the path of purity

this is a great site for the visuddhimagga.

why a buddhist cannot be a cynic

everything is connected!

suffering exists, but there is no one who suffers,
deeds are, but there is no doer of deeds,
nirvana is, but no one is blissful,
the path is but there is no traveller on it.
(visuddhimagga, XVI, 90)

Buddhism link

Buddhism link.

Notes on Buddhism

Julie Mehretu, Black City, 2006.

... l'homme n'est pas ce qu'il est, il est ce qu'il n'est pas.-- Jean Paul Sartre

Read more here.

why voting now

after a discussion with my phi 2010 classes: 

the charge that "both parties are the same" is true only in general. let's understand where we live: america is a center leaning nation, it moves left and/or right depending the time and issues. political parties have to respond and accommodate to this fact. even as the process has been partly co-opted by special interests, change is always possible. it happens daily, and our history proves it. the idea you have of the place you want to be in is the ideal to fight for. it may get close as some issues win. you cannot achieve all you want at once. then what? without the struggle for justice you would have no reasons to fight in the first place. if the world is determined in advance there is no transformation and no place for political struggle.

if you want to comment you can do it here (though this is not a mandatory post).

can philosophy debate theology? you bet

our discussion on theology was intense but, a couple of points:

in case i was too overpowering (my apologies). i failed to defend a larger point about what this class is about.  

1- philosophy is a discipline about critique & analysis of ideas
2- religion is a practice & a collection of beliefs (ideas)
3- theology is a branch of religion
so, given 1 & 2 & 3, theology is up for philosophical discussion

the discussion of theology is a legitimate philosophical concern. no need for apologies now. by discussing ideas, philosophy is not stepping into anybody's turf or property.
___________

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.--Isaiah xiv, 7.

the quote above is from isaiah. the question is how is god so lenient with satan? he can destroy him, instead, keeps him at arms length. why? hint: what is the book of job without satan?

the devil represents evil, but why evil?there are several ways to look at this:

*ontological: good & evil are ontologically together. one cannot be thought without the other.  
*cosmological: history begins with goodness. evil is a "perversion" of things in time. some, not all good, becomes evil. after the end of history, evil disappears and we return to the original state of bliss.
*instrumental: (defended by spinoza): goodness is what is useful to us, evil the opposite.
*there is a beyond good and evil of nietzsche's transvaluation of all values which aims at erasing traditional christian theological borders.  
*mythological: good & evil are needed opposites: in egypt there's ra, osiris & isis against apep the serpent and set, the ravager, father of deceit and of lies. the phoenicians opposed baal to moloch and astarte, in india indra is opposed to vritra and the asuras. in persia ormuzd has to contend with ahriman for the lordship of the world, etc. so, there is a deeper mythological prototype that brands this good/evil association.
___________

now my thought experiment. can satan be forgiven? well, it's conceivable (here we count with god's omnibenevolence).

1. to be forgiven, satan would have to repent. repentance implies change, which is implicit in the notion of being. being is not what one is and it is what one is not (more of this sartrean lemma later). satan hasn't changed, presumably because he's chosen not to. his "fall" rests on this premise. one cannot invoke satan's "nature" causing satan's becoming, since the being of satan has a prehistory, i.e., lucifer. this prehistory of satan would have to be rejected to rule out this possibility for this prehistory is what causes satan.

2. satan's being cannot be self-ruled since "being" is what one finds as one exists. being is not self-presence to itself. being is time and time is not ecstatic. in fact, satan's being is related to the very exclusion of goodness from satan's nature in order to avoid thinking, reasoning the good (i.e., even in the heart of evil there must be a space for guilt). satan's evil (what we call "satanic") responds to perpetuating his own "nature" by restricting himself to thinking the good (or guilt, which is thinking one's erring). in order to be satan, he has to constantly defer goodness. so, in a sense, satan is not what he is. that is to say, there is always more or less to being than itself. this more or less is time, the unpredictable future. satan's "being," as stereotyped and beleaguered as it is, is no exception.

3. satan's repentance takes a reversal of that primeval rebellious act in his prehistory.  though he cannot become lucifer (since time & history cannot be undone), one can only speculate that he takes a more subdued role.

this reformed angel-who-was-satan wishes no more of his past. now he's content with god's forgiveness in oblivion. will it be time for another proud & inexperienced angel to take his place?  but then, could there be a universe of goodness without evil?

below, the list for the midterm and this week's post.

