Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
From: quixote@cix.compulink.co.uk (Aurelio Barranco)
Subject: Re: more guts
Reply-To: quixote@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:50:00 +0000


> 
> The difference between the Vedas and *anything* western is *practice*.  The
> Vedas have an associated *practice* which can yield defined physiological
> changes.  Westerners talk, or they go to church, where while they may sing,
> blab, or at best pretend their speaking foreign languages as they writhe on
> the floor--have no practice with defined physiological outcomes such as in
> meditation with breathing exercises.

Why do you need to excercise the body in order to effect the mind or
soul. If the soul is indeed independant of the body as I understand
you are suggesting then yoga may indeed be very much a waste of time.
I don't say this in a flippant manner, but your dismissal of the
purely intellectual pursuit of 'enlightenment' seems based upon
*practice*. Did not Nietsche practice, even if it was in a sedentary
manner. Physiological changes ...... if it's physiological changes
you want take up body building, marathon running or beer drinking
.... all of these produce well documented physiological changes.

> Why doesn't electricity need a light bulb?  It just don't hunny.

A very flippant and not very helpful analogy. We can all make
statements like this, but then I don't believe my soul is electric in
nature.

> The short answer IMHO is "for the soul to learn that existence is not
> contingent on material sustenance."  But who cares?  It's not mine to say for
> you.  It is for you to discover if you will.

and of course unless you are capable or brilliant enough to realise
all implications and all possibilities yourself, reading the works of
other thinkers may very well bring to light alternatives that may
have escaped you. Be they eatern or western in origin.

> You really meant to say "Unfortunately for most of us..." right?  How else
> does one become anything more than a big pompous blowhard unless others
> question the validity of his statements.  I wasn't really advocating patent

Of course what we are taliking about here is purely philosophical
debate. Something that is not covered by mathematics or any science.
It is all opinion and subjective insight. No one can produce a set of
credentials to validate their beliefs. This therefore makes statments
like 'who are you and how do you know ?' pretty pointless. All a
person can do to validate any statement is show that they have indeed
given the matter considered thought, not just a quick opinion over a
pint of newcastle brown.

> rudeness afterall.  It's just that I take offense at citations of The Big
> Name(tm) while The Big Name(tm) may in fact have no real substance.  In any
> serious philosophically critical discussion, it is incumbent on the
> participants to question--in my view anyway.

Of course you are equally guilty of using the Big Name(tm). Humans
tend to come up with the same idea or even ideal time and time again.
All the study of philosophical writings does is allow a complicatred
argument to be discussed with a common point of reference. Without a
common language and background argument becomes loaded down with
teaching each other your own reference point. Where you're coming
from as it were. :)

> this planet.  At any given time I may face my death.  E=MC@+(2) has no value
> to me in this context.  Perhaps it describes something useful if I could piece

The possibility that there may indeed be nothing more than this poor
earth bound existence should make you reconsider your dismisal of all
earthly things and works of scientists that may result in physical if
not spiritual benefits to mankind. Roll on Fusion power.

>in the west.  So what?  What matters is what is, and no one can *tell* you what
>is--east or west.  No one can answer the question "why are we here?"  Only you

Included in amongst the people that can't tell you what is or what is
not is ... yourself. We can only discover for ourselves what may be,
or what we believe may be. It's called belief, the basis of all
religion be it on a bed of nails or in a church.

>going to answer it at all--never.  Using mathematical formalisms to assess our
>lives is like fishing with a toothpick, you might get something, but not much
>fish.  As far as western philosphy goes, forget it.

Mathematical formalisms are a language used to discuss abstract
concepts which may or may not have a bearing on reality. As such they
are about as useful to this discussion as the English language. The
problem is I don't speak very good formalism. Discussions in pidgin
Maths wouldn't get us very far.

> In fact, if we are simply talking about populations, I don't feel that, in
> general, easterners have much of an edge over westerners.  However, if we're
> talking about maturity of philosophy and the inherent opportunity that
> easterners have with respect to their home philosophies, then I say they are
> way ahead of us.

Of course .... it's older it must be better ! :)
I've never lived in the east, my wife has, her opinion on the matter
is that as far as the average easterner is concerned, eastern philosophy
is about as relevant as western philosophy is to the average westerner
except when talking to westerners, then they bullshit with the best of them :)

Your apparent dismissal of western philosophy is to your detriment.
Who are you .... and how do you know anyway ?

Aurelio 
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts