Screwtape Question
Lee Grupsmith
"Miserific Vision"?
Alishya
"Miserific Vision"? >>
Opposite of the "Beatific Vision", as described in Dante. That is, beholding
the Face that saves and heals...
Much of Screwtape uses this kind of inversion (i.e., Screwtape calling God the
'Enemy")
________________________________________
Could your DNA help Science?
The Gene Trust
http://www.dna.com/home/0,1582,,00.html
Nimue
Lee Grupsmith
caliban
> << In the Screwtape Letters there is a phrase that baffles me. What is the
> "Miserific Vision"? >>
>
> Opposite of the "Beatific Vision", as described in Dante. That is, beholding
> the Face that saves and heals...
>
> Much of Screwtape uses this kind of inversion (i.e., Screwtape calling God the
> 'Enemy")
Also worth looking through Perelandra - Ransom's reaction when the "Unman"
smiles.
John Bennett
Michael J Davis
>Hi.I'm new.I love C.S.Lewis.I think his books are so insightful.I'm a
>Christian,a fantasy fiction lover & a writer,so with his works i'm in
>the right place!.If you want to talk about any of these things,pls
>write.Also,I'm a fibromyalgia sufferer,si if you have this
>condition,pls write.
>Did anyone else find the part in Screwtape where the man dies & sees
>the angels that were there throughout the darkest parts of his life
>moving?I wept when I read this.It's everything you hope that as a
>Christian,dying will be.
Lovely! :-) I haven't read Screwtape recently...
>Like me,he too "had doubts it was even real" ;
>yet in the end all the suffering was nought in light of such unbridled
>joy.Amazing stuff,eh?
Yup!
>Even tho' I'm a Christian, I dislike a lot of Christian literature
>because it sacrifices good writing for pushing of the gospel.
Do you mean fiction? If so can you give some examples? I can think of
good mediocre and poor "Christian" literature. But I don't think of
literature as being "Christian". Just good or bad literature.
Have you read "Lilleth" by George McDonald? It apparently had a great
influence on CSL.
>Lewis
>somehow combines his worlds & his belief systems into seamless
>beautiful threads..
True, but because he was a good writer (mostly) - his Christianity
shines through!
>Thoughts,any one?
>P.S:This is a very erudite,interesting,fun discussion group.
I'd say "aw shucks" if only I posted here more often! :-)
Blessings
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
see www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<>{
"One is sometimes glad not to be a great theologian;
one might so easily mistake it for being a good Christian." CSL
<>{
goo...@gooner.com
<lisette...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>P.S:This is a very erudite,interesting,fun discussion group.
Ha, ha! Ha, ha!
You are in for quite a surprise!
Hal, ha! Ha, ha!
goo...@gooner.com
<lisette...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Also,I'm a fibromyalgia sufferer,
Why do people who happen to suffer from some peculiar physical
condition assume that they have anything interesting to say?
Or, why do they think that that should be a factor in consideration of
the worthwhileness of their mediocrity?
Wake up, sir Nimue, most of us poor pathetic humans are suffering or
will soon be suffering from some godawful pathological condition.
In a hundred years we will all be rotting in the grave.
Ha, ha!
Nimue
<goo...@gooner.com> wrote in message news:yvTQ7.26740$Yy.323032@rwcrnsc53...
Stewart Lollar
barbarian troll shows up; ignore them and they will, if not turn to
stone, at least leave off posting here.
I mostly lurk myself, unless I have something to say (not often). I
have fibro also, and of necessity use Lewis's thought of our body
condition being "part of the course set for us." Not sure where the
quote is, but if I don't find it soon someone here will for us..... but
fibro discussion should be taken to email unless it ties to Lewis, in
which case we can take it here!
All the best,
Stewart
Nimue wrote:
> Hi.I'm new.I love C.S.Lewis.I think his books are so insightful.I'm a
> Christian,a fantasy fiction lover & a writer,so with his works i'm in
> the right place!.If you want to talk about any of these things,pls
> write.Also,I'm a fibromyalgia sufferer,si if you have this
> condition,pls write.Did anyone else find the part in Screwtape where
> the man dies & sees the angels that were there throughout the darkest
> parts of his life moving?I wept when I read this.It's everything you
> hope that as a Christian,dying will be.Like me,he too "had doubts it
> was even real" ; yet in the end all the suffering was nought in light
> of such unbridled joy.Amazing stuff,eh?Even tho' I'm a Christian, I
> dislike a lot of Christian literature because it sacrifices good
> writing for pushing of the gospel.Lewis somehow combines his worlds &
> his belief systems into seamless beautiful threads..Thoughts,any
> one?P.S:This is a very erudite,interesting,fun discussion group.Kind
> thoughts to you all.Lisette"Lee Grupsmith" <lgrup...@earthlink.net>
> wrote in message
> news:dryQ7.12980$714.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> In
> the Screwtape Letters there is a phrase that baffles me. What is the
> > "Miserific Vision"?
> >
> >
--
I won't back down, baby,
There ain't no easy way out.
I won't back down
I will stand my ground
And I won't back down.
Tom Petty, "I Won't Back Down"
Nimue
don't understand.It's just that the subject has come up on some other ngs I
belong to & there's solidarity & comfort in finding those who share
interests & problems.
Why are you even here?You don't respect any one else's opinions.I assume
you're either very young or never been through a battle with constant pain
that has you in & out of hospital.I read Lewis,Thoreau etc because unlike
you I DON'T THINK I KNOW EVERYTHING & am trying to develop as a human being
by reading what others have gone thru Grow some compassion-you might find
if you ever are in an unfortunate situation friends'll be hard to find.Do
you HAVE any friends or do you just like to be arrogant for fun? My father
DIED last week. I DON'T NEED THIS. I was hoping to get some insight &
exchange here,but I was mistaken.GOON is apt nomenclature..
.goo...@gooner.com> wrote in message news:R0VQ7.22355$wL4.55487@rwcrnsc51...
goo...@gooner.com
<lisette...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>I DON'T THINK I KNOW EVERYTHING & am trying to develop as a human being
>by reading what others have gone thru Grow some compassion-you might find
>if you ever are in an unfortunate situation friends'll be hard to find.Do
>you HAVE any friends or do you just like to be arrogant for fun? My father
>DIED last week. I DON'T NEED THIS. I was hoping to get some insight &
>exchange here,but I was mistaken.GOON is apt nomenclature..
How pathetic.
Usenet is the last place you should come to deal with you damn
personal tragedies. Every one has some. So why da fuck do you assume
that others on usenet want to hear yours? Keep your personal shit to
yourself please.
Peter B. Juul
> Usenet is the last place you should come to deal with you damn
> personal tragedies. Every one has some.
And some - such as you - _are_ somebody's personal tragedies.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Praeterea censeo Moulin Rouge omnibus videndum esse"
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
Michael J Davis
I'm breaking the rules and top posting here.
You posted a new thread to this group. You received three cogent, but
brief, replies but have decided *only* to respond to a troll, who is
clearly not interested in you or your posts.
Is this really what you want? If so, you are on the wrong group. Either
way, most of us do not feed the trolls and we'd rather you didn't.
Clearly from your responses, you have better things to do!
If you want to discuss CSL, though, talk to us!
