Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Thanks, well expressed considerations.  yifuxero writes:  Thx, for purposes of 
philosophical discourse, we can take the experiences  of A 
 to be valuable lessons for B, but as pointed out by MMY; this approach is not 
always valuable or appropriate.  To use an analogy, take the people in the 
"Matrix" world.  Some wake up out of their dismal state of delusion, and among 
these, some prefer to fight the system while others simply accommodate 
themselves with the Order of things, quietly living amongst the so-called 
deluded population. But in that set of persons, they simply "like" being the 
way they are.
 ...
 On the notion of Transcendence "not" being Transcendence since after the 
unknown becomes known it couldn't be Transcendent; sorry Jim but this argument 
leads to an infinite regress and its excessive faux eruditeness obscures the 
stark simplicity of the nature of desies.  Person A simply experiences 
something that he at one time called "Transcendent" and wishes to make it 
permanent.  If so, it in a sense is STILL "Transcendent" (purusha), because - 
as pointed out by the Vedic reference by Carde, Purusha is Absolutely distinct 
from subtle prakriti. Lett out is that the distinction simultaneously exists, 
but doesn't exist.  (a genuine Paradox).  The fact that this boggles the mind 
is simply a fact of life.
  As pointed out by Harri Aalto, "persons" are Purusha though they not know it 
consciously.  When knowing "IT", the label of Transcendence may be applied.  No 
need to complicate things. It's simply something newly experienced (unless one 
is born that way).  But even after realizing IT, IT's still the Transcendent, 
according to the Vedic verse quoted by Carde.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 11/22/2016 09:23 AM, Archer Angel archonan...@yahoo.com 
mailto:archonan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Transcendentalism and Quietism have philosophically at their basis, 
withdrawal. 
 

 That is a recessive quality, a retreat, and that cannot stand up to more 
forceful attitudes such as ramming a dogma down someone's throat. 
 

 Quietism was condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church, wrongly elevating 
contemplation over meditation, intellectual stillness over vocal prayer, and 
interior passivity over pious action. (Note the words here are used in a 
different sense than in TM.)
 

 This problem cannot be overcome unless it is realized that transcendence and 
stillness are techniques to expand experience, to expand the nature of the 
mind. They are not ends in themselves, they are methods.
 

 Also these methods become objectified. Moving from a state of experience not 
previously known to a state of knowing is a transcendence, a going beyond, but 
just for the moment. Once you have the result, it is in hand. It is not 
transcendent.
 

 Thus it is improper to say you are experiencing "the Transcendent," because 
any state transcendent to what you are experiencing is not experienced. 
Transcendence is a method to get from A to B, a state of experience, not a 
state of objects.
 



 Philosophically maybe but this gets too complicated for the neophyte.  What I 
noticed was I stopped "coming out of meditation". IOW saying the experience of 
"the transcendent" in activity is merely a way of communicating with other 
meditators about the experience be it just silence in activity.  It is probably 
easier for them to imagine what having that quiet transcendent feeling in 
activity is like than imagining silence in activity (confusing).
 
 Indian gurus have through time simplified terms of the experience as much as 
possible because intellect seemed to have little to do with whether one might 
develop enlightenment or not.  In fact the intellect might often be barrier to 
such develop because one can develop expectations that actually don't reflect 
the experience.  I swear some think it's like going to be on LSD all the time 
and that would not be very practical. And intellectualizing about it too much 
tends to bog things down.
 
 Went to the library and found 3 (unchecked out) cc of Eckart Tolle's "Heaven 
on Earth" in which he makes the case that more Transcendentalists will 
transform society.
 If he believes soon, I'd say he's mistakenbut maybe in 500 years.
 There's something else to consider:
 Is Tolle talking about isolated Transcendentalists who simply evolve into 
Gnosis? Or will a greater influence be organized religions such as Buddhism, 
which have as adherents many teachers - especially of the Mahayana variety, 
whose aim it is to not rest until all of humanity is Enlightened.  This could 
take some time.
 
 
  
   Transcendentalism and Quietism have philosophically at their basis, 
withdrawal. 
 

 That is a recessive quality, a retreat, and that cannot stand up to more 
forceful attitudes such as ramming a dogma down someone's throat. 
 

 Quietism was condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church, wrongly elevating 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thx, for purposes of philosophical discourse, we can take the experiences  of A 
to be valuable lessons for B, but as pointed out by MMY; this approach is not 
always valuable or appropriate.  To use an analogy, take the people in the 
"Matrix" world.  Some wake up out of their dismal state of delusion, and among 
these, some prefer to fight the system while others simply accommodate 
themselves with the Order of things, quietly living amongst the so-called 
deluded population. But in that set of persons, they simply "like" being the 
way they are.
 ...
 On the notion of Transcendence "not" being Transcendence since after the 
unknown becomes known it couldn't be Transcendent; sorry Jim but this argument 
leads to an infinite regress and its excessive faux eruditeness obscures the 
stark simplicity of the nature of desies.  Person A simply experiences 
something that he at one time called "Transcendent" and wishes to make it 
permanent.  If so, it in a sense is STILL "Transcendent" (purusha), because - 
as pointed out by the Vedic reference by Carde, Purusha is Absolutely distinct 
from subtle prakriti. Lett out is that the distinction simultaneously exists, 
but doesn't exist.  (a genuine Paradox).  The fact that this boggles the mind 
is simply a fact of life.
 

