matter of acquired self esteem defining self worth but rather the inner experience of pure "conscience" which feels objective "quality" - the relationship between the higher and lower. From the point of view of non conditioned pure conscience from the spiritual awareness of higher consciousness, there is no satisfaction in domination but human "meaning" is experienced through compassion.

Can a kid be encouraged to psychologically develop beyond dependence on self esteem and become open to conscience and its connection to a higher objective reality? Can one grow beyond allowing themselves psychologically to be defined by others in preference to striving to become open so as to become themselves? I believe it is possible for some which is why I support these rare "black sheep" that feel out of place in the world and the attraction to objective reality but are criticized for it by the world. They don't have the support to make use of this gift that can lead to awakening and the ugly duckling becoming the swan. The cause of religion should include this type of help but having become secularized, has lost the means to do so. Since I believe the world needs the influence of these people regardless of how they are disliked, I support all these efforts that are unafraid of becoming open to and dealing objectively with the human condition. We need more swans and I dislike seeing them inwardly starved to death as is the norm in secular life.

 

[Nick_A]

yeh she was a remarkable woman who was not content just to talk the talk,but one who was willing to put herself on the front line of experience. And technically she starved herself to death, which is not the same as anorexia depending on opinion. But it has religious experience and nascent mythology written large over it already. Do we really need another Joan of Arc?

Actually there is an argument going on in France if Simone is a reincarnation of Joan of Arc. Does it hurt to have another person that raises such awakening concerns for humanity? Doesn't it beat worrying about the size of Jennifer Aniston's behind?

She didn't kill herself. This rumour was begun by just some of these alpha males who you dislike. From a Wiki discussion on Simone:

I assume we all agree that she was a most independent woman...a forminable discussant [she scared Simone de Beauvoir by unmasking bourgeois tendencies according to Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter].
So, how does this fit the end of her life. She was really sick - TB. They had collapsed the lung and it did not good at all. The dr. wanted to do it again. She refused [what today would be call the 'right to refuse treatment' - especially frutiless treatment. He got mad that she would not just acquiese [like any patient, especially woman was expected to do] and so when she died he signed the death certificate that she died as a result of self starvation.
Here is where Pretrement comes in...documents the testimony of her nurse, some friends who would bring food in etc. Even goes to her confessor, 2nd doctor etc. Now, I have had some friends who have died and almost none of them wanted to each anything near the end...cancer, TB etc. there is a natural loss of appetite. So, I do not want to include all that in the encyclopedia article but want to put it out here for consideration.

She had no fear of death. The doctors were insulted since they needed to be begged so called her death starvation. Pure spite.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hopefully. There are some out there who insist on driving down the wrong side of the road. I discovered an entire island full of them. Bloody 'ell.

lol....and you had to avoid a head on only once!

 

[Tao_Equus]

NickA,

Sorry but any of that messianic nonsense just repels me. She was just another human and we have had enough martyrs.

 

[shawn]

Nick can't help himself....he is in love with this Simone woman, or infatuated.

 

[Nick_A]

NickA,

Sorry but any of that messianic nonsense just repels me. She was just another human and we have had enough martyrs.

One of the extraordinary attributes of the Simone Weil phenomenon as it pertains to religious calling is that there is nothing messianic about it. She refers only to "grace" There is no personal Gray beard telling us what to do. Hers is the quest to experience the "good" the heart is drawn to. What makes it spiritual and an aspect conscious evolution is simply that this quality of "good" does not exist on earth. Rather then bringing it down to our level, we must rise in the direction of its level.

Saying that Simone is just another human being is like saying Kasparaov is just another chess player. While true in the sense of quantity, the essential difference is in quality. Kasparov understands chess. A patzer also understands chess but their quality of understanding is no where on the level of Kasparov. Understanding then is defined by how someone plays the game. It is the same with growing to the understanding of human meaning and purpose as it pertains to the "good," It is hard for us to accept since we don't have a measure for qualitative humanity in search of itself as we do for chess so consequently everything is considered the same in the secular world.

