Re: sorry about the oscar...+ to hell with Boyle's Law

February 19, 2005

Greg, all,

You write,

G:Edinger once said that one who is comfortably contain within a

worldview cannot be helped by depth psychology, because " there is no

problem " at least from that person's perspective.

Yes. This is why I suggested previously that the refinement of one's

belief systems, no matter which one, to the point of satisfaction, is

the devilish problem of spiritual materialism. And, it matters not

whether one designs rationales for this not being the case if the end

result is still being contained within beliefs and rationales, and

being satisfied.

Jung put it in certain terms: for most the reconciliation of the

personality would cause trouble enough. (Little understood?) This

includes being comfortably contained within (for example) a Jungian

world view, as Jung noted in his statement about the 'Jungian'.

***

Yet the pressured paradox is that it is most often the case that

persons criticize another person's " containment " from the perspective

of their own. (This reminds me of Melville's " ice palaces of frozen

space " ; in this case one palace agin the other.)

So you'll have to pardon me if I cannot endorse:

" The project seems to me to be to help those who are not able to

think symbolically to begin to do so, creatively and lovingly. "

There are a raft of assumptions in this short sentence. It's not that

one cannot be in a position to judge, but that from one perspective

it is presumed the other perspective is apparent. However, one of the

hallmarks of uncontainable criticalness is knowing fully what one's

own assumptions are and to what they are oriented by and to.

What I hear is hegemonic language: power. Not love. If one way of

speaking of the problem of a certain kind of faulted self psychology,

( " not able to think symbolically, " ) is to point out the

concretization and objectification of archetypes, it does one no good

to objectify the psyche of individuals by making them into 'fundy'

collectives and concretizing our ideas into this object one makes.

This is, literally, to make the same mistake via an accusation that

the accusation itself reveals.

Also, it is important to keep in mind too that a purely psychological

view of the Divine is a turn away from the Divine if the Divine is

*in fact* " objectifiable " . All of the great monotheistic religions,

most of the occult systems, and, Traditionalism, much more, are not

primarily psychological. This means believers are very refined in

their symbolic thinking even if this thinking is very alien to our

psychological mindedness.

But the giveaway is the council of love following from the harsh

critique. Melt thy own ice palace first.

regards,

February 19, 2005

Hello greg in the heartland,

I love it.

Please send the Moyers again. I'm not getting attachments.

>>The project seems to me to be to help those who are not able to think

>>symbolically to begin to do so, creatively and lovingly.>>

We have some masters here at doing that. Parable. Jesus spoke in parable,

and was also a parable himself. A parable is a handy little palpable,

imbibe-able leap of the heart. A glimpse. A way to share what can only

really be experienced. Thus it's alive, and to take it apart is to lose it.

mike sent something this morning that is so imbibe-able. He blogged it here:

http://cloudhand.blogspot.com/

And here's a spontaneous version below, so lovely and alive and hence

imbibe-able...

the formal encapsulation is imbibe-able too, but I guess it's like fiction.

The way

one holds her tea cup says so much...

x's

deborah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> << par.692 A religious truth is essentially an experience; it is not an

> opinion. >>

*The *problem* with 'religious truths' is that they are not truths in

the same sens that, if you step off the pavement without looking you

may very well not enjoy the outcome. *Religious* truths are,

experience; but experience is (a) NEVER shared but always individual,

that ( it is inevitably mitigated by previous experience, that

experience itself is (to quote A. N. Whitehead) simply " experientially

initiated potentiality for further experience " , which is to say that -

rather than 'seeing is believing - what actually happens is that you

see only what you already believe or can already understand based on

an accretion of previous instants of experiences you deem similar or

dissimilar. Thirdly, there is the distinction between intellectual

understanding (which, according to the Tibetans, is like aptch: it

tends to fall off when you most need it), experience (which fades like

clouds, leaving little but opinion in its wake) and genuine

realisation (which is as vast and all-encompassing as space).

Myyardstick for judging truths is precisely this idea of vastness and

all-encompassingness. *Any* ideological " truth " , religious or other,

which excludes more than it contains is of a lesser nature... Not

necessarily UNtrue, but merely a step toward that greater truth that

includes it.

At the age of 12, the great teacher Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision

of the bodhisattva of penetrating insight, who said to him:

If you're attached to the concerns of just this life, you are not a

practitioner;

If you're attached to cyclic existence and its confusions, you are no

renunciate;

If you're attached to your own goals and personal well-being, this is

not the enlightened attitude of compassion;

If you cling to anything at all, that is not the ultimate view.

These four lines are considered to contain the entire path. The

concerns of just this life are the domain of those who have not yet

entered any spiritual path. Their concerns are - at base - survival of

the individual in terms of food, warmth, companionship and safety, and

survival of the species in terms of procreation and the safety and

stability of the group.

As we all know, these 'truths' are a 24/7 job.

As long as the fluctuations of fortune affect you profoundly, and you

are blown hither and yon by the eight worldly winds of praise and

blame, good fortune and bad fortune, renown and lack of recognition,

happiness and sorrow, you will actually continue to be pushed around

by them. And as long as you are being pushed around by hopes and fears

concerning what's outside of you, there is no time for learning the

actual nature of the mind.

This is not to say that the actual nature of the mind does not HAVE

these concerns, but rather, that the mind itself is so vast and

profound, that these become no more than the tiniest ripples on the

least wavelet on one infinitessimal section of its surface - as the

famous Niguma quote says:

If you don't understand that whatever appears is meditation,

What can you achieve by applying an antidote?

Perceptions are not abandoned by discarding them

But are spontaneously freed when recognized as illusory.

