Cutting Through The Chaff

A brief metaphysical musing on the nature of enlightenment, being and reality

There are indeed many paths up the mountain. Sectarianism is juvenile and problematic at best; and dogmatism is confirmed blindness, confirmed delusion.

Being is non-dual, all-pervasive, infinite, stainless, primordially awake; yet, there remain many viable paths to realizing what we already and always, eternally are.

Know thyself. To do that, one must focus – and choose a path up the mountain. There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but surveying the paths from below will not take you to the top.

You can be broad-minded, and study widely, and that is good, but a path must still be chosen. Focus is imperative.

Furthermore, false messiahs, fads, and pop culture celebrity gurus abound. The distractions and dead-ends are limitless. Don’t waste your time. Cut carefully through the noise and the chaff, to find the real treasures.

A video inspired this musing, one I will link below. The gist of what I want to say here is contained in my response or comment on the talk, which I present here.

Blessings and peace to all.

Travel well, my friends.

And enjoy the journey!

*

Excellent talk, but there are some errors. One is, a too negative view of spiritual traditions. For example, if you want a sure and swift path to liberation and enlightenment, the profound depth and precision of Nyingma – the ancient school of Tibetan Buddism, founded by Padmasambhava, the second Buddha of our time – in its blending and union of wisdom and method, uniting Mahayana, Vajrayana and atiyoga, is seldom and rarely matched.

There is no “upgrade” needed or required. The nature of being and mind is unchanging, though its manifestations are a dance of continual flux. Wisdom and skillful means, therefore, remain timeless, as well. And improving upon perfection is an impossibility. Separate culture from essence, and the ancient teachings remain as relevant and alive as ever. Old or new has no bearing on truth. Truth is reality, once seen, ever clear. The delusions of modern hubris must die if wisdom is to be born. First empty your cup, if you want it to be filled.

Further, you don’t invite neophytes to invent their own spiritual practices or path. That is a road to madness, destruction, or simply wasting eons of time. When you are fully enlightened, then you can invent practices. Until then, follow the guidance of the enlightened ones.

And no, once again, wisdom is not temporally, culturally or historically conditioned, but is timeless. So too, refined skillful means, bequeathed and taught by enlightened beings, does not ever lose its relevance or need to be “updated”! Such a foolish, ignorant thought. Preschoolers wanting to set the university course curiculum for the professors. Such infantile and egocentric non-sense. Start with humility, or wander aimlessly forever.

Cut out the chaff, plumb the depths, and realize the infinite, which is the heart of all things, here and now, always and forever.

Blake is a good starting point. Read Blake, the mystic poet and key holder, and the doors of perception and wisdom will begin to open.

J. Todd Ring,

Villa Samadhi,

Uruguay,

January 7, 2023

On Puritan-Capitalism: Money As The Measure Of All Things

The mechanistic materialist world view, which the West, beginning with Europe, adopted a mere 400 years ago, and then exported through economic, financial, military and cultural colonialism and neocolonialism to the rest of the world, has been nothing short of a cultural, sociological, political, economic, ecological, spiritual, public health and psychological disaster; and it has led to to a global tyranny of neofeudal corporate-state oligarchy and technocratic scientific fascism.

Part of its logic, is to view all things, all of nature, human beings and all living beings, as mere objects: to be exploited, used up, and discarded at will. The natural result of its logic is to view all things, ecosystems, living beings and people as mere resources for wealth extraction.

We human beings are viewed, at least by the business elite, as cattle, to be milked for money, or yoked for sevitude, for money and power, or disposed of – or slaughtered.

Extrinsic value is the only value recognized: people, nature, living beings, and all things, only have value for their usefulness. It is a world view that is nihilistic and utilitarian by nature, and must, if its logic is consistent, degrade and destroy all other values, such as the systemic value of ecosystems and living beings, and the intrinsic value of ecosystems, nature and living beings. (I am borrowing here from one of my brilliant mentors, Professor Robert E. Carter – not the novelist, but the polymath scholar.) Money therefore becomes the measure of all things, including the measure work, the measure of social status, the measure of respectability, and the measure of human worth – or the worth of anything, or any living being.

When we examine closely the mechanistic materialist world view and its consequences, we can see and understand how and why it has been a truly catastrophic error, and one which must be quickly overcome, before it destroys us all, by destroying all life on Earth – and before it enslaves all of humanity, on its way to total ecocide, and collective self-annihilation.

*

Anecdotes and personal stories are things I generally avoid, but the following is enlightening, I believe.

When I was a younger man, in my late teens, I decided in a flash, after reading Plato’s parable of the cave, in my first year of university, that I wanted to become a philosopher, a political theorist, and a writer. When I soon afterward announced to my parents that I was switching from studying science, to studying philosophy, my father, at least, thought I must be mad, or at least, drastically foolish. What money can you make as a philosopher? That was the only question that mattered, to his mind. That was the only measure of my studies, to his mind: does it make money? Of course, his view was, and is, the nearly universal view in modern society. But I was utterly resolved. Nothing would budge me.

As Margaret Atwood said, “This society doesn’t respect writing. It respects success. I could have been a used car salesman, and if I was successful, I’d be respected.”

Or as Emerson said, in his essay on The Poet, by which he meant the writer in the broad sense: “Every profession has its sacrifices. For the poet (or the writer), it is that for a long time, he will be considered a churl (a bum) and a fool, and will be understood only by his peers.”

Or as Thoreau said (and I am paraphrasing from memory), “Men are concerned, not with what is respectable, but what is respected.” “Such men deserve as much respect as wooden men, or clumps of earth.”

Nietzche was insane, and from what I can tell, his philosophy was insane; but he was right in one observation, when he remarked, “The ego – our last article of faith.” This is what mechanistic materialism, and the Puritan-capitalist psychology that arises from it, does to men’s and womens’ minds: they profess all sorts of values, but when you look more closely, their true values are money, status, and their reputation. Their true and over-riding concerns, thus, are comfort and ego. “What would other people think?” This is the thought that secretly haunts them, and it is both their prison, and the source of their moral bankruptcy and spiritual degeneration.

Thoreau also observed, “Most men would feel ashamed if their work consisted of throwing dirt over a fence, and throwing it back again; but most men are employed in no higher purpose that this.” We are obsessively busy, but what are we busy with?

(Kindred spirits, I have many. I have no need of false friends, nor of the trappings of worldly success. As Thoreau said (I am once again paraphrasing here), “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” I could not agree more. To thine own self be true.)

Furthermore, when automation and robotics are poised to eliminate 90% of jobs, and make most people, in the words of Yuval Harari, “useless”, we clearly and urgently must re-think the nature of work.

Some years later, as a young writer, intellectual, activist and philosopher, my father said to my sister, “Todd’s on permanent vacation.” As far as he was concerned, any activity that did not make money, was not work – therefore, since your activities do not make money, you do not work; which, of course, in the prevailing culture and psychology of Puritan-capitalism, means you are a useless fool, and a worthless bum.

