--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>> <anartaxius@> wrote:
Judy, I found this message rather enjoyable and interesting. > <snip> >>>> I suppose I missed the sarcasm mostly. I sensed it. This essay >>>> by Robin is a lot less opaque than most of his writing. It is >>>> always the suspicion that in the end, Robin will declare that >>>> he alone is the arbitrator of what the ultimate reality is. >>> >>> I assume that's meant to be humorous, since there's zero >>> basis for such a suspicion. >> >> I think the probability is significantly greater than >> zero. We disagree. > > You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you like, even > if it's foolishly inaccurate, as this one is. Nice to know you are up on reality, as always, without error. > <snip> >>>> I was not asking you to explain what Robin says. I can read >>>> that, and I can either understand or misunderstand that. What >>>> I was asking is how you interpret what Robin says. >>> >>> I interpret it to mean that it's good to make an effort to >>> come as close as we can to understanding what the reality >>> is of any particular situation. >> >> I would say reality would be equal in all situations > > It's not clear what "equal" could mean here. Reality is > different in different situations. When it's raining in > New York City, the reality is that it's raining in New > York City. When it's sunny in New York City, the reality > is that it's sunny in New York City. There is reality in the local sense, and reality in the universal or spiritual sense, which as an experience is the same under all conditions. It is not experienced as different rain or shine. How to explain this scientifically would I think be an interesting exercise. I thought one possible explanation might be the one Fred Travis has come up with. This is the phase coherence in the brain. I heard that John Hagelin thought that coherence would keep increasing with length of practice of meditation. Travis said that he has found that it doesn't but that the coherence that does develop becomes persistent. In other words there is a persistent signal that continuously cycles through all areas of the brain which does not seem to be specific to any one particular kind of experience, is an experience of complete generality with no specifics. That would seem paradoxically to make the resulting experience seem a local affair in the brain, nothing to do with capital R reality at all. Conversely it does seem that without a brain, no reality is experienced at all. There are lots of people have this experience now; it is not as uncommon as it used to be. > >> and it is not possible to fully understand it > > Think that might be why I said "come as close as we can"? > > <snip> >>> Robin does not believe human beings are simply evolutionary >>> accidents; he believes the fact of our individual first- >>> personness is evidence that we have been intentionally >>> created. If that's the case, what created us would have to >>> be more powerful than we are, and obviously necessary for >>> us to exist in the first place. This is a big difference between Robin and me. I tend to think we are like evolutionary accidents; that is an effective theory from science. But it does not explain everything. I do not think of the world has having a creator and having been created. I think of it as an integrated process of existence, without beginning, without end (that is the existence part - this experience is I think best expressed by Parmenides who remarked that it is not possible to think of non-existence, for when we do so, we always are experiencing that something, even something without any properties, exists). >> I think that is correct. I think Robin is still adhering >> to some kind of Christian outlook on life, just hiding the >> fact by expressing it covertly, like TM adherents do for >> Hindu practices. > > Robin does not adhere to or believe in any religion, and > he's been very explicit about what he *does* believe, so > it's pretty foolish to suggest he's "hiding" a Christian > outlook on life or "expressing it covertly." > > You don't have to be a Hindu to believe in reincarnation; > you don't have to be a Christian to believe we're created > beings. You don't have to be an adherent of any religion > to hold those beliefs. It is just I have the sneaking suspicion, that is not the case. I am not alone in this suspicion. Lordknows seems to not believe this is the case, that Robin has changed from the way he was in any significant way. >>>> I happen, unlike some on this forum, to think Robin is >>>> sane, with a very intricate intellect, somewhat devious >>>> at times. >>> >>> You keep saying this, but you've never made a good case >>> for any "deviousness" on his part. As far as I can see, >>> your argument is that because you don't understand what >>> he's saying, he must be trying to confuse you. Suspicion is that lurking feeling something is not quite right, one cannot always put one's finger on it. In your conversations with Robin, have you ever had a back and forth about the nature of Reality? I ask this because it is in this situation that what I 'suspect' becomes evident. Normally you do not discuss ideas, you edit or correct statements in relation to those ideas that others make, but normally do not seem to enter the fray