Yoga socio-political manifesto

atRifF 

Nature should have priority.¹ It's here first and sustains everything.

The guiding principle is ahimsa. Non-violence translated into deep & skeptic ecology, i.e, the interdependence of human and non-human life in a world out of joint. We cannot understand ourselves if we estrange ourselves from nature, but we're already estranged!   

Socio-political should start bottom-up, not top-down.² We don't need to wait for the top to change. As actors close to the local/regional nodes of action, we can acquire the know-how to build connections and mobilize public opinion to challenge institutional and social alienation.

* From the bottom ---> up: The initial transformation is individual but it doesn't stop there. We are ONE: There is no true path without some form of dharma/activism.³

* The aporia of human anthropocentric emancipation: We need to see non-human life under a different optic. The Greeks of ancient times didn't realize that non-Greeks were persons. American plantation owners in the late-18th Century didn't realize that blacks were not inferior brutes. The majority of Americans don't realize that non-human animals are more than just foodstuff. We have an obligation to treat animals with dignity⁴ (our present animal farming needs to be transformed from intensive farming ----> extensive farming).

* The aporia of pollution vs. development: Blaming corporations in order to feel safely excluded from the pollution cycle, while feeding the very thing we try to prevent. We are the world's worst polluters! ⁵

* Though it may be a little late, the move towards eco-conservation is a social imperative. Let's fight to stop deforestation, to protect sea life from extinction (due to overfishing), ensuring ecological diversity for future generations. Yes, it seems daunting, but it begins by understanding, doing & telling others. 

* The aporia of technology vs. emancipation: What makes us human is a result of our cultural evolution: language, rituals, arts and technology. Yet, our anthropocentric-based culture is leading us to a dead end. Let's move from an anthropocentric to a bio-centric culture!⁶  Technology = Culture. Technology is not the enemy. Humans cannot live without technology. Yet, technology has the imperative to preserve the delicate balance of Nature.

* We must learn to curb and manage our waste: Reuse, donate, recycle! Food is the primary ecological exchange of energy. Our corporate-driven, production-intensive food paradigm needs to be redefined, from fast food ----> slow food. ⁷ Let's switch our eating habits and bring back food sacralization. Let's turn environmental degradation and human exploitation into eco-erotics!⁸

* The aporia of development vs. under-development⁹: Our post-Capitalist global society is craft-deprived. Globalization has outsourced our manufacturing and trade/skills base. Let's get back to cooking, arts and crafts, organic horticulture,¹⁰ etc. We should balance our individualistic tendencies with cooperation & communitarianism!

* Let's change our cities, fighting urban decay with environmental sustainability, changing ugliness into beauty.

* Let's become eco-Romantics!¹¹ engaging in heritage conservation, infrastructure efficiency,  mass transit, regional integration, human scale, and institutional integrity.

* Let's transform our neighborhoods, building sustainable structures, limiting urban sprawl, reducing car dependence, promoting pedestrian friendly urbanism.¹²

What to do? 

Flipping Marxist formalism, let's turn the base into the superstructure. Our bid is for a different form of emergence: 

 anti-advertising, 

protest, 

social graffiti,
urban farming,

disvestment, 

Zenarchy, 

nonviolence, 

anarcho-syndicalism, 

building consensus,

civil disobedience,

E-democracy,

potlatch

ACT NOW!

