From the Vedic notion of the Veil of Illusion to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, philosophers and mystics have always doubted that the existence we experience is Truly Real
As a fellow schitz reading your words is like rediscovering journals I cast into the literal fire years ago. comforting and frightening at once. How have we seen these same things which I thought were so private? If you haven't spent time in the words and mind of Philip K Dick I highly recommend this - notably Clans of The Alphane Moon
Nah. This is real and now either do something about your miserable life or shut up and get back to work. Tech billionaires/priests/etc would prefer it if you did the latter so they* can build more ziggurats/cock rockets. Remember, you'll get a reward when you're dead as long as you're not naughty while alive.
I am a historical and philosophical materialist, so I my intellect says this is beautifully written poppycock. The Veil of Illusion, Plato and the Vedics have nothing on you.
I mean that as the highest possible literary compliment I can bestow. Plato's top notch, even if I think his Ideals are nonsense.
Now, the part of me that knows that humanity doesn't really know jack shit about how the universe really works and why it is, that part of me just says that Michael Moorcock might just be on to something. For all I know you might be right; I'll just act on things of which I have a good understanding, and keep enjoying your writing.
"To step through, to crack the matrix wide open, you might consider taking up a sustained and serious meditation practice. To eventually find that place, deep within you which is without form, and void; where darkness is upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters."
And then what? The question, as always, is that having 'attained enlightenment' what do you do with that information? What's the next move?
OK, but what if there IS no reincarnation cycle? What if that's one of the things 'enlightenment' reveals to us? That it's a dead end?
A major issue I have with 'enlightenment' is that people assign characteristics to it which could only be know once it's been attained. This is my major gripe with Buddhism. It assumes that such a thing as 'enlightenment' actually exists, and then proceeds to tell you how to achieve that, but on what authority? Someone else's say-so? Even if true, who's to say I would experience it in the same way, and via the same practices?
Not singling out Buddhism. All the great spiritual traditions suffer from this defect - the assumption that someone who came before us somehow possessed superior knowledge of how reality operates, even though they lived in times with far more limited understanding than today.
To me it just seems like humanity, faced with an uncertain present and the inevitability of mortality, yearns for a more orderly and predictable past that in fact never really existed. Of course there's no end of charlatans who'll attempt to capitalize on that impulse, and how do you tell them apart from the true sages (if such even exist) since by definition we're not 'enlightened' enough to recognize them when they appear? It awaits history to tell us who they were, and then you're back to square one, relying on stories handed down by people whose motives we can never clearly establish.
According to Yeshua Ben Yosef, you can differentiate charlatans from sages because BY THEIR DEEDS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.
The Gospel of Matthew quotes the Christ as saying:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Like many of the sayings of Jesus, this is much more profound than it appears on the surface. This is some of the best advice in dealing with people that has ever been given, if you ask me. It's particularly good business advice. As anyone who has ever been scammed knows, shysters can have you eating out of their hands while you're with them, but at the end of the day they always get the better end of the deal.
Smart people judge a person by the consequences of their actions, not by the feeling that they experience in their presence.
Since you're a big fan of Robert Anton Wilson, I'll also give his answer. His answer was that you could recognize someone enlightened by the twinkle in their eye, so to speak, which he called Hilaritas.
Hilaritas is an antiquated words which gives us the root of the word hilarious, but what it really means is cheerfulness. According to RAW, people who are enlightened don't take themselves too seriously... Probably because they are not mired in misery.
Terence McKenna, Robert Anton Wilson, Lon Milo Duquette, Alan Watts, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Hermann Hesse, Leo Tolstoy - they all share a certain quality, don't they? I'm not sure that cheerfulness is quite the right word that links all these thinkers, but there is some kind of quality they all share, which is what RAW called it Hilaritas.
If we were to come up with a list of known charlatans / spiritual con men, I think we would find that they do not share this quality.
But that's my answer - true spiritual teachers don't advertise. You have to find them, and they're generally not overly keen on telling you what to believe or how to live your life. They are out there in the world doing their thing, but if you locate them, you can learn from them.
Th
Also, we need to get away from the false notion that enlightenment is a state of consciousness only experienced by people who have taken monastic vows. Spontaneous illumination can and does occur, and there are far more enlightened people out there than some people would have you believe.
