The Yoga of the Philosophers

[Arising_uk]

...
Due to individual limitation, not all people who philosophise end up with knowledge of the absolute, but it is the ultimate realisation for any philosopher to gain. Failure to attain this understanding is an intellectual failure, and signals in a defect in the individual's philosophy. I would say that philosophical activity, whether we realise it or not, is an aspiration to, and love of, truth - and ultimate truth is akin to the divine. ...

Thats a big call Nikolai! Given that the idea of an 'absolute', let alone 'the', is still under discussion in Philosophy.

No, because there is much tension and dissatisfaction involved in the search for truth. But the philosopher who has ended their search and gained the truth will certainly be more satisfied, happier, more loving and more fruitful. Socrtaes, Phyrrus and the other yogis I mentioned called this serene state ataraxia.

Is this right? There appear to have been a few interpretations of this word and not necessarily connected to 'truth' nor 'the absolute'

I think anyone who is intellectually minded knows how ataraxia feels, they know how wonderful philosophy is, they may even love it and venerate it. The trouble is, for most philosophers this serenity is transient and lasts only until a new problem poses itself. When the philosophuical search ends, ataraxia becomes a settled state.

Sounds all a bit over-fanciful to me. Why is not philosophy just a method and process to apply to certain problems that confront one, an aid to clear thinking about certain issues.

Happiness and satisfaction are somewhat pale adjectives for the deep joy, peace and compassion that accompany knowledge of the absolute. Everyday happiness and satisfaction are the same thing as divine happiness, but are but transient precursors - however much they spur us on!

You're saying you can become a buddha through philosophy?

The philosophically minded person has a certain instinct for the truth, all philosophers feel it, and it sets us apart from others around us. I say that this instinct for truth is a spiritual instinct, and I also say that you can attain the truth. The philosophical method is a very good method, but it will only work when you realise just what important things are happening when you philosophise. Any faux modesty will hold you back here - the person who lies in bed wondering and wondering about the nature of time and space, or good and evil, is doing something truly sacred and they need to realise that.

Why? I mean why give it this spiritual connotation?

[Arising_uk]

... The problem with the terms is that they don't refer to anything that can be known, seen or perceived. And yet the wise person knows from experience exactly what they mean. ...

See the contradiction in these words? If they can't be known, how can they be known from experience?

[Arising_uk]

... Thought is inherently divisive, just as water is inherently wet. ...

And heres your problem, as water is not inherently wet.

... I'm interested in thought management tools.

If this is the case then why do you not tell us what you've come up with so far? As so far all you've done is tell us why the excellent western thought management tool, philosophy and logic, is not one.

[Typist]

If this is the case then why do you not tell us what you've come up with so far?

Which of course I did in my very last post.

Arising, please. Please either drink more booze so you pass out, or drink less booze so you can post more intelligently. More booze or less, one or the other, please choose one, either is agreeable here.

[Arising_uk]

Which of course I did in my very last post.

Arising, please. Please either drink more booze so you pass out, or drink less booze so you can post more intelligently. More booze or less, one or the other, please choose one, either is agreeable here.

In your dreams, tea, as far as I know, is not alcoholic.

What 'thought tools' have you proposed? Where in your last post is there anything but platitude and folksy metaphor?

[Nikolai]

Hi typist,

Why do momma raccoons feed their babies? Because that's what momma raccoons do. Why do blowhards philosophize? Because that's what blowhards do.

We aren't on a journey traveling to somewhere else, we are already here. We are blowhards, and we are blowharding. More like that.

I totally get this idea, in the same way I get your brilliant line: 'not trusting the factory design is the factory design'. But there seem to be different modes of blowharding.

1) The first mode is normal philosophical activity. It is the mindset whereby you, the subject, is speculating about how things happen in the world outside. This kind of thinking is very absorbing, it seems to follow a chain where one thought links logically with the next, and there is often an emotional component: your heart may pump faster, you may even feel mild adrenalin etc. I would say in this mode we are passively being designed by the designer at the factory.
2) In the second mode, the thoughts aren't perceived as being the product of you, the thinker. There isn't a sense that they a links in a chain but rather exist independently, in their own right. They seem to serenely pop into your brain, and they pop out again. The subject matter might be indentical to in the first mode but they exist as flashes of inspiration rather than as the product of something that's been 'thought out'.