I thought to myself, and maybe I said it to him – probably so, since I was anxiety-ridden and depressed but also paradoxically fearless: I could work 40 hours a week, or 60, or 100, helping the sick, the poor and the dying with Mother Theresa, and you would consider me a bum who didn’t work, because I did it for free, and received no money for it. (His values seemed deranged to me, so I immediately disregarded his opinion, as itself being worthless.)

*

That story shows the sheer insanity of what I call the Puritan-capitalist psychology, sociology, or world view. It is truly insane. To take it further, we could say that, if I, or anyone else, worked in the arms industry, dealing in weapons and tools for mass murder and killing, or in the pesticide or chemical industry, poisoning the people and the planet, I would be a respected member of society, and viewed as a hard worker, and praised, so long as I was paid well for my evil actions, and made a good income from it.

Puritan-capitalist ethics and psychology revolve around two central premises: busyness is always good; and more importantly, money is the measure of all things. If I work 100 hours a week saving the planet, or raising children, or healing the Earth, that is nice, but I am a fool and a bum, in the eyes of the grimly delusional great majority, who are literally brainwashed into the Puritan-capitalist psychology – and blinded and enslaved by it. But they will defend their chains to the death, and decry anyone who tries to liberate them, or who even points out the chains, as a dangerous heretic and a madman.

What madness is this? This, as Erich Fromm and Henry David Thoreau, and many others have realized, is sheer insanity.

*

Artists, writers, musicians, thinkers, philosophers, activists, parents and care-givers, are generally all viewed as worthless and useless bums, and their work is invisible and discounted – unless they find a way to acquire money, wealth, status, fame or power, which are the great redeemers, and the only things the great majority of people seem to truly value in modern, nihilistic, materialist, Puritan-capitalist society: in which case, they are super-stars, and greatly loved, respected, and admired celebrities.

When, in practice, rhetoric aside, we value money, material goods, comfort, entertainment, status, wealth, power and fame above all else, then there is no room for justice, ethics, morality, virtue, nobility, wisdom, compassion, human decency, or even basic sanity. This has become the profoundly abnormal norm of our modern corporate-industrial society. Clearly, something needs to change.

When human beings are being systematically degraded, exploited, oppressed, indoctrinated, deluded, blinded, imprisoned and enslaved, and all life on Earth is being destroyed, and both as a result of our materialist mechanistic world view, and by our Puritan-capitalist psychology, it is clearly time to reassess and to change our world view and our pyschology. That, by now, should be undeniable. If it is not, then we are truly and deeply, profoundly delusional.

I am no cynic, nor am I a jaundiced, jaded misanthrope. Cynicism, fatalism and misanthropy are pathologies of the mind, and delusions to be overcome. The long term for humanity is promising, to put it mildly; but the near term and present are looking undeniably dark. What we make of our present, and our future, however, is up to us.

Noam Chomsky is right: “The great majority of people have basically decent impulses.” It is true, as science has confirmed (see Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, and Rifkin, The Empathic Civilization): human beings have a natural empathy and compassion, and we have survived, and thrived, because we have a deeply seated instinct for solidarity, community, cooperation and mutual assistance. But our good nature is being systematically degraded, twisted and deranged, by a society which is truly, deeply dehumanizing, and frankly, crazy. And that is before the soma kicks in.

*

Our modern society, as I have said, is thoroughly insane. Re-evaluating our concepts of money, work, status, respectability, success, development and growth, and the values and psychology which underly them, is now critical. Without that, we are doomed to a madhouse – and one that is on wheels, travelling as fast as possible toward dystopia, and the cliff that lies just beyond it.

JTR,

August 20, 2021

The Fundamentals Of History

(The following thoughts were written in response to a podcast, linked below.)

I liked this podcaster’s treatment of the Druids, which was very good. However…

This talk (linked below) asks fundamentally important questions – what is the origin of religion, agriculture, cities and states? But the coverage is average, typical: meaning, extremely superficial, and extremely poor. 

She misspoke – farming began around 7,500 BC, not 750 BC; but that is a minor point, by comparison.

*

Here are some essential points on history, that everyone should know and understand, but which the vast majority, including most scholars and intellectuals, do not.

1. Religion was not invented. Organized religion, in terms of hierarchical religious structures, was invented. But religion as spirituality, mythology, symbolism, narratives and philosophy, is as old as humanity. The essence of religion is experienced, not invented. Hierarchies and structures are then later overlain upon that human religious experience – for better, or often for worse.

2. It is essential to know that for the vastly greater majority of human history, humanity shared a common world view, mythology, or mono-myth, as Joseph Campbell put it. It was essentially the perennial philosophy: all things are interconnected, all things are one, and all of nature, life and the cosmos, is sacred.

3. The radical change that came about in the late neolithic period, around 5,000 years ago, was the new belief – the delusion – that self and other are divided: the delusion of duality. The agricultural revolution which occurred roughly 10,000 years ago, created food surpluses, which allowed for the creation of cities, which were complex and required organization, which did not necessitate, but facilitated, the first inequality, and the birth of class and gender divisions. Hierarchies of domination, conquest and empire, were thus born. The history we think we know, is the history of this brief 5,000 year old aberration. 95% of our history, the 195,000 years preceding this self-banishment from Eden, via delusion, was rooted in an awareness of the oneness of life, and hence also, in freedom, equality, and respect for the Earth and all living beings. I am not saying it was beatific, but I am saying it was radically different. Freedom and equality are our human norm; empire and inequality are the aberration. You can bury your cynicism now. It is rooted in ignorance.

4. Modern science, spirituality and human culture are all now awakening to the interdependence, interconnectedness, sacredness, and unity of all life. Our awakening has begun, and for that reason, the new renaissance has begun. And the Old Testament prophet, Daniel was right: The age of empires, as a result, must and will, begin to crumble, and to fall.

Anyone who does not understand these four fundamental dynamics of our human history, has no real understanding of history at all; and nor, for that reason, is there any remote understanding of the future or the present.

But do your own research. Investigate for yourself. Think for yourself.

I would urge this, however. Submit to God, if you are religious; but submit to no man, no woman, and no empire.

And remember:

It ain’t over ’till it’s over.

*

What does the future hold? I don’t have a crystal ball, but it is a truism that if you don’t change course, you will get to where you were going.

Based upon current trends, and based upon our current direction, the most likely scenario for the future is this. There will be large areas of the Earth that are somewhere between a Brave New World and 1984 – if we don’t stop it. Other areas may well be a Mad Max scenario. Both scenarios are dystopian, of course, and if we do not change course, some combination of them will be the plight of much of humanity and the Earth. Other areas will be more like a Swiss Family Robinson scenario, or a Renaissance agrarian society. Others yet, will find a relatively peaceful life, balancing and synthesizing low tech and high tech, the pre-industrial and the modern. People will live in freedom in some areas, and under nightmarish tyranny in others. What we can expect, unless humanity awakens rapidly, is what we have now on Earth, but to much greater extremes, and in much starker contrasts – almost as if Life is a grand teacher, which, of course, she is.

