PB Quote on Mentalism taken from Wisdoms website

Talk about meditation, divine healing, and other spiritual topics

Moderator: figaro

figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Hello again!

Post by figaro »

I'm currently reading a paper on the ideas behind Chaos Theory. Once I am finished reading it, I will no doubt have a much deeper answer for you on this question.

And I shall scour my local library for "Standing in Your own Way". I would really like to read it to attempt to gain a further understanding of our discussion.


Wonderful! Thank you for these discussions, Arubis.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

Well, I agree that we need some percentage of ego in order to perceive the world - the ego is supposed to be the vehicle for the soul.

Hmm.... Do we not need the ego to likewise perceive the ideas of spirituality??

I also would say that over the centuries our thinking has clarified itself, evolved. But then again, thinking is not Wisdom.

To that, I agree, on both counts. Yes, we have evolved mentally over time, and yes, thought is not necessarily wisdom. However, I will say that thought, similar to every child born (as an innocent with potential for both good and bad), has an underlying potential for wisdom.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

I would hardly call destruction evolution ...

I still see it as evolution. Though not positive, the very fact that we have advanced to such a point where destruction seems to be what we do best is proof of our evolution, to me at least.

Tell me, Anubis: do you think that you are merely your thoughts and emotions?

Yes, I do. I think that denying our emotions as our true selves diminishes the idea that the soul is a compassionate, benevolent entity. Although humans are very selfish at heart, we have also exhibited a capacity for compassion and love. Those two qualities, from what I understand, embody the idea of a soul in most beliefs. However, I think it is unfair to pick and chose what emotions should define our soul. The ego is just as a equally part of our being as the heart.

The very fact that we say: "I had a thought" seems to indicate that we are something larger than our thoughts ...

I believe the fact that we say "I had a thought" indicates an acceptance of the selfishness of the ego as part of our being. Who else is to have those thoughts but you??
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Nietzsche

Post by Anubis »

However: Nietzsche's conception of what man is at core is not the Idea of Man in the Divine Mind.

I had planned on responding to this part of your post earlier, but ran out of time.

To put forth my views, and question, on this now, though: Firstly, what exactly is the "Divine Mind"?? Secondly, my own interpretation of this "Divine Mind" is basically God. And based upon that interpretation, I cannot help but acknowledge the fact that man was, supposedly, created in the image of God. I have taken this to mean more than our physical appearance, but rather, as entire beings. If we are created in the image of God, then we must clearly share all his aspects. Everything from his compassion to his wrath is physically embodied in us. Mind you, I am not a spiritual person, so my supposition could be wrong. However, I feel that, given this belief, it is not such a stretch to believe that we, as humans, are our emotions and thoughts and feelings as God obviously appears to share such things in common with us.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Chaos Theory

Post by Anubis »

Then, Anubis, how would you explain the exquisite order of the universe? The planets in their orbs, the crystal lattices found in Nature, the wonder of Life itself and the unfathomable physical order within every being etc

In my view Divine Ideas guide not only our physical existence, but every aspect of our existence.


Well, I have finished my reading on Chaos Theory. Unfortunately, after encountering much difficulty in my attempt to understand it, I cannot readily explain how it applies to the order of the Universe. I can express that it does appear to apply in the sense that at any given point in space, a dense collection of arbitrary points that are closely approximated by other arbitrary points (each with radically different future outcomes) can have an effect on one another if there is even the slightest bit of perturbation in the initial scenario that spawns the future behavior of the system. Think of it like the bustling streets of NYC. Each person has their own arbitrary location in the city attached to a determined future, assuming there is no interference with their path. However, their close approximation to other arbitrary "points" (people) means there is a great risk of perturbing the future behavior of that individuals future path. To the untrained eye, all of this confused hustle may seem random and chaotic, but really, a determined set of underlying values (that can be proven mathematically) govern the outcome of the system. Therefore, eliminating the apparent chaos in the system. This same method has been applied to the Universe in an attempt to better define it. Chaotic order, it's something of a paradox.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Hi Anubis!

Post by figaro »

I would hardly call destruction evolution ...

I still see it as evolution. Though not positive, the very fact that we have advanced to such a point where destruction seems to be what we do best is proof of our evolution, to me at least. Hmm ... I fail to see your logic. Could you say this a different way?
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Ego cont

Post by figaro »

Tell me, Anubis: do you think that you are merely your thoughts and emotions?

Yes, I do. I think that denying our emotions as our true selves diminishes the idea that the soul is a compassionate, benevolent entity. Although humans are very selfish at heart, we have also exhibited a capacity for compassion and love. Those two qualities, from what I understand, embody the idea of a soul in most beliefs. However, I think it is unfair to pick and chose what emotions should define our soul. The ego is just as a equally part of our being as the heart. I think you have written some very beautiful ideas here, Anubis. Perhaps it is a matter of definition. The soul has the Power of Emotion. However, the soul gives us the higher octaves of the human emotions: Justice instead of anger; True Compassion instead of mere sympathy or empathy; the Higher Love instead of hatred, or personal love with attachment and so on. I would say that the compassion and love that you are speaking of come from the soul itself, which is in some mysterious way connected to the Divine Itself. It is the lower passions that man tends to identify with - and those are not our true selves. Nor are our ordinary, personal thoughts. Although the soul has the Power of Intelligence: the thoughts given to us by the soul are also the higher octave of Thought.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Post by figaro »

The very fact that we say: "I had a thought" seems to indicate that we are something larger than our thoughts ...