Mike <ducking flame for speaking for more regular posters!>
Nimue <lisette...@bigpond.com> observed
>I DON'T though you obviously DO &feel the need to denegrate anything you
>don't understand.It's just that the subject has come up on some other ngs I
>belong to & there's solidarity & comfort in finding those who share
>interests & problems.
>
>Why are you even here?You don't respect any one else's opinions.I assume
>you're either very young or never been through a battle with constant pain
>that has you in & out of hospital.I read Lewis,Thoreau etc because unlike
>you I DON'T THINK I KNOW EVERYTHING & am trying to develop as a human being
>by reading what others have gone thru Grow some compassion-you might find
>if you ever are in an unfortunate situation friends'll be hard to find.Do
>you HAVE any friends or do you just like to be arrogant for fun? My father
>DIED last week. I DON'T NEED THIS. I was hoping to get some insight &
>exchange here,but I was mistaken.GOON is apt nomenclature..
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
"Yes", said Queen Lucy, "In our world too,
a Stable once had something inside it
that was bigger than our whole world."
CSL 'The Last Battle'
AJA
Hi Nimue,
Great to see you here!
>Did anyone else find the part in Screwtape where the man dies
>& sees the angels that were there throughout the darkest parts
of his life moving?I wept when I read this.It's everything you hope
that as a Christian,dying will be.Like me,he too "had doubts it was
even real" ; yet in the end all the suffering was nought in light of
such unbridled joy.Amazing stuff,eh?
Yes, truly amazing that we get a glimpse of Heaven through Screwtape's
reverse mirror. Seeing an old story in a new way at least some of the
scales drop from one's eyes, don't you find? To me that is the best
of art. Don't you see them?: "Dim consciousness of friends" which
haunt one's solitudes, "that central music in every pure experience
which had always just evaded memory" and now recovered - recognition
of Presence in the universe. Embracing pain, "caught up into that
world where pain and pleasure take on transfinite values and all our
arithmetic is dismayed." "The inexplicable meets us."
"Yes, of course. It was always like this." I find myself discovering
this over and over again. One day it will be permanent recognition,
God willing. :)
Just a thought about fibromyalgia and similar afflictions. And this is
off topic or not. C. S. Lewis was on my topic, so to speak, years and
years ago! I have a friend who has learned not to give it more power
than it's already got. A _lot_ less would be better! She does better
with less worrying, stress, and certain (non fanatic) diet changes to
avoid nightshade variety veggies, etc. And maybe not the least
meditating on that moment in Screwtape when it was "as if a scab had
fallen from an old sore, as if he were emerging from a hideous,
shell-like fetter, as if he shuffled off for good and all a defiled,
wet, clinging garment," and other passages in CSL in that vein.
What about those angelic dim consciousness of friends in solitude?
Anybody met them?
All the best you hope for,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
Dan Drake
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> Hi.I'm new...
> P.S:This is a very erudite,interesting,fun discussion group.Kind thoughts to you all.
Welcome. It's worth sticking around here. Don't be deterred by the fact
that we acquired an unusually stupid flamer today. It happens from time
to time. The group has survived whole teams of them from time to time,
and it's still here.
If you're not intensely familiar with newsgroup software, let me mention
two favors you could do, one for yourself and one for the group.
1. Somewhere in your newsgroup software there is a feature that used to
be called a kill-file in the bad old days of violent male imagery. It
might be called a filter. If you find the feature, you can tell the
program that such and such a person posts nothing but annoying garbage,
and it should delete such stuff without bothering to show it to you. The
feature isn't often needed, but you never know.
2. Also, there is some way, I hope, of telling it not to post your
messages in plain text *and* in html. It's not apparent when you see your
own message posted in the group, but your program is sending everything
twice, first in plain text (the right format for posting to bookish groups
like this) and again in a form that looks niccely formatted on some
computers and is just bulky and junky-looking on others. Like this, sort
of:
#STYLE>#/STYLE>
#/HEAD>
#BODY>
#DIV>#FONT faceArial size2>Hi.I'm new.I love C.S.Lewis.I think his books
are
so insightful.I'm a Christian,a fantasy fiction lover & a writer,so
with his
works i'm in the right place!.If you want to talk about any of these
things,pls
write.Also,I'm a fibromyalgia sufferer,si if you have this condition,pls
write.#/FONT>#/DIV>
#DIV>#FONT faceArial size2>Did anyone else find the part in#STRONG>
(In reality, all those # signs should be less-than signs like this <
which match the > signs
And if you don't see anything between "this" and "signs" it's because your
newsreader removed some text there. What you see is not necessarily what
we get!)
Anyway, if you can find how to turn off the html, it will be appreciated
here and in other newsgroups. Perhaps someone here could provide a hint
on how to do it.
Cheers,
--
Dan Drake
Anythi...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
What did the Berkeley City Council actually say about the war.
angering all the patriots and causing boycotts?
http://www.dandrake.com/berkeley.html
Andew Rilstone
Let's all just kill file this horrid man and carry on talking about C.S
Lewis and his works, shall we?
In article <R0VQ7.22355$wL4.55487@rwcrnsc51>, goo...@gooner.com writes
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
************************************************************************
'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind
************************************************************************
Christopher J. Henrich
>
> goo...@gooner.com writes:
>
> > Usenet is the last place you should come to deal with you damn
> > personal tragedies. Every one has some.
>
> And some - such as you - _are_ somebody's personal tragedies.
Gooner is new too. Ah well, ya win some, ya lose some. The rest of us,
however, can perceive that Gooner is a troll. And there's only one way
to deal with a troll: wait for the dawn to turn him to stone.
--
Chris Henrich
m...@mooreffoc.com
Please ignore the trolls (and all critics). They'll go away.
We regulars are glad you're here. You've obviioulsy seen what's best in
Lewis.
Whenever I hear of some disaster, I remember this passage from Screwtape.
Yes, I feel the unseen helpers too. You might like a poem by Anna Hempsted
Branch called "The Monk in the Kitchen."
Mary
---
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 19:31:04 +1000, "Nimue" <lisette...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>Hi.I'm new.I love C.S.Lewis.I think his books are so insightful.I'm a Christian,a fantasy fiction lover & a writer,so with his works i'm in the right place!.If you want to talk about any of these things,pls write.Also,I'm a fibromyalgia sufferer,si if you have this condition,pls write.
m...@mooreffoc.com
wrote:
>Hi. Yes, this is mostly a fun and courteous group. Once in a while a
>barbarian troll shows up; ignore them and they will, if not turn to
>stone, at least leave off posting here.
Yes.
>I mostly lurk myself, unless I have something to say (not often). I
>have fibro also, and of necessity use Lewis's thought of our body
>condition being "part of the course set for us."
I don't quite remember the phrase "course set for us", but there are
similar ideas in /Mere Christianity/ around page 86.
Mary
Nimue
P.C a month so I'm kinda new at this.
Cheers,
Lisette
"Dan Drake" <nos...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@207-172-166-233.s233.tnt1.sfrn.ca.dialup.
rcn.com...
Nimue
I've discovered the filter for the cybervandal & am feeling much better.The
poem sounds interesting.Would it be too long & unwieldy to include a copy in
your next dispatch?
Kind Regards,
Lisette
<m...@mooreffoc.com> wrote in message news:3c1e95db...@news.sonic.net...
