{Part 1 – 22/10/2016}
A preamble on Eastern philosophy, religion, idol worship (nb. not referencing F. Bacon[I], but weakly alluding), and phenomenological incongruencies.
Any reference to Indian
(whether defining geographically, as did the Muslims, vis the river, or by cultural genealogies, via translocated Arayan, [aka] Brahman lineage, or Tantric resurgence [nb. meridian axis or at least some north/south trending-dichotomy], or by religious affiliation along the spectrum of the major threads [Vishnu/Krisha-associated, Buddha-wheel, Jain-revelations*] whilst appreciating at least some degree of internal fractality [esp. for the “Hindu” *FIND THE OTHER TITLE*], or by Judaic allegory, or most flexibility as a fuzzy set of philosophies)
thought must justify excising (or otherwise [e.g. not needing to]) its spiritual and supernatural affiliations (to an extent unfamiliar in the West [I mean here West Roman and Christian descended] except for maybe Boethius** [nb. I did not mention e.g. Augustine, for whom the opposite is the difficulty).
Onwards:
Buddhism is a philosophy surrounded by hagiography (cf. Socratic lineages, incl. Epicurean, Stoic, Platonic, and directly Socratic, incl. Cynical, with analogies made between the Sangha and the Greek communes, esp. Stoic and Epicurean).
Its theory of mind can be read as paradigmatic, or phenomenological (cf. esp. Husserl). Its stories can be read as vehicles (cf. fragments relating to Diogenes the Dog, but also principles underlying the vehicular nature of oral/cultural traditions).
Its pragmatics can be read as paradigmatic, or more literally tested pragmatically and personally. Its supernatural claims can be read as allegorical, or discarded, as can its historical claims.
Its core and plethoric venerations are not necessarily problematic at first sight (esp. if tempered), but may delude their participants (e.g. into not doubting that this philosophy does not have its own blind spot which dissolves any attempt to scry into things that unsay themselves and echo things already said).
“Hinduism” includes (and can be approached via) monotheistic and non-theistic traditions (and everything in-between).
In addition to its discussion of traditional practices (esp. various yoga), the BG is a manifestation of the perennial struggle for spiritual existence (to which I add an allusion of “that which does not follow from what is seen”). It also (for me) encourages an allegory of the introspective landscape as a plurality of characters, and additionally, whose relationships can be summarized by a narrative epic that is simultaneously unfolding and static.
Its older texts (with particular reference to the Rg Veda) strongly imply polytheism, but not in any sense that can be intuited (at least by whatever restrictions of my mind). They express (to me) experiential engagements, that overlap the world of physical appearances/actions and the world of concepts, astoundingly fluid and metamorphic***.
Its associated yogas can (or should) be known in themselves (i.e. discrete from their surrounding literature). Bhakti yoga should not be underestimated. Jnana yoga I found to be more of an ethos than a mode (per se) of engagement. Hatha (or asana) yoga and prana yoga I would value in relation to dhnaya yoga. and I roll samadhi yoga into the latter (nb. the frailty of my experiences). (And I am unfamiliar with the ethical yogas, and am sceptical of the purifying ones).
I annotate my catalogue entries on yoga with some unscientific (cf. Popper) quasi-mythological pointers [#programming]. First I have them quasi-justified by principles of “shared abstractions”. Second I have them presented quasi-kabbalistically by principles of lower order garments of letters****.
To be continued with a discussion of phenomenological incongruencies, then on idols, then on the value of these for dreamers, with the optional inclusion of very brief notes on the communication bridge between India and Israel.
* I know approximately nothing about Sikhism. Also, nb. whilst I discuss here “Indian”, my familiarity with Buddhist phenomenology and texts is almost entirely Theravadan (btw. any further explanation of geography will tend towards ironic redundancy).
** Btw. it is probably more common for those who agree with this example to misunderstand (e.g. that his Consolations are written post-Christian, when in fact that is precisely the reading that needs to be justified). That said, at some point, one must read the obituary written by Barthes [if one is not willing to walk into the library with a candlestick or leadpipe themselves, and write the post-script that Boethius could not].
*** This further encouraged later curiosity in dreaming-engagements, esp. where preserved in contemporary society.
{Part 2 – 22/10/2016}
Errata and post-scripts:
- Regarding the reference to Augustine. I add this thought: The same could be said (borderline, but without the intention, heretically) of the scholastic heritage within Judaism, including the dazzling Rambam). I add this thought: This is approachable by way of Levinas’ reading of Jewish textual engagement (to which I would add a bias for a mythology of the temporal landscape as an unfolding, and which if imagined in its Parmenidian state, carries a tautology which is analogous to that between a songline and its geography).
- I add the parallel case regarding Pythagorean Platonism (whether from Plato, or from his Academy, or from later eclectic derivations) and Jewish mysticism, e.g. regarding the teachings of emanations, as well as the genre of intellectual architecture that links the singularity and the plurality.