Now both of these can be thought of being 'part of the factory design' but in the second case there is no factory, design, designer, or product - only the thought. And I think the more you move towards the second mode the less the first mode occurs.

I suppose the point I'm making is that thinking that we are some kind of beings who have a design or a blueprint, genetic or whatever, is precisely the worldview that will prevent the second mode of blowharding. To understand that that we are not beings is to understand that there is nothing to blowhard about - not only would it seem strange to do such a thing but there would be very little desire.

I think anyone who philosophises simply must believe in their heart that there is a world to philosophise about.

I blowhard because I was born a blowhard. It's not a decision that was ever in my hands. So, I try to play the nerdy cards I've been dealt as best I can.

Yes, but there is an extremely important part of you that was never born, and is not a blowhard. Until you acquaint yourself with this Typist#2 you will continue to be that blowhard.

But, here's the strange thing. You are blowhard who seems to hold his main tool, thinking, in extremely low esteem. Why doubt yourself? I think its because you know this Typist#2, but haven't quite grasped his hand and shook it.

Yes, because to have some kind of worldview is a philosophical failure.


So, are you saying you view yourself as a philosophical failure?

A worldview is an opinion about the world, an individual viewpoint. If you can see another perspective on the matter you no longer have a worldview - you've transcended the world and have taken a universal view. I might consider the mug before me to be on my right-hand side. If I cannot comprehend how it might be on the left-hand side of the person opposite me I am stuck in a world view. If I can understand my neighbours perspective then I have a universal view.

When I philosophise now, I understand with crystal clarity how all that I say is an illusion. The difference is, I am saying it anyway because I am able to provide a perspective that hardly ever occurs to most thinkers.

I can't be a philosophical failure because I am not blind to the problems with what I am saying. I know them all full well - and that goes for anything I could possibly ever say. I can argue with detachment, because I know the problems with what I am saying but nevertheless I am saying something that is so rarely said.

It's strange how serious I must sound, because at the same time I'm like you - and I don't take philosophy seriously at all!

Best, Nikolai

[Arising_uk]

...
A worldview is an opinion about the world, an individual viewpoint. If you can see another perspective on the matter you no longer have a worldview - you've transcended the world and have taken a universal view. I might consider the mug before me to be on my right-hand side. If I cannot comprehend how it might be on the left-hand side of the person opposite me I am stuck in a world view. If I can understand my neighbours perspective then I have a universal view.

Why is not just another perspective? The perspective of yourself in the others position, second position so to speak in NLP terms, Why universalize it? Of course then there is third position where you stand aside and observe both the cup and the cup-watchers where the cup handle is pointing towards you or the cup has no handle. Then you can go 'god' position or 'universal' if you like and be 'above' and include yourself in the whole process. What do you mean by 'universal'?

When I philosophise now, I understand with crystal clarity how all that I say is an illusion. The difference is, I am saying it anyway because I am able to provide a perspective that hardly ever occurs to most thinkers.

I doubt that, what you say has been around in the 'west' for yonks.

I can't be a philosophical failure because I am not blind to the problems with what I am saying. I know them all full well - and that goes for anything I could possibly ever say. I can argue with detachment, because I know the problems with what I am saying but nevertheless I am saying something that is so rarely said.

Not really, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Husserl, et al have said things like it.

It's strange how serious I must sound, because at the same time I'm like you - and I don't take philosophy seriously at all!

I seem to remember you saying you were a trained psychologist not a philosopher and it was this that you lost heart with? I think there is more philosophy to read as there is much that can be taken quite seriously that bears upon your thoughts.

Must say I'm enjoying watching you take Typist to task for some of his thoughts about your shared idea of what an 'aphilosophy' can and cannot do and can and cannot say.

[Typist]

Hi again Nikolai, please pardon some of our mess.

