Philosophy Now Forum

Hi all,

When we think of yoga as being a series of bends, stretches and postures we refer only to one branch of yoga – hatha yoga. There are many more yogas than this: karma yoga is the doing of good deeds, bhakti yoga is devotion to a deity, raja yoga is silent meditation and so on. All these different branches are ways to knowledge of the absolute, and the different styles reflect natural differences in our temperaments.

What we in the west don’t often realise is that there is a branch of yoga that is recognised as a well trodden path to the absolute – a path of thought and reason. It is called Jnana Yoga and it is the path of the philosophers. It is the yoga that Socrates practised, and Plotinus, and Pyrhhus – and with the exception of maybe Heidegger and Wittgenstein has been completely neglected in modern times.

So what does this yoga entail? Jnana yoga is that activity that comes as naturally to people on this forum as eating and breathing. It is the use of reason and logic to examine our beliefs about the world we live in. It makes the assumption that ignorance and confusion adulterate many of our conceptions of reality and seeks to replace these with clear and rational ideas. The life that is thus examined, it holds, will be happier, more satisfying, more fruitful.

Everybody is a jnana yogi to a greater or lesser extent. There aren’t many people who haven’t reflected on the rights and wrongs of their actions, or wondered about how their country should be run, or their children educated. But there are a select few who follow the jnana path further than most. These are the philosophers, and in this day and age these rare beasts seem to have nowhere to commune except on internet forums like this.

I’m sure many of you don’t consider yourselves to be spiritual seekers, yogis. But philosophy, well executed, is a sure path to the Absolute, the divine, to God, and if any of you are interested then perhaps we can discuss this path right here.

All the best, Nikolai

I'm interested Nikolai, please proceed.

But, I must comment on what you must already know.

But philosophy, well executed, is a sure path to the Absolute, the divine, to God, and if any of you are interested then perhaps we can discuss this path right here.

We have a packaging problem. Imagine a really great book, with a graphic detailed photo of a dog turd on the cover. By using the word "divine" you've placed such a photo on the cover of your thread, within the context of this community.

But, it will be interesting to see how you proceed to address this obstacle, so please continue.

Typist wrote:I'm interested Nikolai, please proceed.

But, I must comment on what you must already know.

But philosophy, well executed, is a sure path to the Absolute, the divine, to God, and if any of you are interested then perhaps we can discuss this path right here.

We have a packaging problem. Imagine a really great book, with a graphic detailed photo of a dog turd on the cover. By using the word "divine" you've placed such a photo on the cover of your thread, within the context of this community.

But, it will be interesting to see how you proceed to address this obstacle, so please continue.

I’m sure many of you don’t consider yourselves to be spiritual seekers, yogis. But philosophy, well executed, is a sure path to the Absolute, the divine, to God, and if any of you are interested then perhaps we can discuss this path right here.

Would it be helpful to back up a bit, and not start with an assumption of where the path of philosophy is leading?

The life that is thus examined, it holds, will be happier, more satisfying, more fruitful.

First, is this true? I'm just asking the question, not making an assertion.

I recall asking my high school psychology teacher if psychology experts were happier than other people. At first he was taken aback by the ruthless pragmatism of the question, but to his great credit he then answered that no, this probably wasn't true, and in fact the opposite might be the case. A few years later he was fired for having an affair with a student. A shame, as he was a good guy...

So, are philosophy students and teachers happier, more satisfied and fruitful than the average citizen?

In any case, what does it mean to be happy, satisfied and fruitful? What are these states, and why do we want them?

Are the spiritual among us proposing that a relationship with the "divine" is the ultimate goal of a search for happiness and satisfaction?

Hi Typist - its good to be back, now living in Finland not the UK!

Typist wrote:Would it be helpful to back up a bit, and not start with an assumption of where the path of philosophy is leading?

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.

Typist wrote:So, are philosophy students and teachers happier, more satisfied and fruitful than the average citizen?

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.

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.

Typist wrote:In any case, what does it mean to be happy, satisfied and fruitful? What are these states, and why do we want them?

A good philosopher's question, but this state is its own reward, like all pleasures. The difference is that it is not transient.

Typist wrote:Are the spiritual among us proposing that a relationship with the "divine" is the ultimate goal of a search for happiness and satisfaction?

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!

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.

Best, Nikolai

Hi Typist - its good to be back, now living in Finland not the UK!

I don't know if it's good for you to be back or not. But, it's good for us, so I have my party hat on.

Finland is interesting, and I know very little about it. Was watching some nature videos shot in Finland recently, and it blew my mind. As you might expect, very different from Florida! Please feel free to be our Finland travel guide, if/when it interests you.

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.

Ok, the word "absolute" presents fewer problems than the word "divine". But we still have to try to define that further.

I would say that philosophical activity, whether we realise it or not, is an aspiration to, and love of, truth -

We could perhaps expand this further to state that all activity is an aspiration to.... whatever it is we're talking about. Some feel every moment of our life is part of an effort to "return home". Others might chime in that there isn't anywhere to be but home, but there is the illusion of separation that we struggle to overcome, both consciously and unconsciously.

But let's return to your chosen topic, philosophy as a path "home".

and ultimate truth is akin to the divine.

Can truth or the divine be expressed in human thought or language? I ask because you have set us on a path of using human thought to reach for truth. It seems reasonable to question whether the tool we've chosen is capable of reaching the goal we have set.

No, because there is much tension and dissatisfaction involved in the search for truth.

Ok, good point. A search for truth does seem to involve poking around in all the places we'd rather not see.