There's a taboo about bragging about being enlightened, but if you really, truly understand the teachings of the Buddha, or Jesus, or any other spiritual master, you are enlightened. There is a decent chance that you, dear reader, qualify as "enlightened", and at the end of the day, there's no one more qualified than you to decide whether or not you "get it". And being enlightened doesn't mean that you know everything. Some things are unknowable. Being enlightened is knowing how to transcend suffering by recognizing that identification with that which is illusory is the cause of suffering, and that ego-identity is illusory.
Basically, enlightenment is ego-death. I'm not saying that a heroic dose of mushrooms will give you all the benefits of a serious meditation practice, but it can lead you to experience ego-death.
Some Buddhists probably think that taking entheogenic sacraments is cheating, but I would have to disagree with them. I'm a big believer in Bruce Lee's philosophy - Use What Works and Stay Open-Minded.
Heterodoxy + Syncretism is the way forward for the human race.
"Smart people judge a person by the consequences of their actions, not by the feeling that they experience in their presence."
Seems obvious enough, but how do you define 'smart?' What's the threshold of intelligence that assures us of not being fooled, given that there are many clever wolves in sheep's clothing among us? And what about the people who fall below that threshold? What do we do about them? Bear in mind, evil often presents itself as good and may do good things to disguise its true nature. How do you avoid being fooled by that? The devil's in the details, isn't it?
The basic problem that I have with communicating these ideas is the uncontrolled use of abstract nouns to describe things. For example:
"Basically, enlightenment is ego-death."
So what is 'ego' and why should we want it to die? Is it because ego is bad? If so why? From my perspective 'ego' is simply part of a theory dreamed up by Freud as an explanation of some aspects of human behaviour he couldn't find referents for. As a theory it doesn't really tell us much. How do you test it to prove 'ego' actually exists? You can't point to it like a tree or a bear. It's an abstraction with limited utility that also contains the potential for great harm if misused. How do we know that any of Freud's categories hold water if we can't test them? You can apply that to almost the entire field of psychology frankly. Most of it is what the physicists call 'hand waving.'
So this thing we can't adequately describe is something we're supposed to get rid of in order to be 'enlightened?' What does that mean exactly? What does enlightenment look like? Does it have any objective parameters we can measure to know when we've arrived, or to determine who among us is more or less enlightened?
Or this:
"Being enlightened is knowing how to transcend suffering by recognizing that identification with that which is illusory is the cause of suffering, and that ego-identity is illusory. "
So how does the adage 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" fit into that framework? It's just as weak a statement as 'transcending suffering' which you're attributing to "identification with that which is illusory" without offering a method of identifying what's illusory and what isn't, never mind the lack of a definition for suffering, which some people take in stride while others fold completely. Is this a description of an absolute state, or does it differ from person to person?
Sorry if I seem to be badgering you but I take this stuff seriously. As I mentioned before, I'm interested in the means and methods we use to communicate, not the specific content, which more often than not consists of abstractions that have no objective meaning. The tragedy is that we persecute people and even go to war over these half-baked ideas.
If you're going to be a skeptic you have to also be skeptical of your own cherished beliefs. Ask yourself continuously, 'why do I believe the things I do?" Most people don't do that. They're 'selective skeptics' as I call them. As long as you agree with what they perceive as false they're ok, but challenge their belief system and see what happens. Most won't even admit they have one. That's just those other people. Everything I know is true.
Don't apologize! I love what you bring to the table! You're a true skeptic and there aren't enough of those around! Furthermore, I like to be challenged as it gives me the chance to clarify and strengthen my ideas, and to correct them if they are mistaken.
I intend to respond to your comment in more detail later but I'll just say that for now.
McLuhan pointed out that we model the human mind by analogy to the technology of the day. So it's not unusual that you'd use a computer simulation as a model, or that Fritz Lang would use machines, since that was the technology of his day.
The next model to come along should be interesting. Will it be biological, or is that too complex to build analogies around? How about nuclear or molecular structures? Plenty of analogies to be found in contemporary physics. Perhaps McLuhan was off by 1 and it's really the previous technology we're using as a model, since most of us haven't caught up with the current technology? What is the next technology? AI? How does that work as a model of the human mind? Is it an extension, as McLuhan suggested all technology is, or is it something different? Our own mind looking back at us? I guess we'll eventually find out. Maybe sooner than we think:)
As a fellow schitz reading your words is like rediscovering journals I cast into the literal fire years ago. comforting and frightening at once. How have we seen these same things which I thought were so private? If you haven't spent time in the words and mind of Philip K Dick I highly recommend this - notably Clans of The Alphane Moon
Thanks for the compliment! I'd love it if you'd be willing to go into more detail...