Until you reach a point in your development where the well-being of

others becomes more important than your own, your attitude is still

pretty cramped - goldfish bowl - everything relates to you... MY

happiness, MY progress, MY discomfort, MY likes and dislikes, etc.,

etc., ad infinitum nauseamque.

Compassion - karuna in Sanskrit, nying-re or t'ug-je ('lordly heart'

or 'lordly enlightened mind') in Tibetan - is simply the attitude that

others are obviously suffering quite as much as you are and that

therefore you should find out the correct way to help in such a way

that first their immediate needs are met, and then their profounder

doubts and insecurities are calmed...

As HH Dalai Lama says, all this really needs to get going is ordinary

human intelligence and ordinary huma kindness. A mere step in this

direction of itself opens up the pathway to further refinement of your

own attitude, futher purification of your obscurations of conflicting

emotion and primitive beliefs about reality.

Finally you reach a point where you may walk with both hands free,

where your kindliness and concern know no bounds, where you genuinely

rejoice in the good fortune of those around you and are immediate in

responding to their suffering, and where you have no attachment to

what you consider near and dear or distant and alien, no point of view

to thump, no truths to drive home... you just help... In the knowledge

that " truths " are useful as markers, direction-pointers and goads

along a path, but that the path itself - the REAL path - is ultimately

ineffable, inconceivable and beyond all 'effort' or 'truth' or

'realisation'...

If this is what Jung means by a 'religious truth', then yes, I agree.

Sorry! I'm going on a bit here!

February 20, 2005

Dear Deborah,

I am about to commit the ultimate sin ...question what you said the Dalai Lama

said, purely from the way I read it.

you said:

" As HH Dalai Lama says, all this really needs to get going is ordinary

human intelligence and ordinary human kindness. A mere step in this

direction of itself opens up the pathway to further refinement of your

own attitude, further purification of your obscurations of conflicting

emotion and primitive beliefs about reality. "

The Dalai Lama himself did not get where he is by a step , to ordinary human

intelligence, and ordinary human kindness.From the age of birth on, he was

treated specially, taught specially, trained specially...especially spiritually.

In my opinion the reason so few of us human beings end up like H.H. is that we

are ordinary, and he obviously was not.Our training is haphazard at best

It is my opinion that " something " within has to urge the way forward out of the

ordinary for anyone who is committed to the spiritual life.Circumstances held

also.

My problem with those parts of the Christian religion which preach that we can

" be perfect as the father is perfect " { (yes, yes, I realize it means " whole " )

nevertheless leads to a standard of life that can never be reached with one's

own power alone.( One of the reasons so many religious people carry so much

guilt)

Christians are so hung up on " good works " they forget that something must come

first, if they are not to burn out, even with perfect motivation. Buddhist,

also, it seems to me, do not spread light and joy in the world without a pretty

grim and rough discipline and teaching and meditating for years.

Not believing in an Absolute, the Buddhist still must get the needed energy and

power somewhere, not from his insides alone. That is what meditation is all

about, is it not? To reach a higher, more enlightened level? The loving energy?

Westerners, separating themselves from the treadmill of good works alone,

realize they simply can not keep up what their highest intentions were.

Christianity says it has to do with a faith that accepts what it is told.. And

that that faith, not experience,is enough.Not that experience will give the

knowledge which can lead to the " needed " grace to have the love of humanity and

forgetfulness of self that the Dalai Lama certainly seems to be graced with.

I imagine there are many lesser Buddhist who struggle mightily for the

enlightenment to be able to be like him. It takes more than ordinary human

intelligence and ordinary humans kindness.

If the " before " training, prayer and discipline is not practice there will be no

further development and love for humankind. In any religion, if it does not

teach the preparatory work involved, millions will attempt on their own steam

and fail, become disillusioned and revert to where they began. Bitterness

towards G-d and man usually follows.

The higher help is always available, we call it grace, I have no idea what

besides enlightenment or some other rather unfamiliar words to me Buddhist use .

This is a personal reaction, from someone who spent most of her life trying to

do the right and kept falling behind or treading water where she thought she

should be, and ended up carrying more guilt than love.

I was brought up " to love " everybody.To " do good to those who hate me " OK? Now

kindly explain how a young person sets out to love everybody when she hardly

knows how to love those she has in here own family....nevermind the bully down

the street.Nobody tells her it is not by her effort alone, indeed I found it was

very little of my own effort that changed my life.

He that stands as the head of Christianity didn't expect that. He knew where the

start was, and what needed to be learned and experienced first.I imagine he

expected those he left behind to follow all his footsteps. The Buddha also, if I

remember spent a lot of time being miserable and pouting before he figured it

out himself...and then worked on it.

Anyway, I am extra sensitive to remarks which expect extra-ordinary behavior

from ordinary people, but do not explain the gifts are available.That those

results are impossible for long, without the gifts.nobody admits.. The Dalai

Lama, I am sure, suffers from no illusions about human nature.

Nowadays we sing " Amazing Grace " but no one really takes it very seriously in

public, unless they actually have experienced it. The rest mouth the words and

haven't a clue how easily it is given to anyone who really wants it.Nobody

actually explains what human nature can do with a little help and lots of joy

and peace.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse....and why...in western culture is

it so? because we want everyone to know he is personally responsible for

everything. He doesn't need any help, and ought not to expect it. And if it is

offered at all it is with more rules to be obeyed than anyone person could even

remember. So we send everyone out to do great things, love everyone and do good,

and say nary a word about why they alone cannot succeed.

As for his H.H, I am sure he tells his monks more...he is the human embodiment

of the results of grace...and I have never even met him.

Sorry to be so long winded, but one of my " hot " spots was hit...well, not hit

but sideswiped. :-)

Toni