What is most essential to understand, however, is that the future, as Chomsky and many others have said, is largely what we make of it. The mass delusions of powerlessness, fatalism and inevitability, must now die, in order for humanity to live. Embrace your power now.

JTR,

August 12, 2021

Essential reading:

The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell

World As Lover, World As Self, by Joanna Macy

Choosing Reality, by Allan Wallace

The Book, by Alan Watts

The Perennial Philosophy, by Aldous Huxley

The Ecology of Freedom, by Murray Bookchin

The Chalice and The Blade, by Rianne Eisler

Mutual Aid, by Peter Kropotkin

The Empathic Civilization, by Jeremy Rifkin

Roads To Freedom, by Bertrand Russell

Escape From Freedom, by Erich Fromm

The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein

Confessions Of An Economic Hitman, by John Perkins

The Great Turning, by David C. Korten

Oneness vs The 1%, by Vandana Shiva

Year 501, by Noam Chomsky

Stolen Continents, by Ronald Wright

A Short History of Progress, by Ronald Wright

The Discourse On Voluntary Servitude, by Etienne de La Boite

Walden, and, On Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau

And my own works,

Enlightened Democracy

The People vs The Elite

And (coming soon),

All Hell Breaks Loose: Global Geopolitics 1945-2045

Who To Trust: The Short Answer

Who to trust? That is always a perennial question, and particularly now, when not only government, corporations, politicians, and corporate and state media have repeatedly been shown to have lied, grossly distorted or concealed the truth, and engaged in deceitful PR and propaganda; but also, alternative and progressive media, along with the left, the right and the liberal centre, have repeatedly failed, in glaring, very serious ways.

In terms of interpersonal relations and general human interaction, I strongly agree with Alan Watts: “People who mistrust themselves and others are doomed.” Absolutely correct. But we’re not talking about trust in that sense. We’re talking about who to trust for reliable information. I trust people as a rule, until or unless they give me reason not to. But that doesn’t mean I assume everyone is a reliable source of information, vision or analysis. Most people are not.

I also strongly agree with Chomsky, on most things, including his statement that, “The great majority of people have basically decent impulses.” Most people are decent. That does not mean they are reliable sources of information on world issues. Most people simply are not.

So, who to trust, in terms of being reliable sources of information, vision or analysis? I’ve written an article exactly on that topic, on this blog, but I’ll mention just a couple of names here. Again, these are generally reliable sources. That does not mean they are omniscient or infallible. Above all, do your own research, examine things for yourself – and think for yourself.

Top picks for reliable sources:

A very incomplete list – and remember, no one is infallible!

It cannot be stressed enough:

Question everything.

Vandana Shiva (virtually in a class by herself)

Whitney Webb – arguably the best investigative journalist alive, at this moment at least

Glenn Greenwald – a rarely matched journalist of integrity, rivalled only by Whitney Webb, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, John Pilger, and a handful of others

Edward Snowdon – did more for truth, democracy, human rights and freedom than almost anyone in decades

Julian Assange – exactly as I said about Edward Snowdon, the same applies

Noam Chomsky
Peter Dale Scott
Gerald Celente
Max Keiser
James Corbett
John McMurtry
Paul Craig Roberts
James Howard Kunstler
Richard Heinberg
Helena Norberg-Hodge
Joanna Macy
Allan Wallace
Alan Watts
Aldous Huxley
George Orwell
Peter Kropotkin
Bertrand Russell
Murray Bookchin
Rianne Eisler
David Suzuki
Maude Barlow
Margaret Atwood
Arundhati Roy
Ronald Wright
Mathiew Stein
Geoff Lawton
Erich Fromm
Max Weber
C. Wright Mills
Peter Phillips
Herman Daly
Michael Albert
EF Schumacher
Cornel West
Naomi Wolf
Anthony J. Hall
Michael Parenti
Abby Martin
Matt Taibbi
Aaron Mate
Joseph Campbell
Mathew Fox
Thomas Merton
Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.

And I would humbly add my own writing to that list as well.

That’s more than enough good sources to figure out what’s really going on, to stay informed, and to form, refine or retain an inspiring vision for a better world.

JTR,

July 17, 2021

Post-Script:

I forgot to mention a few other particularly excellent sources that I go to regularly, or as often as I can stomach checking in on this slow motion train wreck of a collapsing civilization:

David C. Korten

Jeremy Rifkin

Sayer Ji

Gary Null

Dmitry Orlov

Russell Brand

The Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogues (podcast)

Trends Journal – if you choose just one subscription, make it this.

Geopolitics & Empire (podcast)

The Centre for Research on Globalization

All of them are excellent. And of course, none of them are omniscient or infallible.

The Madness of Nietzsche

Nietzsche was either terribly misinterpreted, as my dearly departed scholar brother was adamant to say, or he was simply mad his entire life, and his philosophy was a philosophy of madness. But it ultimately matters little, other than to historians and biographers, which one is the case, because the philosophy that we associate with Nietzsche, be it Nietzsche’s real philosophy or a gross and systemic mistranslation and misrepresentation of it, is nevertheless the philosophy that has influenced the modern world from the early 20th century on.

On those grounds, what we are critiquing here is the philosophical and cultural influence of Nietzsche’s writings, be they accurate or misrepresented, and not Nietzsche’s intentions, which ultimately matter very little, if they are knowable at all.

We know what has been almost universally portrayed as Nietzsche’s philosophy, and it is that portrayal, be it accurate or inaccurate, which has shaped the past century in profound ways. Maybe Nietzsche can be rescued from the Nietzscheans, just as Jesus must be rescued from the Christians, or science must be rescued from the practitioners of scientism; but I seriously doubt that any philosopher can be so radically mistranslated as to utterly invert one philosophy and turn it into its opposite. Therefore, I must conclude, although it is, as I explained, a minor point, that not only is Nietzschean philosophy insane, but so too was its author.

Why is Nietzsche’s philosophy insane? Well, I read four of his major books, and he was perfectly vivid and explicit, and utterly unambiguous in his views – and I do not see how it is conceivable that anyone could be so radically misinterpreted as my friend proclaimed Nietzsche to be. It would be like saying that Ptolemy was misinterpreted, and he really meant that the sun is the centre of our solar system, and not that the cosmos revolved around the Earth. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret anyone in such a radical manner. I would say the same with regard to Nietzsche. But let’s look at Nietzsche’s core points of philosophy, as it appears in standard translations, prior to Kauffman, since it would seem that is the philosophy that has been delivered to the masses, and hence, the philosophy to be critiqued.

Nietzsche wrote, with great vividness and explicit clarity, the following points of philosophy. I will leave it to the reader to decide if these points could be so fundamentally misinterpreted as to translate them into their opposites, or whether that is even relevant at all, since it is the influence of Nietzsche’s writings which matters, and not the author’s possible hidden intentions; and secondly, whether the universally portrayed philosophy of Nietzsche’s books, which is what matters, is simply a form of madness. I would say my view has been made clear, and it is the view of many scholars of philosophy, and not just my own, for whatever that is worth.

