The Buddha was sitting under a tree talking to his disciples when a man came and spit on his face. He wiped it off, and he asked the man, “What next? What do you want to say next?” The man was a little puzzled because he himself never expected that when you spit on somebody’s face, he will ask, “What next?” He had no such experience in his past. He had insulted people and they had become angry and they had reacted. Or if they were cowards and weaklings, they had smiled, trying to bribe the man. But Buddha was like neither, he was not angry nor in any way offended, nor in any way cowardly. But just matter-of-factly he said, “What next?” There was no reaction on his part.
Buddha’s disciples became angry, they reacted. His closest disciple, Ananda, said, “This is too much, and we cannot tolerate it. He has to be punished for it. Otherwise everybody will start doing things like this.”
Buddha said, “You keep silent. He has not offended me, but you are offending me. He is new, a stranger. He must have heard from people something about me, that this man is an atheist, a dangerous man who is throwing people off their track, a revolutionary, a corrupter. And he may have formed some idea, a notion of me. He has not spit on me, he has spit on his notion. He has spit on his idea of me because he does not know me at all, so how can he spit on me?
“If you think on it deeply,” Buddha said, “he has spit on his own mind. I am not part of it, and I can see that this poor man must have something else to say because this is a way of saying something. Spitting is a way of saying something. There are moments when you feel that language is impotent: in deep love, in intense anger, in hate, in prayer. There are intense moments when language is impotent. Then you have to do something. When you are angry, intensely angry, you hit the person, you spit on him, you are saying something. I can understand him. He must have something more to say, that’s why I’m asking, “What next?”
The man was even more puzzled! And Buddha said to his disciples, “I am more offended by you because you know me, and you have lived for years with me, and still you react.”
Puzzled, confused, the man returned home. He could not sleep the whole night. When you see a Buddha, it is difficult, impossible to sleep again the way you used to sleep before. Again and again he was haunted by the experience. He could not explain it to himself, what had happened. He was trembling all over and perspiring. He had never come across such a man; he shattered his whole mind and his whole pattern, his whole past.
The next morning he was back there. He threw himself at Buddha’s feet. Buddha asked him again, “What next? This, too, is a way of saying something that cannot be said in language. When you come and touch my feet, you are saying something that cannot be said ordinarily, for which all words are a little narrow; it cannot be contained in them.” Buddha said, “Look, Ananda, this man is again here, he is saying something. This man is a man of deep emotions.”
The man looked at Buddha and said, “Forgive me for what I did yesterday.”
Buddha said, “Forgive? But I am not the same man to whom you did it. The Ganges goes on flowing, it is never the same Ganges again. Every man is a river. The man you spit upon is no longer here. I look just like him, but I am not the same, much has happened in these twenty-four hours! The river has flowed so much. So I cannot forgive you because I have no grudge against you.”
“And you also are new. I can see you are not the same man who came yesterday because that man was angry and he spit, whereas you are bowing at my feet, touching my feet. How can you be the same man? You are not the same man, so let us forget about it. Those two people, the man who spit and the man on whom he spit, both are no more. Come closer. Let us talk of something else.”
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
1. Nietzsche: Human, all too Human
Man alone with himself
The one necessary thing. A person must have one or the other: either a disposition which is easygoing by nature, or else a disposition eased by art and knowledge.
Not too deep. People who comprehend a matter in all its depth seldom remain true to it forever. For they have brought its depth to the light; and then there is always much to see about it that is bad.
The infuriating thing about an individual way of living. People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.
Unwittingly noble. A man's behavior is unwittingly noble if he has grown accustomed never to want anything from men, and always to give to them.
Condition for being a hero. If a man wants to become a hero, the snake must first become a dragon; otherwise he is lacking his proper enemy.
Loyal to their convictions. The man who has a lot to do usually keeps his general views and opinions almost unchanged; as does each person who works in the service of an idea. He will never test the idea itself anymore; he no longer has time for that. Indeed, it is contrary to his interest even to think it possible to discuss it.
Unhappiness. The distinction that lies in being unhappy
(as if to feel happy were a sign of shallowness, lack of ambition, ordinariness) is so great that when someone says, "But how happy you must be" we usually protest.
Weak conscience. Men who talk about their importance for mankind have a weak conscience about their common bourgeois honesty in keeping contracts or promises.
The one necessary thing. A person must have one or the other: either a disposition which is easygoing by nature, or else a disposition eased by art and knowledge.
Not too deep. People who comprehend a matter in all its depth seldom remain true to it forever. For they have brought its depth to the light; and then there is always much to see about it that is bad.
The infuriating thing about an individual way of living. People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.
Unwittingly noble. A man's behavior is unwittingly noble if he has grown accustomed never to want anything from men, and always to give to them.