I believe the fact that we say "I had a thought" indicates an acceptance of the selfishness of the ego as part of our being. Who else is to have those thoughts but you??

But doesn't that statement also imply that you are beyond those thoughts, outside them?
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Absence of chaos

Post by figaro »

In my view Divine Ideas guide not only our physical existence, but every aspect of our existence.

Well, I have finished my reading on Chaos Theory. Unfortunately, after encountering much difficulty in my attempt to understand it, I cannot readily explain how it applies to the order of the Universe. I can express that it does appear to apply in the sense that at any given point in space, a dense collection of arbitrary points that are closely approximated by other arbitrary points (each with radically different future outcomes) can have an effect on one another if there is even the slightest bit of perturbation in the initial scenario that spawns the future behavior of the system. Think of it like the bustling streets of NYC. Each person has their own arbitrary location in the city attached to a determined future, assuming there is no interference with their path. However, their close approximation to other arbitrary "points" (people) means there is a great risk of perturbing the future behavior of that individuals future path. To the untrained eye, all of this confused hustle may seem random and chaotic, but really, a determined set of underlying values (that can be proven mathematically) govern the outcome of the system. Therefore, eliminating the apparent chaos in the system. This same method has been applied to the Universe in an attempt to better define it. Chaotic order, it's something of a paradox. How fascinating! Thank you for taking the time to outline this paper for us. This is a bit similar to the Divine Ideas running through our lives that I was speaking of. There is an order we are not aware of in our lives.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Divine Mind, Divine Ideas

Post by figaro »

Yes, I would also call the Divine Mind "God". The Idea of Man that I mentioned is prior to manifested man, and is embedded in the soul. Very few, if any of us, even the great saints of all the various religions - can live up to the true Idea of Man in the Mind of God.

But we can try.

The Divine Ideas that run through our lives are a bit similar in the sense that they run through our lives without our help; we are all - consciously or unconsciously - trying to manifest them, align ourselves with them.
Last edited by figaro on Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

time

Post by figaro »

I have run out of time, but thank you for these discussions!
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

God afternoon, Anubis! New PB quote for you

Post by figaro »

Good afternoon, Anubis! Here is a new PB quote for you to think about and perhaps we could discuss it (From: The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Volume Six, the Ego; Larson Publications):

"If we could pin down this sense of "I"-ness which is behind all we think, say, and do, and if we could part it from the thoughts, feelings, and physical body by doing so, we would find it to be rooted in and linked with the higher Power behind the whole world."
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Another PB Quote

Post by figaro »

This one I think you will especially like, Anubis (From: The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Volume Six, the Ego; Larson Publications): :

"The importance he gives his own ego is not baseless. It derives, if traced to the deepest ground, from the Overself. He has misplaced his true identity, but the false one is not entirely so."

Paul Brunton coined the term "Overself". In his volumes, the meaning of the term changes: mainly it seems to connote the soul - but at other times it seems to almost mean the Divine Itself, God. Since the soul and God are in some mysterious way linked, PB seems to leave the meaning of Overself a bit ambiguous.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

the ego vs soul continued

Post by figaro »

Well, I agree that we need some percentage of ego in order to perceive the world - the ego is supposed to be the vehicle for the soul.

Hmm.... Do we not need the ego to likewise perceive the ideas of spirituality?? Good evening, Arubis! Well done. Yes. And that is a primary reason we were given an ego: so that we could think about the Higher, could think about God and the soul. Others, on a different spiritual Path, might use the ego to perceive and think about music or art or Nature, or to accomplish any selfless action or profession that might benefit humanity. Still: at the end of the Path one must face the soul and God directly, without the ego.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

Hmm ... I fail to see your logic. Could you say this a different way?

The idea that I meant to convey was the fact that, things evolve through destruction, it is an inevitable fact.

The soul has the Power of Emotion. However, the soul gives us the higher octaves of the human emotions: Justice instead of anger; True Compassion instead of mere sympathy or empathy; the Higher Love instead of hatred, or personal love with attachment and so on. I would say that the compassion and love that you are speaking of come from the soul itself, which is in some mysterious way connected to the Divine Itself.

But does anger not spur the desire for justice? Are not empathy and sympathy required to feel compassion? These things are just as much a matter of humanity as they are of the soul.

I would like to go on record here, before we delve too much deeper into this, and say that I do not believe in the idea of a soul. In my view, humans are egos because the sole is a product of it and, subsequently, everything else (spiritual) that has been created by the mind of man.
Post Reply