Nah. This is real and now either do something about your miserable life or shut up and get back to work. Tech billionaires/priests/etc would prefer it if you did the latter so they* can build more ziggurats/cock rockets. Remember, you'll get a reward when you're dead as long as you're not naughty while alive.
*You.
I am a historical and philosophical materialist, so I my intellect says this is beautifully written poppycock. The Veil of Illusion, Plato and the Vedics have nothing on you.
I mean that as the highest possible literary compliment I can bestow. Plato's top notch, even if I think his Ideals are nonsense.
Now, the part of me that knows that humanity doesn't really know jack shit about how the universe really works and why it is, that part of me just says that Michael Moorcock might just be on to something. For all I know you might be right; I'll just act on things of which I have a good understanding, and keep enjoying your writing.
best explanation I've ever heard for why things are the way they are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJ5cCP0ZPE
"To step through, to crack the matrix wide open, you might consider taking up a sustained and serious meditation practice. To eventually find that place, deep within you which is without form, and void; where darkness is upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters."
And then what? The question, as always, is that having 'attained enlightenment' what do you do with that information? What's the next move?
The next move is to escape the reincarnation cycle.
OK, but what if there IS no reincarnation cycle? What if that's one of the things 'enlightenment' reveals to us? That it's a dead end?
A major issue I have with 'enlightenment' is that people assign characteristics to it which could only be know once it's been attained. This is my major gripe with Buddhism. It assumes that such a thing as 'enlightenment' actually exists, and then proceeds to tell you how to achieve that, but on what authority? Someone else's say-so? Even if true, who's to say I would experience it in the same way, and via the same practices?
Not singling out Buddhism. All the great spiritual traditions suffer from this defect - the assumption that someone who came before us somehow possessed superior knowledge of how reality operates, even though they lived in times with far more limited understanding than today.
To me it just seems like humanity, faced with an uncertain present and the inevitability of mortality, yearns for a more orderly and predictable past that in fact never really existed. Of course there's no end of charlatans who'll attempt to capitalize on that impulse, and how do you tell them apart from the true sages (if such even exist) since by definition we're not 'enlightened' enough to recognize them when they appear? It awaits history to tell us who they were, and then you're back to square one, relying on stories handed down by people whose motives we can never clearly establish.
I actually have two answers to that question!
According to Yeshua Ben Yosef, you can differentiate charlatans from sages because BY THEIR DEEDS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.
The Gospel of Matthew quotes the Christ as saying:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Like many of the sayings of Jesus, this is much more profound than it appears on the surface. This is some of the best advice in dealing with people that has ever been given, if you ask me. It's particularly good business advice. As anyone who has ever been scammed knows, shysters can have you eating out of their hands while you're with them, but at the end of the day they always get the better end of the deal.
Smart people judge a person by the consequences of their actions, not by the feeling that they experience in their presence.
Since you're a big fan of Robert Anton Wilson, I'll also give his answer. His answer was that you could recognize someone enlightened by the twinkle in their eye, so to speak, which he called Hilaritas.
Hilaritas is an antiquated words which gives us the root of the word hilarious, but what it really means is cheerfulness. According to RAW, people who are enlightened don't take themselves too seriously... Probably because they are not mired in misery.
Terence McKenna, Robert Anton Wilson, Lon Milo Duquette, Alan Watts, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Hermann Hesse, Leo Tolstoy - they all share a certain quality, don't they? I'm not sure that cheerfulness is quite the right word that links all these thinkers, but there is some kind of quality they all share, which is what RAW called it Hilaritas.
If we were to come up with a list of known charlatans / spiritual con men, I think we would find that they do not share this quality.
But that's my answer - true spiritual teachers don't advertise. You have to find them, and they're generally not overly keen on telling you what to believe or how to live your life. They are out there in the world doing their thing, but if you locate them, you can learn from them.
Th
Also, we need to get away from the false notion that enlightenment is a state of consciousness only experienced by people who have taken monastic vows. Spontaneous illumination can and does occur, and there are far more enlightened people out there than some people would have you believe.
