London: In Hymns to an Unknown God, you ask: “Is it possible in this chaotic day and age to have a sense of the sacred in everyday life, or do we have to check our spirits and our god at the workplace door?” Much of what we call spirituality today takes place on Sundays, after work, when the kids are in bed, or when we’re off meditating on our own. Is it possible to make it an integral part of everyday life?
Keen: I think there is a deep yearning today to figure out how to make a real connection with the sacred. I hear many men say, “I have a good job and make a living, but it doesn’t mean anything to me; I want something with meaning, something I have a reason for doing.” But our society has been eaten up by the economic view of things, which routinely forces us to work at jobs that don’t mean anything. I think we’re inevitably going to be depressed when we focus the major part of our energy and attention on something that doesn’t give us meaning, only material things.
We have to return, I think, to the difficult idea of right livelihood, which Buddhists talk about, or the Christian idea of vocation. The first questions we must ask ourselves are “What’s my life about?” and “What gives me meaning?” Only after that should we ask “How do I make a living?” and “How do I provide for myself?”
Source : https://scott.london/interviews/keen.html
“Nowadays, everybody in the world is going in the direction of an ever-broadening spiral. Everyone seems to think ‘the bigger the better,” ‘more is better.’ People think they can grow a lot in a large field or a small field. The city culture started from using the scythe, soil, and hammer. That was the beginning of civilization. Now, people think large machines are better. I wonder if that is true! Humanity has made a lot of progress. They climb up the mountains, higher and higher. What do you think is at the end? If the upward spiral reaches the limits of growth, things fall apart at the end. They separate.
“Even with humanity’s knowledge, like physiology, science and construction, the trend is toward creating ‘experts,’ trained specialists with a narrow band of knowledge. In the beginning it just separated into two things, and then it branched out into four things, and eventually to eight things, and so on. This progression is also separation.
“Humanity’s progression of development is also separating, just branching out and branching out. The more specialized the knowledge, the more the whole picture is lost, and things start to fall apart. This is the world of humanity’s head. I think humanity’s world is like a balloon and it will eventually explode. Knowledge is falling apart. Very few people are trying to prevent this, including hippies and other conscious people.
Q: It’s interesting, we don’t in our world, and haven’t since the days of the Greeks who did, combined philosophy and art with sport. But quite clearly the oriental attitude is that the three are facets of the same thing.
Bruce Lee: Man, listen to me, ok? To me, ultimately, martial art means honestly expressing yourself. Now it is very difficult to do. I mean it is easy for me to put on a show and be cocky and be flooded with a cocky feeling and then feel, then, like pretty cool and all that. Or I can make all kinds of phony things, you see what I mean? And be blinded by it. Or I can show you some really fancy movement, but, to express oneself honestly, not lying to oneself….and to express myself honestly, that, my friend is very hard to do. And you have to train. You have to keep your reflexes so that when you want it…it’s there! When you want to move, you are moving and when you move you are determined to move. Not taking one inch, not anything less than that! If I want to punch, I’m going to do it man, and I’m going to do it! So that is the type of thing you gave to train yourself into it; to become one with it. You think….(snaps his fingers) ….it is.
Source : http://www.theattractionforums.com/showthread.php?t=65203
Q: I suppose what you have been writing about all this time, in a way, is that question of our place in the world, our connection to each other, our connection with the world. That is perhaps the theme you explore the most, do you think?
KI: Yes, I would say so, I mean I think … If I could put it a little bit more narrowly that that, I mean it’s probably … one of the things that’s interested me always is how we live in small worlds and big worlds at the same time, that we have a personal arena in which we have to try and find fulfilment and love. But that inevitably intersects with a larger world, where politics, or even dystopian universes, can prevail. So I think I’ve always been interested in that. We live in small worlds and big worlds at the same time and we can’t, you know, forget one or the other.
Q: Ayn, to begin with, I wonder if I can ask you to capsulize… I know this is difficult… Can I ask you to capsulize your philosophy? What is Randism?
image source : internet
Ayn Rand: First of all, I do not call it Randism, and I don’t like that name. I call it Objectivism, meaning a philosophy based on objective reality. Now let me explain it as briefly as I can.
First, my philosophy is based on the concept that reality exists as an objective absolute. That man’s mind, reason, is his means of perceiving it. And that men need a rational morality. I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible. Namely, a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason. A morality which can be proved by means of logic. Which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary. Now may I define what my morality is, because this is merely an introduction?
My morality is based on man’s life as a standard of value. And since man’s mind is his basic means of survival, I hold that if man wants to live on earth, and to live as a human being, he has to hold reason as an absolute. By which I mean that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action. And that he must live by the independent judgment of his own mind. That his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness. And that he must not force other people nor accept their right to force him. That each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own, rational, self-interest.
Source : http://glamour-and-discourse.blogspot.in/p/mike-wallace-interviews-ayn-rand.html
Q: Do you think we will just keep going on like – warring among ourselves for all of history?
image source : internet
Krishnamurti: You’re asking the same question in different words—what’s the future of man. Unless we radically change, the future is what we are now. It’s a serious fact. And nobody wants to change radically. They change a little bit here, a little there. If you want peace, you live peacefully. But nobody wants to live peacefully—neither the Pope, nor the prime minister, nor anybody. So they’re keeping up the wars. I’ve talked to a great many politicians in my life, a great many spiritual leaders, to gurus who come to see me—I don’t know why—they never talked about ending conflict, which means finding out the cause of conflict. Never. Let’s say nationalism is one of the causes. They never talked about it. If the Pope said tonight that the church will excommunicate anybody who joins the army to do organized killing then tomorrow he wouldn’t exist. They would throw him out. So he won’t say, “Let’s talk about peace.”I’m not cynical, I’m just looking at facts. So, what will change man? Apparently nothing from outside—no church, no threats, no wars, nothing from outside. Change implies a great deal of inquiry, a great deal of search. Someone hasn’t the time so he says, “Tell me all about it quickly.” But one must give one’s life to this, not just play around with it. The monks think they have given their life but they have given their life to an idea, to a symbol, to somebody called Christ. The Hindus have their sannyasins, the Buddhists their bhikkus—it’s the same phenomena.
But why would a novelist want to deprive himself of the right to express his philosophy overtly and assertively in his novel?
Because he has none! People often talk about Chekhov’s philosophy, or Kafka’s, or Musil’s. But just try to find a coherent philosophy in their writings! Even when they express their ideas in their notebooks, the ideas amount to intellectual exercises, playing with paradoxes, or improvisations rather than to assertions of a philosophy. And philosophers who write novels are nothing but pseudonovelists who use the form of the novel in order to illustrate their ideas. Neither Voltaire nor Camus ever discovered “that which the novel alone can discover.” I know of only one exception, and that is the Diderot of Jacques le fataliste. What a miracle! Having crossed over the boundary of the novel, the serious philosopher becomes a playful thinker. There is not one serious sentence in the novel—everything in it is play. That’s why this novel is outrageously underrated in France. Indeed, Jacques le fataliste contains everything that France has lost and refuses to recover. In France, ideas are preferred to works. Jacques le fatalistecannot be translated into the language of ideas, and therefore it cannot be understood in the homeland of ideas.