with a direct discussion of what you think about the 'truth' of conceptions about reality, in which case you would not butt heads with Robin. >> But it could also be that he can't be understood because >> it is incoherent though intellectually skilful. > > Seems quite coherent to me. Robin is very coherent on one level, but something always seems amiss on another level. I know this is vague. It is a very general feeling. If I could put it into words, I would say Robin is a simulation of a teacher of reality, but some critical component of 'reality teacherdom' is missing. > >> Robin does not have my trust. > > Obviously. > >>>> Robin says: >>>> >>>> 'Ultimately, in my opinion, the only philosophy which >>>> survives--and I believe will survive right through the >>>> experience of dying--is that philosophy whereby *one is >>>> willing to do anything in order to know and represent >>>> what the truth is*--but not conceptually, dogmatically; >>>> rather through experimental knowledge.' >>> >>> (I've put the first part of the sentence back in for >>> clarity.) >> >> This is pretty much the Christian view of things, for those >> with a literal fundamentalist bent. > > No, Xeno, it really isn't. I am not talking about American fundamentalism. Saying something is not, is not helpful, but your comments following I found very useful. > >> It is also the view of Eastern karma rebirth beliefs. But in >> order to know this you have to die first. > > I don't think you've quite understood him. > >>>> Now I like this passage, but it applies just as much to >>>> Eastern philosophy as to the West. Dying is not necessarily >>>> physical. >>> >>> Robin is talking about physical death. >> >> This is what I was hoping was not the case. The ultimate >> carrot on the stick. What you want cannot be achieved now, >> you have to kick the bucket first. > > No, that isn't what he's saying AT ALL. > >> Then, as long as we are discussing this, it will not be >> possible to 'the only philosophy which survives--and I >> believe will survive right through the experience of >> dying--is that philosophy whereby *one is willing to do >> anything in order to know and represent what the truth >> is*--but not conceptually, dogmatically; rather through >> experimental knowledge.' That would mean you have to die >> to find out. Certainly you will not be telling anybody >> what you found. So why does Robin just not kill himself >> to find out? Because doctrinally it is a sin to off >> yourself within the Christian matrix? > > You've read a whole lot into what he wrote that isn't > there, Xeno. He's talking about a philosophy of life, > what you practice experimentally while you're alive, > getting as close to reality as you can and making the > most of it. If you do it right, not only will you have > greater fulfillment in life, you'll find that reality > continuing through physical death. You won't suddenly > find yourself jolted into an unfamiliar reality you > weren't prepared for. Now this interpretation of yours, I agree with, but interestingly this is not how I read Robin. What you say here seems to me compatible with what any number of current and past spiritual teachers have said. This is a very clear statement Judy! I wonder how many others think this is what Robin is getting at with his extended labyrinthian prose. He would do much better to speak this way. I am always experimenting. But there seems to be a difference in my approach and what Robin seems to advocate. My experience is the sense of individuality gets dismembered with spiritual practice. This does not mean it ever completely goes away, but it becomes more transparent, as if it were a convenient fiction, a useful construction for dealing with other human bodies and objects, but the experience is everything is an aspect of an inclusive whole, and everything seamlessly fits together. It is an incredible delicious simplicity. > Killing yourself would be the *last* thing you'd want > to do, not because it's a "sin" or because you're > afraid of dying but because that would abort your > preparation for death. How can suicide abort one's preparation for death - it is preparation for death. (That was, I admit, a bit facetious.) Suicide is the attempt to escape from an intolerable situation, as perceived by an individual mind. Because we do not know what is on the other side of death (though lots of philosophies try to get us to buy into the idea there is something), we cannot know directly if this method is successful. If there is nothing on the other side of death, then obviously suicide is extraordinarily efficient in achieving the goal of escape. Because death is inevitable where there is life, it seems to me all the philosophies about an other side beyond death are an attempt to assuage the fear of death, are an attempt to avoid the inevitable by extending life. A thief who holds you up at gunpoint can control you by exploiting the fear of death. A religion does the same thing, controls you by exploiting the fear of death, offering a way out. Except the thief, if he has not shot you dead, runs off with your money and is gone. Religion exploits that fear all life long unless you can get out of the fear by some other means. My thoughts on this are initially religions were about finding experientially the nature of reality while