Intro's quote-o-rama

by Introspection 151 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Introspection

  More from the above:

  A good rule of thumb is that people are not going to expand their present views or outlooks by much more than 5% at any given time. So if you are trying to push a very big picture at them, they are probably going to shut down, and maybe get angry, and then start calling you names--you lack compassion, you're arrogant, etc. If you keep pushing, then at that point it really is your problem. Maybe your ego is enjoying shoving this down their throats. I know I've done that on occasion, and it helps nothing. Anyway, if you are really trying to help--real compassion--then don't put more in the spoon than a be swallowed, yes?

  Also, remember that belief systems are not merely beliefs--they are the home of the ego, the home of the self-contraction. Even a holistic belief, like the web-of-life, always houses the ego, because beliefs are merely mental forms, and if the supramental has not been discovered, then any and all mental constructions house a tenacious ego. When you challenge any belief system, the separate-self experiences that as a death threat and a death seizure, and this will engage all its survival instincts. You are not just discussing the truth or falsity of a theory--you are engaged in a life and death struggle. Whenever we do this, we're dealing with a cornered rat--in others and in ourselves, so watch out.
• 

  Introspection

  More from Spiritual Materialism:

  To the conventional way of thinking, compassion simply means being kind and warm. This sort of compassion is described in the scriptures as "grandmother's love." You would expect the practitioner of this type of compassion to be extremely kind and gentle; he would not harm a flea. If you need another mask, another blanket to warm yourself, he will provide it. But true compassion is ruthless, from ego's point of view, because it does not consider ego's drive to maintain itself. It is "crazy wisdom." It is totally wise, but it is crazy as well, because it does not relate to ego's literal and simple-minded attempts to secure its own comfort.

  The logical voice of ego advises us to be kind to other people, to be good boys and girls and lead innocent little lives. We work at our regular jobs and rent a cozy room or apartment for ourselves; we would like to continue in this way, but suddenly something happens which tears us out of our secure little nest. Either we become extremely depressed or something outrageously painful occurs. We begin to wonder why heaven has been so unkind. "Why should God punish me? I have been a good person, I have never hurt a soul." But there is something more to life than that.

  What are we trying to secure? Why are we so concerned to protect ourselves? The sudden energy of ruthless compassion severs us from our comforts and securities. If we were never to experience this kind of shock, we would not be able to grow. We have to be jarred out of our regular, repetitive and comfortable life-styles. The point of meditation is not merely to be an honest or good person in the conventional sense, trying only to maintain our security. We must begin to become compassionate and wise in the fundamental sense, open and relating to the world as it is.

  Q: Could you discuss the basic difference between love and compassion and in what relation they stand to each other?
  A: Love and compassion are vague terms; we can interpret them in different ways. Generally in our lives we take a grasping approach, trying to attach ourselves to different situations in order to achieve security. Perhaps we regard someone as our baby, or, on the other hand, we might like to regard ourselves as helpless infants and leap into someone's lap. This lap might belong to an individual, an organization, a community, a teacher, any parental figure. So-called "love" relationships usually take one of these two patterns. Either we are being fed by someone or we are feeding others. These are false, distorted kinds of love or compassion. The urge to commitment--that we would like to "belong," be someone's child, or that we would like them to be our child--is seemingly powerful. An individual or organization or institution or anything could become our infant; we would nurse it, feed it milk, encourage its growth. Or else the organization is the great mother by which we are continuously fed. Without our "mother" we cannot exist, cannot survive. These two patterns apply to any life energy which has the potential to entertain us. This energy might be as simple as a casual friendship or an exciting activity we would like to undertake, and it might be as complicated as marriage or our choice of career. Either we would like to control the excitement or we would like to become a part of it.

  To be continued...

  "Who can face the knowledge
  That the truth is not the truth?" -Rush, Distant Early Warning
• 

  stephenw20

  Todd Beamer

  "Lets Roll"
• 

  Introspection

  However, there is another kind of love and compassion, a third way. Just be what you are. You do not reduce yourself to the level of an infant nor do you demand that another person leap into your lap. You simply be what you are in the world, in life. If you can be what you are, external situations will become as they are, automatically. Then you can communicate directly and accurately, not indulging in any kind of nonsense, any kind of emotional or philosophical or psychological interpretation. This third way is a balanced way of openness and communication which automatically allows tremendous space, room for creative development, space in which to dance and exchange.

  Compassion means that we do not play the game of hypocrisy or self-deception. For instance, if we want something from someone and we say, "I love you," often we are hoping that we will be able to lure them into our territory, over to our side. This kind of proselytizing love is extremely limited. "You should love me, even if you hate me, because I am filled with love, am high on love, am completely intoxicated!" What does it mean? Simply that the other person should march into your territory because you say that you love him, that you are not going to harm him. It is very fishy. Any intelligent person is not going to be seduced by such a ploy. "If you really love me as I am, why do you want me to enter your territory? Why this issue of territory and demands at all? What do you want from me? How do I know, if I do march into your 'loving' territory, that you aren't going to dominate me, that you won't create a claustrophobic situation with your heavy demands for love?" As long as there is territory involved with a person's love, other people will be suspicious of his "loving" and "compassionate" attitude. How do we make sure, if a feast is prepared for us, that the food is not dosed with poison? Does this openness come from a centralized person, or is it total openness?