Nimue
I've just been rereading thru' some older entries in the ng,&I realise I
overlooked yours! Thank you for such a sensitive,thoughtful reply.Yes,I
think I've felt"friends past" in some sadder moments in my life,& when I'm
in a place most beautiful & dear to them.And yes,you're right about not
giving in.I do everyting I can to feed my spirit.Right now,I'm reading
Barclay's "Prayers for Hope & Healing." I know now that really,I'm in God's
hands.I can't fight it myself.I have to surrender inorder to win.Does that
make sense? I hope so!
Anyhoo,hope you're well & thanks again for the lovely welcome.
Cheers-
Lisette
"AJA" <ahne...@microdsi.net> wrote in message
news:3c16e3dc...@news.microdsi.net...
AJA
>I do everyting I can to feed my spirit.Right now,I'm reading
>Barclay's "Prayers for Hope & Healing." I know now that really,I'm in God's
>hands.I can't fight it myself.I have to surrender inorder to win.Does that
>make sense? I hope so!
You are surly ahead of the game!
I found this remarkable writing about 'reality' in CSL's _Letters to
Malcolm_ the other day. Funny, I have read this book quite a few
times- but this passage recently 'stuck'.
CSL is speaking about the mechanics of meditation. Lewis says he has
difficulty in taking the advice of those such as St. Ignatius who
advise one to mediate on a picture or scene as from the Bible. Lewis
says that he has too much imagination for the method of visualization.
This is the interesting part: Rather, Lewis views his material
surroundings as a stage set. Not a dream or nonentity, but a reality
like a stage set or a canvas. If one starts chipping away at that
construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
up little bundles into what I call 'things'. Of these 'things'
(represented by nouns) I build the 'stage', my surroundings, in which
I can act.
And act is the word for what we do. "For what I call 'myself' (for
all practical, everyday purposes) is also a dramatic construction;
memories, glimpses in the shaving glass, and snatches of the very
fallible activity called 'introspection' are the principal
ingredients. We call this construction 'me' and the stage set 'the
real world'.
"Now the moment of prayer is for me--or involves for me as its
condition--the awareness, the reawakened awareness, that this 'real
world' and 'real self' are very far from being rock-bottom realities."
In the flesh he cannot leave the stage but he remembers that his
apparent self (the clown, the hero, etc.) is also a _real_ person with
a real offstage life. This real person is the one who struggles to
speak in prayer- to address the Author.
The attempt is not to escape from space and time- but to reawake the
awareness of the situation. "This situation itself is, at every
moment, a possible theophany. Here is holy ground; the Bush is
burning now."
For me this reading had vast implications for healing. Suddenly I
remembered the moment when I stopped identifying my real self with
that stage actor persona who had been diagnosed with ms.
Pardon the musings! It must be the season. :)) A very merry Christmas
to all and hoping for peace along with all of you in the New Year.
All the best,
m...@mooreffoc.com
Mary
------------------
AJA
>
>Mary
>------------------
That's what I thought, but I'm no expert. Certainly not mainline
Protestant, I don't think. I wonder where those ideas came from as
the idea seems truly unique Lewis material. I'm looking in Orthodox
stuff. Maybe Steve Hayes could help here.
m...@mooreffoc.com
> Rather, Lewis views his material
>surroundings as a stage set. Not a dream or nonentity, but a reality
>like a stage set or a canvas. If one starts chipping away at that
This reminds me of a cartoon L or one of his friends drew about Barfield's
meditation ideas. Something about him chipping holes in the house he lived
in or something, till lunatic-collectors came to get him. (Maybe in
Carpenter's /The Inklings/?) The idea was, things man was not meant to
know, or something.
>construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
>Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
Hm. Did he hint at Berkeley?
> So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
>'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
>reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
>
>My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
>up little bundles into what I call 'things'.
This is great. Sounds like basic Hinduism/Buddhism. We create teh world, it
is a mental construct.
>Of these 'things'
>(represented by nouns) I build the 'stage', my surroundings, in which
>I can act.
>And act is the word for what we do. "For what I call 'myself' (for
>all practical, everyday purposes) is also a dramatic construction;
>memories, glimpses in the shaving glass, and snatches of the very
>fallible activity called 'introspection' are the principal
>ingredients. We call this construction 'me'
Asian types call this 'ego' -- mistranslation I think.
>and the stage set 'the
>real world'.
Maya, illusion. Not a hallucination, but something misinterpreted. The
stage backdrop that looks like a hill, the rope that looks like a snake....
>"Now the moment of prayer is for me--or involves for me as its
>condition--the awareness, the reawakened awareness, that this 'real
>world' and 'real self' are very far from being rock-bottom realities."
>In the flesh he cannot leave the stage but he remembers that his
>apparent self (the clown, the hero, etc.)
Ego.
>is also a _real_ person with
>a real offstage life. This real person is the one
Atman, jiva.
>who struggles to
>speak in prayer- to address the Author.
Who is part of the Author, the Hindu types would say. Remember the
waterlillies of /Miracles/ c. p. 28? :-)))))) Suppose they are all branches
of one single waterlily plant. A stem comes up to each flower and brings it
sap etc. All the stems are part of hte same plant -- but there's a lot more
to the plant than the sum of the stems (Krishna transcendent as well as
immanent).
>The attempt is not to escape from space and time- but to reawake the
>awareness of the situation.
That sounds very Buddhist. Of course Hindus and others do it too.
> "This situation itself is, at every
>moment, a possible theophany. Here is holy ground; the Bush is
>burning now."
>
>For me this reading had vast implications for healing. Suddenly I
>remembered the moment when I stopped identifying my real self with
>that stage actor persona who had been diagnosed with ms.
>Pardon the musings!
But this is wonderful!
Mary
AJA
Mary wrote:
(snip)
>>construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
>>Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
>
>Hm. Did he hint at Berkeley?
Not by name. But that math theme of course shows up in various CSL
places.
>
>> So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
>>'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
>>reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
>>
>>My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
>>up little bundles into what I call 'things'.
>
>This is great. Sounds like basic Hinduism/Buddhism. We create teh world, it
>is a mental construct.
Maybe, but there is a lot of 'math' :) between 'we create the world',
and 'the world (as we perceive it) is (our) mental construct.
(snip)
>
>
>>and the stage set 'the
>>real world'.
>
>Maya, illusion. Not a hallucination, but something misinterpreted. The
>stage backdrop that looks like a hill, the rope that looks like a snake....
Would some interpretations be more helpful/healing/saving (same root)
than others?
>
>>"Now the moment of prayer is for me--or involves for me as its
>>condition--the awareness, the reawakened awareness, that this 'real
>>world' and 'real self' are very far from being rock-bottom realities."
>>In the flesh he cannot leave the stage but he remembers that his
>>apparent self (the clown, the hero, etc.)
>
>Ego.
>
>>is also a _real_ person with
>>a real offstage life. This real person is the one
>
>Atman, jiva.
>
>>who struggles to
>>speak in prayer- to address the Author.
>
>Who is part of the Author, the Hindu types would say. Remember the
>waterlillies of /Miracles/ c. p. 28? :-)))))) Suppose they are all branches
>of one single waterlily plant. A stem comes up to each flower and brings it
>sap etc. All the stems are part of hte same plant -- but there's a lot more
>to the plant than the sum of the stems (Krishna transcendent as well as
>immanent).