Simone was no martyr. She had no intention of being one but just was one of these rare individuals that felt their philosophy enough to live it. She didn't write for publication. she only wrote one book. Everything else is compilations of her notebooks, letters, and essays. People like T.S Eliot and Albert Camus knew that what they had discovered should be in the world so they published them. There is no money in it. Hers is not an Oprah type presentation but between the eyes depth and honesty which is not flattering. We cannot know if the mystical stories about her are true but I do know that I lack the inner balls to strive for experiential understanding of the human condition by becoming open to it as she did.

"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him."

She could do this; I cannot. This is why we don't understand events like Darfur. We are not open to the experience so they repeat. Yet if a teaching can be considered legit, it must provide the ability to be able to practice what the teaching suggests rather then say what should be done with righteous indignation. We have to be able to play ourselves with a similar degree of qualitiative understanding that Kasparov plays chess. She was able and many feel it which reminds us of our own weakness. Just this helps us to minimize the defense of what we ARE so as to become open to what we might BECOME.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick can't help himself....he is in love with this Simone woman, or infatuated.

No, regardless of attempts at ridicule, I have gratitude for having experienced an evolved female heart. It is something special. It has the power to make a potential prince out of a toad.

 

[shawn]

Not ridicule.
I recall you going on and on and on ad nauseum about this Simone woman on the other interfaith board last year.
that is infatuation.

 

[Tao_Equus]

No, regardless of attempts at ridicule, I have gratitude for having experienced an evolved female heart. It is something special. It has the power to make a potential prince out of a toad.

If one person was to lead us out of the mire, (a notion I find as far fetched as any on these pages), it would have to be a human heart, not a 'female' one. We do not need heroes, we need to be heroes.

 

[Saltmeister]

If one person was to lead us out of the mire, (a notion I find as far fetched as any on these pages), it would have to be a human heart, not a 'female' one. We do not need heroes, we need to be heroes.

Oh for sure, yes I agree that we need to be heroes. But how will we know how to be heroes if we don't know how others became heroes?

These legends are of ordinary people doing simple, stupid things.

A small step for a human, a giant step for humankind.

Martin Luther King: I had a dream . . .

Heroes are big dreamers who turn their pipe dreams into reality.

That's what makes it so majestic. The majesty, the splendour, the spectacle, the adventure. That's what makes a hero. It's a person who does the spectacular, a person who boldly goes and does where/what nobody has gone and done before.

Think up a pipe dream; think big; then make it happen.

I had a dream . . .

Let's go on an adventure . . .

 

[Nick_A]

Not ridicule.
I recall you going on and on and on ad nauseum about this Simone woman on the other interfaith board last year.
that is infatuation.

Simone is just a rare person with the need and courage to be open to what we are normally closed to. She is a perfect example of the calling of transcendent Interfaith. I simply do not know who better to quote since she is totally without the BS normal for secular Interfaith or the need to protect it in order to feel good as with the other Interfaith board.

Infatuation is the process of being carried away by unreasoned passion. She was never that way and her life is an expression of the value of not doing so in search of the truths that unite the logic of science and religion. Infatuation is precisely the opposite.

Bobby Fisher was a nut but he played beautiful chess. The fact that I appreciate his chess regardless of his controversial nature is not infatuation but simply appreciative of this quality of reasoned expression over the board. Simone was open to an evolutionary calling to consciousness society has killed off in the majority. Her life challenges us to be open to these questions if we feel them but lack both need and courage to experience the objective self knowledge necessary to pursue them. You tell me another who is not part of a movement that has a similar appreciation for the unity of science and religion at a higher level of reality and lives this reasoning without hypocrisy and I'll gladly quote them

 

[Nick_A]

If one person was to lead us out of the mire, (a notion I find as far fetched as any on these pages), it would have to be a human heart, not a 'female' one. We do not need heroes, we need to be heroes.