But the philosopher who has ended their search and gained the truth will certainly be more satisfied, happier, more loving and more fruitful.

How do we know this? Certainly this claim has been made, but if we ourselves have not reached this point, on what basis would we evaluate the claims?

It could also be proposed that someone who has escaped the distraction of their own personal prison would then really see the enormous suffering around them for the first time.

As example, we routinely read about horrible events in the paper, but we're learned how to hide from them within our own limited self interest. What if we were to escape that limitation, and then experience every story in the paper with true sensitivity, as if we were witnessing it personally?

I smell a rat. I imagine Jesus minding his own business on the way home from a carpentry job one day. He comes upon a leper on the road and cures him. It only took a minute, no big deal. He feels pretty good about being able to help and heads on home to dinner.

The next day he gets up out of bed and finds 3,000 people waiting for him in his front yard. To those whom much is given, much is expected.

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.

Ok, perhaps you can continue to expand on this?

A good philosopher's question, but this state is its own reward, like all pleasures. The difference is that it is not transient.

I am here. I am anxious, uncertain, dissatisfied, worried, neurotic etc, a normal human being.

And now somebody promises that I could be permanently happy and satisfied, a kind of perfect human being. So now I want to be there.

I have memories of moments of happiness, and I'm projecting these memories in to the future, and imagining them as a permanent state, which I'm now grasping for.

I'm not pleased with how "the divine" has arranged reality and my place in it. I have a better plan!

Happiness and satisfaction are somewhat pale adjectives for the deep joy, peace and compassion that accompany knowledge of the absolute.

My lust for this state is growing to fever pitch with each new description of that which I do not have!

The philosophically minded person has a certain instinct for the truth, all philosophers feel it, and it sets us apart from others around us.

Hmm... I would say philosophically minded people have minds tuned to the big picture channel. In my house I am the grand philosopher (ie. blowhard) and my wife is the master of detail, the small picture channel person. My wife is much saner than I!

I can talk about "truth and the divine" MUCH BETTER than wife. My wife couldn't write an article about it to save her life. She just does it. Rather, she just is it.

If/how these big picture vs. small picture issues are related is not entirely clear. The wife story is of course just anecdotal.

I say that this instinct for truth is a spiritual instinct, and I also say that you can attain the truth.

We're going to have to define "spiritual".

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.

Luckily, I don't suffer from excessive modesty, so I really like the idea that being a big picture person is REALLY IMPORTANT. But, I also wonder if it's just really important to me personally, because that's all I know how to do.

Thanks for the thread Nikolai, you always bring interesting issues to the table.

Hi typist

Typist wrote:Ok, the word "absolute" presents fewer problems than the word "divine". But we still have to try to define that further.

I consider Divine and Absolute to be synonyms, alongside God, Mind, Buddha nature and all sorts of other terms. 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. So no attempt at definition will be made, the focus will be on not falling for truths that aren't fully truth.

Typist wrote:Can truth or the divine be expressed in human thought or language? I ask because you have set us on a path of using human thought to reach for truth.

Again, no it can't. The jnana yogi does not necessarily start with the absolute as their aim, their aim is to see the truth in whatever situation they are in. It is only late in their quest that they realise that all their truths are provisional, that all the time they are subscribing to opinions only. The jnani yogi must renounce their own precious philosophical yoga in the end, but there's alot to work through before they'll be able to understand that. But I get ahead of myself

Typist wrote:How do we know this? Certainly this claim has been made, but if we ourselves have not reached this point, on what basis would we evaluate the claims?

.

We can't evaluate the claims, we either find ourselves believing in them or not - and all our so-called evaluations are skewed in the desired direction. Anybody who sees themselves as a 'person' with knowledge of the world 'out there' is operating under some belief or other. The point ultimately is to transcend them all though and this point will eventually come into view. The philosopher becomes the yogi.

Typist wrote:It could also be proposed that someone who has escaped the distraction of their own personal prison would then really see the enormous suffering around them for the first time.

This is definitely true, but at the same time they see that the suffering can be escaped from - and that is wonderful and optimistic.

Typist wrote:I have memories of moments of happiness, and I'm projecting these memories in to the future, and imagining them as a permanent state, which I'm now grasping for.

I'm not pleased with how "the divine" has arranged reality and my place in it. I have a better plan!

Yes, and this is the trap that pretty much every spiritual seeker will fall into - the novice is wise enough to apprehend the truth but still, out of habit, places outside herself. But then they realise that the 'better plan' is to actually be pleased with how the divine has arranged reality. This is the detachment that Buddha recommends, and also the intense love for God that Jesus recommends. How can detachment and intense attachment be the same teaching? Because they are both about letting reality be as it is. Don't attach to this to the detriment of the next thing - love the next thing as much as you love this!

Typist wrote:In my house I am the grand philosopher (ie. blowhard) and my wife is the master of detail, the small picture channel person. My wife is much saner than I!

Your wife is perhaps a different kind of a yogi, not the jnana kind like you. Don't put her on a pedestal above yourself - that's the false modesty again. You're very good at the yoga that you practise. Yes, its time for you to lay it aside but it doesn't mean that it hasn't left you extremely well-equipped.

Typist wrote:We're going to have to define "spiritual".

I think for me spirituality is the opposite of materialism. The materialist sees themselves as a body that exists for a finite period in time and space, that's all. Anyone who disagrees with this diagnosis has spiritual beliefs.

Typist wrote:I don't suffer from excessive modesty, so I really like the idea that being a big picture person is REALLY IMPORTANT. But, I also wonder if it's just really important to me personally, because that's all I know how to do.