____________

¹ Aristotle's naturalism can be seen as a forerunner of eco-thics, as expressed by his dictum that Nature does nothing in vain. John Clearly, Aristotle and the Many Senses of Priority, (Southern Illinois University Press, 1988) p. 60. ² We don't have to choose between markets (Welfare Capitalism) or governments, as instruments of emancipation (Communism, planned-economy Socialism). Nor is there need to eliminate markets, trade, private ownership, the welfare state, or the institution of the corporation. What we need to do is bring about new practices for each of these institutions appropriate to a balance between prosperity and conservation. This task belongs neither to corporations nor to states: They are incapable of questioning the legitimacy on which their present institutional form is based. Citizens, not big-money interests, have to set the terms of the economic and political agenda. This is the force of emergence: Millions of people joining voluntary movements, discovering that the good life is more fulfilling than the endless cycle of accumulation and consumption. Professor Steven Buechler makes a similar (hopeful) point: "Movements can be crucial switching stations in the direction of history (...)  vital free spaces that promote democratization and restore a meaningful public sphere." See Steven M. Buechler, Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism (Oxford University Press: 2000) p. 214.  Enacting Niyama at the social level can bring about a life of material sufficiency with cultural, intellectual, and spiritual abundance in balance with the environment. By osmosis, the social level can bring about needed changes in the political sphere. ³ One's embeddedness in a particular context: job, household/family, or community can lead one to recognize a problem, learn about community needs, and find a way to make life better through new -or reconfigured- social linkages.  ⁴According to philosopher Tom Regan, animals have "inherent value" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end. See, Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, (University of California Berkeley, 2005) p. 245. ⁵The United States has 4.2% of the world's population and produces 24% of the world's C0₂ emissions. ⁶One must be careful not to write off culture, as if humans have fallen from paradise straight into some artificial exile of civilization. This is where the ancient Greeks can help. They understood that us humans are not completely "natural" but rather the site of a collision of nature and culture, which uniquely defines us. See Bruce Thornton, Plagues of the Mind: The New Epidemic of False Knowledge (ISI Books, 1999) p. 96.  ⁷ "Slow food" goes against the received notion that cheap food = good food. Carlo Petrini, the man behind this movement defends the "unpolitical" idea that cheap food is really expensive, bad food, when compared with good, clean, carefully harvested food. He is right. In his book, Petrini advocates the idea of "gusto" (taste) and diversity. There is a correlation between slow food and health, which makes slow food more enjoyable. The locus for this revolucion is la osteria, a place where one can find "traditional cuisine run as a family business with simple service, welcoming atmosphere, good wine and moderate prices." See Carlo Petrini, Slow Food, the Case for Taste (Columbia University Press, 2003) p. 51-58. "Cheap food" is a Capitalist ploy to misrepresent real capital allocation and profit in the name of "abundance," hiding government subsidies for monoculture and intensive production which end up as profit for Big Business in food and energy. Take for instance American corn policies: We subsidize corn while (protect Monsanto's right to sell it to farmers as genetically modified seed). Coincidentally, corn is the foodstuff staple for raising cattle in the US (funded by whom?) and an energy commodity. Wonder why such a labor-intensive commodity such as meat is so cheap? Corn is heavily fertilized — both with chemicals like nitrogen and with subsidies from Washington. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop — at least until corn ethanol skewed the market — artificially low. That's your Big Mac @ McDonald's, a $5 meal bargain, with 1,400 calories (more than half the daily recommended requirement for adults). ⁸ I thank my friend Gene Ray from Scurvy Tunes, for his suggestion. I'd like to spin his idea of eco/erotics as an embodied striving for well-being that connects us with the animal and non-animal other (life). The opposite of eco/erotics is eros gone astray, a perversion of Nishkam Karma. A desire in the form of a will-to-control that aims to secure itself by mastering all around it. Ridden with anxiety, this eros reduces other to self. In fact, there are examples of such versions in modern times: Certain "peak" historic moments, when factors motivating nations and individuals, such as the desires for profit, security, and hegemony got transformed militaristic erotics. ⁹ It turns out that the mantra of "emancipated" Communist development in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean throughout the 1960's-1980's consisted in mimicking the Capitalist "anthropocentric development" model: 1- constant growth, 2- domination of nature, 3- industrialization and technologization of production and society at the expense of environmental degradation, abandonment of agriculture (land reform in this case meant very little, since arbitrary and exploitative prices were set by the bureaucrats, not by the farmers), massive migration to the cities, urban unemployment and loss of crafts skills. The deterioration of nature brought by these mistaken policies, was invoked by the communist  bureaucracies as a step in the right direction for the attainment of development. ¹⁰ Who would think of pursuing horticultural studies in Miami, now, when the expected move of disenfranchised farmers is from the rural areas to the city? Precisely! This overall migration has to do with the switch from farmer-produced to corporate-produced agriculture. How can one reverse it? By encouraging a more simple living. Diversifying instead of homogenizing food consumption; by making good, simple food (not gourmet food) a desired commodity, so that corporations are forced to alter their mode of production. Surely, one must be watchful of corporation's good intentions! It's all about awareness. Are people ready for it? After the subprime mortgage crisis, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, and BP's gulf disaster, the answer is yes. ¹¹ The new eco-Romantic is committed to ecological flourishing, but she is neither anti-technology, nor naive in her political expectations about Messianic utopias. The traditional Romantic lived in a paradox he was blind to. (H)e deprecated technology from his studio in the industrial-brought comfort of the pre-Modern city. We must see the good and bad in technology. The Industrial Revolution cannot be simply undone (the remedy would be worst than the disease). It needs to be transformed. Technology can serve us in using the ecosystem resources more efficiently. On the other hand, there is a strong historical relationship between growth in economic output and growing human demands on the earth's finite ecosystem. We've pushed since 1950's the human burden on the planet's regenerative systems, its soils, air, water, fisheries, and forestry systems beyond what the planet can sustain. Anthropocentric "development" is not the answer. Pushing for economic growth beyond the planet's sustainable limits accelerates the rate of breakdown of the whole. It also intensifies the competition between rich and poor for the earth's remaining output of life-sustaining resources. ¹² See my  "Miami's Urban Mess.