I am politically incorrect since I believe in essential complimentary differences between men and women in the pursuit of conscious evolution in contrast to societal adaptation..

The heart of Man was altered when Man was divided into the male and female principles represented by "Adam and Eve." There is a need to join these principles once again at a higher level of being which is the sacred concept of marriage and what separates it from the secular.

A man who is willing to fight for the good as in the classic old stories represented by the white knight etc. is willing to fight but doesn't know what to fight. He has yet to "feel" objective quality. The evolved female heart open to objective quality is what awakens such a man to the direction of the real battle which is within himself. He comes to see that the battle isn't with another but rather with the loss of human perspective from the loss of the ability to feel higher emotions and be drawn to objective "quality" rather then just being lost in emoting.

It is the story of the princess and the toad. The man is nothing because he is just a creature of the earth blindly fighting other creatures. Her ability to communicate a rare quality of love, enables him to become himself and awakens him to objective quality and rise to his rightful level of being, his kingdom, taking her with him.

This is of course very politically incorrect because it recognizes essential differences, but regardless, IMO there is a lot of truth in it. Simone's purity of heart and its awareness of objective quality blended with an intellect capable of this quality of impartial attention has a way of helping men to see the futility of fighting windmills and acquire the ability to be open, not is some New Age cutsey pooh fantasy, but just initially be open to some non judgmental self awareness: "Know Thyself" through the power of impartial attention. No right or wrong but just experiencing what we are. It is the beginning that is so hard to begin

 

[shawn]

I simply do not know who better to quote since she is totally without the BS normal for secular Interfaith or the need to protect it in order to feel good as with the other Interfaith board.

Infatuation is the process of being carried away by unreasoned passion. She was never that way and her life is an expression of the value of not doing so in search of the truths that unite the logic of science and religion. Infatuation is precisely the opposite.

You tell me another who is not part of a movement that has a similar appreciation for the unity of science and religion at a higher level of reality and lives this reasoning without hypocrisy and I'll gladly quote them

I am saying you seem to be very caught up in some kind of over adoration, and infatuation....you, not her.
People can only take so many "quotes" from others.
Mostly these kind of boards, (in my understanding) are all about dialogue between people concerning their opinions.
When people are constantly quoting one source, whatever that may be, then they appear to be on a soapbox and preaching, looking for converts to their point of view.
you never "got that" on the other board and that was why they banned you.
Really we just wanted to talk with you about what you thought and not try to dialogue with the stack of quotes in your head, however profound they may seem to be.
That is as pointless an exercise as trying to talk with some missionary who is trying to win converts and all you get is a regurgitation of all the verses they have memorized.
If any of us were really interested in Simone and what she wrote we would do our own research. Most people on these boards seem very capable of such simple tasks.
Then we would talk about the ideas and opinions formed by such exposure if there was anything worthy of discussing.
Just like the others were attempting to communicate to you then, you need to learn how to communicate your ideas better if you want to have better reactions.
Or maybe you don't care about all that and are just content with being a martyr.

 

[Nick_A]

I am saying you seem to be very caught up in some kind of over adoration, and infatuation....you, not her.
People can only take so many "quotes" from others.
Mostly these kind of boards, (in my understanding) are all about dialogue between people concerning their opinions.
When people are constantly quoting one source, whatever that may be, then they appear to be on a soapbox and preaching, looking for converts to their point of view.
you never "got that" on the other board and that was why they banned you.
Really we just wanted to talk with you about what you thought and not try to dialogue with the stack of quotes in your head, however profound they may seem to be.
That is as pointless an exercise as trying to talk with some missionary who is trying to win converts and all you get is a regurgitation of all the verses they have memorized.
If any of us were really interested in Simone and what she wrote we would do our own research. Most people on these boards seem very capable of such simple tasks.
Then we would talk about the ideas and opinions formed by such exposure if there was anything worthy of discussing.
Just like the others were attempting to communicate to you then, you need to learn how to communicate your ideas better if you want to have better reactions.
Or maybe you don't care about all that and are just content with being a martyr.

