--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Just having fun with words on a lazy Saturday afternoon, > Buck, I know this quote and I've always had a bit of a > writer's nitpick with it. Below I repost Aldous Huxley's > quote, but 1) removing your attempt to make it sound as > if he was talking about TM, and 2) removing a single word, > repeated twice, which I've never felt "belonged." > > Read my version of the quote below and tell me if you think > anything is missing from it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" posted Aldous > Huxley's definition of the "Perennial Philosophy": > > > > "The metaphysic that recognizes a Reality substantial to > > the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology > > that finds in the soul something similar to, or even > > identified with, Reality; the ethic that places man's > > final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent > > Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial and universal." > > The word I removed was 'divine,' used as a modifier for > 'Reality.' I don't think Reality needs any such modifier.
Turq, Yep I agree. Thanks for putting words to that. My reading eye had gauged and stuttered at the same thing but passed over it figuring he was just dealing with audience and bringing them along either way, noticing the 'd' in the divine was not a capitalized. Either way the divine just thrown in there in these more modern, spiritual and secular times as you say needlessly burdens the larger paragraph that is great description of experience and reality simply. I appreciate your drawing it out. Best Regards, -Buck > > 'Divine Reality' is Department of Redundancy Dept. stuff > for me. Reality is All That Is. It seems to me that Huxley > in writing his definition was subconsciously trying to > "enhance" the notion of Reality by associating it with the > word 'divine' and with human concepts of divinity. > > It didn't work for me when I first read it, and doesn't > work for me now. By bringing 'divine' into the picture, he > consciously or subconsciously implies that a 'divine Reality' > would be somehow better than just a 'Reality.' > > His definition seems unnecessarily exclusionary to me. I > don't need to believe that Reality was created by something > 'divine' or that it has traits that humans associate with > 'divinity' to appreciate Reality. Reality can (and in my > opinion does) stand on its own; it has no need for the con- > cept of divinity *to* stand on its own. > > Similarly, Huxley's definition is strong enough to stand > on its own; it has no need for the word 'divine' *to* stand > on its own. >