If it's important to you then its important enough. Yes, philosophy isn't important to everyone but that doesn't stop if from being utterly crucial in your own life.

Nikolai

I consider Divine and Absolute to be synonyms, alongside God, Mind, Buddha nature and all sorts of other terms. 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.

It would be reasonable for readers to ask how that which can't be known, can be known by the wise person. Is it just that it can't be known by the average person? I ask because the populist in me questions the practical value of things that can only be known or done by a limited number of rare people.

So no attempt at definition will be made, the focus will be on not falling for truths that aren't fully truth.

So at some point we're making a leap from the philosophic process, to something else?

The jnana yogi does not necessarily start with the absolute as their aim, their aim is to see the truth in whatever situation they are in. It is only late in their quest that they realise that all their truths are provisional, that all the time they are subscribing to opinions only.

Is this what you mean?

It seems I was born with (I had nothing to do with it) a certain limited form of cleverness that makes it easy for me to rip any group consensus to shreds, and a certain form of stupidness that leads me to passionately embrace the fantasy that people want this service. I know there are surely others who could rip anything I might think or say to shreds too.

Observing this process in action for years has convinced me that there is no "correct idea" that is immune from being ripped to shreds. Anything one person creates, some other can destroy. Are we talking about the same general thing here? Or am I not hearing what you're saying?

The jnani yogi must renounce their own precious philosophical yoga in the end, but there's alot to work through before they'll be able to understand that.

Well, that's the interesting bit.

Is it really necessary and practical to build this huge house of intellectual cards, if we're just going to knock it all down eventually anyway? It makes me wonder if it might be wiser to not build the house of cards in the first place.

We can't evaluate the claims, we either find ourselves believing in them or not - and all our so-called evaluations are skewed in the desired direction.

Do you mean, we see what we want to see? I certainly do that in my evaluations.

Anybody who sees themselves as a 'person' with knowledge of the world 'out there' is operating under some belief or other. The point ultimately is to transcend them all though and this point will eventually come into view. The philosopher becomes the yogi.

How accurate would it be to rephrase your perspective this way?

We experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else".
This is a fundamental illusion brought on by the limitations of thought, and is the source of most of our personal and social troubles. More or less good so far?

But then I find myself asking...

This pervasive illusion seems to be installed in to all intelligent living things "at the factory". To me, this raises the question of whether we know more about how things should work than the "designers".

On a personal level, I wonder. Should I resist this illusion and try to overcome it? Do I know best? Or should I embrace the illusion, live it with enthusiasm, and respect the design as it is?

This is definitely true, but at the same time they see that the suffering can be escaped from - and that is wonderful and optimistic.

We should perhaps be careful about telling suffering folks they can escape their suffering, because if it turns out they can't, we've just added to their suffering.

As an incurable big picture person I too am intrigued by the sweeping vision you present. As a practical person, I'm more inclined towards simple steps the average person can take today to improve their situation a bit.

The best I can do is guess that the sweeping vision the yogis offer to a rare few can provide a road map for how chemistry may someday serve the many.

Yes, and this is the trap that pretty much every spiritual seeker will fall into - the novice is wise enough to apprehend the truth but still, out of habit, places outside herself.

Right, and spiritual seeking is then just the latest flavor of becoming the person is chasing. Last year they wanted to be thinner, or richer, or more popular etc, and now they want to be holier instead. Nothing has really changed.

Except that it may now be harder to see the becoming for what it is, as the becoming has been draped with all kinds of glamorous garments.

How can detachment and intense attachment be the same teaching? Because they are both about letting reality be as it is.

Which brings the entire process in to question.

I'm a fatheaded old blowhard with poor social skills and way too many thoughts, immersed in all the classic human illusions we've been discussing etc. That's the reality that is. Should I let this reality be as it is?

If yes, won't the pursuit of enlightenment fill my head with thoughts of how it should be different, and set me off chasing something other than what I already am?

Your wife is perhaps a different kind of a yogi, not the jnana kind like you.

Right, you understand. She's a love yogi, I forget the correct term, but she's it. What's charming about her is that it's not a path for her. It's just who she is. She's not on a journey to some place else. And "not being on a journey" isn't a journey for her either.

She's a great teacher for me. She shows me, without trying to, without even being interested, that being articulate and being wise can have very little to do with one another. Thus, I am cheerfully skeptical of all articulate people.

Don't put her on a pedestal above yourself - that's the false modesty again.

Why have a wife if you're not gonna do the pedestal thing? That's a recipe for trouble my friend!

You're very good at the yoga that you practise. Yes, its time for you to lay it aside but it doesn't mean that it hasn't left you extremely well-equipped.

I'm extremely well equipped to keep on doing the same silly bullshit I've always done. I'll be 60 in a few months, and feel at the peak of my ridiculous powers.

No shit, it's an interesting ego adventure to have a genetic level knack for something that doesn't really matter, and that nobody really wants. Sometimes I feel like a kid shouting to his mom, "Mom, mom, look, look, I can stand on one foot!!"

You see, I don't really want to become enlightened. All I'm asking for is a sense of humor about my predicament.

But, but, there's good news right around the corner! First Florida cold front coming this weekend, and the winter hiking season is upon us. Wisdom will be found in the real world, not in my brain.

I think for me spirituality is the opposite of materialism. The materialist sees themselves as a body that exists for a finite period in time and space, that's all. Anyone who disagrees with this diagnosis has spiritual beliefs.