>
"each has its own tap-root in an eternal, self-existent, rational
Being, whom we call God. Each is an offshoot, or spearhead, or
incursion of the Supernatural reality into Nature." (M, 28)
>
>>The attempt is not to escape from space and time- but to reawake the
>>awareness of the situation.
>
>That sounds very Buddhist. Of course Hindus and others do it too.
Maybe CSL's conversations with Dom Bede? I would love to know.
Some hints at it:
'nepsis'- watch fullness, to be present where we are. "For the Present
is the point at which time touches eternity." (_The Screwtape
Letters_, p. 76))
And gems from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist's book, _Theology of Wonder_.
BERESHITH- In the beginning. "So the divine word made every object
beautiful (by light) just as when men, in deep sea, pour in oil and
make the surface around them clear." --St. Basil, _Six Days of
Creation_
"Here is nothing to search or probe...nothing to be known about
it...and so a forgetting pertains to the comprehension of this place.
So open your eyes and see this great and awesome secret. Happy is one
whose eyes shone from this secret, in this world and the world to
come!" --David ben Judah, _The Book of Mirrors_.
>> "This situation itself is, at every
>>moment, a possible theophany. Here is holy ground; the Bush is
>>burning now."
>>
>>For me this reading had vast implications for healing. Suddenly I
>>remembered the moment when I stopped identifying my real self with
>>that stage actor persona who had been diagnosed with ms.
>>Pardon the musings!
>
We have to take off our shoes before the Burning Bush. Strip off our
perceptions. That's the hard part.
m...@mooreffoc.com
So far, thee sounds more NA than moi. :-)
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:03:16 GMT, ahne...@microdsi.net (AJA) wrote:
>Starting again. Lost the first draft!
>Mary wrote:
>(snip)
>>>construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
>>>Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
>>
>>Hm. Did he hint at Berkeley?
>
>Not by name. But that math theme of course shows up in various CSL
>places.
>>
>>> So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
>>>'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
>>>reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
>>>
>>>My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
>>>up little bundles into what I call 'things'.
>>
>>This is great. Sounds like basic Hinduism/Buddhism. We create teh world, it
>>is a mental construct.
>
>Maybe, but there is a lot of 'math' :) between 'we create the world',
>and 'the world (as we perceive it) is (our) mental construct.
"We create" doesn't mean arbitrarily, without constraints, any way we like.
Lewis describes the constraints as math. In Sanscrit, they would have
anohter name. :-)
>(snip)
>
>>
>>
>>>and the stage set 'the
>>>real world'.
>>
>>Maya, illusion. Not a hallucination, but something misinterpreted. The
>>stage backdrop that looks like a hill, the rope that looks like a snake....
>
>Would some interpretations be more helpful/healing/saving (same root)
>than others?
All things are illusions, but some are more illusory than others. :-)
>>
>>>"Now the moment of prayer is for me--or involves for me as its
>>>condition--the awareness, the reawakened awareness, that this 'real
>>>world' and 'real self' are very far from being rock-bottom realities."
>>>In the flesh he cannot leave the stage but he remembers that his
>>>apparent self (the clown, the hero, etc.)
>>
>>Ego.
>>
>>>is also a _real_ person with
>>>a real offstage life. This real person is the one
>>
>>Atman, jiva.
>>
>>>who struggles to
>>>speak in prayer- to address the Author.
>>
>>Who is part of the Author, the Hindu types would say. Remember the
>>waterlillies of /Miracles/ c. p. 28? :-)))))) Suppose they are all branches
>>of one single waterlily plant. A stem comes up to each flower and brings it
>>sap etc. All the stems are part of hte same plant -- but there's a lot more
>>to the plant than the sum of the stems (Krishna transcendent as well as
>>immanent).
>>
>"each has its own tap-root in an eternal, self-existent, rational
>Being, whom we call God. Each is an offshoot, or spearhead, or
>incursion of the Supernatural reality into Nature." (M, 28)
The waterlilies are aroudn there somewhere. He says they're rooted in
ground that goes down to the subterranean fires.
Trouble is that a taproot sfaik is a central root of a single tree, that
just goes down into the groudn somewhere. The Hindu image is more like
different branches from the same root.
>>
>>>The attempt is not to escape from space and time- but to reawake the
>>>awareness of the situation.
>>
>>That sounds very Buddhist. Of course Hindus and others do it too.
>Maybe CSL's conversations with Dom Bede? I would love to know.
>
>Some hints at it:
>
>'nepsis'- watch fullness, to be present where we are. "For the Present
>is the point at which time touches eternity." (_The Screwtape
>Letters_, p. 76))
That's more NA than moi. :-) I've never liked the "Be Here Now" stuff. They
may be referring to something good, but Ram Dass and others seem awfully
condescending. I prefer woodspurges and scarlet toadstools in Hampshire.
>And gems from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist's book, _Theology of Wonder_.
>BERESHITH- In the beginning. "So the divine word made every object
>beautiful (by light) just as when men, in deep sea, pour in oil and
>make the surface around them clear." --St. Basil, _Six Days of
>Creation_
>"Here is nothing to search or probe...nothing to be known about
>it...and so a forgetting pertains to the comprehension of this place.
>So open your eyes and see this great and awesome secret. Happy is one
>whose eyes shone from this secret, in this world and the world to
>come!" --David ben Judah, _The Book of Mirrors_.
>
>>> "This situation itself is, at every
>>>moment, a possible theophany. Here is holy ground; the Bush is
>>>burning now."
>>>
>>>For me this reading had vast implications for healing. Suddenly I
>>>remembered the moment when I stopped identifying my real self with
>>>that stage actor persona who had been diagnosed with ms.
>>>Pardon the musings!
>>
>We have to take off our shoes before the Burning Bush. Strip off our
>perceptions. That's the hard part.
Taht's very H/B/NA.
Mary
m...@mooreffoc.com
put where Lewis puts mathematics.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:57:41 GMT, m...@mooreffoc.com wrote:
>In haste, I'll try the rest of this one later.
>
>So far, thee sounds more NA than moi. :-)
>
>
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:03:16 GMT, ahne...@microdsi.net (AJA) wrote:
>
>>Starting again. Lost the first draft!
>>Mary wrote:
>>(snip)
>>>>construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
>>>>Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
>>>
>>>Hm. Did he hint at Berkeley?
>>
>>Not by name. But that math theme of course shows up in various CSL
>>places.
>>>
>>>> So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
>>>>'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
>>>>reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
>>>>
>>>>My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
>>>>up little bundles into what I call 'things'.
>>>
>>>This is great. Sounds like basic Hinduism/Buddhism. We create teh world, it
>>>is a mental construct.
>>
>>Maybe, but there is a lot of 'math' :) between 'we create the world',
>>and 'the world (as we perceive it) is (our) mental construct.
>
>"We create" doesn't mean arbitrarily, without constraints, any way we like.
