R.I. Book Group?

[Perelandra]

Sounds good, I have it.

[Elvis]

page 59 right now

And just a note -- this book, so far, seems to connect so directly to my recent readings about "Western" thought, it's blowing my mind. It's as if some guiding hand is pointing to the next book I need to read to better understand the last one. (But thanks for sure to Brekin for pointing out this book.)

[brekin]

page 59 right now

And just a note -- this book, so far, seems to connect so directly to my recent readings about "Western" thought, it's blowing my mind. It's as if some guiding hand is pointing to the next book I need to read to better understand the last one. (But thanks for sure to Brekin for pointing out this book.)

Wonderful, glad it was what you are looking for. Ironically, that is what has happened with Perelanda's recommendation, Origins of the Sacred with me. (Thanks P!)
Lately, I'm having to put it aside to finish ITDPOW (In The Dark Places Of Wisdom).

[Elvis]

Yeah I put down Bertolt Brecht's play Galileo -- which also connects to all of this -- to read ITDPOW.

[coffin_dodger]

And just a note -- this book, so far, seems to connect so directly to my recent readings about "Western" thought, it's blowing my mind. It's as if some guiding hand is pointing to the next book I need to read...

Same here, almost.

Except " this book, so far, seems to connect so directly to my own recent thoughts about "Western" thought "

Syncronicities abound also. It's as if a guiding hand is at work.

[brekin]

If everybody is ready, I say let's get started. I'll have more to post probably later tonight or tomorrow. If people want to start with general impressions or specific thoughts about ITDPOW's first part that would be great. I suggest that people post page numbers and actual text if they are speaking to a certain section though.

[brekin]

What alternately intrigues and concerns me with Peter Kingsley in ITDPOW is he definitely goes big from the get go.
I think the "This Book" section, pgs 4-5 is a good place to start because it really frames the questions, big, big questions I venture, that the book tackles. Luckily, this part is available online:

http://www.goldensufi.org/book_toc_chap ... ml#excerpt

This Book

THIS BOOK IS NEITHER FACT NOR FICTION. It 's about something stranger than both; and compared to that, what we call facts are just fiction.

It's not what it seems, just as the things around us aren't what they seem. If you read on you'll see it's all about deception—about the total deception of the world we live in and about what lies behind.

It might seem to be a story about things that happened a long time ago. But really it's about ourselves. The details will probably be unfamiliar, very unfamiliar. And yet their significance reaches to the roots of our own being.
This unfamiliarity is important. Usually something is unfamiliar because it has no relation to us and we have no relation to it. But what's most unfamiliar of all is what's closest to us, and which we've forgotten. It's like a limb that's been anaesthetized or that's been unused for a long, long time. When we start feeling it again it's so strangely unfamiliar just because it's such an essential part of us.

And that's the purpose of this book: to awaken something we've forgotten, something we've been made to forget by the passing of time and by those who've misunderstood or—for reasons of their own—have wanted us to forget.
It could be said that this process of awakening is profoundly healing. It is. The only trouble with saying this is that we've come to have such a superficial idea of healing. For most of us, healing is what makes us comfortable and eases the pain. It's what softens, protects us. And yet what we want to be healed of is often what will heal us if we can stand the discomfort and the pain.

We want healing from illness, but it's through illness that we grow and are healed of our complacency. We're afraid of loss, and yet it's through what we lose that we're able to find what nothing can take away from us. We run from sadness and depression. But if we really face our sadness we find it speaks with the voice of our deepest longing; and if we face it a little longer we find that it teaches us the way to attain what we long for.

And what is it that we long for? That's what this story is about.

Some of the guiding questions I have from the above as I move forward in the book are the following:

1. What form of narrative is the book if it is neither fact nor fiction and is stranger than both? (Something that is both perhaps, and so is something more, a riddle, a conundrum, etc?)
2. If the book is all about a deception, that implies someone has propagated the deception initially. Who did, how and to what end? Likewise, what role do others and ourselves play in continuing this deception now? If "we've been made to forget by the passing of time and by those who've misunderstood or—for reasons of their own—have wanted us to forget" this seems like a pretty wide and deep cultural ignorance, was this deliberate or accidental?
3. What is this lost heritage so close to us that is now unfamiliar? Have others stumbled upon this lost heritage, in whole or in part, in the past accidentally or intentionally seeking for it?
4. The purpose of the book is to reawaken this lost heritage that it seems we also deeply long for. How will the book do so? By piquing our curiosity or persuading us of adopting a certain perspective, practice, technique?
5. It is implied that we will be reawakened to this lost heritage through a healing of sorts. This implies most, or all of us, suffer from a pretty common ignorance that causes universal distress. I'm wondering if for some, or many, the cure might be worse than the malady?