1. Nietzsche glorified war.
2. Nietzsche was rabidly elitist and despised democracy.
3. Nietzsche glorified empire and conquest.
4. Nietzsche was rabidly and openly, vehemently sexist, if not misogynist.
5. Nietzsche was rabidly anti-religious.
6. Nietzsche praised self-indulgence and hedonism.
7. Nietzsche praised, not only a health self-respect – as Emerson, whom he was deeply impressed by and influenced by, and to whom Nietzsche, I would say, added absolutely nothing of value, but only layered over with deep and systemic confusion and delusion – but further, praised self-adoration, vanity and egotism.
8. Nietzsche praised and promoted the vicious and ruthless predation, conquest and domination of the common people, whom he despised, by the powerful few.
9. Nietzsche viewed morality, and above all compassion, as the root of all human problems, and something to be eradicated.
10. Nietzsche viewed all values as being social constructs, or human creations – and that is the very definition of nihilism. After all, if all human values are simply human creations, then all values are equally valid: this is moral relativism, and it is nihilism – it means that Hitler and the Nazis had their own value system, and who are we to judge? Their values are every bit as legitimate as the values of Jesus, the Buddha or Martin Luther King Jr. That is moral relativism, and that is nihilism, and yes, it is a profoundly delusional and profoundly toxic philosophy or world view. Which is why phenomenology, existentialism and post-modernism are all vastly over-hyped toxic garbage heaps of polysyllabic psycho-babble – because they are all based in nihilism, following on the disastrous example and terribly misleading and delusional views of Nietzsche.

In short, Nietzschean philosophy, as it has shaped a century of the modern world, is starkly materialistic, hedonistic, egotistical, elitist, imperialist, misogynist, militaristic, nihilistic – despite the fact that he warned against nihilism, which he nonetheless fell victim to – and narcissistic. His work in sum promoted, in effect, if not in intention, nihilism, fascism, hedonism and narcissism. The results were predictable.

Nihilism is a dangerous delusion, so too is the imagined separation of human beings from the realities of being. If we think there is nothing above us, then nothing is beneath us. We are immersed in nature and are inseparable from nature. If we think we are self-made, god-like beings, we are in deep trouble.

*

I’m not sure how anyone could mistranslate any writing in such an extreme form as to turn a lover of democracy into a hatred of democracy; or a love of compassion, and the morality based in compassion, into a hatred of morality and compassion – for example. It seems impossible to me. But again, that is irrelevant. This depiction of ten key points of Nietzsche’s philosophy, as it has been delivered to the world, and as it has influenced and shaped late-modern industrial society, is what matters. And the question is, is this philosophy sensible, sound, useful or ennobling to humanity, or is it simply insane? I think the answer, to anyone who is not a sociopath, is pretty clear.

Nietzsche spent his whole life railing against compassion, as his most central argument and thesis, and then, late in life, he saw a horse that had collapsed in the street, after having been driven to exhaustion by a pitiless and cruel master, and he fell down upon the horse with his arms around the horse’s neck, and had a psychotic break, never to return to sanity again. I think it is reasonable to conclude, as other philosophers have concluded, that in that moment, Nietzsche realized that his whole life’s work had been based on a delusion, that what he was attacking – compassion – was what mattered most of all, and he could not handle the sudden realization, and went, suddenly and completely, finally, totally insane.

I would argue, however, that anyone who can venerate the predation of the powerful upon the powerless, or the less powerful, and anyone who could excoriate compassion as the root of all evil, was insane his whole life, and not just at the end of it. At the end, he realized he had been delusional his entire life, and that was the final break; but the madness began long before, decades before, for some unknown reason (certainly something beyond syphilis, though that may have contributed to it). To me it seems clear, though again, it matters not, that Nietzsche, and not only the philosophy we have been handed which was ascribed to Nietzsche, was completely insane from an early date. But whether one agrees with that or not, the fact remains undisputable, that the philosophy that the world was handed, and which heavily shaped the minds of generations of people for the past hundred years, which was ascribed, rightly or wrongly, to Nietzsche, was madness incarnate.

Love and compassion are not only virtuous, but also a matter of enlightened self-interest. The nature of being and reality is interdependence. That means that we are all connected, and it means that an injury to one truly is an injury to all. It means, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, that no man is an island. Jesus, the Buddha, Spinoza, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Kant were right: treat others as you would have them treat you – not only because it is the virtuous thing to do, but also, because it is the intelligent thing to do. No man is an island. And Nietzsche, or at least the philosophy ascribed to Nietzsche, which has sadly and deeply influenced the past century of the modern world, was, therefore, utterly mad.

*

Ideas stand or fall on their own merit. The messenger is irrelevant. Biographies may be interesting, and they may shed light on the generation of ideas, the lineage of ideas, but biographies are ultimately and utterly irrelevant to philosophy. Either the philosophy is sound, sensible and useful, or it is not. No biographical information or detail has any slightest bearing upon that question. Whoever Nietzsche truly was, and whatever he may or may not have personally, secretly believed, matters nothing to the question which is the overwhelmingly central one: was the philosophy ascribed to Nietzsche, and which deeply influenced the past 100 years, sound and sensible, or delusional and insane? That question, the important question, and not the biographical question, which is by comparison trivial, I believe has been irrefutably and clearly answered.

Nietzsche is dead. It is time now to bury his philosophy along with him.

Travel well, and thanks for all the fish.

Goodbye, sad, lost friend. While we may sympathize with your tragedy, we cannot abide by your legacy of madness any longer, but must be done with it, for once, and for all.

*

Marx was famously said to have turned Hegel on his head. He was first deeply influenced by Hegel, and then took Hegel’s philosophy, and turned one element of it upside down. Hegel said that spirit is the driver of history, and guides history toward an ever-expanding upward arc. Marx took Hegel’s determinism, and turned it into a materialist determinism. In that sense, Marx is worse than Hegel; and Marx, in his materialism and his determinism both, was simply wrong.

Hegel was an elitist, a statist, and an authoritarian, and therefore should be rejected, or at least those major elements of his philosophy should be rejected. Marx accepted Hegel’s elitism, and thus was both a crypto-authoritarian, as well as a statist. For that, Marx should be rejected. Both Hegel and Marx had useful things to say, but we cannot take either philosophy uncritically, as a whole.

Similarly, Nietzsche was deeply influenced by Emerson, but Nietzsche, unlike Marx in relation to Hegel, adding nothing useful to Emerson’s philosophy, but merely corrupted and confused it. Nietzsche, therefore, should be rejected, for this reason, and for the reasons I have made clear above.

Some people, surprisingly from the left, have recently made scathingly dismissive critiques of Emerson. I think that is both foolish as well as ungenerous. Emerson has a tremendous amount to offer us. Whether he made serious mistakes is not the question to be asked – almost everyone does. What matters is if we can glean anything useful from Emerson. I would say the answer is a decided and emphatic, definite yes.