1) The first mode is normal philosophical activity. It is the mindset whereby you, the subject, is speculating about how things happen in the world outside. This kind of thinking is very absorbing.....

Yes, absorbing, a good word for it. I sense it's the experience of absorption that largely motivates this activity, and so many others. That feeling of being wrapped up in something. I think folks gravitate to any activity that gives them that experience of absorption.

I'll happily spend the evening talking with you about some obscure subject like chicken farming, so long as you are really in to chicken farming, and we can get absorbed together. But the kind of idle cocktail party chit chat that skips casually from topic to topic to topic can be challenging for me, probably because I can't get absorbed in it.

2) In the second mode, the thoughts aren't perceived as being the product of you, the thinker. There isn't a sense that they a links in a chain but rather exist independently, in their own right. They seem to serenely pop into your brain, and they pop out again. The subject matter might be indentical to in the first mode but they exist as flashes of inspiration rather than as the product of something that's been 'thought out'.

That's interesting, thanks. If it interests you, please feel free to expand on this. Is the thinker experienced as just another thought passing by? Instead of the thinker being the center from which everything arises?

Now both of these can be thought of being 'part of the factory design' but in the second case there is no factory, design, designer, or product - only the thought. And I think the more you move towards the second mode the less the first mode occurs.

I picture your way of looking at this as a linear progression down a line from mode one to mode two. Some people might express this as "unconsciousness" at one of the line, and "enlightenment" at the other end of the line, and "spiritual work" as a progression from one end of the line to the other. Is this a reasonable description of your way of looking at this, or am I off base?

I suppose the point I'm making is that thinking that we are some kind of beings who have a design or a blueprint, genetic or whatever, is precisely the worldview that will prevent the second mode of blowharding.

Is that because the first mode of thinking is rooted in the illusion of separation? You know, how we commonly view reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else".

To understand that that we are not beings is to understand that there is nothing to blowhard about -

If we are not beings, and there is nothing to blowhard about, why concern ourselves with enlightenment and such?

This is a sincere and to me important question, not just a snappy comeback. If I don't exist, why do I need to be enlightened? Who is it that moves from mode one to mode two etc?

...not only would it seem strange to do such a thing but there would be very little desire.

For me, it's more like night and day. If I'm near a computer, there's lots of desire to blowhard. When I'm in nature, the desire melts away.

To me, it's less like an evolution, a progression down a line, and more like the endless repetition of day and night, or the circle of the seasons. Thought, no thought, thought, no thought, thought, no thought. A stationary circle, going round and round and round.

Yes, but there is an extremely important part of you that was never born, and is not a blowhard. Until you acquaint yourself with this Typist#2 you will continue to be that blowhard.

Truthfully, I don't really want to be on a becoming journey. Just a personal preference. But if Typist#2 should come a visiting, that'd be fine.

But, here's the strange thing. You are blowhard who seems to hold his main tool, thinking, in extremely low esteem.

Thinking isn't my main tool. Not for what we're talking about. Nature is my main tool in that regard. Hi Mummu!

I don't hold thinking in extremely low regard. I see it as a quite useful tool for dealing with practical matters of course. Other than that, it's just entertainment. Fun is good, but not the big important thing we blowhards like to pretend it is.

As example, all the talk here on the forum. Where does it lead? Nowhere. But it is fun while we're doing it. I'm not cynical about fun, just about the illusion of grand importance that we philosophers like to infuse our ideas with.

Why doubt yourself?

I don't experience it as doubt. As you can see, if anything my relationship with my thoughts is arrogance.

I experience it as acceptance. I'm a fatheaded clever blowhard, who isn't clever enough to stop blowharding. I could be all kinds of things, but this is where I am.

And I say, ok, I accept, thank you for the gift.

I realize the gift is a clown's costume but that's ok, the clown costume is an opportunity for me to develop a sense of humor about myself. A pretty good gift!

I think its because you know this Typist#2, but haven't quite grasped his hand and shook it.

I think you're right.

Well, if Typist#2 is such a hot shot, he'll figure this one out and take care of whatever needs to be done. I can't be bothered, as I'm too busy being where I already am.

