There is in fact no misunderstanding, Diebert. What there is in fact is
understanding. Now, on
your part there seems to be misunderstanding [deliberate misreading a la Bloom?], which of course is a more 'honest' and possibly productive place to start. Still, I do very much understand why, for you and others, it is necessary to apply a label to the structure of my oppositional stance. What I hope that you can see is that that 'defensive labeling' was begun not by me but by 'them'. But I am not saying that is 'wrong', indeed it is necessary when one is defining and strengthening a viewpoint and an attitude.
Diebert wrote:This discussion should be in the worldly matters section, as far I'm concerned. And then we can talk about Freud's cousins and media, facts of history and the facts of ourselves in a factual world.
Depending on
how such a topic as this were broached of course would determine whether it is enough of a relevant topic [to higher issues of spirituality, enlightened attitude, etc.]. In my view, and whether you or anyone understands and accepts it or not is not highly relevant to me, an object of living should be the spiritualization of life. To the degree that I understand, say, David's declarations about his way of perceiving 'God', and the immediacy in the way that he relates to that, one might say that his is an attempt to live within 'the Holy' [although I don't think he uses the word 'holy']. But there is an attempt, in his own terms, to define the sacred, which also means the most important, the most worthwhile. Much of it, as I understand it, hinges on the assigning of importance. This much I understand, this much I relate to, this much I appreciate.
In some way at least, with your apperception of the distinction between ego-incarnate (which predicates dis-incarnation) and ego as a clinging tendency within self, I agree with where you seem to go with this. (I do tend to see your 'level of realization' about the importance of these issues as somewhat sophomoric, and in crucial moments you reveal what I think are your own shallow realizations, and by that I mean realizations that might become more profound, still you have located an area that is quite important.)
But I do not see this as a 'mundane' topic by any means. My basic assertion and the area I am working on in my own investigations and studies has to do with the 'conquest of self' or the 'domination of self'. Obviously, this has to do also with subjugation of self, and mechanization of self: to turn 'selves' into cogs in cultural and economic machinery. If there are 'forces' that act in this way, and if they act against, say, the sovereignty of self, of persons and of course the possibilities of persons in our world, then it is is pretty easy to see that this is not at all a 'mundane' topic and especially as it relates to spiritual life, enlightened attitude and activity, etc.
The one who is experiencing the difficulty in seeing and understanding this is Mr van Rhijn himself. But these difficulties in seeing clearly and accurately do not stop there. It is true that Diebert, as his understudy so accurately states it, is a 'wonderful man' and 'as good as it gets', but even such a one as he would not, I don't imagine, lay claim to a position of 'ultimate arbitration'.
Now, one interesting thing is that we are all products of a world, an advertising world essentially, a propaganda world, where an aspect of the self: the self of desire and longing, is manipulated. And in the sense that you mean the self that is contended for is precisely that 'clinging' self. The manipulation takes place on psychological levels and reaches out to subterranean parts of our human selves. But it would seem that my view of the human being and of the 'soul' is perhaps more unitary than yours. I see the 'field' where the battle is taking place (and one can define it in Marxian terms or, if you wish, in Christian terms: a battle in high and low places, etc.) as being singular and not plural. And the reason for this is simple: I wish to assert and 'defend' if you will a specific spiritual philosophy of 'personalism'. One could probably do this strictly within a Buddhist orientation and it likely is done. But I would say, between you and I, that we might locate an esseential difference between our viewpoints in the following:
- 2. Ego in this "neo-Buddhist" sense, as error, as something to eradicate, a fog to blow through, a window to be washed. Which is a clinging to everything, places, modes, suffering, healing and this whole movement in space and time.
