posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:52 AM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
Thats one of the more unpopular aspects of truth telling.
Yes it can get ugly, knowing what to say is one thing, knowing when not to say anything is another. I still have difficulty with it and probably
Which is why an image of a "shaman" being highly thought of by their group is kinda wishful thinking.
Generally speaking, as I am sure many of you must know, "what is" is often in discord with "what the majority wishes or believes is." Not always,
of course, but frequently. I think the image of someone who kind of sits on the fringe of their group, and during the prosperous times is generally
ignored by most, but during dangerous times is sought or listened to (or blamed and killed) is a more accurate image of what a "shaman" or mystic
would look like.
Yes I think thats what modern living has done for the group. They want the opinion of a professional over the opinion of the most grounded person they
know. Instead they will probably come to you for sympathy and the chance to vent their frustration. Unfortunately mystics/shamans can end up martyring
themselves for the greater good because of their selflessness/compassion, allthough I think that is where the paths of Mysticism and Shamanism divide
they work the same ground in different ways and outcomes.
I agree. Born or switched on, or even both. (Born with the inclination, then ignoring or repressing it to try and fit in better, then having it
suddenly switch on with a vengeance, for instance)
Yes, both for me, due to my nature my growth was in fits and starts, I got lost for a few years every now and then.
I have noticed the same thing. I read the spiritual texts to hear nuance, and differing positions/angles of the insights, but not to get the insight
itself. That always seems to arise or become apparent inside first. Sometimes unbidden, suddenly, but often a question begins the process
that ends in insight. I find some of the texts useful in helping to frame new questions. I also read them to give myself more word choices to explain
a concept to another if I am asked. More imagery to use. The "thing in itself" is impossible to put into words cleanly, without error, and having a
larger arsenal of imagery and words and concepts from various cultures makes it a bit more likely that I can communicate that concept to another.
Though I have found that even then, more often than not the word(s) is/are grabbed, not the underlying concept. People tend to look at the finger, not
I've been fortunate for the guidance I was offered, because I needed it badly at times. When you live in a world of profundity it's impossible to
wander off in any direction and not return to where you left off. I've met some interesting/amazing people but those who impressed upon me the most
and grew to cherish were the teachers, a skill I sadly do not possess as much as I would have liked. You seem to have the ability to teach with much
patience and sharing that is evident. My patience only goes as far as watching people learn through their mistakes, and then occasionly helping them
off the floor when they fail to understand the lesson stemming from the experience.
I did not, however, give a complete exposition, nor did Dionysios ask for one. For he professed to know many, and those the most important, points,
and to have a sufficient hold of them through instruction given by others. I hear also that he has since written about what he heard from me,
composing what professes to be his own handbook, very different, so he says, from the doctrines which he heard from me; but of its contents I know
nothing; I know indeed that others have written on the same subjects; but who they are, is more than they know themselves. Thus much at least, I can
say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or
by their own discoveries-that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter.
If you read the letter in full, buried in it, (around the middle) is a very good analysis of why words do not suffice to convey. Plato was an
incredibly intelligent man who just happened to be a "mystic" or "shaman" (though he isnt thought of as that by most moderns) and he considered
very carefully the language problem. Perhaps thats why so many inclined towards both writing and "the things to which he devoted himself" express
this in poetry, or harmless tales, rather than direct exposition.
There is no substitute for the lesson without words.
I have sympathy for Plato when he had to deal with the vanity of Dionysius and his ilk. He had a great teacher no doubt and would have needed all the
guidance Socrates could muster when dealing with the 'great and the good' of Athens.
I agree, the mis-representation of Plato by contemporary scholars is a sad indictment of their understanding, groaning inwardly has become an
unpopular past-time with me when I care to listen to the academics and the lack of regard for wisdom. I once observed an impromptu slandering of
Rupert Sheldrake, the academic closed his address with 'an open mind is an empty mind' it wasn't just the stupidity of the statement It was the
triumphalism in which it was delivered that sticks in my craw even today.