>Lewis describes the constraints as math. In Sanscrit, they would have
>anohter name. :-)
What may arise or appear to the individual as external phenomena is merely
one's own state of existence that manifests as appearances. Apart from this
organized and highly structured system of phenomena (which is
conventionally called "reality"), nothing whatsoever exists and from it one
cannot obtain any thing (substantial or worthwhile). However, by virtue of
the totality of its power or inherent potency (rang tsal), since ones'
Awareness (rig-pa) is in harmony with the various different kinds of things
that arise as phenomena, it allows these various different kinds of
phenomena to liberate themselves. There exists no other antidote for them
(these diverse phenomena) than this process of self-liberation."
Garab Dorje
Daryl
>What may arise or appear to the individual as external phenomena is merely
>one's own state of existence that manifests as appearances.
>
How on Earth does one acquire evidence for such a pronouncement? It reminds me
of the spiritual "experts" on Oprah that simply say ' thus and thus is so'
about spiritual matters but provide not one whit of evidence that it is true.
There is no claim of revelation, no way of testing and no deniability, even
assuming it to be true provides no moral insight nor benificial instruction. It
is schizophrenia elevated to high philosophy.
>Apart from this
>organized and highly structured system of phenomena (which is
>conventionally called "reality"), nothing whatsoever exists and from it one
>cannot obtain any thing (substantial or worthwhile).
Reality is not a system of phenomena, it is simply what is extant. What does it
mean to say one cannot obtain any thing from reality? Does your guru exist?
Than can we not obtain anything worthwhile from him? Is this a confession?
> However, by virtue of
>the totality of its power or inherent potency (rang tsal), since ones'
>Awareness (rig-pa) is in harmony with the various different kinds of things
>that arise as phenomena, it allows these various different kinds of
>phenomena to liberate themselves.
phenomena libre!
>There exists no other antidote for them
>(these diverse phenomena) than this process of self-liberation."
I challenge anyone to diagram the path of logic here! What the heck does a
liberated phenomena do once it is self-liberated? Why do they require an
antidote.
Mary, I think any meaning you ascribe to this comes from you and is NOT
inherent in the text. This illustrates perfectly why I could never adopt NA
philosophy.
Daryl
Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
m...@mooreffoc.com
and Ann would put in the windy spaces between the molecules. This is what
some Buddhists fill the spaces with. The point is that "we create the
world' doesnt mean we cna just make up anythign we like. It's a matter of
how our perceptions process something very structured, which we do not just
make up.
Read the thread again.
And try translating whatever you think is more sensible, into Tibetan.
On 22 Dec 2001 06:13:13 GMT, dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
/snip all/
AJA
The Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa describes 'sem': That which possess
discriminating awareness, that which possesses a sense of
duality--which grasps or rejects something external--that is mind.
Fundamentally it is that which can associate with an 'other'--with any
'something', that is perceived as different from the perceiver."
'Ringpa', writes Sogyal Rinpoche, is the very nature of mind, its
innermost essence, which is absolutely and always untouched by change
or death. A primordial, pure, pristine awareness that is at once
intelligent, cognizant, radiant, and always awake. "It could be said
to be the knowledge of knowledge itself." Rinpoche goes on:
Christians and Jews call it God, Hindus cal it "the Self", Shiva,
Brahma and Vishnu; Sufis call it "the Hidden Essence"; Buddhists call
it "Buddha nature".
This isn't the Christian story, however. God was born fully God and
fully man on earth, sem and ringpa, all dualities made one in Christ.
There is history, scripture, worship.
Daryl wrote:
>> m...@mooreffoc.com quotes:
>
>>What may arise or appear to the individual as external phenomena is merely
>>one's own state of existence that manifests as appearances.
>
>How on Earth does one acquire evidence for such a pronouncement? It reminds me
>of the spiritual "experts" on Oprah that simply say ' thus and thus is so'
>about spiritual matters but provide not one whit of evidence that it is true.
>There is no claim of revelation, no way of testing and no deniability, even
>assuming it to be true provides no moral insight nor benificial instruction. It
>is schizophrenia elevated to high philosophy.
Well, there are lots and lots of Buddhist writings to study. See for
instance the references in _The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying_ by
Sogyal Rinpoche. Part of the problem is expressing the inexpressible.
Many saints have had problems with that. And mental illness was an
issue with some very elevated saints- Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint
Catherine of Siena, to name just two. Testing, at least these two
saints wrote, involves living the Life. In the case of Buddhism it's
difficult to see how something purely indefinable can be of benefit-
or even how it can liberate one to compassion for all, perhaps.
>>Apart from this
>>organized and highly structured system of phenomena (which is
>>conventionally called "reality"), nothing whatsoever exists and from it one
>>cannot obtain any thing (substantial or worthwhile).
>
>Reality is not a system of phenomena, it is simply what is extant. What does it
>mean to say one cannot obtain any thing from reality? Does your guru exist?
>Than can we not obtain anything worthwhile from him? Is this a confession?
Yes. This is where the beliefs of the writer of the quote and those
of the Christian would have to part company. For the Christian, to
put it down in shorthand, one has feet firmly planted here on earth
but eyes on Heaven.
>
>> However, by virtue of
>>the totality of its power or inherent potency (rang tsal), since ones'
>>Awareness (rig-pa) is in harmony with the various different kinds of things
>>that arise as phenomena, it allows these various different kinds of
>>phenomena to liberate themselves.
>
>phenomena libre!
I note that 'A' on Awareness. Enlightenment which is within reach of
all. Not that different from lots of things Saint Paul writes in his
first letter to the Corinthians about the problems of living in the
world. "Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not sleep, but we shall
all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eyes, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, that the dead will be raised
imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must
put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on
immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the
mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the say this is
written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'" I Corinthians 15:
51-54+.
>
>>There exists no other antidote for them
>>(these diverse phenomena) than this process of self-liberation."
>
>I challenge anyone to diagram the path of logic here! What the heck does a
>liberated phenomena do once it is self-liberated? Why do they require an
>antidote.
Well the 'phenomena' are deemed to be false illusions. But I always
go back to my own smashed thumb. Or that dying child over there- but
not as often, to my own soul's peril! This life is important,
intensely important. And it is intensely important to the Buddhist
also. If life is an illusion, a dream, and that suffering person over
there is just part of a bad dream- how is it that one has liberating
compassion? The Buddhist in part because she sees Awareness in all
things. The Christian, in different words, sees God in all things. It
may be that Saint Paul's words, "Oh death where is thy victory, oh
death, where is thy sting?. This sting of death is sin," is similar
to what the Buddhist sees. Christians do seek our antidote for
diverse phenomena, the stuff that happens to us; and the antidote is
Christ.
On a CSL note!: Interesting in _A Grief Observed_ after H's death:
"It was quite incredibly unemotional. Just the impression of her
_mind_ momentarily facing my own. Mind, not 'soul' as we tend to
think of soul. Certainly the reverse of what is called 'soulful.' Not
at all like a rapturous reunion of lovers. Much more like getting a
telephone call or a wire from her about some practical arrangement.
Not that there as any 'message'--just intelligence and attention. No
sense of joy or sorrow. No love even, in our ordinary sense. No
un-love. I had never in any mood imagined the dead as being so--well,
so business-like. You there was an extreme and cheerful intimacy. An
intimacy that had not passed through the senses or the emotions at
all...Wherever it came from, it had made a sort of spring cleaning in
my mind...One didn't need emotion. The intimacy was complete- sharply
bracing and restorative too--without it. Can that intimacy be love
itself--always in this life attended with emotion...because our animal
souls, our nervous systems, our imaginations, have to respond to it in
that way? If so, how many preconceptions I must scrap!"
