Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Necromancer
Looking at your age, you are two years younger than myself. I was curious.
As I get older, I realise that all personal truths are totally relative. It is what led to the election of the current US president (re: alternative facts).
I also learned that people will believe whatever they want about anything and climate change is the perfect example.
Some can see the immediate effects backed up with a century's worth of statistical data, and others cannot see any change at all, saying "show me the records for 500 years ago!" however, the disbelief has more of a political agenda so as not to ratify any other country's protocols regarding it.
Some believe the earth is flat, some believe and act as if Christianity IS religion and condemn all religion in the name of Christianity, saying "religion is responsible for massive genocide and persecutions" without using the word 'Abrahamic' and so, I say "Hinduism and Buddhism are both religions the last time I looked".
Some believe the new era of spiritual salvation is upon us, when there's no real global evidence of it apart from "people are more disenchanted with organised Christianity than ever before" as a basis for that belief.
Then, there are those who will say "non-duality" is the true path and "duality" is the false one as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive and 'true' and 'false' is a dual dichotomy within itself.
Then others will say "your God is yours and my God is mine" when God is God and how can there be a 'my God" and a "your God?" so, is our version of God mostly in-house? while ever there exists a 'version' of God, then It is in-house, however, when there's an invariant concept of the omniscient and omnipresent almighty, it's pretty much a universal nomenclature.
The aspect of variability can lead to invariability and then according to others the version is 'in-house' because it's experiential, but according to the experiencer, it is absolutum in toto and can be anything and everything it presents itself to be.
|
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Asimov
Sounds true enough, and yet
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Albert Einstein, Essay to Leo Baeck (1953)
Hmmmm... perhaps what is true is more difficult to discern then I thought.
“The opposite of a trivial truth is false; the opposite of a great truth is also true.”
Niels Bohr
Sounds like quite a mystical pickle to me!
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all
art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of
wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for
us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose
gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is
the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself
among profoundly religious men." Albert Einstein
Perhaps this uneasy mysticism is not so bad after all.
“He had started to suspect that his venerable father and his other teachers, that the wise Brahmans had already revealed to him the most and best of their wisdom, that they had already filled his expecting vessel with their richness, and the vessel was not full, the spirit was not content, the soul was not calm, the heart was not satisfied. The ablutions were good, but they were water, they did not wash off the sin, they did not heal the spirit's thirst, they did not relieve the fear in his heart. The sacrifices and the invocation of the gods were excellent—but were that all? Did the sacrifices give a happy fortune? And what about the gods? Was it really Prajapati who had created the world? Was it not the Atman, He, the only one, the singular one? Were the gods not creations, created like me and you, subject to time, mortal? Was it therefore good, was it right, was it meaningful and the highest occupation to make offerings to the gods? For whom else were offerings to me made, who else was to be worshiped but Him, the only one, the Atman? And where was Atman to be found, where did He reside, where did his eternal heart beat, where else but in one's own self, in its innermost part, in its indestructible part, which everyone had in himself? But where, where was this self, this innermost part, this ultimate part? It was not flesh and bone, it was neither thought nor consciousness, thus the wisest ones taught. So, where, where was it? To reach this place, the self, myself, the Atman, there was another way, which was worthwhile looking for? Alas, and nobody showed this way, nobody knew it, not the father, and not the teachers and wise men, not the holy sacrificial songs! They knew everything, the Brahmans and their holy books, they knew everything, they had taken care of everything and of more than everything, the creation of the world, the origin of speech, of food, of inhaling, of exhaling, the arrangement of the senses, the acts of the gods, they knew infinitely much—but was it valuable to know all of this, not knowing that one and only thing, the most important thing, the solely important thing?”
― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha
Perhaps, when all is said and done,
“Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else ... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it.”
― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha
Oh well,
“Namaste Necromancer”, Ketzer
|