A worldview is an opinion about the world, an individual viewpoint. If you can see another perspective on the matter you no longer have a worldview - you've transcended the world and have taken a universal view.

So there isn't any attachment to any one particular viewpoint? Or is that too extreme a description?

If I can understand my neighbours perspective then I have a universal view.

What if you understand your neighbor's perspective, but don't share it?

The difference is, I am saying it anyway because I am able to provide a perspective that hardly ever occurs to most thinkers.

Gotcha. This is the writer's job. Not to be right, but to add to the conversation.

It's strange how serious I must sound, because at the same time I'm like you - and I don't take philosophy seriously at all!

There are at least two different ways to look at this, and we are exploring them together.

Jnana yoga seems to be a process of understanding. As you've expressed it, it seems to involve a progression down a line from not-understanding to more understanding.

An alternative to understanding is surrender. Instead of analyzing all the thoughts and worldviews etc, just let them go. This view sees the problem more as being the nature of thought, than it does the content of thought.

Ha, ha! And now, I must go watch a gangster show with my wife, our Sunday night routine. Pizza and gangsters every Sunday night at 10pm!

Thanks as always Nikolai, you're fun!

[Nikolai]

Hi arising

Sounds all a bit over-fanciful to me. Why is not philosophy just a method and process to apply to certain problems that confront one, an aid to clear thinking about certain issues.

It is this of course, but if I get over-fanciful its because I've recognised a potential in philosophy that is quite literally soteriological. Philosophy is able to take you to a place where there is no more problems, they are finished. I've called it ataraxia because that term has a tradition in western philosophy, but the point I'm making is that heaven is equally apt a term. Philosophy, rigorously applied will take you to the same place as all the religions promise. You call me over-fanciful, I say philosophy is a route to the fanciest places that consciousness can take us.

You're saying you can become a buddha through philosophy?

Yes! And Buddhism at its heart is nothing more than a handful of devastating philosophical arguments. I've tried to make it clear that a repudiation of philosophy is necessary in the end, but when the time comes you will recognise that all the worldviews you previously held were a repudiation of reason anyway.

This is why I call philosophy a spiritual search, philosophy is nothing other than the attempt to see throuigh our various worldviews. The good philosopher is able to be sceptical, to see alternative views, when others fail. When I say that philosophers are doing something sacred, I enjoy the rhetorical impact. But their activity will tend towards the same destination as prayer, devotion, good deeds that are normally associated with the spiritual search.

The problem with the terms is that they don't refer to anything that can be known, seen or perceived. And yet the wise person knows from experience exactly what they mean. ...
See the contradiction in these words? If they can't be known, how can they be known from experience?

The wise person understands themselves as the place where all that is known, seen and perceived occurs. They are a kind of container where everything in the world occurs. When you have come to know yourself as this container, it becomes clear that all that we commonly experience as coming from ourselves (sensations, perceptions, thoughts etc) are mere contents. You realise that You are the place where it all happens. I can see that there is a contradiction caused by language because I am calling both your normal everyday self (the contents) and your transcencdental self (the container) by the same term: you. A wise person knows, and i don't know who or what knows this, but knows from personal experience the difference between these two Yous. They can seemingly switch between these two perspectives of themselves at will, and there is a detachment from the everyay concerns of the ego that feels very blissful.

Why is not just another perspective? The perspective of yourself in the others position, second position so to speak in NLP terms, Why universalize it? Of course then there is third position where you stand aside and observe both the cup and the cup-watchers where the cup handle is pointing towards you or the cup has no handle. Then you can go 'god' position or 'universal' if you like and be 'above' and include yourself in the whole process.

I think that when we can step out of our embodied in time and space perspective and see things, in our mind's eye, from another place in time and space we are doing something extremely remarkable. Even though it seems like a commonplace kind of ability (although not to the autistic person), in essence it is identical to some of the most astonishing transformations in consciousness in human history. Many of our most enduring illusions hold us in sway because we all share the same anthropocentric worldview - a kind of species-wide autism. But there is a part of our wisdom that is able to see that time, space, selfhood are illusions are created by our all-too-human tendency to believe in our own conceptualisations. It is very hard, and takes a lot of courage to analyse time, space and the individual self - especially when, much to our horror, they don't stand up to analysis. To the wise, they are illusions though, like thinking the mug is intrinsically right-handed.

