Is Humbleness a Product of Suffering or Strength?

[TENYEARS]

phoenixthoth, the disappointment only comes because it is a word, one with boundries, when the truth hits you there will nothing to hit.


Quality? Quality is relative to the relativity which experiences the object or experience. One person taste a soup with the rising steam on a cold day looking out a window and suddenly the universe opens. Another is fed the food of kings in the greatest palace and complains of the temperature.

The quality of life rises up to meet the needs of the relativity involved.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread Why the bias against materialism? ...

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, there is no doubt in the very end result consciousness and choices have physical appearances. But do you know that Chinese story: A traveler comes to a village and meets the village sage and the village fool. He shows them a shining star. The sage sees an element of the universe, while the fool sees only the pointed finger.

Yes, the evidence has always been there, it's just a matter if one has the means to make the association or not.

This is an excellent post by sascha by the way, which clearly illustrates the blind spot that exists with the "scientific approach."

 

[Zantra]

Ten 5 pages later you're still being cryptic. Yes we all know that we are destroying ourselves. I'm more concerned about us nuking ourselves into oblivion than anything else. But we're like a child with a big dangerous toy. And if we don't learn to use that toy safely very quick, we're going to electrocute ourselves.

 

[FZ+]

Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist...

Not necessarily. I think it's speaking of human nature in general.

While in fact this is the very same argument that keeps coming up when I try discussing my views with the materialists (more so some than others). That because the whole thing is abstract, and exists only in my mind -- or so they say -- that I'm the fool for having brought it up in the first place, in which case there's no point in my discussing it any further.

And do you know why? Because they can't (or won't) make the association with what I'm pointing my finger at, that is from a strictly materialistic standpoint, this is all they can see, the "physical act" of my pointing a finger at something, not the "metaphysical ideal" which I'm alluding to.

By the way, the notion of a star three or four thousand years ago, was merely a metaphysical notion, because people (for the most part) had no means by which to ascertain what they truly were, other than a speck of light in the night's sky.

 

[FZ+]

Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist?

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not.

 

[Iacchus32]

*delete*

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist?

Once again it seems you missed the point. The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known -- and therefore wise -- whereas the fool is caught up with "external appearances," as evidenced by the pursuit of knowledge, which is tantamount to putting labels on things.

Wisdom is not the matter of pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake, but of "knowing what you know," which is an internal thing.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not."

how do you get to the point when there is a seeing and no seer?

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[TENYEARS]

I could tell you a story, I would like to tell a story but what would it be but a story. You must place all that you are on the edge of the abyss and not be afraid. You will look into it with all fear of finding nothing at all. You will let go of all things and hold on to nothing knowing that after letting go of all this you take the chance of finding nothing at all. No god, no after life, no truth, no meaning no nothing. Just dust, but if you go here at least dust would be something. Here you must face the pure empty.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i once thought the universe was zero dimensional, a point, and that all things were united in that way. 3-11 dimensional space was some kind of illusion.

if you consider a point as a vector space, the basis would be the empty set. i considered the possibility that God was the empty set, something that exists (in some sense, perhaps) but doesn't contain anything though is the basis for everything.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[FZ+]

The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known

But a star is far from abstract, and far from known. And a finger is far from external. It is clear to me that the sage is wise because he searches out for things that he doesn't know, and looks beyond. The fool is a fool because he looks only within, dealing only with his dreams of himself.

The sage cares not for the finger, because he is looking out there, into the vastness of infinity. Of all that is unknown. That is part of the essence of science.

 

[TENYEARS]

The truth does not defy the universe, it is the universe. What is accepted as possible you will transcend only you are ready. I herd a girl on the radio today, she spoke of just dreams to the two anouncers on a plain rock/easy listening channel. She said something and in an instant I knew she knew. They knew she knew something out of the callers that called in, she unquestionably knew. Even the foolishness of the anouncers was quited and I thought sometimes you just never know. It was awaking.