 As pointed out by Harri Aalto, "persons" are Purusha though they not know it 
consciously.  When knowing "IT", the label of Transcendence may be applied.  No 
need to complicate things. It's simply something newly experienced (unless one 
is born that way).  But even after realizing IT, IT's still the Transcendent, 
according to the Vedic verse quoted by Carde.
 Shalom Aleichem, Baruch Atah
 

 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 11/22/2016 09:23 AM, Archer Angel archonan...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
Transcendentalism and Quietism have philosophically at their basis, 
withdrawal.


That is a recessive quality, a retreat, and that cannot stand up to 
more forceful attitudes such as ramming a dogma down someone's throat.


Quietism was condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church, wrongly 
elevating contemplation over meditation, intellectual stillness over 
vocal prayer, and interior passivity over pious action. (Note the 
words here are used in a different sense than in TM.)


This problem cannot be overcome unless it is realized that 
transcendence and stillness are techniques to expand experience, to 
expand the nature of the mind. They are not ends in themselves, they 
are methods.


Also these methods become objectified. Moving from a state of 
experience not previously known to a state of knowing is a 
transcendence, a going beyond, but just for the moment. Once you have 
the result, it is in hand. It is not transcendent.


Thus it is improper to say you are experiencing "the Transcendent," 
because any state transcendent to what you are experiencing is not 
experienced. Transcendence is a method to get from A to B, a state of 
experience, not a state of objects.


Philosophically maybe but this gets to complicated for the neophyte.  
What I noticed was I stopped "coming out of meditation". IOW saying the 
experience of "the transcendent" in activity is merely a way of 
communicating with other meditators about the experience be it just 
silence in activity.  It is probably easier for them to imagine what 
having that quiet transcendent feeling in activity is like than 
imagining silence in activity (confusing).


Indian gurus have through time simplified terms of the experience as 
much as possible because intellect seemed to have little to do with 
whether one might develop enlightenment or not.  In fact the intellect 
might often be barrier to such develop because one can develop 
expectations that actually don't reflect the experience.  I swear some 
think it's like going to be on LSD all the time and that would not be 
very practical. And intellectualizing about it too much tends to bog 
things down.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I enjoy the clarity in/of your posts.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Transcendentalism and Quietism have philosophically at their basis, 
withdrawal. 
 

 That is a recessive quality, a retreat, and that cannot stand up to more 
forceful attitudes such as ramming a dogma down someone's throat. 
 

 Quietism was condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church, wrongly elevating 
contemplation over meditation, intellectual stillness over vocal prayer, and 
interior passivity over pious action. (Note the words here are used in a 
different sense than in TM.)
 

 This problem cannot be overcome unless it is realized that transcendence and 
stillness are techniques to expand experience, to expand the nature of the 
mind. They are not ends in themselves, they are methods.
 

 Also these methods become objectified. Moving from a state of experience not 
previously known to a state of knowing is a transcendence, a going beyond, but 
just for the moment. Once you have the result, it is in hand. It is not 
transcendent.
 

 Thus it is improper to say you are experiencing "the Transcendent," because 
any state transcendent to what you are experiencing is not experienced. 
Transcendence is a method to get from A to B, a state of experience, not a 
state of objects.
 

 First you just have A. Then B, and finally AB. You are looking for a state of 
experience, not a thing.
 

 In TM this would be A, B (TC), A|B (CC), and AB (UC).
 

 So ultimately transcendence comes to an end because there is no further to go, 
the method, having established a unified experience, no longer has anything to 
do.
 

 If there is success in the pursuit of unity, you cannot be a Transcendentalist 
because there is nothing transcendent to what your experience is. You might be 
quiet, but not a Quietist.
 

 The word transcendence thought of objectively symbolizes the goal in a 
somewhat inaccurate way, but is not the goal itself but the path to it. The 
goal itself has no name and no definable qualities and is not located anywhere 
in particular. 
 

 It is as if nothing at all, making approach a thorny problem except for the 
fact that it is your own experience. Thus it is close at hand at all times, 
which removes the problem of distance. 
 

 Because it is at hand, the problem is not where it is, but your own ignorance 
of it. 
 

 The lack is therefore in your own mind in the form of beliefs, opinions, 
conditioned behavior, and general inattention to the nature of experience as an 
aspect of living.
 