Ah, ok, that's a clear and helpful definition, that doesn't really exclude atheists.

Hi Typist

Typist wrote:It would be reasonable for readers to ask how that which can't be known, can be known by the wise person. Is it just that it can't be known by the average person? I ask because the populist in me questions the practical value of things that can only be known or done by a limited number of rare people.

There are plenty of things that can only be done by a limited number of rare people, and they might be hugely important - even if only to the individual knower themselves. With divine knowledge at the present, it's not that it can't be known by your average person, but more that it isn't known. Everyone has the potential, its there if they want it and the rare few are the ones to spread the word.

Typist wrote:Observing this process in action for years has convinced me that there is no "correct idea" that is immune from being ripped to shreds. Anything one person creates, some other can destroy. Are we talking about the same general thing here? Or am I not hearing what you're saying?

Yes, this is exactly what I mean - but this is the end of line stuff, the advanced levels. Philosophy must be rejected in the end, but only when the person is ready to do so. If there is even a grain of faith left in the reasoning process then it will hold them back. But, and this is a big 'but'. You can only reject philosophy truly once you have thoroughly exhausted its possibilities - and to do that you have to be a philosopher for a long time. Too many people reject philosophy without realising how useful it is, or they reject it before they are ready to reject it.

Typist wrote:Is it really necessary and practical to build this huge house of intellectual cards, if we're just going to knock it all down eventually anyway? It makes me wonder if it might be wiser to not build the house of cards in the first place.

There is not a person in the world who isn't building intellectual houses of cards, no-one. Even unreflective unphilosophical people have their own intellectual systems, its just that they are of the ill-constructed black and white variety. So these people haven't got a hope of breaking out their ego intellectually, they have to do it by some other yoga. The committed philosopher, on the other hand is building something magnificent meanwhile. And the more magnificent this house of cards is the more likely is to fall down - and when that happens it is the most magnificent thing of all.

Typist wrote:Or should I embrace the illusion, live it with enthusiasm, and respect the design as it is?

Yes, we can embrace the illusion without falling into it, although this ability comes with time. You can find yourself feeling angry about something, and yet there is is a major part of you observing this and saying 'he's awfully angry today, how interesting!'

Typist wrote:We should perhaps be careful about telling suffering folks they can escape their suffering, because if it turns out they can't, we've just added to their suffering.

Unfortunately, whether stay silent or not you won't be able to hide what you've discovered. People will find themselves coming to you for advice on how to get what you have - you are a glaring advertisement for something that they dimly know they want.

Typist wrote:As an incurable big picture person I too am intrigued by the sweeping vision you present. As a practical person, I'm more inclined towards simple steps the average person can take today to improve their situation a bit.

The simple steps are what you have been doing all your life - having little disputes with people, getting them to challenge their own beliefs, wondering if there is another way of seeing things. Just because they haven't been able to grasp the sweeping vision hasn't stopped you from examining their views on the smaller events - Koran burnings in Florida for example. Any increase in a person's breadth of perspective is a spiritual enlargement and will help them. The trick is to continue to do all this without attaching to the belief that you are doing them ' good service' and then getting emotionally invested in it. That will surely undo all the good work.

Typist wrote:Right, and spiritual seeking is then just the latest flavor of becoming the person is chasing. Last year they wanted to be thinner, or richer, or more popular etc, and now they want to be holier instead. Nothing has really changed.

Yes, this is undoubtedly the case. But if this person, in their despair realises that all these things haven't worked for them then they are ready to start the authentic spiritual path - which is about not being a seeker for something outside but finding peace in exactly what is before them. A person can attend church their whole life without realising this, but that fact must be accepted, affirmed and endorsed by their wiser neighbour.

As for you and I, we have both quickly moved onto the sweeping vision because we are both of a mind on this subject - but that won't necessarily happen for the next person.

Typist wrote:I'm a fatheaded old blowhard with poor social skills and way too many thoughts, immersed in all the classic human illusions we've been discussing etc. That's the reality that is. Should I let this reality be as it is?

You aren't immersed, you've basically reached the surface though bobbing up and down somewhat. There's too much false modesty here - you might start to believe that you really are in a modest position and undermine your faith in your method! The vanguard of your wisdom has already seen through the illusion of thought, now it must wait for the rearguard and know that the stragglers behind will never all pass through. Why despair about them though?

Perhaps you need to be reminded that you aren't a fat-headed blowhard, in fact you aren't even Typist. That you are is just another of those damned thoughts that you know you should reject. Who knows this? Not Typist.

Typist wrote:She's a great teacher for me. She shows me, without trying to, without even being interested, that being articulate and being wise can have very little to do with one another. Thus, I am cheerfully skeptical of all articulate people.

Thou uxorious sycophant, get her off that pedestal! No I'm sure she's great, but don't let her tell you off for being too invested in thought if that's what she does. Don't try and emulate her path and turn it into some better way. Also she might be the nicest person in the world, but that won't give her spiritual wisdom in exactly the same way as being the cleverest person won't.

Typist wrote:I'm extremely well equipped to keep on doing the same silly bullshit I've always done. I'll be 60 in a few months, and feel at the peak of my ridiculous powers.

My guess is that the bullshit has undergone a transformation. Perhaps before you were always looking for the right answer, now I think you are trying not to look for the right answer. Both are hard, but you got past the first stage and you'll get past the second

Typist wrote:No shit, it's an interesting ego adventure to have a genetic level knack for something that doesn't really matter, and that nobody really wants.