Taking off our shoes before the burning bush.
This is very like what the Buddhist describes as Awareness. And so far
as the Buddhist maintains it isn't an exterior, Christians through the
ages have agreed while worshiping the Source.
>Mary, I think any meaning you ascribe to this comes from you and is NOT
>inherent in the text. This illustrates perfectly why I could never adopt NA
>philosophy.
>
>Daryl
>Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalm 127:1
> (remove nopax for e-mail)
Great passage that certainly applies well to this discussion!
Mary replied:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:18:05 GMT, in alt.books.cs-lewis Mary wrote:
>Er, I never said I understood this. Nor do I understand the math that Lewis
>and Ann would put in the windy spaces between the molecules. This is what
>some Buddhists fill the spaces with. The point is that "we create the
>world' doesnt mean we cna just make up anythign we like. It's a matter of
>how our perceptions process something very structured, which we do not just
>make up.
I don't understand the math either! But a person whose birth we
celebrate this week knows all about it and put it all in terms we can
understand.
All the best,
Ann
"Ambulavi in miribilibus supra me." --C. S. Lewis
mlund
You make some good points. Arrogance and Omniscience are not the
same thing, though it is amazing how many arrogant people can't understand
the difference!
Personally too arrogant, and not omniscient enough,
mark
Daryl wrote:
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark W. Lund, PhD ** Custom Battery Chargers
CEO ** Custom Power Supplies
PowerStream Technology ** Custom UPS
140 S. Mountainway Drive ** Custom DC/DC Converters
Orem Utah 84058 ** Power management electronics for OEMs
http://www.PowerStream.com
Brigham Young University e-mail: lu...@xray.byu.edu
m...@mooreffoc.com
You seem to be more up on Buddhism than I am, these days. But (on a quick
reading), I didn't see you mention the 'samsara is nirvana' school, which
might fit pretty well with Lewis's conclusion about not trying to see
through the 'stage-set', but rather to remember it is a stage-set.
Hm, do you think he means, to see the canvas as canvas, instead of as
ocean? To keep looking at the threads, instead of standing back and seeing
what the artist wanted to present?
Anyway, a great many Buddhists do seem to come down in the sort of places
you come down in (pain needing relief, etc). It's not an either/or. Lots
and lots of Buddhist writings are about that interface, or come down
thorougly on your side of it.
I'm kind of shocked at Daryl's comments. One passage is quoted out of
context, of technical in-group stuff, by someone whose native language is
Tibetan. Serious people don't begin every sentence (or every paragraph)
with: "And The Bible Also Says" or "Scientific tests prove". The source is
given once, or is understood from the speaker's credentials.
Try taking a paragraph of Burton's about quarks and charm and translating
it to Tibetan.... :-)
Mary
---
Daryl
> ahne...@microdsi.net (AJA)writes:
>The Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa describes 'sem': That which possess
>discriminating awareness, that which possesses a sense of
>duality--which grasps or rejects something external--that is mind.
>Fundamentally it is that which can associate with an 'other'--with any
>'something', that is perceived as different from the perceiver."
>Ringpa', writes Sogyal Rinpoche, is the very nature of mind, its
>innermost essence, which is absolutely and always untouched by change
>or death.
>A primordial, pure, pristine awareness that is at once
>intelligent, cognizant, radiant, and always awake. "It could be said
>to be the knowledge of knowledge itself."
Could be "soul" and "spirit" but doesn't feel much like it to me. The problem
is, how does he come by the knowledge? Is it divine revelation, controlled
experimentation, logical deduction, or what? If it is only "enlightened"
insight it can carry no more force than any other claim of insight, including
some I don't think we would want to consider. Without denyability why would
Buddhism provide a better frame of reference than social Darwinism?
>Rinpoche goes on:
>Christians and Jews call it God, Hindus cal it "the Self", Shiva,
>Brahma and Vishnu; Sufis call it "the Hidden Essence"; Buddhists call
>it "Buddha nature".
>This isn't the Christian story, however.
It isn't even close.
> God was born fully God and
>fully man on earth, sem and ringpa, all dualities made one in Christ.
>There is history, scripture, worship.
And each of us shares this nature (in his image)
>>> m...@mooreffoc.com quotes:
>>
>>>What may arise or appear to the individual as external phenomena is merely
>>>one's own state of existence that manifests as appearances.
>>How on Earth does one acquire evidence for such a pronouncement?
>. It
>>is schizophrenia elevated to high philosophy.
>Well, there are lots and lots of Buddhist writings to study.
Evidence?
> Part of the problem is expressing the inexpressible.
>Many saints have had problems with that. And mental illness was an
>issue with some very elevated saints- Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint
>Catherine of Siena, to name just two.
Afaik (I have little knowledge of St. Catherine) none claim their delusional
world to be real and reality illusion. Whatever daemons haunted St. Jerome did
not cause him to use them as the basis for his world view, to make a philosophy
of madness.
>Testing, at least these two
>saints wrote, involves living the Life. In the case of Buddhism it's
>difficult to see how something purely indefinable can be of benefit-
>or even how it can liberate one to compassion for all, perhaps.
Even the cruelest amoung us can have moments of compassion, it "feels" right
and proper (despite its evolutionary liabilities) a person of some acuity and
sensitivity can generalize,this then from almost any philosophy whether the
philosophy has merit or not. Mary would say this is tao, I would say it is how
we were made.
>>Reality is not a system of phenomena, it is simply what is extant. What does
>it
>>mean to say one cannot obtain any thing from reality -snip-
>Yes. This is where the beliefs of the writer of the quote and those
>of the Christian would have to part company. For the Christian, to
>put it down in shorthand, one has feet firmly planted here on earth
>but eyes on Heaven.
True, but I would think anyone who valued reason would have the same view
point! As I have noted in the past, it seems to me that Hinduism and Buddhism
are anti-rational (their truth notwithstanding, they seem to have little use
for reason as we define it in the Occidental world)
>>>Awareness (rig-pa) is in harmony with the various different kinds of things
>>>that arise as phenomena,
>I note that 'A' on Awareness. Enlightenment which is within reach of
>all.
I think you are reading too much into it.
> Not that different from lots of things Saint Paul writes in his
>first letter to the Corinthians about the problems of living in the
>world. "Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not sleep, but we shall
>all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eyes, at the last
>trumpet.
>For the trumpet will sound, that the dead will be raised
>imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must
>put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on
>immortality.
>When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the
>mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the say this is
>written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'" I Corinthians 15:
>51-54+.
To me this does not seem at all similar. Paul (unless he lies) has seen one
with an imperishable nature, this is not something gained through speculative
reflection or meditation, this is an attempt to put a very real experience into
words. He is not talking about shedding reality.
> The Buddhist in part because she sees Awareness in all
>things. The Christian, in different words, sees God in all things.
Not pantheism Ann, sees the "hand" of God in all things. Again, the difference
is manyfold greater than the similarity.
>. It
>may be that Saint Paul's words, "Oh death where is thy victory, oh
>death, where is thy sting?. This sting of death is sin," is similar
>to what the Buddhist sees. Christians do seek our antidote for
>diverse phenomena, the stuff that happens to us; and the antidote is
>Christ.
And yet with the antidote, the phenomena are NOT liberated, nor even altered,
they continue unchanged, it is we who change.
>On a CSL note!: Interesting in _A Grief Observed_ after H's death:
>"It was quite incredibly unemotional. Just the impression of her
>_mind_ momentarily facing my own. Mind, not 'soul' as we tend to
>think of soul. Certainly the reverse of what is called 'soulful.' Not
>at all like a rapturous reunion of lovers. Much more like getting a
>telephone call or a wire from her about some practical arrangement.
-snip-
>This is very like what the Buddhist describes as Awareness.
If you say so. It is not anything I would imagine a guru using to express
himself, nor do I think the concepts match. Lewis is speaking of including this
unexplainable rapport in the real world; not of supplanting reality with
something based on the rapport.
> And so far
>as the Buddhist maintains it isn't an exterior, Christians through the
>ages have agreed while worshiping the Source.
Never, in any conversation with any Buddhist, nor in anything I have read, have
I encountered anything approaching the idea of Abba, Father. The two
philosophies are worlds apart to me, they have a very different feel, the goal
of the one holding no allure whatsoever, the other of such worth now, that
nothing else is of value by comparison.
>Mary replied:
>>Er, I never said I understood this. Nor do I understand the math that Lewis
>>and Ann would put in the windy spaces between the molecules.
>. This is what
>>some Buddhists fill the spaces with. The point is that "we create the
>>world' doesnt mean we cna just make up anythign we like.
Very true! Some people think "free will" means a person can choose whatever
they like. It doesn't, it means they can choose, but only among the choices
they have available.
>It's a matter of
>>how our perceptions process something very structured, which we do not just
>>make up.
I think, on occasion, we do make it up, but again I agree. We create what it is
possible to create (and sometimes that makes the world new) from what we have
at hand. Didn't Beethoven say his melodies already existed, they were going
around in his head, he just wrote them down?
>I don't understand the math either! But a person whose birth we
>celebrate this week knows all about it and put it all in terms we can
>understand.
He didn't just give us a map to direct us out of the burning building, He came
into the fire and said,"Follow me, and I will lead you home."
Daryl
>I'm kind of shocked at Daryl's comments. One passage is quoted out of
>context, of technical in-group stuff, by someone whose native language is
>Tibetan.
not my quote though. I have to assume the translation is valid and the words
have the meaning assigned. Perhaps there is indeed more there than I
understand, equally perhaps there is less. If we deal in translations we must
pretty much deal with them at face value until another comes along and corrects
the original.
> Serious people don't begin every sentence (or every paragraph)
>with: "And The Bible Also Says" or "Scientific tests prove". The source is
>given once, or is understood from the speaker's credentials.
Granted. What is the source? I am truly curious. I expect it to be a bit
greater than personal insight and reflection. There are too many claims that
would have equal merit on such a foundation.
>Try taking a paragraph of Burton's about quarks and charm and translating
>it to Tibetan.... :-)
I have to deal with it in mere English, isn't that challenge enough :-)
m...@mooreffoc.com
>> m...@mooreffoc.com writes:
/snip/
>> Serious people don't begin every sentence (or every paragraph)
>>with: "And The Bible Also Says" or "Scientific tests prove". The source is
>>given once, or is understood from the speaker's credentials.
>
>Granted. What is the source? I am truly curious.
At this point, such ideas have 2500 years of scripture and philosophy to
quote.
The original source? What was the source of Heraclitus's ideas about flux
and such, if I've got the name right? And Berkeley's scepticism about
'matter'? Would our scientists have built machines to look into the windy
spaces between the molecules, without something in the Model to get them
intrested?
Fact and speculation and introspection feed back and forth. What looks like
a solid giant mushroom on a mountian, turns out to be a cloud when you
climb up there. The better lenses we make, the more windy spaces we see.
Lewis often took apart emotions and identity and such: see "Transposition"
etc.
>I expect it to be a bit
>greater than personal insight and reflection.
Whose personal insight and reflection?
Originally -- LLL. Someone turned up whose life and preaching were so
impressive, that others tried the meditation methods he had used, and found
they worked. The methods spread, and many people who tried them got similar
results.
I don't know exactly how the meditiaton methods and ideas-to-contemplate,
connect with the philosophical flux ideas. Didn't Lewis say all such
philosophical ideas had been held by someone or other, in all
civilizations? Maybe Gautama quoted some previous Indian Heraclitus for
some good metaphors for his meditation practices -- as Lewis or we might
quote our physicists. Such things become a feedback loop. Some impressive
preacher popularizes a pre-existing theory, and then more and more
confirmation for that theory turns up, as people start looking for evidence
and expanding the idea.
I think the flux idea is pretty common in Hinduism too, tho they (like
Plato) say there's something non-fluxing above it. Buddhism just says "No
there ain't, neither, and we don't need it, anyway, so there."
> There are too many claims that
>would have equal merit on such a foundation.
The New Ager asks, "And this is a problem?"
Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
millions of ways. For being a good bet for others to try, apply Google. :-)
Mary
PS. It sure didn't start with voices in the night.
AJA
>
>You seem to be more up on Buddhism than I am, these days. But (on a quick
>reading), I didn't see you mention the 'samsara is nirvana' school, which
>might fit pretty well with Lewis's conclusion about not trying to see
>through the 'stage-set', but rather to remember it is a stage-set.
>
>Hm, do you think he means, to see the canvas as canvas, instead of as
>ocean? To keep looking at the threads, instead of standing back and seeing
>what the artist wanted to present?
>
>Anyway, a great many Buddhists do seem to come down in the sort of places
>you come down in (pain needing relief, etc). It's not an either/or. Lots
>and lots of Buddhist writings are about that interface, or come down
>thorougly on your side of it.
Yes. As I wrote in reply to Daryl's post, the practice of loving- the
relief of pain, whatever the private perception- is paramount. Not an
either/or for sure. Taken to where I live the practice would mean
that one would truly learn to see God (God's hand if one prefers that
expression) in the world, in all people, in all situations. If one
saw that, I maintain one would be more charitable in all things- more
loving. It's just that we hear the same concepts in the same words
and we easily dismiss it all as something we'll do sometime when it's
convenient. But if one were truly aware, it would almost always be
convenient to be charitable.
Daryl
>>dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
>At this point, such ideas have 2500 years of scripture and philosophy to
>quote.
-snip-
>Heraclitus's ideas about flux
>and such, if I've got the name right? And Berkeley's scepticism about
>'matter'? Would our scientists have built machines to look into the windy
>spaces between the molecules,
>without something in the Model to get them
>intrested?
>Fact and speculation and introspection feed back and forth. What looks like
>a solid giant mushroom on a mountian, turns out to be a cloud when you
>climb up there.
A real cloud nonetheless, not denial that there is anything real, even shadows
are real.
>Whose personal insight and reflection?
>Originally -- LLL. Someone turned up whose life and preaching were so
>impressive, that others tried the meditation methods he had used, and found
>they worked
In the "real" world? How does meditation provide one with the information that
reality doesn't exist. Is it revelation? Where does it come from?