I'm only a little ways into Book 2 and have some guesses to the above. At the end of Book 1 it seems (pgs 39-45, Killing The Father) that questions 1, 2 and indirectly the rest are touched upon. What do people think? Does anyone else have any questions piqued or answered in Book 1? I kind of feel like Book 2 is going to (hopefully) be the hinge for much of the above. Parmenides seems to be the surprise guest star for the book (pgs 39-45, Killing The Father) which will answer the above so I think I may do a little reading up on him.

[Elvis]

If nothing else, Kingsley has me in suspense. Later I'll try to post a quote or two from Book 1 that especially intrigued or resonated with me. Going a little bit into into Book 2, I did find myself saying, "Oh gawd, I hope this isn't another Celestine Prophecy."

Resonance -- "symbolic resonance," "mythic resonance" -- is a theme popping up everywhere for me just lately, and seems to be an important motif of this book.

As a side note, I'm curious about any connection between Parmenides and the later Cynics.

[BrandonD]

If nothing else, Kingsley has me in suspense. Later I'll try to post a quote or two from Book 1 that especially intrigued or resonated with me. Going a little bit into into Book 2, I did find myself saying, "Oh gawd, I hope this isn't another Celestine Prophecy."

Resonance -- "symbolic resonance," "mythic resonance" -- is a theme popping up everywhere for me just lately, and seems to be an important motif of this book.

As a side note, I'm curious about any connection between Parmenides and the later Cynics.

Yes I'm still holding my breath - the opening braces the reader for some pretty paradigm-shattering info, though up to this point the info is fairly conventional. Despite that, I am very much enjoying it so far.

[brekin]

One thing I've been thinking about, and I'm going to lean just a wee bit into Book 2 now if that is alright, is that the technique/ritual Kingsley has been alluding to (thus far) is being framed as a journey into self that is much less reliant on outside "gaining" and hierarchical standards. I don't have the book handy right now, but he definitely seems to sell it as the ultimate d.i.y. lost heritage. My quibble is that what he seems to be alluding to so far is (in our vernacular) secluded guided dream interpretation. Now I know it is kinda more than that, but it is pretty clear that what he is describing thus far is an initial state of uncertainty or seeking, seclusion in a oracle/reflective environment, "incubation", receiving visions and then interpretation of them for guidance and/or healing. This is something that is facilitated at pretty much every step by a priesthood. I hope he makes the case how the ancient rite he is describing differs from psychoanalysis and its offshoots and how it is also can go wrong. For example, this is bringing on a state where someone is very vulnerable and susceptible to outside influence, you know "brain washing".

Unfortunately, towards the end of Book 1 into Book 2, I was reminded of the book Battle For The Mind, written by William Sargent, and especially the material provided by Robert Graves regarding ancient methods of brainwashing. (If I have time I'll post the pertinent material later.) Much of it sounds similar to what Kingsley is talking about regarding the incubation in a dark cave for many days, fasting, all while being under the influence of religious rituals and motifs. Kingsley hasn't mentioned it so far but I'm sure there was some form of drugging, chanting, drumming, etc all methods to weaken the ego and make one no doubt open to visions, but also to outside control. Regular readers of R.I. will recognize Sargent as pretty heavy into abusive psychiatry brainwashing and links to MK-Ultra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sa ... am_Sargant

This account by the actress Celia Imrie at his hands is a good rundown, which I believe is posted somewhere here on RI:

My electric shock nightmare at the hands of the CIA's evil doctor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z3CBNXRmJr

Here she is describing Sargant's methods:

Sargant's methods were simple: electric-shock treatment and insulin-induced comas leading to continuous narcosis, or deep-sleep therapy, complete with taperecorded 'brainwashing' orders being played at the patients from beneath their pillows.

My concern is that Kingsley may be advocating something that really never went away to begin with, and is ripe for manipulation. I don't doubt one can have incredible visions doing what he described, I also am wary that others can take advantage of such a state. I'm all for going to the source but am just a little wary of which "priesthood" is facilitating ones "incubation". Cue obligatory Matrix image:

[Sounder]

I like the book.

But one does well to remember that the best lies are truth told with an agenda.

[coffin_dodger]

p.28 ITDPOW
"Oracles are never what they seem. For oracles to be oracles, they have to contain something hidden. The more you think you understand them, the less you probably do. That's where the danger lies"

The book has been written with this basic ancient tenet (with it's attendant irony) in mind.