  The fundamental characteristic of true compassion is pure and fearless openness without territorial limitations. There is no need to be loving and kind to one's neighbors, no need to speak pleasantly to people and put on a pretty smile. This little game does not apply. In fact it is embarrassing. Real openness exists on a much larger scale, a revolutionarily large and open scale, a universal scale. Compassion means for you to be as adult as you are, while still maintaining a childlike quality. In the Buddhist teachings the symbol for compassion, as I have already said, is one moon shining in the sky while its image is reflected in one hundred bowls of water. The moon does not demand, "If you open to me, I will do you a favor and shine on you." The moon just shines. The point is not to want to benefit anyone or make them happy. There is no audience involved, no "me" and "them." It is a matter of an open gift, complete generosity without the relative notions of giving and receiving. That is the basic openness of compassion: opening without demand. Simply be what you are, be the master of the situation. If you will just "be," then life flows around and through you. This will lead you into working and communicating with someone, which of course demands tremendous warmth and openness. If you can afford to be what you are, then you do not need the "insurance policy" of trying to be a good person, a pious person, a compassionate person.
• 

  Introspection

  First of all, let me distinguish between real, honest science and scientism, which Ken Wilber also does in terms of these 3 modes of attaining knwledge. With that in mind, here are some interesting excerpts I found in his book Eye to Eye:

  St. Bonaventure, the great Doctor Seraphicus of the Church and a favorite philosopher of Western mystics, taught that men and women have at least three modes of attaining knowledge--"three eyes," as he put it (following Hugh of St. Victor, another famous mystic): the eye of flesh, by which we perceive the external world of space, time, and objects; the eye of reason, by which we attain a knowledge of philosophy, logic, and the mind itself; and the eye of contemplation, by which we rise to a knowledge of trascendent realities.

  Wilber goes on to point out that empirical science basically involves the first eye, since to reason and involve the second you need to have correct premises in addition to sound arguments. And here's the point under "The Contradiction of Scientism":

  Peraps we might first note that scientism maintains that contemplative knowledge of the Absolute is impossible--the only knowledge admissible is fleshy knowledge, which is by all accounts relative knowledge. Now if the positivist simply said, "We will limit ourselves to the study of relative knowledge," then that would be quite acceptable. But he goes beyond that and says, "Only relative knowledge is valid." And that is an absolute statement: it says, "It is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth." As Schuon puts it: "relativism sets out to reduce every element of absoluteness to a relativity, while making a quite illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself." He continues:

  In effect, relativism consists in declaring it to be true that there is no such thing as truth, or in declaring it to be absolutely true that nothing but the relatively true exists; one might just as well say that language does not exist, or write that there is no such thing as writing.

  In other words, the scientistic claim is "disproved by the very existence of the postulate itself."

  In a similar vein the scientician does not merely say, "The emperic proof is the best method of gaining facts in the sense realm," but goes on to say, "Only those propositions that can be empirically verified are true." Unfortunately, that proposition itself cannot be empirically verified. There is no empirical proof that empirical proof alone is real. Thus, as Smith says, "The contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, and thus in affirming it scientism contradicts itself."

  ----

  In psychology, this type of scientism appears as the statement--almost uncontested in orthodoxy--that (to use Tart's wording of it, although he himself does not believe it) "All human experience is ultimately reducible to patterns of electrical and chemical activity within the nervous system and body." But if all human activity is reducible to biochemical activity, then so is that human statement itself. So, in fact, are all statements equally biochemical fireworks. But there scould then be no question of a true statement versus a false statement, because all thoughts are equally biochemistry. There cannot be true thoughts versus false thoughts, there can only be thoughts. If thoughts are indeed ultimately reducible to electrons firing in the nervous system, then there cannot be true thoughts and false thoughts for the simple reason that there are no true electrons versus false electrons. And so, if that statement is true then it cannot be true.

  I know these quotes are longer than what most would expect, but I just find it interesting. Thoughts?
• 

  Seven

  The spiritual path wrecks the body And afterwards restores it to health. It destroys the house to unearth the treasure,
  And with that treasure builds it better than before.
  ~ Jalâluddîn Rumi

  Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries.
  Without them, humanity cannot survive.
  ~ The Dalai Lama

  We are here on earth to do good for others.
  What the others are here for, I don't know.
  ~ W. H. Auden

  Once we have the condition of peace and joy in us,
  we can afford to be in any situation.
  Even in the situation of hell,
  We will be able to contribute our peace and serenity.
  The most important thing is for each of us to have
  some freedom in our heart,
  some stability in our heart,
  some peace in our heart.
  Only then will we be able to relieve the suffering around us.
  ~ Thich Nhat Hanh
• 

  Introspection

  Hi Seven, thanks for visiting. :) Here is one I've posted in another thread before, and I still use it on my Yahoo profile, thought it's worth repeating:

  "Love your neighbor as yourself means your neighbor is yourself, and that recognition of oneness is love." -Eckhart Tolle
• 

  Introspection

  Couple more from One Taste:

  "My problems start when the smarter bears and the dumber visitors intersect." -Yosemite Park official Steve Thompson.

  To balance that out:

  "I also know, from painful experience, that no matter how strong and seemingly unshakable one's spiritual realization, life can yank the rug right out from under you when you're not looking, and, more embarrassingly, when you are." -Ken Wilber
• 

  dubla

  "you are not your job. youre not how much money you have in the bank. youre not the car you drive. youre not the contents of your wallet..... youre not your fuckin' khakis. you are the all singing, all dancing, crap of the world."

  -tyler durden
• 

  Tatiana

  "It does not matter how slow you go
  so long as you do not stop."

  Confucius

  April

  "Love never dies." Voivodul Vlad Draculea (from Bram Stoker's Dracula-1992)