- To the paragraph introducing the BG: I add this point: That book differentiates between the existential drive to uniting with the infinite, versus the worship which it seems to treat as implicitly idolatrous (although without justification by way of polytheism), but does not rule as evil [I would guess “deluded” in the locally technical sense]. There are various genealogical, theological, and phenomenological deliberations one could expand from here.
- Regarding the many faces of Hinduism: I add this: The early Muslims (ref?) noted the substantial difference (I would summarize as “divide”) between the theology of the higher castes (which was similar to Islam’s genre) and the rest of the population.
{Part 3 – 19/02/2017}
This is one way of how what I think Judaism is.
Life is a tapestry of perspectives.
But does life have a point?
Only if we can connect to the truth could we know.
Truth is infinite [in its limited sense, compared to the Infinite]
Can we know the infinitI? [neologism, meaning infinite & I]
The Ancient Greeks and Indus gurus, and every tiny corner of this world has thought of in some way of seeing “more”.
It would need an infinite point of contact (if it is to be known more than as a mathematical theorem or spark of great wisdom [the wisdom that is the fire of the bonfire around which we all sit]
It is remembered by many that such an event did take place.
One way in which one could think about this (viz. How would one know All?)
One way is this:
Well, you know how life, we notice lots of coincidences that mostly are nothing?
The % of these that reflect your life is how you are adding/removing hindrances.
[Cf. Rambam
Mechirah – Chapter Eleven]
So you have to go through life knowing that life is % assisting you, and % not-assisting you.
THIS MEANS we have to mistrust what we think % of the time (i.e. according to how we see cups half full/empty correctly, which are the % relative to % hindrances. So we’re all basically playing the same game here in our different colours.
(And you can’t just become cleverer to outmaneuver yourself. In that case, the complexity of life creates bigger paradigms you are swimming against their current
^ If you do this for a while, you’ll notice narratives surrounding how well you are scouting life properly. Then narratives of narratives (which is a bombastic but informative way of saying, that we will learn to decorate our life with more and more things that give us meaning) [cf. expression “richness of life”]
(as n approaches infinity, so too as life becomes richer (in sense of soil, not fruit platter)
We can short-cut improvements in % the more we see the infinite speaking out of each person that we see
It is hard for me not to be too afraid to look honestly and truly into another’s eyes and allowing my voice to reach my own heart
[If Universities published old textbooks online it would be good for everyone]]
A picture of Earth showing the countries is limiting. This is like learned from “We say (remember) [verses corresponding to] Our Ancestors were rescued through history into now in the evenings. The Rabbi Eliezar ben Elazar said that despite his power of having lived 70 years (like the ayin of Shema) he wouldn’t have thought we can imagine freedom when enslaved but he saw an argument between Ben Zoma and the Wise Communities about whether people would still commemorate the freedom from Egypt when free forever?
* This is because the discussion revolves on the word for “every”, since everyone agrees that the “every day of a life added up together combine into some greater whole” (i.e. that each life tells an entire story in itself)
So too, every person in every places on earth on an entire planet (right now) Earth, must combine into something that is greater than their sum.
The Torah says that the rainbow was given as a sign to promise that life would not end.
The rainbow was our first gift.
I’m still studying it, so I don’t know much of the text, but I think its like there are levels at which this can be seen.
1. The “dew” feeling in life, you know, that general grow of improvement and safety (as opposed to the feeling that life is pushing upwards, and you only get what you put in which isn’t always enough on both ends).
(I think faithful of many types, those who take solace from their wisdom of trust, are stereotyped as being more satisfied
2. It’s not like every thought, idea, transition of experience, is good or bad 100%, life is a gradient of gradients, it’s not just about whether life is ok, its about which way the passage of experience is moving in its myriad dimensions. We don’t just need to navigate between experiences, we need to chisel them out of our raindrops of choices that are every second of Eternity
We have to judge ourselves all the time. But so long as we accept our own verdict, we must know that every person would admire them for doing so and forgive their imperfection (nb. regarding our being imperfect at chiselling life)
Every time we do so, we are setting up a little blade of grass, or sometimes seed for a flower or tree (or thorny weed)
These will combine (cf. “every”) to form a garden, that is the living gardener (aka life)
[cf. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Daily Tanya, Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 26]
By presuming that we are all doing this we great/create a system of justice
{Part 4 – 19/02/2017}
Life is like a piece of land that is yours.
Above us is a sky, at night we can see stars and we can draw as many constellations as the number of our dreams.
(* cf. Avraham promised)
The more “stars that agree in our constellations” (viz. the more our dreams overlap), the more they are “real”
But we are not limited by the stars.
{Part 5 – 19/02/2017}
I think that Shabat is a strange nexus point (among many, but a significant one in many ways including) which connects to the Torah (in many ways including)
The Torah studied around a Shabat, and the observance of its inherited laws helps install “Torah”, which is like one of the controllers which help “fly our plane through the sky”.