Kingsley understands that ancient thinking (and thus, ancient wisdom) is difficult for modern minds to comprehend. Statements recorded long ago describing 'mind-state' are easily and largely mis-interpreted by latter day interpreters because there are no longer words to descibe those states, (if there ever were), thus approximate and diffusing translations are applied. Culturally, we still warp historical 'facts' to fit our own narratives today. For instance, our arrogance leads us to believe we can ascribe meaning to an artifact we dug up yesterday that was buried 5000 years ago. Whether this mistranslation is deliberate or not appears to be side-stepped to a greater extent by Kingsley, however - if there is some higher order who tap into this esoteric knowledge for their own advantage, it's hardly wise to expose them without having a plan in place to negate their influence!).

I enjoyed this book, in particular because it re-inforced some of my literally pre-concieved ideas about reality and existence. To name but a few:

It ties in nicely with my own notion of 'stillness' - which I believe is the point that lies exactly between 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' (blog post here - http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/blog.php?b=408). Life - Death.*

Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields/resonance also tally indirectly with this concept - i.e animals are born with an inate knowledge of how to do things, ergo, what are humans born with an inate knowledge of that we no longer use, have the words for, have forgotten, or had forgotten for us?

Walter Russell's theories (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38242) are extremely heavy reading, but clearly define 'stillness' as the perfection and key to opening up the mind to understanding (and, in fact, creating) reality.

Yin and Yang (http://www.iep.utm.edu/yinyang/) - only recently stumbled upon by myself - echoes much of this line of thought.

* Taking into consideration that death is an enormous part of life, we spend an awfully large proportion of our time not considering it. It is the greatest fear - some would argue the only fear and it is used by the less scrupulous to keep us in line. A liberation from the fear of death would be liberation of life itself.

We are, each of us, unique in our own existence and understanding of reality. Our perspectives are varied. But is there a langauge-less, dreamlike state, in which we can communicate with a wisdom (which may be ourselves), crossing our own defined boundaries, that remains hidden by either the passage of time or by esoteric chicanery? Kingsley alludes to this. And if tapped, is it akin to enlightenment?

But going back to the opening passage..."Oracles are never what they seem. For oracles to be oracles, they have to contain something hidden. The more you think you understand them, the less you probably do. That's where the danger lies"... there really is a fundamental truth and wisdom in this statement. It's something, I feel, that the ancients understood. For with growing enlightenment, in line with yin and yang, balance, stillness, and 'equal and oppositing' forces, a price must be paid at the opposite end of the spectrum to that growing enlightenment. The positives are balanced by the negatives. The greater the highs, the deeper the lows. It could be said that the point of stillness contains both of the extremes, balanced and in harmony, but nethertheless still present. But that's what reality is all about, at it's core - experience. Without a mind to perceive and experience, it does not exist at all.

I've no idea if any of this makes any sense, living in my own reality. There are concepts on the fringes of my mind for which there are no words and thus no way to expound them. I'm looking forward to making sense of them as they develop, even though the lows will become deeper as the understanding I crave is slowly revealed to me.

[lucky]

This book just sounds fascinating ...late to see the thread but kindle will get me a copy tonight (if its available)

[Elvis]

Interesting and good comments so far. Coffin dodger, the morphic resonance and "knowledge of that we no longer use, have the words for, have forgotten, or had forgotten for us" strikes a chord with me, too.

Kingsley seems, to me, to be talking about hypnagogia, a state between being awake and asleep, associated with certain 'paranormal' experiences. I was also reminded of the out-of-body techniques developed by Robert Monroe and the Monroe Institute. I lean to the notion that these are all related "ways of knowing" that are indeed forgotten by 'Western' civilization.

The Monroe Institute brings to mind Brekin's concerns about manipulation by a priesthood; while I think Monroe was an A-1 guy, it does appear that others (spooks, mainly) might have exploited his techniques and discoveries for less-than-Good applications (or not -- I don't know enough to be certain). In any case I think the Apollonian priesthood described by Kingsley were genuine healers; it will be interesting to see whether Kingsley says anything about intentional misuse of "incubation." (I'm currently on page 116.)

Overall, I'm interested in the idea that these esoteric 'Greek' ways of seeing things came from 'the East'. My favorite Greek philosopher is Diogenes of Sinope (a contemporary of Plato), whose philosophy seems much, much closer to Buddha than to Plato and the other stuffed togas of the Academy (whom Diogones loved to heckle).

[coffin_dodger]

I should also like to thank Prof. Kinglsey for his own oracular wisdom in this book - that the common man/woman wields the power to change events.

When was the last time a politician or a banker made a great discovery / had an original thought that benefitted humankind?