causticus: trees (Default)
None of these are my original ideas, save the way I have worded them today; rather these concepts are just regurgitations of wisdom that's been expresses over and over again throughout the ages:

1. The universe is under no obligation to cater to our notions.

2. Our everyday experiences are but momentary flickers of ever-changing sense impressions; everything we hold near and dear in the Mundane mode of living are but fleeting moments.

3. The following things are not You: your physical body, your sensations, your emotions, your worldly identity in this life, your beliefs and opinions; among other things.

4. That much-talked-about All-God of everything in existence, i.e. what in the most intellectually honest manner we can call “the Good” or “the One,” is too abstract and far-removed from everyday experience and knowledge for the vast majority to make any coherent sense of, much less worship in any meaningful manner; and thus a personal-god-proxy (a Patron of good repute) is an appropriate substitute for this highest principle; alternatively, a pantheon of gods is also suitable, with each representing virtues and cosmic principles.

5. The Gods you chose for spiritual work should represent virtues and principles that are conducive to spiritual growth and virtuous living.

6. Mundane living is the mode of everyday existence in this world which involves nothing sacred, be it in thought, word or deed; Sacred Living is the mode of existence in this world whereby every single day involves the sacred in some capacity, be it in thought, word of deed; a lapse for even a day in the way of Sacred Living means the Mundane creeps back in and takes over our lives; the Mundane mode is the mother of stagnation and spiritual amnesia; it’s what keeps as passive passengers of life rather than pilots.

7. To blame the world or the universe for your sorrows or misfortunes is to surrender one’s own agency and thus render oneself an object, as opposed to being a subject.

8. Talking the talk is to talk about virtues, right conduct and divine principles; walking the walk is to be a walking example of virtues, right conduct and divine principles; virtue is certainly not the mere act of talking about virtue, as anyone can talk a good game; be skillful and excellent without fanfare.

9. If a person, a teacher, a daemon/genius/vaettir, or a god/deva is not reputed to embody anything in the way of virtues, right conduct and divine principles, then simply pay them no heed.

10. To maintain a daily regimen of Sacred Living, abide by a list of precepts which encourage the practice of virtues and right conduct and the avoidance of bad habits and damaging interactions; keep to those precepts daily as best you can.
causticus: trees (Default)
What do the οἱ πολλοί want in a belief system or way of conducting social affairs? Certainly nothing that requires much in the way of mental effort. They either seek out clear instructions from some kind of above, or they want to be serenaded with sweet, empty sayings that validate their prejudices and LCD-consensus-dictated groupthink opinions on what is and isn't reality.

And thus, for the would-be prophet, or seer, or philosopher, or even humble teacher: is the age-old struggle of proclaiming Truth vs. providing a sturdy glue that works against the natural (as in "state of nature") force we could call social entropy; Plato called this glue "the Noble Lie." In more plain-speak we simply know this as a consistent narrative that provides direction for the weakest link and reduces the number of annoying questions to a bare minimum. In the even older days, those members of the tribe who had no business questioning, implicitly knew their place as one who does not poke at things beyond their natural grasp; without effort it was acknowledged that there was a designated social strata properly equipped to deal with the aforementioned questions on life. Aristocratic and Timocratic man understands this timeless principle with little difficulty. With Oligarchic man (that mental state of insolence known as Vaishya ascendancy), the old wisdom starts getting called into question by the ignorant and licentious, and things like rationalism, sophistry, cynicism and nihilism start creeping their way to the forefront of popular opinion. The past 500 years of our current Western civilization have been almost completely defined by those ways of thinking, speaking, and doing. When the societal decline hits its quickening phase, Democratic man rears his ugly head, gathers together in a frenzied mob, starts taking a sledgehammer to anything and everything above its collective level of virtue, beauty, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and anything else of a higher, more noble nature than its own unrepentant baseness; in the spirit of fanatical envy, the mob brings bane unto the upright mortals of this world.

So we can see that the mob requires order, structure, guidance, and most importantly a higher example to follow. Left to their own devices, the mob will pursue its "needs" in an anarchic zombie state: food, comfort, sex, excitement, distractions, material riches, illusory "power" gains, and whatnot. And little known to each cog within the mob, all these things provide only temporary (and again, illusory) pleasure, and of course just end up binding each one to the wheel of suffering; which is the seemingly-endless repetition of mistakes and thus retardation of the spiritual evolution process. In actuality, Spirit is hierarchical (not an any kind of egocentric sense); and it's certainly the DUTY of those who have cultivated spiritual merit to guide those are behind them. Right-hierarchy is true compassion, solidarity, and love for life.

So what might the οἱ πολλοί desire in doctrines?
1. Assistance with addressing life's troubles, or at least what they perceive those troubles to be.
2. Structure/order/predictability
3. A Good Story to make the above palatable to whatever state of consciousness they currently dwell in. Thanks, Tyrion Lannister for help on this third item.
causticus: trees (Default)
I do believe True Friendships do occur, but they aren't all that common.

In my view, friendships between non-related individuals are usually more temporary and situational than they are enduring beyond specific situations. By situational, I mean friendship based on a common intellectual interest, occupation, hobby, athletic activity, ect. Such situations are usually bound to a specific place and span of time. Being time-based there is a built-in expiration date on these common types of friendships.

For example, a friendship with a workmate might come to an abrupt close if I were to move to another job and after that we had little in else in common to converse about. We could see from that particular situation, our amicable social interactions probably revolved around things confined to the work environment; conversational topics like complaining about the bosses, gossiping about co-workers. On top of that we may have discussed frivolous things like sports, pop culture, and things of that nature. And perhaps being on good terms with that workmate conferred material advantages for me. Let's say he was chummy with our immediate manager and thus maintaining a friendly rapport with this workmate would reduce the probability that he might speak despairingly about me behind my back to the boss. Upon leaving that job, there's no real material reward from investing the time and energy required to maintain this rapport. And thus when the investment ceases, the relational bond begins to degrade until finally both parties become completely estranged from each-other.

Aristotle, in his great work on ethics, distinguished three types of friendship:
(1) Friendships of use
(2) Friendships of pleasure
(3) Philia, or True Friendships

Friendships of use are those relationships based on mutual advantage, where we hang out with people who do us some good; business acquaintances, e.g. Use-Friends wish each other something of use. Like pleasure-friends, use-friends can easily stop being friends; they do whenever one is no longer of any use to the other. Such friendship can be criticized, says Aristotle.

Read more... )
Page generated Dec. 28th, 2025 06:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios