Quote:
Originally Posted by mercuryrising  I agree with you that the mind and the symbolic interface we identify with is limited. Here comes the "butt". But, the mind is part of experience and existence. To reach an authentic state of non-duality, it would have to include duality and not repel from it. If I go back far enough, I am just being. I see the rise and fall of causality, the inter-dependent co-arising of form, as the rise and fall of my breath. I am also a very limited, mortal human being with a particular persona and limited understanding of the world
Philosophy today is almost strictly sophistry. It is a game of semantics. Philosophy originally was a way of life, akin to that of the yoga masters from the same time period. I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.
I've often felt that Westerners have over-looked some real gems in their culture for the more readily available Eastern versions of the same things The parallels between Stoicism and Buddhism are unbelievable, for example. |
Thank you for sharing your perspective on philosophy. I agree completely. Philosophy leads to good thinking; and that is definately a good thing. But it isn't everything. For me, there is a lot more that is of more importance to me. However, I wouldn't dismiss philosophy, or say to someone that it is a waste of time. Because it is, like many things, a very good tool. One that I appreciate learning about, and having a basic understanding of. The only view that I disagree with most heartily is that it is everything.
There are deeper truths, IMHO. The mind to me is like water. When it is dense and unyielding it is like water that is held at a really cold temperature; i.e., ice. This is where, it seems to me, modern philosophy is today. Not a bad thing, but it is what it is. Water appears solid, impenetrable in its ice stage. Then you warm it up a little, and it is like spring water. Its properties are entirely different from ice, yet underneath its makeup is the same, except the temperature is different. Now it flows, it has movement. It follows a path, gravitating to the lowest point in the landscape. Then you take that water and heat it up even more. Now you can't see the water, but is it gone? No, now it makes the air moist, and floats in the clouds.
If you say that water is only hard and unyielding, cold, and solid, then it is obvious you've only seen and interacted with water in its ice state. Would that statement be correct; well yes and no. Yes it is correct if you are viewing ice. No, not correct if you are looking at flowing water or mist. You see where I'm going with this. Now there is nothing wrong with water in any form, but it has entirely different properties depending upon what the underlying temperature is. The only error one can make here is to say that one state of water is the only state. However, if you never experienced ice, ever (perhaps you live in the tropics and there is no refrigeration), it would be pretty hard to believe that water can be rock-solid. This is not a SR issue, but perspective is limited to the view being seen or experienced.
To me it seems like this is how the mind is. The mind is a great tool, as is philosophy. It just isn't the end-all, be-all; or perhaps I should say there are different levels of the mind to be found.
You said:
Quote:
|
I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.
|
Me too. What I was looking for, however, I didn't find in philosophy. I did find it in the writings of Christian mystics, buddhist teachings, ACIM, Rumi, etc, etc.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Blessings from Belle,