Our individual existence which is the source of all anguish and suffering is actually nothing more than a kind of opinion - there is as much reason to say it doesn't exist as it does. And yet we don't see this alternative view and make ourselves very miserable as a result. Just as the autistic person opposite you would be made anxious and confused when you declare the mug on the right-hand side, so we are all made anxious and confused by this erroneously fixed idea of who we actually are.

Best wishes, Nikolai

[Typist]

Nice post Nikolai! You are on a roll sir, on a roll.

Our individual existence which is the source of all anguish and suffering is actually nothing more than a kind of opinion -

Some people would call it our "apparent individual existence". A compelling and widely share illusion of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else".

Yes, this illusion is the source of most suffering. It's even the source of most purely physical suffering, as it is our obsession with ego which prevents us from curing poverty and most diseases etc.

If I understand correctly, Nikolai is addressing this limited ego centric perspective at the level of the content of thought. He seems to be using reason to analyze the incorrect thought content, edit the thoughts about "me", and untangle the illusion of separateness. Nikolai, is this a reasonable summary? Please correct as needed.

I don't doubt that some who have a natural gift for Jnana Yoga may see it through to the end as Nikolai describes, though I have no personal experience of this myself, and so am only guessing.

As a incurable big picture and practical type of person, I'm less interested in what a rare few highly talented people out at the end of the bell curve may accomplish, than I am in what is useful for the average person.

The simple reality is that most people are not philosophers, except in a most casual way. And, even of the sincere philosophers, very very few will be able to "follow philosophy through to the end" as Nikolai describes. Seeing this, we may decide to explore alternative approaches that have a wider application.

I believe such an alternative is available by shifting the focus from the content of thought, to thought itself.

In this view, the illusion of separation and ego etc that Nikolai refers to arises directly out of the nature of thought itself.

Approaching the illusion at the level of thought itself, instead of at the level of the content of thought, is proposed to be addressing the problem at it's source, rather than at the symptom level.

It's simple.

Thought is inherently divisive, that's it's nature. Thus, when we use thought to observe reality, it divides the "me" from "everything else". The distortion is being introduced by the limitations of the tool we are using to conduct the investigation, thought.

It's perhaps important to note that when we do Jnana Yoga, we are using our illusion and incorrect thought content to analyze our illusion and incorrect thought content. That is, we are looking at the distortion through the distortion creating machine.

An alternative to working our way through all the incorrect and illusory thoughts is to simply turn the machine that is creating the distortion off. Or at least, turn the volume down.

The very good news is that this can be accomplished by the patient application of simple exercises that even a child can learn.

It's really not much more complicated than doing situps to get a flatter tummy. If we do the situps it works, if we don't, it doesn't. Simple.

In this view, thought is seen as as a natural element which we must manage wisely in order to have a healthy life.

We don't expect to somehow be liberated from the issue of food. We accept the burden of managing food every day of our lives, as the price tag for health. Like that.

The problem is that while we've been educated about how to manage food, and are actually quite sophisticated about it, we don't apply the same attention and skill to managing thought.

We take thought for granted, and can't be bothered to manage it. And so, we get a predictable poor result, just as we would if our entire diet consisted of junk food.

Again, my reference to "managing thought" is not to managing the content of thought, but to managing thought itself. My managing I mean, learning it's most basic physical operation, like how to turn it on and off.

If we leave thought running all the time, if we can't be bothered to learn how to turn it off, it will chop up and divide everything in it's path, because that's what this machine does.

Thought is like a chain saw on wheels that we allow to rampage randomly through out our life. This machine chops up and divides useful things like math problems, and it also chops up and divides our relationships with others, and with ourselves.

Thought is just a machine. It doesn't care. Anywhere we aim the spinning blade, we will get a division.

If we want a break from the pain of division, the most direct and practical action is to simply turn the machine creating the division off.