I'm closing this post next Wednesday at 11pm. 

is criticism relevant?

if you're interested in criticism, this is my take. (i brought up this post in class today).

an idea to solve the issue of missing posts

class: some of you owe me posts/comments. i'm giving you the opportunity to send me your comments to old posts (this and this) via email. remember, missing posts impact your final grade! 

teachings of vivekananda

here ia a selection of the teachings of vivekananda, disciple of ramakrishna.

My ideal, indeed, can be put into a few words, and that is: to preach unto mankind their divinity, and how to make it manifest in every movement of life.

Education is the manifestation of the perfection already in man.

We want that education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one's own feet.

So long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every man a traitor who, having been educated at their expense, pays not the least heed to them.

Whatever you think, that you will be. If you think yourselves weak, weak you will be; if you think yourselves strong, strong you will be.

If you have faith in all the three hundred and thirty millions of your mythological gods, … and still have no faith in yourselves, there is no salvation for you. Have faith in yourselves, and stand up on that faith and be strong; that is what we need.

Strength, strength it is that we want so much in this life, for what we call sin and sorrow have all one cause, and that is our weakness. With weakness comes ignorance, and with ignorance comes misery.

Purity, patience, and perseverance are the three essentials to success, and above all, love.

Teach yourselves, teach everyone his real nature, call upon the sleeping soul and see how it awakes. Power will come, glory will come, goodness will come, purity will come, and everything that is excellent will come when this sleeping soul is roused to self-conscious activity.

Religion is the manifestation of the Divinity already in man.

They alone live who live for others, the rest are more dead than alive.

This is the gist of all worship – to be pure and to do good to others.

It is love and love alone that I preach, and I base my teaching on the great Vedantic truth of the sameness and omnipresence of the Soul of the Universe.

the gospel of sri ramakrishna

find here the gospel of sri ramakrishna.

phi 2070 class: comments to posts are part of the final grade. check my syllabus!

why ahimsa

i'd like to go over some of the ideas we've discussed last class.

let's start here: ahimsa pressuposes the ability to strike. 

gandhi seems to imply that once one makes ahimsa a ruling principle, the possibility of self-defense, or striking for the sake of justice becomes automatically justified. on the other hand, himsa is not only violence, it implies a sense of lack of identification with life (jiva), a lack of understanding. himsa is basically avidya or ignorance.

this takes care of some of the points made in class about what to do in cases when one is faced with arbitrary injustice (such as the question of ahimsa under totalitarianism or slavery, etc). ahimsa is not an amorphous anomic attitude of inaction towards injustice. FAR FROM IT. it's an active principle of understanding the economy of the strike. truth never himsa a cause that is just.

 so we have: 1- everything is brahman, 2- if we're all brahman, my "other" = "me." 1 & 2 sort of imply 3- non-harming is more evolved than harming simply because it takes more of understanding and self-control. the easy distortion is to make "we're all brahman" look like a new-age fad while missing the subtlety of the lemma. am i ready to see other humans, non-human animals, non-animal life & non-living nature as i see myself?    