 This is why introspective methods, such as inward contemplation, and 
non-verbal meditation methods, and meditation methods that result in pure 
silence (like TM) are useful to illuminate and allow the mind's faults, which 
revolve around the way it thinks and feels, to dissipate.
 

 Unlike warfare, these methods represent, as said, a retreat from your current 
situation, not a battle with it. Perhaps this is why they lose out in the 
marketplace, they do not appear to meet a problem head on.
 

 Once dissipated, things are clear as day for what you sought is not something 
different from what you have always been, or is somewhere else than where you 
are. 
 

 Knowledge replaces ignorance, but it is not knowledge as something learned. 
 

 What you had learned was the problem. You need to lose an awful lot, to 
experience what is called enlightenment.
 

 Loss is not what people tend to aim for in their lives.
 

 You have to lie a lot to induce people to consider enlightenment as a valid 
goal in life, to make it seem as if they are going to get something out of it 
when in fact they will lose everything that is currently preventing them from 
the experience.
 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[Archer Angel archonan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Transcendentalism and Quietism have philosophically at their basis, withdrawal. 
That is a recessive quality, a retreat, and that cannot stand up to more 
forceful attitudes such as ramming a dogma down someone's throat. 
Quietism was condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church, wrongly elevating 
contemplation over meditation, intellectual stillness over vocal prayer, and 
interior passivity over pious action. (Note the words here are used in a 
different sense than in TM.)
This problem cannot be overcome unless it is realized that transcendence and 
stillness are techniques to expand experience, to expand the nature of the 
mind. They are not ends in themselves, they are methods.
Also these methods become objectified. Moving from a state of experience not 
previously known to a state of knowing is a transcendence, a going beyond, but 
just for the moment. Once you have the result, it is in hand. It is not 
transcendent.
Thus it is improper to say you are experiencing "the Transcendent," because any 
state transcendent to what you are experiencing is not experienced. 
Transcendence is a method to get from A to B, a state of experience, not a 
state of objects.
First you just have A. Then B, and finally AB. You are looking for a state of 
experience, not a thing.
In TM this would be A, B (TC), A|B (CC), and AB (UC).
So ultimately transcendence comes to an end because there is no further to go, 
the method, having established a unified experience, no longer has anything to 
do.
If there is success in the pursuit of unity, you cannot be a Transcendentalist 
because there is nothing transcendent to what your experience is. You might be 
quiet, but not a Quietist.
The word transcendence thought of objectively symbolizes the goal in a somewhat 
inaccurate way, but is not the goal itself but the path to it. The goal itself 
has no name and no definable qualities and is not located anywhere in 
particular. 
It is as if nothing at all, making approach a thorny problem except for the 
fact that it is your own experience. Thus it is close at hand at all times, 
which removes the problem of distance. 
Because it is at hand, the problem is not where it is, but your own ignorance 
of it. 
The lack is therefore in your own mind in the form of beliefs, opinions, 
conditioned behavior, and general inattention to the nature of experience as an 
aspect of living.
This is why introspective methods, such as inward contemplation, and non-verbal 
meditation methods, and meditation methods that result in pure silence (like 
TM) are useful to illuminate and allow the mind's faults, which revolve around 
the way it thinks and feels, to dissipate.
Unlike warfare, these methods represent, as said, a retreat from your current 
situation, not a battle with it. Perhaps this is why they lose out in the 
marketplace, they do not appear to meet a problem head on.
Once dissipated, things are clear as day for what you sought is not something 
different from what you have always been, or is somewhere else than where you 
are. 
Knowledge replaces ignorance, but it is not knowledge as something learned. 
What you had learned was the problem. You need to lose an awful lot, to 
experience what is called enlightenment.
Loss is not what people tend to aim for in their lives.
You have to lie a lot to induce people to consider enlightenment as a valid 
goal in life, to make it seem as if they are going to get something out of it 
when in fact they will lose everything that is currently preventing them from 
the experience.


#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251 -- #yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp #yiv3048578251hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp #yiv3048578251ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp .yiv3048578251ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp .yiv3048578251ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251ygrp-mkp .yiv3048578251ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv3048578251ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251ygrp-sponsor #yiv3048578251ygrp-lc #yiv3048578251hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251ygrp-sponsor #yiv3048578251ygrp-lc .yiv3048578251ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv3048578251
 #yiv3048578251activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv3048578251 
#yiv3048578251activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv3048578251 #yiv3048578251activity span a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quietist Revolution

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Joel 2:28
 

 וְהָיָ֣ה אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֶשְׁפֹּ֤וךְ אֶת־רוּחִי֙ עַל־כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר

 ve haya achare khen eshpokh et-ruchi al-kol-basar
 

 28 http://biblehub.com/joel/2-28.htm“And afterward,
 I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
 

 AFAIK, basar literally means flesh... ; )