So much---everything!---hinges upon those further definitions that will follow from such a, permit me to say, vague and nebulous [foggy!] statement of predicate as the above. And I further state that many, many people who take up this particular brand of 'neo-Buddhism' seem to me confused about just what exactly will be seen as 'fog', 'place', 'mode', 'time', and of course suffering and healing. I think there is also a great deal of difficulty in determining what 'washing a window' might be! But what I do wish to repeat here is that it is in this sort of area, and it comes up often, that you yourself get a little 'foggy'. This is the point where Diebert slips into the fog. It is Diebert's mystical luxury. So, the statement, in fact, doesn't really mean anything. It is---too foggy! And as you say to apprehend it, you have to have had some certain 'special experience'---a revelation one assumes---where you see and understand things in some certain, special way. But I must reject this mystical and metaphysical side-stepping. And so once again I put forward that we deal with a 'real real', in actual space and time, and we locate this 'real real' within bodies. Bodies, it is true, that can actualize both 'the spirit' and 'spirituality' in conduct and perception, but in a form that is constant and unchanging.
And so time and time again I cut through your metaphysical garbage and the [subtle] tendency to self-deceive and to represent [potential] deceptions as 'ultimate truths', and this is why, naturally, it is attractive and interesting to stay focussed within these areas and to continue to express these ideas on
this forum. You dig? Now, you can jump up in the air and holler, you can have a snit-fit about it, but the actual ideas that I work with are totally substantial and, at least I think so, deeply relevant and linkable to and conversation about spirituality.
This is a fundamental difference which I believe you just do not accept in this discussion. Of course this is ultimately not a Buddhist forum and all the subtle differences in schools are not relevant here, but your own exposure seems more Hindu oriented when you talk about these things.
While I see what you mean, and I do at times use the idea of 'incarnation' into this 'flesh-realm', in actual point of fact the overall philosophy I am dealing in, thinking about, is essentially 'Christian'. I am the first to admit it is a difficult and problematic area for one such as I with a rather bizarre concept of 'god'. But, I think you might also see that Chritianity [and the figure of Jesus] seen through a Hindu lens is seen in fact as a form of Vaishnavism (worship of the avatars of Vishnu) and Jesus Christ as an incarnation of Vishnu! (To me these are idea-symbols more than anything).
And you are right: this is not really a Buddhist forum and it could never be. We are not 'Buddhist selves' and our cultural and even spiritual trajectory is anything but Buddhist. This is a radical Christian forum, or a radical post-Christian forum. And that is another reason why, in respect to the way the philosophy functions, it is possible to employ, deviously I admit, certain Christian-derived symbols: drowning men, wayward boys, rebellious penis, naughty children who won't listen to their Mother. But of course the only purpose in acting this way, of being a prick, is to say essentially: I don't believe you. Or, don't believe yourselves so thoroughly. Remain open. Don't lock yourselves down just yet. And when you raise your arm with that terrific hammer of destruction agains a perceived enemy---stop! think a moment!
- 'Alex is not your enemy. He is a friend of your soul!' ;-)
[Insert canned laughter].
And my opinion about your charade, Alex, is that it's an intellectual attempt to cling to your own self as if it has reality. You're making yourself "real" through this discussion and that's why it doesn't even need to be rational to work for you. That's why you need it, that's why you're fueling it.
I believe that everyone who participates in such a discussion forum, and everyone who deals with the communication of ideas in any realm, is carrying on the activity of 'solidification' of self. Yet a great deal would hinge on what aspect of self is being solidified. But I don't at all think your activity is outside of this, either. So why don't you talk about that, Diebert? You can clarify for others their intentions and even what they are 'secretly' doing, but you literally never leave this space. You are melding with the space. The space is becoming Diebert. It is possible that when no one else is left standing, you will be the last one here! And that
must mean something. But who will clarify it?
[I for my part have done nothing but clarify my reasons for participating. A whole group of different reasons].
The only problem with attempting to get 'charade' exclusively to stick, is really that it is inaccurate. This post and almost every post I write is filled with factual, concrete and conversable ideas. So, it is more accurate to see 'charade' as a tactic, as an added bonus, as a game even, in a conversation with some blokes who, time and time again, take themselves and their 'profound realizations' about life [sic] (which often appear damned shallow, to me at least) just a wee bit too seriously!
______________________
This goes out to Sphere70. Not exactly seriously, but neither non-seriously!
This one goes out to one who will not be named and yet who will be named! ;-)