I guess the point of this thread is that what you have matters more than you think, but only if you go the whole way with it. If you don't go the whole way you'll be left high and dry and there's nothing funny about that.

Typist wrote:First Florida cold front coming this weekend, and the winter hiking season is upon us. Wisdom will be found in the real world, not in my brain.

You talk like my mother in law - like you have to be in nature to get wisdom, what nonsense! Its as much here as in the wilderness. Its miserable to think you have to walk anywhere to get it, once the cold front has passed. That very notion makes people miserable. It's no different to those people who think you can only find God in a church. If you suppose you'll find him in church you'll never find him there or anywhere.

Best, Nikolai

Hi again Nikolai,

With divine knowledge at the present, it's not that it can't be known by your average person, but more that it isn't known. Everyone has the potential, its there if they want it...

Hmm.... Everyone has the potential, a big statement.

Philosophy must be rejected in the end, but only when the person is ready to do so. If there is even a grain of faith left in the reasoning process then it will hold them back.

We commonly look at philosophy as a tool we pick up in order to do some job. Philosophy as a means to an end. As example, one might take up Jnana yoga in order to gain spiritual knowledge, and upon receiving spiritual knowledge, consider the job done, and put the tool away.

That's a nice story, but here's the problem.

I'd guess that for the kind of person that would take Jnana yoga seriously, philosophy isn't a means to an end, philosophy itself is the end.

As example, I'm not philosophic in order to figure something out. Not really. I'm philosophic because I was born that way.

We could be discussing silverware, DisneyLand, or bicycle tire pumps, and for me, the conversation soon becomes a philosophic big picture type activity. It's not really a choice or a "path" or means to an end, just as having blue eyes isn't.

You can only reject philosophy truly once you have thoroughly exhausted its possibilities - and to do that you have to be a philosopher for a long time.

And why would someone do philosophy for a long time? Is it really the answers they seek? Or would it be more accurate to say that they do philosophy because they love the questions?

There is not a person in the world who isn't building intellectual houses of cards, no-one. Even unreflective unphilosophical people have their own intellectual systems, its just that they are of the ill-constructed black and white variety.

Right, I agree.

So these people haven't got a hope of breaking out their ego intellectually, they have to do it by some other yoga.

Ok, I hear ya. Yes, they have to use their own natural talents.

The committed philosopher, on the other hand is building something magnificent meanwhile. And the more magnificent this house of cards is the more likely is to fall down - and when that happens it is the most magnificent thing of all.

Ok, this is interesting. Could we define "committed philosopher" as someone for whom philosophy truly is a means to an end? That is, the committed philosopher follows the trail where ever it leads, even if it leads to the end of philosophy? Is this your view?

Yes, we can embrace the illusion without falling into it, although this ability comes with time. You can find yourself feeling angry about something, and yet there is is a major part of you observing this and saying 'he's awfully angry today, how interesting!

Yes, I understand. And I agree that can be a helpful life skill.

Philosophically, I'm proposing the next step may be the most interesting one. We relax enough to trust the "default factory design" and "fall back" in to being a normal average human being. When angry, we're just angry, without need of the safety net of the little voice standing outside and above the anger.

Truthfully, I'm wary of all becoming agendas, however noble, as it seems becoming is built upon rejection of what is. I'm drawn to...

We are human. We are beautiful. And rather insane. Ok. So be it.

The modesty I suggest to you is a sense that God, Truth, Nature, Reality, Evolution (readers can choose their favorite label) is infinitely bigger than we are. So perhaps we should listen to it.

If 99% of humans are rolling off the assembly line both beautiful and insane, perhaps there's a good reason for this design? Perhaps our endless need to complain and tinker with everything is part of the insanity?

Unfortunately, whether stay silent or not you won't be able to hide what you've discovered. People will find themselves coming to you for advice on how to get what you have -

Ha, ha! Not that I would know of course.

But it's true, everybody wants what somebody else has. The grass is always greener.

Any increase in a person's breadth of perspective is a spiritual enlargement and will help them.

I'm not disagreeing, but am wary of "everybody should be like us" type of proposals.

The trick is to continue to do all this without attaching to the belief that you are doing them ' good service' and then getting emotionally invested in it. That will surely undo all the good work.

This is interesting. Doing it, for no reason. Just doing it.

Yes, this is undoubtedly the case. But if this person, in their despair realises that all these things haven't worked for them then they are ready to start the authentic spiritual path - which is about not being a seeker for something outside but finding peace in exactly what is before them.

Is the search for peace the solution, or a symptom of the problem?

I am here. But I reject here, and want to be there.

Isn't that why I'm not at peace?

There's too much false modesty here - you might start to believe that you really are in a modest position and undermine your faith in your method!

I find it quite entertaining to be accused of the sin of excessive modesty, but ok, I don't object, I see what you mean.

It's true, my faith in the whole concept of "method" is undermined. To the degree I have a method, it's the Florida woods, not philosophy, which I see more as an entertaining group circle jerk for nerds kinda thing.

But, I do get lost in the passion of the moment during the circle jerk, and buy in to the progress fantasy for awhile. You know, committing to the moment, and such as that.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that you aren't a fat-headed blowhard, in fact you aren't even Typist. That you are is just another of those damned thoughts that you know you should reject.

Yes, I agree "I am Typist" is just a thought.

I'm not sure about the rejection part though. I agree the rejection idea is quite intriguing and entertaining, which is why I'm always selling it.

But it seems wise to be wary of rejection in general. I prefer something more gentle. Not reject, just manage. If "I am Typist" becomes unbearable for me and others, ok, time to give it a rest. Not reject, just rest.