We can say there are useful elements to Hegel’s philosophy, and to Marx’s philosophy, and to Nietzsche’s philosophy, but the errors are so grave and so profound that I think it would be insane to adopt the philosophies of the three, even though it may be and is useful to study them all. With Emerson, all of his most famous and influential writings I have read, and I can see no major or grave error in them. That puts Emerson on an entirely different, and vastly superior plane, compared with Hegel, Marx or Nietzsche.

Thoreau criticized Emerson, who was his friend and mentor, and criticized his infatuation with his “choo-choo”, as Thoreau playfully and bluntly referred to Emerson’s adoration of a presumed “progress”, which hinged, to a dangerous degree, on materialism, material “progress”, and an undue veneration of technology. That is the one error that I am aware of in Emerson’s writings, but I am sure there may be more. In any event, I believe Emerson’s writings are not only highly relevant, and highly useful and informative to us today, but that they are, on the whole, a beacon of light in a mentally and sociologically darkened world. Nietzsche, Hegel and Marx cannot share that same light, but are, on the whole, and on the contrary, ideologies and philosophies to be learned from, and then, largely, and overall, discarded.

In fact, I would say that if we were to take Emerson and Thoreau together, we have the best of American philosophy, along with Chomsky, Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts, Allan Wallace, Joanna Macy, Joseph Campbell, Erich Fromm, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Now that combination can offer us some very good and even excellent guidance. Nietzsche’s philosophy, however, has no place in any sane man’s, or sane woman’s, philosophy or mind.

*

What has gone wrong with the modern world? A great many things. But one element of what has gone wrong, is the philosophers we have foolishly taken as guides, and the philosophers, thinkers and sages we likewise foolishly undervalued or ignored, but whose vision and guidance we should have followed. We venerated or were unduly and tragically influenced by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Spencer and Nietzsche, along with Locke and Descartes, and that has been absolutely disastrous. And, in the modern world, we have either ignored, undervalued, or recently devalued or lost sight of, the philosophies and the generally good guidance of Socrates, Plotinus, the Renaissance thinkers, Spinoza, Hume, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Dickens and Blake, Emerson, Thoreau, Kropotkin, Popper, Whitehead, Einstein, Bohm, Wheeler, Allan Wallace, Joanna Macy, Alan Watts, Ken Wilber, Morris Berman, Joseph Campbell, Bertrand Russell, Murray Bookchin, Erich Fromm, Huxley and Orwell, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, the Buddha, Moses, Mohamed, Shankara and Lao Tzu, to make a very incomplete list.

We have followed the wrong guides. But it is never too late to correct our bad habits.

It is also important to realize this. Despite the obvious darker trends which lay on the surface of things, the deeper trend in the world is towards a cosmopolitan spirit of decentralization and democracy, relocalization and freedom; or more directly said, toward a resurgence of the local, combined with openness, a greater balance of confidence, dignity and humility, and unity amidst diversity. With that in mind, I would say that very soon, if not immediately, the great majority of people who are broad-minded and spiritual, as well as the great majority of people who are broad-minded humanists – and the two are not in the slightest in contradiction, but in truth compliment one another – can both embrace the majority, if not all, of the luminaries I have mentioned here. If we do, and many will, I can assure you the overall effect will be profoundly positive, and ultimately, deeply liberating, and deeply healing to ourselves, and to our world. But the important point is this: We must think for ourselves, and rely above all, on our own innate, natural intelligence. The herd mentality, and the tendency to bow down to perceived, benevolent and wise authorities, has led us into a dark time – redoubling those failed measures now will only worsen our lot, and will profoundly diminish our chances for a decent future, or any future at all. Think for yourself, above all. Question everything. Look to the actual evidence, and to your own experience and innate, natural intelligence. Examine things for yourself. See for yourself.

*

Thoreau said, “When I notice the ruts in a road, I am compelled to think, how much deeper are the ruts in the mind.” He also said – I am quoting from memory here, but it is nearly an exact quote: “I sometimes despair of getting anything accomplished with the help of my fellow men. Their minds would first need to be put through a kind of powerful vice, to squeeze their old ideas out of them.”

Einstein said something similar: “Common sense is the set of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen.” And that is true. We are deeply indoctrinated before we reach the age of eighteen, and worse, most people spend their lives trying to shore up their prejudices, rather than being open to new ways of thinking, seeing, living, being, or learning. I do not mean prejudice in the form of bigotry here – I mean prejudice as Einstein used the term, meaning preconceptions. We are fastidious and fervent in our commitment to maintaining our cherished preconceptions – and the evidence be damned!

Not only are we deeply indoctrinated from an early age, but we are continuously being indoctrinated by our society, by powerful institutions, the media, the government, big business, advertising, peer groups, our workplace or employer, and yes, by academia, “science”, school and church. And beyond that, there is the deeper issue of cognitive bias and emotional bias. The psychological studies show that whenever new evidence conflicts with our previously existing beliefs, instead of changing or altering our beliefs, most people try to mould or filter the evidence to conform with their pre-existing beliefs. We are deeply committed, that is, to irrationality, group-think and dogmatism. We think, in the modern world, that we are rational and free, but as John Lennon said, “You’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see” – and we are hardly ever rational. But we can be.

Most people value comfort over truth. That makes them unconsciously conformist and obedient to authority, and it makes them cling to their preconceived beliefs, no matter what evidence they are shown. These are the problems we must get beyond. But while that all sounds very gloomy, we also know that there are periodic shifts in consciousness in history, or paradigm shifts, as it is called in science (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), periods of cultural awakening, or revolutions of the mind. And while things may look very dark now, and they are, it is also true that there is an awakening occurring across humanity, as well as a slow-motion paradigm shift occurring in science and philosophy. And that is an extremely good sign. Life is always reinventing itself. Human society is no different. We too, like all of nature, are in continuous flux. Things only seem static and permanent when our view of life and of history is tiny and narrow. When we widen our view, we see that things are always changing, and that while change is generally gradual, it is also true, as we know from Prigogine’s work in chemistry, and Kuhn’s work in the history of science, that there are also moments when small cumulative changes build up to a kind of quantum shift. That too, is unfolding now. Be the precipitating factor. Nudge the world towards awakening. Terrible things are happening, but so too are an awakening and a renaissance emerging. These are, in fact, both scary, and exciting times.

*

I have said before, and I will say it again, that what we need, is not a new philosophy, ideology or religion, but simply a fresh perspective. In order to accomplish that, we must, figuratively speaking, clear the decks. We must declutter our minds. We must unearth from our collective unconscious all the dark things, and all the dark illusions, above all, that do not serve us now, and never truly have. It is illusion that is the only true enemy, in any time or place. We cut through illusion, in order to liberate our own common sense, or if you prefer, in order to liberate our own natural clarity of mind and innate intelligence.

If we need a new vision, which we also do, it will arise from this ground of liberated clarity and innate, natural intelligence, and not from some new or old dogma. That being said, once we have cleared away some of the reigning confusion, illusion and delusions which shroud the modern mind in darkness, it is only reasonable to look to the best of both the present and the past for knowledge, wisdom, practical ideas and good guidance.