Condition for being a hero. If a man wants to become a hero, the snake must first become a dragon; otherwise he is lacking his proper enemy.
Loyal to their convictions. The man who has a lot to do usually keeps his general views and opinions almost unchanged; as does each person who works in the service of an idea. He will never test the idea itself anymore; he no longer has time for that. Indeed, it is contrary to his interest even to think it possible to discuss it.
Unhappiness. The distinction that lies in being unhappy
(as if to feel happy were a sign of shallowness, lack of ambition, ordinariness) is so great that when someone says, "But how happy you must be" we usually protest.
Weak conscience. Men who talk about their importance for mankind have a weak conscience about their common bourgeois honesty in keeping contracts or promises.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
After watching "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"
Ah..it has been sometime since I have had a good show like this to trigger my philosophical thirst. First off let me state that I see many parallels between this movie and A.I on some key philosophical issues.
First, we encounter the issue of Self-awareness. And with it, the movie posited the conundrum of Caesar possessing self-awareness but discovering that his physical shell does not allow him the luxury of such a gift. In fact, this is what disrupts his inner peace. For he has achieved a level of intelligence that allows him to dream of wider horizons and question his position as a second-class entity in the world of man. "Is Caesar a pet?" he asks Rodman. "I am your father," Rodman replies.
I also enjoyed the tongue in cheek allusion to the classic movie where the ape scientists referred to the astronaut as "Bright Eyes". We look into the eyes for signs of intelligence, for the spark, for brightness. And often intelligent beings try to measure intelligence of others based on their own. This is flawed but understandable, how then can one make sense of something else alien but firstly through a system of knowledge over which one has sufficient mastery over? However, we must be truly wise to appreciate and continuously remind ourselves that we do not and cannot know all. When I interact with Hunter on a daily basis, I find that perhaps he is the more intelligent of us two for he has to learn my alien ways. Him having to subjugate his behaviorism to my way of life does not make me more intelligent or superior, it just reflects the power nexus between man and animal. He has no way to articulate and push forth his thoughts and rights. Thus I find the scene when Caesar says "NO" highly provoking as the first word that he masters and projects is the word which rejects the relationship between man and ape. This progresses when he also purposely allows himself to feel the sting of the electric prod (the symbol of man's violent domination over animals)so as to deny and overcome it.
I will write more in a bit.
First, we encounter the issue of Self-awareness. And with it, the movie posited the conundrum of Caesar possessing self-awareness but discovering that his physical shell does not allow him the luxury of such a gift. In fact, this is what disrupts his inner peace. For he has achieved a level of intelligence that allows him to dream of wider horizons and question his position as a second-class entity in the world of man. "Is Caesar a pet?" he asks Rodman. "I am your father," Rodman replies.
I also enjoyed the tongue in cheek allusion to the classic movie where the ape scientists referred to the astronaut as "Bright Eyes". We look into the eyes for signs of intelligence, for the spark, for brightness. And often intelligent beings try to measure intelligence of others based on their own. This is flawed but understandable, how then can one make sense of something else alien but firstly through a system of knowledge over which one has sufficient mastery over? However, we must be truly wise to appreciate and continuously remind ourselves that we do not and cannot know all. When I interact with Hunter on a daily basis, I find that perhaps he is the more intelligent of us two for he has to learn my alien ways. Him having to subjugate his behaviorism to my way of life does not make me more intelligent or superior, it just reflects the power nexus between man and animal. He has no way to articulate and push forth his thoughts and rights. Thus I find the scene when Caesar says "NO" highly provoking as the first word that he masters and projects is the word which rejects the relationship between man and ape. This progresses when he also purposely allows himself to feel the sting of the electric prod (the symbol of man's violent domination over animals)so as to deny and overcome it.
I will write more in a bit.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
2. I remember that I knew- hyper-awareness of hyper-reality
I remember that I knew
I remember that I was troubled
But the calm has come and the storm has ebbed
As I understood sometime ago, my SOUL has lost its HUNGER
It has become satisfied with worldly busyness and undertakings
And so I forgot
But all the while it nagged
And I now remember
And I watched Buddha's story again
And I feel guilty again
All is everything and yet nothing
But to apply it in a realistic world is unrealistic
No, it is just that I am not BRAVE enough
Are we increasingly trapped in this modern world?
With KPIs and intellectual abilities being quantified?
Moral worth can never be measured
If only we spend less time talking, condemning and assessing
And allow our fellow human beings more time to experience, reflect and grow spiritually
Are we charged cowardly to admit that we are imperfect?
Is it truly a sign of weakness?
I am acutely aware that I am not BRAVE enough to be what I understand man to be and do what I understand man to do
So I admit
I am acutely aware that I lack the personality to invoke and inspire in others what I know
And yet what do I know? Was I not just momentarily clear about everything? Have I not lost it over again?