When I quote Simone, I follow it with my own position as to why it is relevent. The meaning in this isn't to blindly quote but to be able to use such knowledge by becoming aware of the method or the dharma in Buddhism.

Dr. Emanuel Lasker in his book the "Manuel of Chess" stresses the importance of method over details. The method, he wrote, is "plastic." If one finds the method, the detail will become obvious. People like Simone help us to become in touch with living universal method. Then what appears to be the chaos of the world becomes clear as to why it has to be so and why we don't have to be a blind part of it.

The esoteric meaning of Plato's cave is poison to secular Interfaith which defines the value of existence at one level of reality and values by our ability to adapt to it. The tension between the site owner and me over this essential psycholgy required me ousted. There is just no sense in me being agreeable at the expense of substance. Perhaps the division between secular and transcendent Interfaith cannot be maintained on a site. I don't know. What I do know is that Transcendent Interfaith which requires acknowledging the human condition is becoming more important as technology increases. I don't see the worth of denying this in order to appear as Mr. Wonderful. That title is reserved for Paul Orndorff.

Simone Weil, Plato, and others keep alive a quality of human awareness and aspirition towards individuality that is essential even though it counters the emphasis on surrendering to the societal mind currently fashionable in pursuit of an imaginary world peace. I am not willing to deny it for public acceptance but rather appreciate the minority open to discuss our human options.

 

[shawn]

As true as that may be, the point here is that one can have a perception of how they are perceived which may be quite different from how others actually perceive them.
Politico's and tv personalities call it having a sense of optics.
In other words they are tuned in to how they look from anothers perspective.
So while you have this idea in mind as to what you are doing, the consensus which You seem to have missed from all the others involved was that there was a disparity between what you intended and what actually was.
I am not going to beleaguer this point for long, but am doing it as a friend.
It is a critique and you can do with it as you will.

 

[Nick_A]

As true as that may be, the point here is that one can have a perception of how they are perceived which may be quite different from how others actually perceive them.
Politico's and tv personalities call it having a sense of optics.
In other words they are tuned in to how they look from anothers perspective.
So while you have this idea in mind as to what you are doing, the consensus which You seem to have missed from all the others involved was that there was a disparity between what you intended and what actually was.
I am not going to beleaguer this point for long, but am doing it as a friend.
It is a critique and you can do with it as you will.

Secular Interfaith begins with the premise: I'm OK and you're OK. It develops on this basic premise. Transcendent Interfaith begins with the premise: I'm and idiot and you're an idiot. It develops on this basic premise. It makes Tolstoy's observation meaningful in that it admits the need for personal awakening.

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself". Tolstoy

There is no sense of optics with this. One either has the humility to admit the human condition or they don't. To cutsey pooh this distinction just destroys its importance. This is why I keep an eye out for those willing to respect honesty rather than demand having their ego flattered. We live in dangerous times. Without enough of these people willing to take off the rose colored glass, we may well be doomed. I simply have no desire to cater to this weakness at the expense of potential human lives so consequently look for those willing to smell the coffee and build on a realistic premise.

 

[Snoopy]

Increasingly pre-verbal. How would you describe your practice?

Under duress, I would say Buddhist. But that is dualistic.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

There as many, per head of adherents, competing schools of Buddhism as there are in Christianity. Each with its followers happy to believe it is they that have the truth. We cannot help but continually be divided if we keep elevating what is subjective experience primed by a carefully constructed philosophy of certitude, or believing even that certitude is possible.

Where I have bolded, my experience says different. I do not see competition, nor a single source of truth being offered, nor certitude.

Anyway, aren't you banned???!!!

s.

 

[path_of_one]

Secular Interfaith begins with the premise: I'm OK and you're OK. It develops on this basic premise. Transcendent Interfaith begins with the premise: I'm and idiot and you're an idiot.

I take what's behind door #3:

I'm an idiot and you're an idiot. And that's OK. We'll figure things out eventually.