one is alive, and the fear of death is vanquished. Over time this process gets muddled and people end up thinking it must happen only when one physically dies because the process of becoming in tune with what reality is, is corrupted and fails, and success of the endeavour to conquer death in living experience is aborted. MMY talked about this in describing how pure knowledge gets corrupted over time, and a religion gets born out of the mess, something we can see happening in the TMO right now. Robin seems to think that it is not possible to complete this process while one is still living, if I interpret your interpretation of Robin here correctly. On an individual level, death ends life. In unity, life and death are not different, an essential value of nothingness permeates everything, and therefore there is no transition from life to death other than the world ends. That essential 'metaphysical' value of being remains unchanged. As there was no real individual entity to die, nothing is lost. There is no need for some 'soul' to transition to a new location. The idea of soul I think might come from the experience of cosmic consciousness, you know, the Atman. But cosmic consciousness is a delusional state, say 95% delusional, so it is not a reliable indicator of what might come in one's experience. > The idea is to get the most you can out of life while > you're alive, and the most out of death when you die. Why not have the best of both worlds now? Robin said he was in unity, then not. Now he is on a different track. My procedure to to integrate all my experience; what I used to believe has to fit within my current understanding some way, in the same way Newton's laws of physics fits into Einstein's general relativity. In other words, nothing in my past is rejected as being unreal, it is simply understood as an effective theory that has limitations and is no longer useful to apply in the broader context of experience now. That Robin has not, it would seem, completely come to terms with his past is one of the reasons I am suspicious of his motives. The real nexus of the problem of death is individuality. We obviously can do many things while we are alive. But we experience other people dying, leaving us. The individuality we see seems to have been extinguished. And that makes the idea of getting the most out of death problematical, because the 'you' does not seem to continue. There are so many stories of the 'you' continuing, but how do we know that these stories are true? If we believe there is a life beyond death, but have not experienced it, then all we are doing is having a thought that has no knowledgeable connexion with reality. We just do not know. On the other hand, if the experience of 'selfdom' is that selfdom is a fiction, just a mental construct, the need for all this philosophical baggage of life beyond death is unnecessary. > > The rest of this isn't germane because you've so > misconstrued what he's saying, at least as I > understand it. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've got > it wrong. I know it's *incomplete*, but hopefully > it's a start. I think you did a nice job here. Since it seems clear to you I misunderstand Robin, you will have to take the job of my interpreter. It does not pay well. > >> >> In Eastern schemas, there is the possibility of finding out before you die, >> a death before physical death, that experientially at least can be verified, >> though at present, not scientifically. Now you are a meditator, would you >> prefer to find out now, or die first? You seem to agree with Robin, but you >> are practicing techniques that come within a philosophy that he rejects. I >> mean, St Paul said the mortal putting on the immortal, then death where is >> thy sting? That seems to imply basically what MMY and other Eastern >> traditions assert, that if we want to find the answer to questions about >> reality we have to find out now, not later, where there is no guarantee >> (except in belief, not knowledge, that there is a guarantee) of what happens >> next, if there even is a happens next. >> >> Actually, the religions and spiritual systems I am aware of all seem to boil >> down to dealing, one way or another, with the question of death and how to >> ameliorate the fear of death. For those who believe in an afterlife that is >> better than this one, please go now, why are you waiting? Leave the Earth >> for those of us who want enlightenment before we die. >> >>> <snip> >>>>> You don't have to adopt his notion of reality as a feminine >>>>> entity yearning to have us understand her to make use of >>>>> his method, but it seems to me to be a useful way to think >>>>> about what it is you're doing when you want to get a read >>>>> on reality. >>>> >>>> I do think that existence seems to have a bent for wanting us >>>> to be aware of its wholeness, its completeness, its >>>> inevitability, but that is to me neither an aspect of power >>>> or necessariness, rather it is just plain mysterious why it is >>>> that way (at least to me). If that is so, one just has to let >>>> it be that way, since not other way would be actual. >>> >>> I'm not sure Robin would have any major objections to seeing >>> the propensity of reality to want us to be aware of it as >>> mysterious. But he can speak to that if he chooses. >>> >> >