[Arising_uk]

Nice post Nikolai! You are on a roll sir, on a roll. ...

Not noticed that he's decrying your 'aphilosophical' approach? How perceptive of you.

As a incurable big picture and practical type of person, I'm less interested in what a rare few highly talented people out at the end of the bell curve may accomplish, than I am in what is useful for the average person. ...

And once again you fail to provide any practical approach to achieve what you waffle about.

My advice to those who find resonance with Typists words and wish to actually achieve something practical with their thoughts is to find a reputable NLP course, i.e. certificated by Grinder or Bandler, and truly learn how to learn and structure ones thoughts and communications.

[Typist]

And once again you fail to provide any practical approach to achieve what you waffle about

Because as, as we've already discussed MANY times, readers here have not expressed a sincere interest in technique.

This is a philosophy forum, and so readers here wish to do philosophy, which makes sense. Thus, I applaud Nikolai for sharing an approach that is probably more suitable for this audience.

If you have a sincere interest in this topic I would suggest you demonstrate that seriousness by forgetting all about me and what I've said or not said, and pay attention to Nikolai.

If you judge my writing on this topic to be bad, ok, I have no problem with that. Really, I don't.

So prove you really mean it, by not reading my writing on this topic. Take your own declarations seriously, and who knows, maybe we will too.

[lancek4]

Interesting topic. Thank you
It is my understanding that 'yoga' means 'union'. So your offering seems quite appropriate.

I might ask: in this terminology, do you know if there is a term for : the 'motion' of the attempt to Gain this 'union' , and
The 'motion' that expresses this union ?

Of a term that signifies the difference?

[lancek4]

Somehow I feel that in discussing this topic it might be more fruitful to suspend the distinction between 'the indivudual Subject that cannot be communicated through "knowledge"', and 'that subject that is involved with "yoga" as we speak about it'.

Because to not do this will inevitably lead back into some theist debate, and discussion about 'how do you know this' stuff.

For example: how do you 'know' there is an experience of the first type and also one of the second type (above in the thread)?

How do you know there is the 'thinking thoughts' type and then the 'popping in and out' type' ?

I am not sure I am human if I do not have these' experiences. Which type of thought informs the former? Which of the latter? Which one is 'substantial'? Which 'more true or real'?

[Nikolai]

Hi typist

Is the thinker experienced as just another thought passing by? Instead of the thinker being the center from which everything arises?

Yes, the notion of a thinker is just another thought that passes in and out, although there is a superstitious attachment to its importance. All sorts of thoughts come and go, as do feelings, perceptions the lot. We have no more reason to attach ourself to our 'thoughts' about the thinker than we do our 'perceptions' of the sky, but we do, and delude ourself that one is of more significance than the other.

Why do we do this? The idea of a subjective thinker, with the consciousness we give him, is the closest analogy to who we really are - a pure detached awareness of all that comes and goes.

I picture your way of looking at this as a linear progression down a line from mode one to mode two. Some people might express this as "unconsciousness" at one of the line, and "enlightenment" at the other end of the line, and "spiritual work" as a progression from one end of the line to the other. Is this a reasonable description of your way of looking at this, or am I off base?

Its a nice way of describing it for the present purposes. The problem is that as one moves into 'mode 2' one recognises that 'mode 2' was always with you anyway and that there was no linear progression. The idea of an individual making spiritual progress is actually profoundly misleading, but once your wisdom develops you'll no longer be misled on this. But for the time being its a useful enough metaphor I think.

If we are not beings, and there is nothing to blowhard about, why concern ourselves with enlightenment and such?

This is a sincere and to me important question, not just a snappy comeback. If I don't exist, why do I need to be enlightened?

If you think you exist, you need to be enlightened into knowing that you also don't exist. As a matter of fact you (Typist#1) neither exist not not exist. Nothing in the world fits into either category. You, sir, Typist#2 are actually a kind of empty awareness into which everything transiently and briefly flashes into awareness: skies, trees, Typist#1, Nikolai, everything.