Thou uxorious sycophant,

Yes, that's me!

get her off that pedestal!

How long have you been married my friend? I would say the problem is more that I don't put her on pedestal anywhere near enough.

No I'm sure she's great, but don't let her tell you off for being too invested in thought if that's what she does.

No, that's not it at all. Again, she's not philosophical. It would never occur to her to tell me I'm too invested in thought. That's something I would do. It would occur to her that it's time to feed the baby squirrels again.

Don't try and emulate her path and turn it into some better way.

Right, I agree. I'm not emulating, just observing, and respecting.

Again, what I'm respecting is that she's not on a path. She's not rejecting. She's not becoming. She's not on a journey from here to there. She's just doing what she does. Why does a momma raccoon feed her kittens? Because that's what momma raccoons do. Like that.

Also she might be the nicest person in the world, but that won't give her spiritual wisdom in exactly the same way as being the cleverest person won't.

She had interest in spiritual wisdom when she was young. She grew out of it.

My guess is that the bullshit has undergone a transformation. Perhaps before you were always looking for the right answer, now I think you are trying not to look for the right answer.

Yes, fair enough, more like enjoying the questions for themselves.

I guess the point of this thread is that what you have matters more than you think, but only if you go the whole way with it. If you don't go the whole way you'll be left high and dry and there's nothing funny about that.

Ah, the whole way. The whole way is that I'll be dead in a dozen years or so. Low and wet, high and dry, here or there, happy or sad, wise or a fool. Whatever happens, it happens so quickly, whoosh!, and then it's over. Why sweat it too much?

You talk like my mother in law -

Alright now, there's really no reason to start throwing around the insults! Just kidding mom in law, just kidding.

like you have to be in nature to get wisdom, what nonsense!

To each their own of course. I'm not offering nature as a universal prescription, just disclosing my own personal religion, that's all.

Its as much here as in the wilderness.

In theory, yes. In my personal practice, no. I like going to "church", that's all.

]Its miserable to think you have to walk anywhere to get it, once the cold front has passed. That very notion makes people miserable. It's no different to those people who think you can only find God in a church. If you suppose you'll find him in church you'll never find him there or anywhere

It's funny, as I wrote "church" before reading your next paragraph.

We all have our church, even you my friend. You've been typing your church throughout this thread, eh?

Speaking of church, time to go get some! Thanks again!

Typist wrote:...
And why would someone do philosophy for a long time? Is it really the answers they seek? Or would it be more accurate to say that they do philosophy because they love the questions? ...

No, it would not be more accurate. Those of us who are philosophical do seek answers to their questions and as such turn to Philosophy for answers to our questions. If we find them then we stop asking that question. That the answer may raise more questions is Philosophy, hence the conversations in Philosophy have become fairly abstract and complicated. That there are questions that may not be answered by Philosophy is what Philosophy teaches. It also teaches that over time there have been and are questions that can be categorized and as such yours are generally Metaphysics and specifically in the subset of religious metaphysics.

Hi Typist,

Typist wrote:And why would someone do philosophy for a long time? Is it really the answers they seek? Or would it be more accurate to say that they do philosophy because they love the questions?

I'm not the philosopher I was, but I don't think I ever did it with this detached sense of loving the questions. Yes, there were moments of insight that felt rich and beautiful, but they were almost moments of anguish and a deep questioning that could keep me awake at night. This was particularly the case if my enquiries led me to entertain notions that put me in conflict with commonly held views. I think my philosophical nature prevented me from accepting the assumptions of my old profession, clinical psychology. In those days I tended to view my philosophical nature as rather a curse.

I think there can be a sense of crisis, existential pain that leads people to ask questions about their life, in the same way as another person might turn to God worship or prayer. This pain is the spur to grow in wisdom, which can be enjoyed for its own sake. With ultimate wisdom comes the cessation of philosophy - not least because you see that there are no more questions to ask.

You seem to be saying that you enjoy the questions while at the same time you see the questions as quite pointless and unnecessary. I think there are two ways of interpreting this behaviour: either that in your heart you attach more importance to the questions than you care to admit, or that you continue to philosophise not out of personally motivated enquiry (in your heart you feel at peace) but in order to facilitate the enquiry of others. Which do you think it is?

Typist wrote:Could we define "committed philosopher" as someone for whom philosophy truly is a means to an end? That is, the committed philosopher follows the trail where ever it leads, even if it leads to the end of philosophy? Is this your view?

Yes, because to have some kind of worldview is a philosophical failure. For example, if we assume we are purely embodied beings in time and space then it is a failure to acknowledge that our sense of embodiment might just be a transient idea in some kind of spaceless, timeless mind. To be a committed philosopher is to sceptically seek alternative views, the moment you settle on a worldview you have failed to become a philosopher but rather a believer. The most committed philosopher will find themselves in a constant state of repudiation, although they never seem to repudiate their method: philosophy. This is agony, as a human, it is so nihilistic - but eventually there is a liberation from all the tension and even the method is repudiated. This is blissful, not only is it peace but the highest wisdom.

Typist wrote:Philosophically, I'm proposing the next step may be the most interesting one. We relax enough to trust the "default factory design" and "fall back" in to being a normal average human being. When angry, we're just angry, without need of the safety net of the little voice standing outside and above the anger.

I like this democratic tone but the spiritual genius, the Olympian athlete you talk of, is not a normal average being. in every possible way their behaviours become exceptional - like Jesus who couldn't stop the crowds from gathering. If you really lie back and trust the factory design then the anger goes, vanishes. Anger is the same as not trusting the design. I understand your argument, but if you are getting angry then you are, in your passion, feeling an opposition between yourself and another and you will be able to trace this back to some kind of philosophical error.