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, don't mean to get picky, but the resistance which exists within you is due to the focus on the "things" unknown as relative objects.
The fantasy of dreams within as day dreams or others are far from foolish. It is an expression of ones subconious in a means to self actualize with the universe. To achieve the top of the mos low ladder. Science is concerend many times with this or that. Small this small that, a discection of reality instead of it's total experience. Reality cannot be disected, but there is a time comming where the two will be in acknowlegement of each other. I of course might be full of it, then again maybe not.

There are enought hints in previous posts to have a pile of needles and a few bits of hay.

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

fish bowl?

be careful of fish bowl analogies. All the fish bowls I ever watched for very long wound up floating a dead smelly fish who was the ruler of his universe!

 

[FZ+]

Tenyears:
Do not underestimate the glory of hay, and the futility of meaningless needles.

 

[Iacchus32]

But where does the "without" come from if not from "within?" ... And how is it that we can only "reflect" on the without, if not from within? If intelligence were merely outwardly or, "an appearance," then "you" have no business whatsoever for being here. Do you know why? ... because "you" don't exist.

Which brings me to the next question. Why should I waste my time, speaking to that which isn't real and doesn't exist?

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

iacchus32 you made good sense of a lot of nonsense!

 

[TENYEARS]

In reality there are no rulers. Rulers are for measuring relative objects or for directing relative objects. In the experience of reality there can be no ruling, because you will understand and in that understanding you will understand the futility and inability to do anything except that which interelates with you which is not only limited, but a function of subtle relationship with the nature of the individual system as a whole. In terms of measuring, how can nonrelative measure anything? That would require a measurer would it not? Was talking about human nature this morning. Peoples innate need to gather when they see one or more going in a direction. Usually has little to do with what is there and is more about something else.

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet ... "He who is least amongst you is the greatest." Hmm ... perhaps "humility" is the standard by which all things are measured?

 

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, if humbleness is something I am supposed to do because that is what an enlightentend human being does than is it enlightenment or am I one who looks into a mirror of of myself of myself, ... Is this response one of one who knows this and uses that also? Of course everytime I post this it makes my understanding deeper does it not. Which dog that chases it's tail is the closest?
Is humbleness something to be learned, like a curb to keep you on a path or is it a direct response to the witnessing of the pain of humanity?

 

[phoenixthoth]

that quote sounds like something jesus said. jesus came back to his disciples and asked them what they were talking about. they were discussing which among them was the greatest. then jesus said that to be the greatest means to be the least, the servant of all. or something like that.

even if jesus were not humble (and some people would say he wasn't humble for claiming to be the son of God), that wouldn't change any of his characteristics such as his level of enlightenment and/or divinity. like if i have a phd in math from princeton and i go around telling people "hey i got a phd in math from princeton, in your face!" that doesn't change the fact that i really do have a phd in math from princeton, nor does saying that or not saying that affect how much i know about math.

humility just seems to affect how easy it may be to accept what the person says or how easy it may be to like them.

i don't agree that humility is a necessary characteristic one must have in order to be enlightened and/or divine, though humility is a useful trait to at least pretend to have in order for others to listen to you, if you care.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Agreed. Any proposed characteristic of an exalted state can be simulated, but that doesn't make you exalted. Jesus was very strong on that - I imagine other religious leaders were too, since it's a perennial problem. It was Jesus who introduced the word hypocrite in its present sense (in his day it was the Greek word for an actor on the stage).

However as was said, that doesn't change the fact that the exalted people in history have been "humble". In the sense of intensely, self-effacingly involved with the Other. Jesus and Socrates are my two examples, but I'm sure those from other traditions were also.

 

[TENYEARS]

What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i may or not be understanding what you mean by this bridge. another author basically says that the bridge connects a dualistic experience with a nondualistic experience. in nonduality, there is only unity. for example, that which is observed, the process of observation, and the observer are all the same. the "logic" of a nondualistic experience doesn't, i don't think, resemble the "logic" of a dualistic experience at all and so the logic of duality will not get you across the bridge.

a quote from that author:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38;st=2
this quote is from http://www.duerden.com

the whole thread is
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish.

Humbleness is none other than the wisdom, which is born of suffering, and questioning the pain of one's existence.