Thank you Charles, for your last thought provoking post on the issue of the
SECRETUM.

You asked,

>
>Wei,
>     Do you think it is ever possible for Pound to make a simple
>declarative
>statement of the way he thinks things ARE and possibly be correct?

Yes.


>Or do you
>think that everything he ever said or wrote advocates some position which
>you see is inherently destructive to the welfare of mankind?

No, I do not think that.

Here are some statements which Pound made, that I (personally) think are
possibly correct.  I would go so far as to say that I am in strong agreement
with these statements:

   (1)  The intimate essence of the universe is not of the
  same nature as our own consciousness.
  (2)  Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced
  the universe.
  (3)  God, therefore, exists.  That is to say, there is no
  reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the
  intimate essence
    (S.P., 49).

  The selection of monotheism, polytheism, plural, dual,
  trinitarian god or gods, or hierarchies, is a pure matter
  of individual temperament (in free minds), and of tradi-
  tion in environment of discipular, bound minds
       (S.P., 50).


  Historically the organization of religions has usually
  been for some ulterior purpose, exploitation, control
  of the masses, etc.
    (S.P., 50).


  Benevolent dogma is an attempt to 'save the world'
  by instigating it to accept certain propositions.
  Malevolent dogma is an attempt to gain control over
  others by persuading them to accept certain propositions
          (S.P., 49).

It seems to me that Pound later contradicted these statements, particularly
those contained in the last two paragraphs.



>     I know that Buddhists believe that in the long run of time every
>sentient being will eventually reach enlightenment, satori, nirvana or
>whatever term you prefer, but do you believe that every human being is
>destined to understand every mystery thereby eliminating all mysteries and
>the distinction of the adept?



Personally, I believe that every being which chooses the Good, will continue
to gain wisdom, enlightenment, and increased measures of love and insight,
as he or she progresses and evolves.  This progress can continue after
death.  I am not convinced that EVERY mystery will be eliminated upon the
attainment of the higher levels of spiritual evolution (beyond this life).
But I am convinced that no mere human being can claim (on this earth) a
knowledge of a spiritual mystery which entitles him to elevate himself above
his fellows.  Nor is it easy or desireable for any person to generalize
about the alleged spiritual capacities of his or her fellows.  As the
history of Zen discipleship teaches, the division between the supposed
master and the supposed student is IN REALITY a fiction.  Those who say they
know, do not know; and those who do not say they know, may often know the
truth.  The occurence of Satori (sudden insight) may become a part of any
person's experience.  The condition of Nirvana (the recognition of that
which is permanent and good in each human being) may not be a  final state.
(Many Buddhists speak of Nirvana in this life, and Paranirvana, in the life
beyond).

[Incidentally, I am not an orthodox Buddhist, or a person who would limit
myself to philosophical Buddhism, even its broadest interpretations (but I
do believe that Buddhism is one of the great world religio-philosophical
thought systems, and that it provides a good antidote for much that is
lacking in Confucianism, and in Orthodox Christianity).  ]


>That would be nice science fiction but hardly
>likely, and before that day comes we will just have to do with coming up a
>bit short.

How can we know what is likely or unlikely with regard to such weighty
topics?  We can hardly predict the weather.

I did not say  that a time of universal enlightenment was imminent, nor do I
believe that we as human beings can say when or where enlightenment will
appear, or in whom.  I DO think this likely:  the less we believe that
enlightenment is possible for ourselves and for others, the less opportunity
we will give ourselves and others to make choices which will be conducive to
individual and universal enlightenment.


>Maybe we can cut the 95% by a little.

I am not sure that "we", can do this.  Individuals have to choose to do it
themselves; though we can make choices which will open up the space for
others to be able to act in a more enlightened fashion.  I don't think it
has to do with "educating" people in the normal sense of the word.


>Anyone who has ever been a
>teacher can tell you this, and you should know it regardless of how
>idealistically egalitarian you are.

I have been a teacher since 1979.  I have taught poor and rich students;
grade school students, junior, high school,  and university students; and
members of most of the world's major ethnic and linguistic groups. This does
NOT entitle to me to make generalizations about humanity, or about the
capacities of human beings who are in the course of development.   I think
the so-called 95% is a meaningless abstraction.  Grades and tests say
NOTHING about a person's inner spiritual or moral endowment.  They are
hardly even an "accurate" measure of a student's educational acheivement or
intellectual capacity.

In fact, we might want to consider the possibility that the so-called 5%
(whoever, they may be) are in greater spiritual and moral darkness than
their supposedly benighted fellows.

Permit me to comment later on the Jung quote, which, as you say, is relevant
to the current strand of discussion.  It certainly deserves more attention
than I can give it at the present moment.

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com