Typist wrote:We are human. We are beautiful. And rather insane. Ok. So be it.

But what about yourself? Are you really at peace with your insanity? If you were I think you wouldn't be insane. Peace and sanity are the same thing. Or to confess to insanity is to confess to being at war with yourself. Are you at peace with being at war?

Typist wrote:The modesty I suggest to you is a sense that God, Truth, Nature, Reality, Evolution (readers can choose their favorite label) is infinitely bigger than we are. So perhaps we should listen to it.

I think this is way, way too modest. God is not infinitely bigger then we are, in fact in a very real sense God is an insignificant speck of dog turd. Seriously though, I take your point. But its also very important not to belittle yourself before God- people who do this habitually never gain the slightest inkling who God is.

Typist wrote:Any increase in a person's breadth of perspective is a spiritual enlargement and will help them.


I'm not disagreeing, but am wary of "everybody should be like us" type of proposals.

This breadth of perspective can come from any yoga: devotion, good deeds, meditation. These yogas are the very warp and woof of our daily life: marital fidelity, good customer service, fishing by the lake. Truly, I don't want to make everyone a philosopher - i wouldn't talk like this to anyone except the philosophical.

Typist wrote:Ah, the whole way. The whole way is that I'll be dead in a dozen years or so. Low and wet, high and dry, here or there, happy or sad, wise or a fool. Whatever happens, it happens so quickly, whoosh!, and then it's over. Why sweat it too much?

I don't know if I need to remind you of this or not, but you won't be dead in a dozen or so years.

Typist wrote:To each their own of course. I'm not offering nature as a universal prescription, just disclosing my own personal religion, that's all.

Yes, of course, but its like the philosophy: you have to renounce it at some point. My mother in law, a traditional Finn, thinks the forest is a holy place. Er, yes and no, Mummu - don't attach to that opinion or your forest will become hell.

Isn't the internet great? Its distinctly autumnal here in Finland - gorgeous and sunny but only 7 degrees C. How's it in Florida?

Best, Nikolai

Arising_uk wrote:Those of us who are philosophical do seek answers to their questions and as such turn to Philosophy for answers to our questions. If we find them then we stop asking that question. That the answer may raise more questions is Philosophy, hence the conversations in Philosophy have become fairly abstract and complicated.

This is actually impossible. If you find that your solution leads to further questions then it means that your first solution was in some way deficient. True philosophical insight generalises to include all questions 'below it' until there is only one left - perhaps something like who am I? Or what is the world? Eventually this question will be resolved when insight is gained into the erroneousness of the philosophical method itself - this is the famous aphilosophy, which is the strange process when true philosophy turns against false philosophy and everything is left upside down!

Nikolai wrote:This is actually impossible. If you find that your solution leads to further questions then it means that your first solution was in some way deficient. True philosophical insight generalises to include all questions 'below it' until there is only one left - perhaps something like who am I? Or what is the world? Eventually this question will be resolved when insight is gained into the erroneousness of the philosophical method itself - this is the famous aphilosophy, which is the strange process when true philosophy turns against false philosophy and everything is left upside down!

You may be right, I'd not thought it through that well. My take is that you are talking about questions and not answers, so in answer to the 'Who am I' question the answer would be 'Who do you think you are?', in answer to 'What am I?', 'I am a thinking thing' which leads to 'What is called thinking?', etc, is the process I was thinking about. I'd be interested in what you mean by the "erroneousness of the philosophical method" and the difference between 'true philosophy' and "false philosophy"?

I'm not the philosopher I was, but I don't think I ever did it with this detached sense of loving the questions.

Ok, so for you the process was goal oriented. A means to an end.

I think there can be a sense of crisis, existential pain that leads people to ask questions about their life,

Yes, this issue of pain is important, as it's often a primary driver of inquiry. We are exploring a couple of different ways one might respond to this pain.

One person may see the content of thought as the problem. And so they undertake a philosophic or psychology process of examining and analyzing the content of thought, with the goal of arriving at better thought content.

Another person may conclude the problem lies deeper, with thought itself. From this perspective analyzing thoughts is seen to create even more thoughts. For this person the challenge is not understanding, but surrender.

When the "I me me mine" (thank you George Harrison) thread starts up, don't engage and fight with it, don't feed it by analyzing it, just let it go. Surrender it. What form does this surrender take?

Let's imagine we have an uncle who shows up at every family gathering. We love this uncle, but he's always blabbing on and on and on about some kind of silly nonsense. So over the years we're learned to tune him out. We still hear him, but we no longer take him seriously, and so we can smile and nod to whatever he says. In one ear, and out the other. Like that.

If this sounds like a bunch of fancy talk, that's my bad as a writer. All it really is, is growing up, and not taking oneself quite so seriously.

With ultimate wisdom comes the cessation of philosophy - not least because you see that there are no more questions to ask.

That seems a concise description of the process you are bringing to our attention. I hope you will continue to expand upon your vision of ultimate wisdom.

You seem to be saying that you enjoy the questions while at the same time you see the questions as quite pointless and unnecessary.

I see the entertainment value, and feel that life is short and fun is good. So not entirely pointless. If our brain is insisting we philosophize, it seems wise to accommodate some of it's demands.