Any why do I deserve such a privileged position?
All I can do is share and show the inkling of the possibility
Everyone has to arrive in their own way
The greatest paradox is that True love betters us and yet traps us
And yet to leave true love is humanly cruel but spiritually divine
Such is man's dilemma
He may want to love selflessly
But others would not be trustworthy enough to receive and in turn be awakened
For past experiences have taught them to be wary
So I sigh as I always do and just remember that I knew
When the world slowed and I saw it all
And then lost it all
My hyper-awareness of hyper-reality
I remember that I was troubled
But the calm has come and the storm has ebbed
As I understood sometime ago, my SOUL has lost its HUNGER
It has become satisfied with worldly busyness and undertakings
And so I forgot
But all the while it nagged
And I now remember
And I watched Buddha's story again
And I feel guilty again
All is everything and yet nothing
But to apply it in a realistic world is unrealistic
No, it is just that I am not BRAVE enough
Are we increasingly trapped in this modern world?
With KPIs and intellectual abilities being quantified?
Moral worth can never be measured
If only we spend less time talking, condemning and assessing
And allow our fellow human beings more time to experience, reflect and grow spiritually
Are we charged cowardly to admit that we are imperfect?
Is it truly a sign of weakness?
I am acutely aware that I am not BRAVE enough to be what I understand man to be and do what I understand man to do
So I admit
I am acutely aware that I lack the personality to invoke and inspire in others what I know
And yet what do I know? Was I not just momentarily clear about everything? Have I not lost it over again?
Any why do I deserve such a privileged position?
All I can do is share and show the inkling of the possibility
Everyone has to arrive in their own way
The greatest paradox is that True love betters us and yet traps us
And yet to leave true love is humanly cruel but spiritually divine
Such is man's dilemma
He may want to love selflessly
But others would not be trustworthy enough to receive and in turn be awakened
For past experiences have taught them to be wary
So I sigh as I always do and just remember that I knew
When the world slowed and I saw it all
And then lost it all
My hyper-awareness of hyper-reality
5. On the SOUL again- My understanding of it again and the Utility of such a concept
I was trying to combat insomnia so I applied my mind as I lay in bed last night.
What is the SOUL? What is my personal definition and understanding of it?
The conception of the SOUL comes from self-consciousness which in turn gives birth to self-identity. Only then man think of "his" SOUL.
The SOUL to me is not necessarily real nor does it need to be. As before, "I find little reason to purport that we are spiritually privileged creatures. Indeed, we are the product of lucky exaptations and rugged ancestry. But given the power we hold over the rest of terran life, environment and this planet's possible trajectories." I still value it. Why? My moral-realist sociological stance is that many would understand it in terms of a religious viewpoint which is to be an intangible part of them. This conception of a SOUL survives beyond the perishable body and thus they behave according to a notion of good behavior so as to ensure a good rewards for their SOUL in the afterlife. This by and large aids the functioning of society which in turn renders the concept of the SOUL is definitely mechanistically useful (even if it may not be real).
The SOUL to me also requires going beyond the first step of self-awareness. If we are self-conscious but hold onto a biologically deterministic concept of man then the SOUL would just be survivalist notions invoked by the brain so as to allow for better self-preservation of the man as a species-being.
The SOUL requires an awareness of the emotive aspects of human experience. It is more than awareness in fact, it is the embracing and acceptance of the emotive aspects of human experience. And the idea that our existence is not so mundane and determined after all.
Now I shall delve deeper and state the difference between my understanding of the SOUL and IDENTITY for it seems both involve self-awareness. The SOUL to me is the emotive and true side of man and not his social ego/ identity for that is something which he acts out according to the social conditions that he is in in order to achieve various goals. The SOUL is the side of man which he knows to be his true self for man cannot lie to himself in his mind. He can deny himself but he cannot blatantly lie to himself. The SOUL has a voice. Some call it CONSCIENCE. I understand it to be the witness-consciousness. It shouts out the truth even when you do not want to hear it. That inner voice is the voice of your SOUL.
I am getting closer to my understanding of the SOUL. Therefore, please allow me to reiterate. The SOUL is my true and emotive self which is hidden away from social conditions. It is the true appreciation of all my experiences. Thus the SOUL can be nurtured through the experiences of life and meaningful expression and reflection. (On the other hand, identity is taught and perfected through social conditioning.)
I repeat myself on an important point. The SOUL may not be real. It may be and most likely is a survivalist notion invoked by the brain. But what are its other advantages to man? For although survival is the ultimate aim of all species-beings, I do not see it as a noble enough endeavor for a beautiful creature like man. Thus I should explore the benefits of the SOUL to man in a moral-realist individualist aspect more in depth.