There's a taboo about bragging about being enlightened, but if you really, truly understand the teachings of the Buddha, or Jesus, or any other spiritual master, you are enlightened. There is a decent chance that you, dear reader, qualify as "enlightened", and at the end of the day, there's no one more qualified than you to decide whether or not you "get it". And being enlightened doesn't mean that you know everything. Some things are unknowable. Being enlightened is knowing how to transcend suffering by recognizing that identification with that which is illusory is the cause of suffering, and that ego-identity is illusory.
Basically, enlightenment is ego-death. I'm not saying that a heroic dose of mushrooms will give you all the benefits of a serious meditation practice, but it can lead you to experience ego-death.
Some Buddhists probably think that taking entheogenic sacraments is cheating, but I would have to disagree with them. I'm a big believer in Bruce Lee's philosophy - Use What Works and Stay Open-Minded.
Heterodoxy + Syncretism is the way forward for the human race.
"Smart people judge a person by the consequences of their actions, not by the feeling that they experience in their presence."
Seems obvious enough, but how do you define 'smart?' What's the threshold of intelligence that assures us of not being fooled, given that there are many clever wolves in sheep's clothing among us? And what about the people who fall below that threshold? What do we do about them? Bear in mind, evil often presents itself as good and may do good things to disguise its true nature. How do you avoid being fooled by that? The devil's in the details, isn't it?
The basic problem that I have with communicating these ideas is the uncontrolled use of abstract nouns to describe things. For example:
"Basically, enlightenment is ego-death."
So what is 'ego' and why should we want it to die? Is it because ego is bad? If so why? From my perspective 'ego' is simply part of a theory dreamed up by Freud as an explanation of some aspects of human behaviour he couldn't find referents for. As a theory it doesn't really tell us much. How do you test it to prove 'ego' actually exists? You can't point to it like a tree or a bear. It's an abstraction with limited utility that also contains the potential for great harm if misused. How do we know that any of Freud's categories hold water if we can't test them? You can apply that to almost the entire field of psychology frankly. Most of it is what the physicists call 'hand waving.'
So this thing we can't adequately describe is something we're supposed to get rid of in order to be 'enlightened?' What does that mean exactly? What does enlightenment look like? Does it have any objective parameters we can measure to know when we've arrived, or to determine who among us is more or less enlightened?
Or this:
"Being enlightened is knowing how to transcend suffering by recognizing that identification with that which is illusory is the cause of suffering, and that ego-identity is illusory. "
So how does the adage 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" fit into that framework? It's just as weak a statement as 'transcending suffering' which you're attributing to "identification with that which is illusory" without offering a method of identifying what's illusory and what isn't, never mind the lack of a definition for suffering, which some people take in stride while others fold completely. Is this a description of an absolute state, or does it differ from person to person?
Sorry if I seem to be badgering you but I take this stuff seriously. As I mentioned before, I'm interested in the means and methods we use to communicate, not the specific content, which more often than not consists of abstractions that have no objective meaning. The tragedy is that we persecute people and even go to war over these half-baked ideas.
If you're going to be a skeptic you have to also be skeptical of your own cherished beliefs. Ask yourself continuously, 'why do I believe the things I do?" Most people don't do that. They're 'selective skeptics' as I call them. As long as you agree with what they perceive as false they're ok, but challenge their belief system and see what happens. Most won't even admit they have one. That's just those other people. Everything I know is true.
Don't apologize! I love what you bring to the table! You're a true skeptic and there aren't enough of those around! Furthermore, I like to be challenged as it gives me the chance to clarify and strengthen my ideas, and to correct them if they are mistaken.
I intend to respond to your comment in more detail later but I'll just say that for now.
McLuhan pointed out that we model the human mind by analogy to the technology of the day. So it's not unusual that you'd use a computer simulation as a model, or that Fritz Lang would use machines, since that was the technology of his day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_4no842TX8
The next model to come along should be interesting. Will it be biological, or is that too complex to build analogies around? How about nuclear or molecular structures? Plenty of analogies to be found in contemporary physics. Perhaps McLuhan was off by 1 and it's really the previous technology we're using as a model, since most of us haven't caught up with the current technology? What is the next technology? AI? How does that work as a model of the human mind? Is it an extension, as McLuhan suggested all technology is, or is it something different? Our own mind looking back at us? I guess we'll eventually find out. Maybe sooner than we think:)