I think there are two ways of interpreting this behaviour: either that in your heart you attach more importance to the questions than you care to admit,

Given the amount of time I invest in the process, the evidence clearly shows I attach importance. But I attach less and less importance to the questions, which is replaced by enjoying the process for itself. The process is less a means to an end, the process is the end.

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.

or that you continue to philosophise not out of personally motivated enquiry (in your heart you feel at peace) but in order to facilitate the enquiry of others.

This is a charming and self flattering fantasy which I do often indulge in. Like seeing a movie star on the screen, and imagining yourself in the leading role. Fun if taken in moderation. Dangerous if the fantasy is taken seriously.

I philosophize because I like to philosophize, that's the reality. To put it more bluntly, I philosophize because I'm in love with the sound of my own voice.

I'm not any more at peace in my heart than anybody else.

My situation is that enthusiasm is both my best and worst feature. Sometimes I get enthusiastic about negative crap, as you've seen in print all over the forum. It's my enthusiasm for negative crap that motivated my interest in aphilosophy.

If there's any difference between me and the guy next door, it's this.

I recognize the brain is a mechanical device. Simple. I've taken the trouble to learn mechanical exercises which can moderate the volume of this device. Simple.

Not a big esoteric philosophical cosmic spiritual divine issue etc. Just a mechanic using an ordinary commonly available wrench to tune the engine.

Because I know how to turn down the volume when my enthusiasm for negative crap spins out of control, I have less reason to fear the negative crap. Having less fear makes it easier to turn down the volume. Fear leads us to feed even more fuel to the negative crap.

Which do you think it is?

My Dad is my greatest teacher here. I am just like him. Just like him. My interests are somewhat different, but the underlying psychology is exactly the same.

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

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

For example, if we assume we are purely embodied beings in time and space then it is a failure to acknowledge that our sense of embodiment might just be a transient idea in some kind of spaceless, timeless mind.

Right, anything that undermines our importance, our apparent separation from everything else, is seen as a threat.

To be a committed philosopher is to sceptically seek alternative views, the moment you settle on a worldview you have failed to become a philosopher but rather a believer.

So aren't you saying that you too see the process as an end in itself, not as a means to an end? Or do I misunderstand?

The most committed philosopher will find themselves in a constant state of repudiation, although they never seem to repudiate their method: philosophy.

Perceptive!

We've been making monkey noises about this in the aphilosophy thread.

This is agony, as a human, it is so nihilistic - but eventually there is a liberation from all the tension and even the method is repudiated. This is blissful, not only is it peace but the highest wisdom.

This seems to be what you are pointing us towards, so please expand on this where you can.

I like this democratic tone but the spiritual genius, the Olympian athlete you talk of, is not a normal average being.

Right. So I question the relevance of what they can do for the rest of us. It may be entirely true that the guru can do XYZ, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we can too.

If you really lie back and trust the factory design then the anger goes, vanishes.

But not trusting the factory design, is the factory design. For we humans anyway. Squirrels seem to have no problem with it.

But what about yourself? Are you really at peace with your insanity? If you were I think you wouldn't be insane. Peace and sanity are the same thing. Or to confess to insanity is to confess to being at war with yourself. Are you at peace with being at war?

I recognize being at war as the inescapable price tag for thought.

Thought is inherently divisive. (a phrase I've stolen from Jiddu Krishnamurti). Thought is inherently divisive, just as water is inherently wet. Anything made of thought will lead to division, and a war of some kind or another.

Imho, this is a fundamental reality of the nature of thought, and can not be fixed at the more surface level of thought content. As example, the Christians had a great thought, we should all love each other, an extremely sensible world class idea. This wonderful perfectly correct thought content then became a vehicle for hate, power, violence etc.

You have some wonderful thoughts as well. I assure you, they can all be ripped to shreds by anyone who is clever enough, just as all my wonderful thoughts can be.

Point of this rant being, I'm not looking for the ultimate final perfect solution to the inner war. Enlightenment is not on my radar. My goals are more modest, more realistic. I'm interested in thought management tools.

Typist wrote:The modesty I suggest to you is a sense that God, Truth, Nature, Reality, Evolution (readers can choose their favorite label) is infinitely bigger than we are. So perhaps we should listen to it.

But its also very important not to belittle yourself before God- people who do this habitually never gain the slightest inkling who God is.

If there is a god, there's already an excellent plan in place for meeting Her. Death. I'm patient and willing to wait, which becomes easier as the waiting time shrinks.

Truly, I don't want to make everyone a philosopher - i wouldn't talk like this to anyone except the philosophical.

I understand. Yes, I believe you here.

I don't know if I need to remind you of this or not, but you won't be dead in a dozen or so years.

Ah, good point. Yes, it's probably a good idea to remind me.

And this raises a good question. If I've always been, and always will be, what's all this talk about the path to enlightenment? Who is it that should become enlightened?

Yes, of course, but its like the philosophy: you have to renounce it at some point.

I refuse. So there!

My mother in law, a traditional Finn, thinks the forest is a holy place.

Your mom-in-law and I would get along just fine.

Er, yes and no, Mummu - don't attach to that opinion or your forest will become hell.

Mummu, what a great name!

Isn't the internet great? Its distinctly autumnal here in Finland - gorgeous and sunny but only 7 degrees C. How's it in Florida?

After endless months of tropical conditions, the first cold front arrives tonite! Low in upper 40s tonite, high tomorrow mid 70s. I'm ecstatic, and will forewith be vanishing in to the holy place forest to enjoy high level conversations with armadillos.

I hope you will share some Winter In Finland reports as we proceed. For a Floridian, such reports are the equivalent of communications from outer space. Interesting!