June 28, 2010
- Rabindranath Tagore on Will as Revealment and Freedom as Surrender -
The revealment of the infinite in the finite, which is the motive of all creation, is not seen in its perfection in the starry heavens, in the beauty of flowers. It is in the soul of man. For there will seeks its manifestation in will, and freedom turns to win its final prize in the freedom of surrender.
(from here)
Surrender to what? Gravity? Entropy? Inertia?
Comment by Ted — June 30, 2010 @ 8:17 am
To the infinite.
Comment by Ian — June 30, 2010 @ 11:49 am
This guy has the same look on his face as Daniel Pinchbeck on the back of his books. Wonder what it means?
Yeah, Surrender to the infinite. Sounds pretty good I guess, but how is that different than surrendering to gravity, inertia and entropy?
I mean there is me and then there is the infinite and the infinite is in me manifesting itself in the finite.
So a finite thing surrendering to an infinite thing, sounds backwards to me, like dissipation, annihilation, growing cold and approaching absolute zero, like smoke from a cigarette blowing away and disappearing.
Seems like the infinite manifesting itself in the finite would be the reverse, like some kind of massive pressurization. Like an implosion, or some type of laser that can cut diamonds, something really intense.
Letting go would be like releasing the pressure, unstringing ones bow.
Comment by Ted — June 30, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Do you see a resemblence?
Comment by Ted — June 30, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Tagore looks less smug than Pinchebeck, I’d say.
I’m not sure about the other stuff though. Entropy is only for closed systems, I know that much. And smoke disappearing is only bad if you’re the smoke. I want to find out, what if I’m not the smoke?
Comment by Ian — June 30, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
infinity is pretty big and diffuse, it would seem to me. Stillness, quiet, void. Not much going on there, not much movement.
So to bring more of that into a seemingly closed finite system would mean what? Seems like the infinite manifesting in the finite is what that is. Surrendering to the infinite would be going back the other way.
Seems like there is a purpose behind taking on limitation in the first place.
Comment by Ted — June 30, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Seems like there should be shock waves emanating from infinity manifesting in a closed system.
Comment by Ted — June 30, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
That all is only true if the infinite is a lack, which I think its not. Healthy growth in the finite can only occur when it turns toward the infinite. It is the endless quality of the infinite that allows for the improvement of the finite.
Comment by Ian — June 30, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
It still doesn’t seem right that its surrender we are talking about here.
Comment by ted — July 1, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
We might be using the same word, but we’re not talking about the same thing.
Comment by Ian — July 2, 2010 @ 9:13 am
So you think I am look at it in the most obvious shallowest face value way and you are looking at it in a “deep” way?
On the other thread you mentioned “finte ends” as being misguided. So what would be an “infinite end?” Do you see the obvious contradiction between the concept of the infinite and the idea of an “end?” “End” even sounds obviously limited. There are no “ends” in the infinite. As soon as you make a decision to do something you take on limitation. Infinity is just limitless possibility.
So in terms of manifesting the infinite into the finite, I think in terms of really big signifigant things happening. Like thinking of the infinite in terms of a source of energy. Where does “prana” “chi” etc come from? Does it have its source in the infinite?
I am thinking in terms of Nuclear explosions, literally. Literally, literally literally.
I think that is what a nuclear bomb is.
So, in terms of like feeling stressed with life and wanting relief and escape, I feel like that is what surrender is. The opposite of using energy to do work.
Comment by Ted — July 2, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
Ted, you’re talking about the infinite, a term closely aligned with the idea of God, and you’re LITERALLY comparing that to the atom bomb. The fact that you cannot see that this shows some fault in your line of thinking disturbs me, deeply. You have never once questioned your own opinions, on anything, you just keep pushing forward, regardless.
I’m not going to reply to your comments here any more. All you really want is an argument and I’m tired of giving you one. It stresses me out too much.
Comment by Ian — July 5, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Ian,
Well that’s cool then, I feel like I question my assumptions all the time, but you pretty much have taken up dogmatism. But that’s fine if it works for you. Kind of boring to me. Plus its disturbing to see you give so much weight to what con artist cult leaders say if they say it in a flowery spiritual sounding way.
Comment by Ted — July 5, 2010 @ 7:00 pm