>I don't know exactly how the meditiaton methods and ideas-to-contemplate,
>connect with the philosophical flux ideas.
Nor do I. I can't see a way to connect the dots. I think including all ideas of
"flux" goes a bit beyond the positions being discussed.
> Maybe Gautama quoted some previous Indian Heraclitus for
>some good metaphors for his meditation practices --
Ah, then these aren't ment to _really_ apply, just supply a meditative aid?
>I think the flux idea is pretty common in Hinduism too, tho they (like
>Plato) say there's something non-fluxing above it.
If you mean that they deny the Reality of reality, that is my understanding
too.
>> There are too many claims that
>>would have equal merit on such a foundation.
>
>The New Ager asks, "And this is a problem?"
I think there are claims even a NA'er would want to avoid.
>Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
>millions of ways.
We reside in different worlds! There are many ways to produce acceptable
conduct (people even use cattle prods), but afaik only one way to fill that
hole Lewis talks about. You might push a little in at the edges, but that's
about it.
m...@mooreffoc.com
On 02 Jan 2002 05:15:41 GMT, dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
>> m...@mooreffoc.com writes
>
>>>dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
/snip/
>>I think the flux idea is pretty common in Hinduism too, tho they (like
>>Plato) say there's something non-fluxing above it.
>
>If you mean that they deny the Reality of reality, that is my understanding
>too.
Definitions, please?
/snip/
>>Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
>>millions of ways.
>
>We reside in different worlds! There are many ways to produce acceptable
>conduct (people even use cattle prods)
Who finds joy in them? Hair shirts, maybe.... Los Penitentes?
Mary
Daryl
>>dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
>>>I think the flux idea is pretty common in Hinduism too,
>>If you mean that they deny the Reality of reality, that is my understanding
>>too.
>
>Definitions, please?
>
The world percieved by our senses (small r) is illusion, shadow, unreal (large
R). Even talking about philosophy, science, religion etc. has a special term,
it translates 'the meaningless chatter of fools' (it is pronounced prapancha,
I have no idea as to the proper spelling)
>>Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
>>>millions of ways.
>>We reside in different worlds! There are many ways to produce acceptable
>>conduct (people even use cattle prods)
>Who finds joy in them? Hair shirts, maybe.... Los Penitentes?
Perhaps; I was just talking about the behavior part (see original post), not
the joy part, which completed my reply.
m...@mooreffoc.com
>> m...@mooreffoc.com writes:
>
>>>dary...@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
>
>>>>I think the flux idea is pretty common in Hinduism too,
>
>>>If you mean that they deny the Reality of reality, that is my understanding
>>>too.
>>
>>Definitions, please?
>>
>
>The world percieved by our senses (small r) is illusion, shadow, unreal (large
>R).
You clip so much, it's hard to keep track of the argument..... Do you think
Plato is insane? Berkeley?
How would you apply this to Lewis's "this 'real world' and 'real self' are
very far from being rock-bottom realities."
Excerpt from AJA's post above:
[[ I found this remarkable writing about 'reality' in CSL's _Letters to
Malcolm_ the other day. /snip/
Lewis views his material
surroundings as a stage set. Not a dream or nonentity, but a reality
like a stage set or a canvas. ]]
This is the Buddhist and Hindu idea. They're not exactly 'unreal', just
misinterpreted. Canvas seen as landscape.
[[ If one starts chipping away at that
construction one finds only a hole and beyond that, windy darkness.
Or mathematics, so unimaginable is the nature of matter.
So, the senses select a few 'stimuli'- which one translates or
'symbolizes' into sensations which have no likeness at all to the
reality of matter, but which one uses for the living of everyday life.
My practical needs, Lewis says, directed by my associative power makes
up little bundles into what I call 'things'. Of these 'things'
(represented by nouns) I build the 'stage', my surroundings, in which
I can act.
And act is the word for what we do. "For what I call 'myself' (for
all practical, everyday purposes) is also a dramatic construction;
memories, glimpses in the shaving glass, and snatches of the very
fallible activity called 'introspection' are the principal
ingredients. We call this construction 'me' and the stage set 'the
real world'.
"Now the moment of prayer is for me--or involves for me as its
condition--the awareness, the reawakened awareness, that this 'real
world' and 'real self' are very far from being rock-bottom realities."
In the flesh he cannot leave the stage but he remembers that his
apparent self (the clown, the hero, etc.) is also a _real_ person with
a real offstage life. This real person is the one who struggles to
speak in prayer- to address the Author.
The attempt is not to escape from space and time- but to reawake the
awareness of the situation. "This situation itself is, at every
moment, a possible theophany. Here is holy ground; the Bush is
burning now." ]]
/snip/
>>>Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
>>>>millions of ways.
>
>>>We reside in different worlds! There are many ways to produce acceptable
>>>conduct (people even use cattle prods)
>
>>Who finds joy in them? Hair shirts, maybe.... Los Penitentes?
>
>Perhaps; I was just talking about the behavior part (see original post), not
>the joy part, which completed my reply.
Who produces 813ish behavior IN HIMSELF by cattle prods? The Buddhist,
Hindu, and other yogic religions produce 813ish behavior in sane, happy
ways. So do the nicer factions of all religions.
I meant 'joy' in the usual sense, not in Lewis's 'technical' sense.
By their fruits ye shall know them....
Mary
Daryl
>>The world percieved by our senses (small r) is illusion, shadow, unreal
>(large
>>R).
>You clip so much, it's hard to keep track of the argument..... Do you think
>Plato is insane? Berkeley?
I try to keep track of the current point without making everyone reread the
whole thing. If I clip too much I am sorry. :-(
I haven't said anyone was insane. If knowledge derives from the senses
initally, as Ann was saying, and we then turn and deny its validity, where does
that leave us? I was not, however, offering a critique, just agreeing with your
characterization of Hinduism vis-a-vis the Buddhist view of the sensory world.
>How would you apply this to Lewis's "this 'real world' and 'real self' are
>very far from being rock-bottom realities."
>Lewis views his material
>surroundings as a stage set. Not a dream or nonentity, but a reality
>like a stage set or a canvas. ]]
>
>This is the Buddhist and Hindu idea. They're not exactly 'unreal', just
>misinterpreted. Canvas seen as landscape.
This was not my understanding, but I bow to your greater knowledge.
>>>>Merit for what? For producing 813ish conduct and joy, obviously there are
>>>>>millions of ways.
>>>>We reside in different worlds! There are many ways to produce acceptable
>>>>conduct (people even use cattle prods)
>>>Who finds joy in them? Hair shirts, maybe.... Los Penitentes?
>>
>>Perhaps; I was just talking about the behavior part (see original post), not
>>the joy part, which completed my reply.
>Who produces 813ish behavior IN HIMSELF by cattle prods? The Buddhist,
>Hindu, and other yogic religions produce 813ish behavior in sane, happy
>ways. So do the nicer factions of all religions.
The IN HIMSELF was not present and (evidently) not understood in the original
post. There are all sorts of incentives for proper behavior, some good, some
neutral, and some even bad, I would not think this fruit a good measure of the
worth of the tree.
>I meant 'joy' in the usual sense, not in Lewis's 'technical' sense.
Ahhhhhh! This can be a bit confusing to the Christians in the group. :-)