It is just such a synthesis of the best of our more than 5,000 years of history, which I have distilled in my first three published books and over 500 essays. I hope they will be of help. I am convinced that they can be, and will. But it is always our own innate, natural intelligence that should guide us above all. Question everything, and think for yourself.

I would say that if you want confidence and self-dignity, to throw off the chains of conformity and dogma, and the unthinking deference to authority, and to overcome both the master and the slave mentality, and thereby, to become an ubermensch – meaning, a person who has inwardly risen to a higher state of being and mind – then you would do far better to follow the guidance of Emerson, Thoreau or Blake; or better yet, Spinoza in the West, or Nagarjuna, the Buddha and Lao Tzu in the East (again, to make a very incomplete list of better options, and all of them are the inherited treasures of all humanity, it is important to note). The worst, or among the worst that we could do, would be to follow the philosophy of Nietzsche.

JTR,
April 17, 2021

What Is Buddhism, and What Is Non-Dualism?

And What Are They Not?

Open letter to Russell Brand, regarding a video (linked below) titled,

Dualism vs Monism EXPLAINED!

Russell, who the hell are you interviewing?! The guy is clearly talking out of his ass. (Sorry for my directness and occasional bluntness. I was heavily influenced by Chomsky, Trungpa and Thoreau, and can’t seem to help it.) He says, “I’m a firm dualist….That’s a very Buddhist view.” No, sorry, flatly 180 degrees wrong.

In Buddhist philosophy or spirituality, the aspect of our own true nature, which is also the true nature of being, which is Wisdom Mind, or Universal Mind, or infinite wisdom, is depicted in visual form as Manjushri. Manjushri is shown seated on a lotus flower, holding a flaming sword in his right hand – which never harms any living being, but is used only to cut through illusions – and holds in his left hand a sacred text. That text is the Prajnaparamita Sutra, also known as the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom. That tells us everything we need to know about the heart of Buddhist teachings. And the teaching is expressly, non-dualist.

Buddhism is expressly and explicitly non-dualist, as is expressed in the Prajnaparamita Sutra, the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, and as is expressed in the Hriydaya Sutra, the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra – which is recited daily in Zen monasteries across the world – which states, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.”

Then, after radically misrepresenting Buddhist philosophy, your guest goes on to misrepresent Plato as a dualist as well. Plotinus certainly understood Plato better than most modern commentators, because he was the last of the ancient philosophers (leaving out Augustine, since he was not a serious philosopher); and because he was a student of Plato’s philosophy, who said that he had nothing to add to Plato, but was simply clarifying Plato’s message – the core of which is: the many are One; the One manifests as the many. Again, your guest is flatly and radically wrong, and is misrepresenting yet another philosophical school of thought.

Then he completely contradicts himself. First he said that Buddhism is a dualistic philosophy. Then he says, “The Eastern religions, they go one step further by arguing that there is no matter at all, that mind is the only thing that exists.” Wrong again. First he says Buddhism is dualistic, then he says it is monist. Do you realize that these two philosophical views are utter opposites of each other?

So, which is it, buddy? Is Buddhism a dualistic philosophy, as you say first, or is it a monist philosophy, as you say later? Clearly he doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. A first year philosophy professor would have to give him a D-, at best, for both grossly misunderstanding two major schools of philosophy, and worse, for flatly contradicting himself. (YouTube sets extraordinarily low standards.)

Then he goes on to enlighten us on the philosophy of science, with similar results. He says, again with the certitude of Moses coming down from the mountain, with the word of God written on stone, “You can go with science, which is materialistic, which says that everything is physical.” And again, he is 100% wrong. There was this recent event in science, dude, maybe you heard about it, a new discovery, a radically new approach and understanding of science, called, “quantum physics”. It’s a brand new scientific paradigm, just discovered about a century past, which radically undermined and in fact shattered the old paradigm (see Thomas Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) of Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic, atomistic, materialist-reductionism. But then again, you can’t be expected to keep up with everything. After all, quantum physics only arrived on the scene 100-some years ago.

Then he goes back to misinterpreting and misrepresenting Buddhism – which he says, states that, “everything is mind. There’s no such thing as a physical reality.” Wrong again. Again, he is contradicting himself: first saying Buddhism is dualist, then saying it is monist. And secondly, he is flatly wrong in saying Buddhism is a mind-only (idealist) philosophy (eg: Berkeley). In actual fact, the Buddhist teachings explicitly say that the Mind-Only School is a close approximation to the truth, but is subtly mistaken. The Dalai Lama, or any other qualified Lama or Zen master, can correct him on that. Nagarjuna, the preeminent philosopher of Buddhist philosophy, makes it explicitly clear that dualistic views are mistaken, and so too are nihilistic and philosophical idealist views also mistaken – the true nature of being and reality being non-duality. If he wants to argue with the Dalai Lama or Nagarjuna, I say, good luck. He is clearly out of his depth, and is in way over his head.

As the Mahayana texts state clearly, “Nirvana and samsara are one.” How much more explicitly non-dualist can it be? Buddhism therefore, is not about exiting, leaving, or escaping the world – it is about waking up, and being fully aware of the true and profoundly rich nature of being.

The way the guest here presents dualism, as interactionism or interdependence between mind and body, or consciousness and matter, is actually one of the few accurate things he has to say. Interactionism is a more intelligent view than materialist monism, or materialist reductionism, as it is more commonly called, but it is still not the Perennial Philosophy of non-dualism, which has been expressed by all the great mystics, East and West, throughout the ages, nor is it the view of Eastern philosophy, and nor is it, to be specific, the view of Buddhism, Taoism, or the Advaita Vedanta teachings of the yogis. Again, other than accurately depicting what interactionism is, he is pretty much 100% wrong on everything he has talked about here.

Ken Wilber – someone who is an actual scholar, and who does not talk out of his ass, put it well, when he said that Western philosophy for 5,000 years has been a battle between what he called “the ascenders and the descenders”. (Ken Wilber is out of his depth and deeply mistaken in terms of political philosophy, but otherwise is a simply stellar polymath and truly brilliant philosopher and scholar – one of the dozen or so greatest scholars of the past 100 years, along with Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Alan Watts, Joseph Campbell, Joanna Macy, Rianne Eisler, Murry Bookchin, Erich Fromm, Mathew Fox, Thomas Merton, Einstein and Noam Chomsky.)

The ascenders view the world, nature, the body, and life on Earth, as unreal, illusory, or less real and less important, than the transcendent realm of pure spirit of consciousness. (The Earth is a waiting room, and everything in this world is inferior and also depraved at its core, and heaven is what we are waiting for., while we suffer through this dismal, sordid, pathetic material plane. World-hating dualists, is what they are.) They are dualists, in essence, who devalue, or occasionally deny the existence, of one pole: devaluing the imminent, the Earthly and the material, while valuing the spiritual and the transcendent. The descenders are the materialists, who want to devalue, or more commonly deny, the existence of the spiritual, the transcendent, or of consciousness or spirit. (They are materialist-reductionists, and epiphenomenalists, clinging to a worldview that is a century out of date, and thus are anti-empirical and unscientific, at least since the discovery of quantum physics.)

The real truth, the true nature of phenomena, being and reality, as Ken Wilber rightly points out, is what the great mystics have all said, and which quantum physics is now corroborating: which is non-duality. But this guest of Russell’s is no scholar – either of religion, of philosophy, or of science.

I mean, he seems an intelligent lad, but he is a novice, clearly, speaking as if he has the pontificate, and is delivering the Sermon on the Mount, the Answer of all answers, when he says definitively and with an air of utter authority, what Buddhism, Plato, Eastern religions, and science are all about. And he got it wrong on all four counts.

Russell Brand, by contrast, your approach is refreshingly humble, yet filled with a very legitimate and indeed important spirit of dignity and confidence – and with humility and confidence in balance, as they should be, and need to be, if we have any good sense, as you clearly do. Your guest, by contrast, is filled with presumption, and what the ancient Greeks would call, hubris. Or flatulence and hot air, to be more direct.

People should bear in mind that it was only recently, in the long view of history, that we humans knew, with full and absolute, unquestionable certainty, that the world is flat, and the Earth is the centre of the universe. Everyone knew these things to be true, and unquestionably true. And everyone was wrong. In fact, when people dared to question the holy dogma of the Earth being the centre of the universe, they were met with the Inquisition, and the serious threat of being burned at the stake for heresy.

How similar to the world we live in today.

Another thing to bear in mind is that, in truth, you are more likely to be struck by lightning seven times in a single life, than to find truly reliable information on youtube, the internet in general, or the media, or for that matter, from academia – to say nothing of pop culture icons, such as your very presumptuous guest.

In fact, unless what you are hearing, reading or watching comes directly – and I mean directly – from a Buddhist, Taoist or yogic master, the odds are that the information being presented is partially or wholly mistaken; and more than likely, not a little mistaken, but more commonly, radically mistaken, if not flatly either propaganda or delusion. People need to learn to have far more discernment, and to separate the wheat from the chaff – and the drivel, pap, dross and dung, from the gems.

I listen to what Russell Brand has to say, quite often, because he is generally very lucid, as well as good-hearted and highly intelligent, and highly articulate, not to mention often witty, and always has something interesting to say. His guests, however, are very hit and miss, at best; and sometimes, I’m sorry to say, simply full of shit.

Russell, when you said, “I feel that we are experiencing the limitations of our current models”, you were bang on. Yes, we have been in the midst of a scientific revolution, a shift in paradigms, or world-view, which began over a century ago. (These things take time – and a century, in human history, is but a blink.) Moreover, we have been in the midst of a cultural awakening of humanity since the late 1950s (the Beat poets, for example, along with the Civil Rights movement), which blossomed in the 1960s, and which did not die out, but has quietly grown and accelerated over the past 50-60 years, and continues to accelerate and to grow world-wide.

I would offer what Leibniz called The Perennial Philosophy – which Aldous Huxley wrote about very well – as a major clue as to where we should look for a better understanding of what reality really actually is. And the Perennial Philosophy echoes the recent findings in quantum physics, which show that the supposed material building blocks of all matter, do not exist – at least, not in the way we had imagined. (“Where is the matter? No matter. Where is the mind? Nevermind.”)

Quantum physics shows us that subatomic particles are not particles – which was a misnomer we put on them, a label we put on them, while we were still steeped in the deluded world-view of Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic materialist-reductionism. Nor are they local. And non-local means non-dual. Subatomic particles are condensations or areas of concentration within energy fields – and as Einstein said, “We should stop talking about particles and fields. The field is everything.” Or as Einstein also said, getting right to the heart of the matter: “The perception of a division between subject and object is a kind of optical delusion.” Or as Shrodinger put it – and he was of course the god-father of quantum mathematics: “The number of minds in the universe is one.” (See Einstein’s star pupil and protégé, David Bohm, for further elaboration.)

Again, non-dualism is the heart of the perennial philosophy, the heart of the mystics’ teachings, East and West (see Meister Eckhart, for example), the heart of Buddhist, Taoist and yogic teachings, and the heart of what quantum physics and modern science is now confirming.

“Science” – and it must be placed in quotation marks, since there are few who are truly empirical, and hence, few who are truly scientific – is the slow man in the race; but is beginning to catch up, despite the foot-dragging of the pseudo-empirical, quasi-scientific majority of “scientists”, who, like Dark Age priests, cling to the old Newtonian-Cartesian materialist paradigm like it was the Holy Grail itself.

Western philosophy, as is widely acknowledged, is at an impasse. I would say a cul de sac is a better description. Academic Western philosophy, and most of what passes for “intellectual culture” alternates between the nihilist morass of polysyllabic post-modernist psychobabble, and the equally nihilistic myopia of stridently dogmatic materialist flatlander anti-science. We need to go back to fundamentals, retrace our steps, and re-think and re-examine our first principles and basic assumptions. We got off on the wrong track with Descartes’ dualism, 400 years ago, and with Newton’s mechanistic materialism, and with a largely unconscious assumption of certitude, which Stephen Toulmin unearths in his important work, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, and which, to a frightening and very real, and very large degree, threw us back into the dogmatic quasi-religious, pseudo-science of the Dark Ages. Uncover and examine these three grossly delusional assumptions which underpin the modern world, and we will be getting somewhere. Then only, will the fog begin to clear.

Until then, we have three main options in the West: post-modernist nihilism; materialist nihilism; and pop culture pap – all of which have the merit and the intellectual rigour of a dung ball. It is time to think more critically, and to take a fresh look at things. Then we will experience a new Renaissance – which is, by the way, emerging now, despite and maybe because of the darkness of the times – and not before.

Overcoming the absurd and grotesque hubris and supreme arrogance of the modern Western world, and rediscovering a little true humility and open-mindedness, would do wonders as well, and is absolutely imperative and essential. As Bertrand Russell said, we will have to allow the East into our thoughts, and on an equal footing. And we must allow the global South, as well, into our thoughts, and also on an equal footing. And further, we must overcome this grandiose smugness, which silently or sometimes aloud proclaims, foolishly, that we have nothing to learn from the ancients, from the “primitive” indigenous peoples of the world, from the medieval world, or from the first Renaissance. What assumptions we make – and what darkness we live in, as a result. When we broaden and deepen our perspective in these ways, then sparks will fly, and the new Renaissance will be secure, and will truly and rapidly blossom, to the great and profound benefit of all.