The fact that the SOUL is hidden away from man makes it ideal for genuine, deep and personal reflection away from agents of social conditioning (which adds value to extended consciousness: the ability to add the awareness of the past and future into the mix and factor in such variables into decision-making). However, it can always be argued that one can never be entirely free from the influence of such agents (such as Semantics being the most influential and thus scary from a philosophically purist stance) but at least the SOUL allows for the possibility for such a beneficial enterprise. The other utility of the SOUL to man is that it allows for a development of his true individuality which allows for room for the assumption of responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This when coupled with the first advantage allows for the betterment of man's external actions. Lastly, the SOUL allows for men to connect to possibilities beyond the tangible world as the SOUL precisely exists in an intangible realm which is so real and vital to man. It allows his mind to expand beyond the purely biological and deterministic and to develop new mental horizons for all his actions.
I have dismissed it in the past and still see no reason why the SOUL is rightfully a spiritual entity. But I am curious: is it truly what I think it to be? And how beautiful it would be if indeed the SOUL had a spiritual utility? And what utility would that be?
What is the SOUL? What is my personal definition and understanding of it?
The conception of the SOUL comes from self-consciousness which in turn gives birth to self-identity. Only then man think of "his" SOUL.
The SOUL to me is not necessarily real nor does it need to be. As before, "I find little reason to purport that we are spiritually privileged creatures. Indeed, we are the product of lucky exaptations and rugged ancestry. But given the power we hold over the rest of terran life, environment and this planet's possible trajectories." I still value it. Why? My moral-realist sociological stance is that many would understand it in terms of a religious viewpoint which is to be an intangible part of them. This conception of a SOUL survives beyond the perishable body and thus they behave according to a notion of good behavior so as to ensure a good rewards for their SOUL in the afterlife. This by and large aids the functioning of society which in turn renders the concept of the SOUL is definitely mechanistically useful (even if it may not be real).
The SOUL to me also requires going beyond the first step of self-awareness. If we are self-conscious but hold onto a biologically deterministic concept of man then the SOUL would just be survivalist notions invoked by the brain so as to allow for better self-preservation of the man as a species-being.
The SOUL requires an awareness of the emotive aspects of human experience. It is more than awareness in fact, it is the embracing and acceptance of the emotive aspects of human experience. And the idea that our existence is not so mundane and determined after all.
Now I shall delve deeper and state the difference between my understanding of the SOUL and IDENTITY for it seems both involve self-awareness. The SOUL to me is the emotive and true side of man and not his social ego/ identity for that is something which he acts out according to the social conditions that he is in in order to achieve various goals. The SOUL is the side of man which he knows to be his true self for man cannot lie to himself in his mind. He can deny himself but he cannot blatantly lie to himself. The SOUL has a voice. Some call it CONSCIENCE. I understand it to be the witness-consciousness. It shouts out the truth even when you do not want to hear it. That inner voice is the voice of your SOUL.
I am getting closer to my understanding of the SOUL. Therefore, please allow me to reiterate. The SOUL is my true and emotive self which is hidden away from social conditions. It is the true appreciation of all my experiences. Thus the SOUL can be nurtured through the experiences of life and meaningful expression and reflection. (On the other hand, identity is taught and perfected through social conditioning.)
I repeat myself on an important point. The SOUL may not be real. It may be and most likely is a survivalist notion invoked by the brain. But what are its other advantages to man? For although survival is the ultimate aim of all species-beings, I do not see it as a noble enough endeavor for a beautiful creature like man. Thus I should explore the benefits of the SOUL to man in a moral-realist individualist aspect more in depth.
The fact that the SOUL is hidden away from man makes it ideal for genuine, deep and personal reflection away from agents of social conditioning (which adds value to extended consciousness: the ability to add the awareness of the past and future into the mix and factor in such variables into decision-making). However, it can always be argued that one can never be entirely free from the influence of such agents (such as Semantics being the most influential and thus scary from a philosophically purist stance) but at least the SOUL allows for the possibility for such a beneficial enterprise. The other utility of the SOUL to man is that it allows for a development of his true individuality which allows for room for the assumption of responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This when coupled with the first advantage allows for the betterment of man's external actions. Lastly, the SOUL allows for men to connect to possibilities beyond the tangible world as the SOUL precisely exists in an intangible realm which is so real and vital to man. It allows his mind to expand beyond the purely biological and deterministic and to develop new mental horizons for all his actions.
I have dismissed it in the past and still see no reason why the SOUL is rightfully a spiritual entity. But I am curious: is it truly what I think it to be? And how beautiful it would be if indeed the SOUL had a spiritual utility? And what utility would that be?
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)