let's not ignore that himsa can easily get inscribed in a vicious economy of injustice. this is the well-known ancient semitic eye-for-an-eye, and nemo me impune lacessit, etc. a satyagrahi is never vindictive. he believes not in destruction but in conversion. ahimsa (as gandhi demonstrated) has important political and social consequences. in war, for example, with the so called jus ad bellum norms, in penology, in sociology, etc. no wonder martin luther king made ahimsa a central tenet of his struggle for civil rights in america in the 1960's. 

so, understanding is crucial.

let's entertain for a second the reincarnation metaphor of the jaina: within the cycle of rebirth, one's mother may be reborn as a stray dog. if, then, one is followed by a stray dog, one might ask oneself, "why me? why this particular dog? who might it have been in a previous life?" since time is beginningless, it is said that all beings have been reborn numberless times as the mothers of all other living beings. jainism understand -literally- that all beings are then our "mothers."  so, if a being tries to harm us today, at some time in the past it has nurtured us as our mother. this is why we should repay its kindness by seeking its welfare now.

here comes the turtle. it's quite easy to assume an anthropomorphic blind-sided attitude. the i'm-a-human-and-that's-it attitude. which doesn't go deep enough. what is human?

it's then that understanding the turtle becomes crucial. we living things ARE ALL JIVA! "humans" don't come from a different, special, pre-destined arrangement.

so long as one retains one's sword, one has not attain complete fearlessness.

earth, air, sea and plastic bags

atRiFf

The plastic bag is a thing of this world. A derivative of petroleum or natural gas, the plastic bag is a close relative of other esteemed domestic household objects: the salad bowl, the cheap kitchen clock, the asthma inhaler-device, the computer chassis, the CD we listen to. It figures as a part of our Teflon coated pans, the acrylic paint on our walls; as alloy to wind-resistant windows, even corn starch.

Every day millions of plastic bags are carried out of our malls and supermarkets. They wind up everywhere, peppering park's greenery, polluting the streets. A dense layer of flotsam (choking marine life) and jetsam (drifting to shore) dirtying our beaches.

Innocuous container or recalcitrant matter?

In his essay "Plastic Materialities," Gary Hawkins explores how things have the power to capture us in new relations. His idea is to show a less obvious perspective of the thing. In American Beauty, Ricky, the aspiring film maker and pot-head, is obsessed with beauty. He videotapes a plastic bag as it floats, to-and-fro, at the mercy of the wind. Ricky's video shows the thing-power, a "depth from which objects rise up towards our superficial knowledge."* Here's Ricky's narration:

It's one of those days when it's a minute away from snowing. And there is electricity in the air, you can almost hear it right? And this bag was just... dancing with me. Like a little kid begging me to play with it. For fifteen minutes. That's the day I realized there was this entire life behind things, and this incredible benevolent force that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid. Ever... video's a poor excuse. I know. But it helps me remember. (PM,  p. 135)

One can think of other examples, such as this, where plastic bag becomes a "plastic-bag chair."

Ryan Frank, Plastic Bag Chair, 2008.

Frank re-presents the material, but the plastic bag's form becomes aestheticized, subsumed, concealed.    

Shipwrecked: My Life for a Bag, 2010.

British artist Claudia Borgna, above, presents the plastic bag as an organized society of ready-mades. The bags stick together as a kind of ghostly soul-buddies. Is this a real accumulation of thing-power?

What is thing-power? 

Thing power is a kind of agency, it is the property of an assemblage. Thing-power materialism is a (necessarily speculative) onto-theory that presumes matter has an inclination to make connections and form networks with varying degrees of stability. Here, then, is an affinity between thing-power materialism and ecological thinking: both advocate and the cultivation of an enhanced sense of the extent to which all things are spun together in a dense web, and both warn of the self-destructive character of human actions that are reckless with regard to other nodes of the web.(PM, p. 135)

I'd like to read Bennet's thing-power with Shvetashvatara's holistic glasses. The old Hindu sage would agree that all things "are spun together in a dense web". But "the self-destructive character of human actions" is as much part of the web as the rest. If the living and the non-living are connected, then creation and destruction become connective possibilities.