J. Todd Ring,
March 13, 2021

For a scholarly perspective on Buddhism and non-dualism, Eastern philosophy, and the philosophy of science – and not a gross misrepresentation of them, as was presented here – see:

Choosing Reality – Allan Wallace

World As Lover, World As Self – Joanna Macy

The Hero With A Thousand Faces – Joseph Campbell

The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley

The Way of Zen – Alan Watts

Tao: The Watercourse Way – Alan Watts

Psychotherapy East and West – Alan Watts

The Holographic Universe – Michael Talbot

Mysticism and The New Physics – Michael Talbot

Dreamtime and Inner Space – Holgar Kalweit

The Tao Te Ching – Jane English translation only

The Gospel of Thomas – Marvin Meyers translation only

The Heart Sutra – with commentary by Thich Nat Hahn

The Prajnaparamita Sutra – see Lex Hixon’s, The Mother of the Buddhas

The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui-neng – Shambhala Classics edition

The Uttaratantra – see Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra

And anything and everything by the Dalai Lama, Chogyam Trungpa,

or my own teachers, Lama Zopa, Lama Tharchin and Kirti Tsenchab Rinpoche

And to this short list of seminal, core texts, I would humbly, and frankly, offer my own work, as an overview of philosophy, within a broad historical and global perspective, and within the context of sociology, political-economy, culture and ecology, and as a vision for the way ahead: Enlightened Democracy, and, The People vs The Elite. Both are available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble now.

My sincere apologies to your guest, Russell, but a person cannot grossly misrepresent Buddhism and Eastern philosophy without being called and corrected on it. He needs to study far more before speaking with such an air of authority. It is inappropriate, grossly misleading, and frankly juvenile.

Why Atheism Is A Bag of Hot Air

Atheism is decidedly unscientific, and anti-empirical, because it dogmatically asserts a claim that it cannot possibly prove or even empirically support. If they were truly empirical, or truly scientific, they would at least be agnostic. But they are neither empirical nor scientific. Besides that, and more importantly, atheism is the rantings of the venomously frustrated and disillusioned, based, in every case and example I know of, in a supreme lack of scholarship or erudition. I have yet to encounter a single self-proclaimed atheist who has done any serious study of world religions, world mythology, religious philosophy, or any philosophical inquiry in any real depth, and nor, clearly, have they ever plumbed or delved in any real depth into the philosophy of science, or into modern physics. They are an anti-intellectual bunch, essentially, passing themselves off as scientific, well-read, and well-informed. They are anything but.

JTR,
February 23, 2021

Boethius, Stoicism and The Consolation of Philosophy

While I would recommend Boethius, and the Consolation of Philosophy, to all, I would not recommend Stoicism to anyone, for two reasons:

1. It encourages a banishment of feeling and emotion, and an unfeeling indifference to both pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow – a kind of psychic numbness, which, I would say, is a foolish and weak-minded response to life’s problems. Better by far is to feel, and feel deeply, and instead of banishing or repressing feeling and emotion, learn how, as the Buddhists and Taoists have shown, to master one’s own mind, and to be able to find, and ultimately, to maintain, inner calm and peace under any circumstances.

(You can slay the dragon, which has been the typical response in the West, as the grand master of world mythology, Joseph Campbell has said, or alternately, you can, as in the Eastern tradition, and frequently also in the mystical traditions of East and West alike, learn how to tame it, and to ride it. Guess which response is more skillful.)

Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Jain, Indigenous, or secular approaches which emphasize clarity, calm, courage and compassion, in the face of adversity, and under all circumstances, are all, equally superior, by far, to that quagmire of the soul and rotting bog of the mind which is classical or modern Stoicism.

But, if you enjoy being a numbed and complacent, deaf, dumb and mute, obedient doormat, then the Stoics, or the Confucians, who are their Eastern counterpart, just might be for you.

2. Stoicism encourages indifference, apathy and complacency with regards to the affairs of the world, and in that, it encourages people to quietly know their place, to obey, conform, and shut up. Again, this is a weak-minded response to life’s problems.

Far better, is to take the approach of Liberation Theology, Buddhism, Taoism, or any spiritual or philosophical path which emphasizes wisdom, compassion, and an engagement in the world as an expression of compassionate action – with an inner fortitude that comes from not placing one’s faith in the ever changing and ever-fickle winds of circumstance, chance and fate.

But then again, I would hold that Boethius’ philosophy, while it has some clear correspondents or parallels with Stoicism, does not so neatly fit into the camp of Stoic philosophy.

Regardless, whether I am right or wrong, I still love Boethius, and the Consolation of Philosophy; and I would say, that if it is read in the spirit which I have described here – one, not of bland repression of all feeling, nor of blind and dumb conformity, apathy, complacency or obedience to authority, but a spirit of universal compassion and love which is at the same time imbued by a transcendent/imminent presence of mind and inner calm abiding, then Boethius is not only relevant today, but extremely important, and in fact, highly liberating.

J. Todd Ring,
January 31, 2021

The God Fetish, the God Phobia, and the Fetish of Words: Or, The Idolatry of Ideology

There are some who will read my writing and think – he’s a dangerous right-winger! But if they read more, they will realize that is obviously untrue. Others will decide I am a dangerous leftist extremist; but if they read on, they will understand that I advocate non-violence, freedom, democracy and constitutional rights – and if that makes me a dangerous extremist in the minds of some, then I would say they are dangerously delusional.

Others will read my writing and declare that, while they may agree with some of it, or maybe most of it, they lose me when I venture into the realm of spirituality or religion. To them I would say, keep an open mind. “There is more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.”

And then there are the religious fundamentalists, the sectarians, and the religious ultra-conservatives, who will feel that I am dangerously open to foreign, exotic influences. To them I say, I don’t think God has a fetish of names, and He, or She, cares little for our cherished ideologies, dogmas or sects. She is far beyond such narrow confines of little minds.

As the Tao Te Ching says, “Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.” “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.”

Keep your cherished ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, theories or beliefs, clubs and sects, if you wish, but hold them lightly, or you will see nothing at all.

As always, “There is more day yet to dawn.”

JTR,
January 10, 2021

Getting Off The Treadmill: Seeking More Through Less

Newer, better, more… Newer, better, more…

On and on the circle goes. But when you begin to see through such delusions and self-limiting, self-imprisoning patterns, then the door to true wisdom opens.

First, however, you must get off the treadmill of always seeking newer, better, more. If it doesn’t exhaust you, make you sick, or drive you crazy, it will leave you hollow and disillusioned in the end.

Get off the treadmill now. There is more to life than status, money, possessions, peer recognition, materialism and entertainment – much, much more.

Where to begin? Look for ways to reconnect with others, with nature, and above all, with your deeper self. The last and most important point requires at least some time spent in solitude.

But to summarize the beginning most succinctly, I don’t think it can be put any better than by the words of Henry David Thoreau, America’s own Taoist, ecologist, philosopher Zen master:

“Simplify, simplify.”

Enjoy the path. And never give up.

See you on the mountain top.

J. Todd Ring,

November 9, 2020

Beautiful, wise words here, from a Shaolin master:

Seldom in the modern world do you find the real deal, the real thing, unless you are very lucky (good karma) or know where to look. 99.99999% of what is out there is mundane, mediocre, or else far below that: illusion, delusion, propaganda, poison, or just plain garbage. Choose wisely. Shaolin, Wudang and Tibetan teachers are certainly one good place to turn for something better and higher.