--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote: > > "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it > exists." [Tractatus 6.44] > and > To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of > eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world > as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical. > 6.45 > There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make > themselves manifest. They are what is mystical. > 6.522 > Ludwig Wittgenstein > 1921
And... 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A > Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the > end of the year. This one should be interesting. > > >> > > >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes > > > > > > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how > especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to > those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines > that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or > odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched > it!! Creepy, really. > > > > > > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the > stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences. > But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the > sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of > looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the > mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of > that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual > experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to > behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some > shift in brain functioning and that is it. > > > > I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or > looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so > much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the > world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for > the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in > something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we > know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen > eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought > people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then > you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on > ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?' > We tend to think this is possible. > > > > In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature > sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with > relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation. > Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until > there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover > how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a > unified field theory. > > > > I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was > employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact, > I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much > better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual > movements. > > > > As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the > wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at > the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both > represent the same thing. > > >