Shvetashvatara is not afraid to talk thing-power from the bottom up:

You are a woman, you are a man, you are a boy; also a girl. As an old man you totter along with a walking stick. As you are born you turn your face in every direction. You are the dark blue bird, the green one with red eyes, the rain-cloud, the seasons, and the oceans. (...) You live as one without a beginning because of your pervasiveness, you, whom all beings have been born. (Shvetashvatara Upanishads, 4.2-4.4)

In a perverse geological sense, we are walking plastic bags!

If ecology is going to address living and non-living, then clouds, air, trees, earth, sand, proteins, viruses, humans, plastic bags are all part of the whole. What's the point of differentiating when everything is (a part of) Brahman?**

We cannot think outside the whole. There is a democracy of creation and destruction everywhere. If we destroy ourselves that's inside the whole. Nothing and everything is it. Only by facing this predicament can we understand how to deal with our mounting ecological problems.

On the other hand, this sea turtle is out of the loop.*** Though part of a network that includes sun, sand, sea, predators, plastic bags, etc, it cannot fathom the subtleties and contradictions of thing-power. Think about it, the turtle is jiva amidst the all-absorbing power and extent of ajiva. We have to find new ways to deal with our living/non living dichotomy.

Is it really about them or about us? Or is it both?

___________
* Jane Bennet, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, (Duke University, 2010) p. 2. **Brahman doesn't have to be our anthropomorphic God. Just the totality of all things put together. *** Plastic bags are among the 12 items of debris found most often in coastal cleanups, according to the nonprofit Center for Marine Conservation. Marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles can become entangled in the bags, and sea turtles can mistake them for food such as jellyfish, then die from starvation resulting from intestinal blockage.

secularism or theocracy?

here is the post i mentioned in class today (you are welcome to post your opinion here if you want).

we have a philosophy club

leave your name and the position you want: president, vicepresident, treasurer, secretary. if you are not pursuing a position, leave your name anyway, or any questions you may have.

kafka, prometheus & the inexplicable

"There are four legends concerning Prometheus:

According to the first he was clamped to a rock in the Caucasus for betraying the secrets of the gods to men, and the gods sent eagles to feed on his liver, which was perpetually renewed.

According to the second Prometheus, goaded by the pain of the tearing beaks, pressed himself deeper and deeper into the rock until he became one with it.

According to the third his treachery was forgotten in the course of thousands of years, forgotten by the gods, the eagles, forgotten by himself.

According to the fourth everyone grew weary of the meaningless affair. The gods grew weary, the eagles grew weary, the wound closed wearily.

There remains the inexplicable mass of rock. The legend tries to explain the inexplicable. As it comes out of the substratum of truth it has in turn to end in the inexplicable."

Sri Aurobindo or why you cannot escape (as much as you want) philosophy

By Sri Aurobindo Ghosh 

Aurobindo (1870-1950), perhaps India's foremost "modern" philosopher, wrote profusely on a multitude of topics and themes. His idea of integral nondualism is very attractive and controversial:

Aurobindo holds that reality in its inmost essence is non-dual, non-verbal, and non-conceptual. That is to say, indeterminable and logically indefinable, yet reality is accessible to direct experience on the non-verbal level, to the penetrative insight of spiritual intuition born of the integration of human personality.  Non-dual reality is beyond the scope of categories including that of number (?). Strictly speaking, monism, unitarianism, trinitarianism, pluralism, etc., are just different human ways of intellectual comprehension of the various aspects of reality. Caveat: Is Aurobindo's own nondual integral philosophy not just another way?

For Aurobindo, even monism (which utters a profound truth in proclaiming the fundamental unity of existence) commits the rationalistic fallacy of identifying reality with a conceptually formulated principle or intellectual scheme. Monism interprets the essence of reality in terms of the concept of the One, a determinate logical or dialectical structure, or a sum of well-defined powers and qualities.