It is Typist#1 who needs to be enlightened, Typist#2 already is. When Typist#1 becomes enlightened Typist#2 will see that he was enlightened all along and that Typist#1 is still flashing in and out of awareness just as he always ways.

There is much coonfusion caused by this Zen idea that we are already enlightened. It is true we are, but only the enlightened are able to see that they underwent no enlightenment.

For me, it's more like night and day. If I'm near a computer, there's lots of desire to blowhard. When I'm in nature, the desire melts away.

When you are in front of your computer you blowhard about the life you have in nature - a life of silence and direct appreciation of reality without the divisive interference of thought. I may be wrong here but you seem to hold the hiking typist in higher regard than the typing typist, although perhaps you deny this. For me, if you were really so accepting of your thinking side you would be an everyday rationalist, and not one who seems to find thinking a constraint and advocates aphilosophy.

I think its great that you try and be so accepting of yourself, but it seems to me that the hiking Typist has the upper hand in your mind and will grow stronger while the typing typist withers away. But perhaps you disagree, you often talk of your blowharding as somethign almost hard-wired. Anyway, back to jnana yoga...

What if you understand your neighbor's perspective, but don't share it?

This happens all the time. Because we have a belief in the truth of the matter we believe that, despite the different perspectives, there must be a right answer and a wrong answer. We can therefore see our neighbours perspective with our'head' but our heart, which believes in truth, is telling us to stick with our own view.

This tendency goes as we start to recognise the relativistic nature of truth at the highest possible levels. We stop expecting a right answer, THE solution. When we stop expecting the truth we are able to very quickly see our neighbours perspective with our head AND our heart because there is no belief in the truth holding us back.

When we realise the relativity of good and evil with our head and our heart it can be completely transformative. We see where our neighbour is coming from in our heart, and we cannot argue with them any longer, even if we are suffering as a result. This is called compassion and is the meeting place of wisdom and virtue, and and of philosophy and conventional spiritual teachings. Through philosophy we understand why Jesus taught us not to stand in judgement against our neighbour, and why we here the Tao te Ching teach us that 'sage disregards the life of virtue and so lives the life of highest virtue'. Socrates also recognised that wisdom and virtue converge towards each other.

As I said before, we all have a capacity for relativism - especially the philosopher. But we all have our limits, where relativism makes us feel afraid and we need the security of a truth belief. The jnani yogi attempts to challenge their deepest held beliefs and it takes a lot of courage. They are the Mother Theresas of the intellectual life.

If I understand correctly, Nikolai is addressing this limited ego centric perspective at the level of the content of thought. He seems to be using reason to analyze the incorrect thought content, edit the thoughts about "me", and untangle the illusion of separateness. Nikolai, is this a reasonable summary?

Yes, this is correct. I know the scary hinterlands of aphilosophy lie ahead, but for the same being I am wanting to show how the content of thought is, in itself, paradoxical and supported by belief. I think until we disarm thought by thought,and show it for what it is, we are always going to secretly fear it, secretly think that it yields fruitful knowledge about the 'world'. Any attempt to switch it off prematurely won't work - it will continue to haunt us.

To many spiritual seekers, especially of the eastern persuasion, thought is portrayed as something bad - a divisive force that tends away from the eastern ideal of unity. It therefore assumes the role that concupiscence has to the western seeker. In the attempt to suppress their lust they end up plagued by it all the more. If only they could see that lust is just a passing thought, quite harmless if you don't attach to it, the barriers between themselves and God would be lifted instantly. The same goes with thought. Actually, thought is very harmless and signifies nothing - its just a passing breeze in the mind. But we have to learn that it is intrinsically toothless if we are to disregard it. Philosophical scepticism is the route to this, and as our abilities grow we will be able to be sceptical about the scepticism.

I don't think we can switch thought off, but we can with our wisdom see thought for what it really is - just a passing phenomenon that signifies nothing. When we are at peace at thought we don't compulsively engage in it. It assumes its normal functioning, and when it does it can, when united with compassion, develop a power that it never had before.

Sorry for the long message, even with this I didn't address all you had to say !

Best wishes, Nikolai