Nondualism is opposed to such identification of reality with a determinate principle of unity. Either the conceptually formulated One as "infinite substance" of Spinoza  (scroll down for the definition), or the absolute idea of Hegel, represents only a particular metaphysical standpoint, a specific rationalistic way --one among many ways-- of comprehending the nature of reality. According to nondualism (advaita), reality is beyond one and many, beyond substance and quality, beyond cause and effect, and beyond any rigidly conceived thought structure. So, reality is not to be equated with any conceptual formulation or logical construction, or system of words and symbols.

The problem is how do you avoid categorization? Aurobindo seems not to see that identification or miss-identification is a necessary condition of any  worldmaking. What do you think?

getting "it," recycling thoughts, hermeneutic cycle, my bad & salvation as illusion

remember i'm closing the post on m.bourbaki friday at 11pm. 

excellent class discussion. thanks. more voices, more yin, more plurality, more minds working in unison at the same yielding better results.

some points worth remembering:

* the more you get "it" the less you "get" it (this is only a cautionary metaphor).
* micro/macro should be handled carefully. when micro implodes into its opposite the metaphor ends up cannibalizing itself.
* listening is important.
* own the moment. you know.
* let's recycle more (both metaphysically and ecologically)  

about the importance of texts, don't worry too much for the original language. philosophy is more than hermeneutics.  too much to hermeneutics is a potentially vicious cycle: is the interpreter not -just- another interpretation? and what makes this one better than the other since there's nothing but interpretations to appeal to?

is there a way out? yes. a slap in the face. true philosophy is a speculative discipline. mental gymnastics. thought experiments. possible worlds. let go, but remember: PROBLEMATIZE!

a point about my use of moksha in my post on hinduism brought to me by jonathan at the end of the class. the meaning of moksha, literally, is salvation, not confusion (as the link in the post obviously indicates). i used it loosely making a leap which i didn't justify in detail. you see: i believe that salvation presupposes a fundamental illusion. why? 

first, a theological problem: maya, the deity of illusion: divine mother constantly weaving a phenomenal veil of "as ifs," right before our eyes. is the deity's intention to deceive? well, she does, she has to (each has to do what he/she does).

secondly, an ontological problem: salvation presupposes a safe-conduct, earned tit-for-tat. to win salvation one must work at it. he/she who is saved has something to show for. why is one saved? one wants it more than anything. wanting salvation is a desire for salvation. and yet, that desire (as you'll see very soon) is detached. remember our conversation about yajna (sacrifice). if one gives to receive, is there sacrifice?  salvation means working at it, becoming better, i.e., feeling better. feeling is part of the journey. but behold, feeling is problematic because it means attachment: the very thing that salvation rids one of. so, in a sense, there is no salvation -eternal life, bliss, one-ness, call it what you like- that would not preclude the possibility of attachment (selfishness) re-appearing. this is the point of this important passage in the patanjali sutras:  

III, 50: When the presiding-deities invite, there should be no attachment and no smile of satisfaction, contact with undesirable being again possible. Comment: This is the moment when everything can be lost or everything gained; it is the moment when the superior powers are themselves to be rejected, even as the visions and ecstatic experiences of the saints are to be rejected since they are manifestations of the divine but do not themselves constitute the divine experience. To rest in these accomplishments is ultimately no better and possibly worse than the activities he or she came from initially. 

how is it possible that there shouldn't be any attraction (attachment) to the invitation of the deities right at the moment of salvation? it seems to contradict the very idea of the gift of salvation, isn't it? unless the hope for salvation is ego-driven. isn't the place of mortals to be with mortals? will not "the saved" come back always again in the endless wheel of samsara?  

salvation, thus, precludes a state of "confusion," in the sense that true salvation is not (cannot) be exempt from the possibility of contamination, i.e., the very idea of being saved as something completely other than what needs salvation. which brings me to this question:

is maya a global state of things? is it a lack we all suffer? if maya a necessity, i.e, god  playing games with us when she asks me to be self-vigilant. but wait, even atman (i.e., my access to self) can be illusory! how do i know that the self i think i've found is not a travesty? (which is why we need to get to a subtler state of mind by leaving the "thinking" mind behind).

of course, this discussion of the confusion of salvation needs more time.

i wanted to thank jonathan for the observation. true, moksha means salvation, but the desire for salvation always presupposes avidya, another meaning for the confusion of illusion (i should have made the observation and i didn't).

if you want to tackle this discussion is fine with me. i left the comment box open.