Being Different

[Informer]

It refutes the entire premise and title, even the thesis.

[JustARandomPanda]

It refutes the entire premise and title, even the thesis.

 

Well I can tell the above belief is by a sentient being who is content. Especially content to not read the book since it's been sufficiently auto-refuted.

 

 

Cheers to you Informer. Keep doing what works for you. It's all any of us ever do.

Edited February 20, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Informer]

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[dwai]

Yes, you might want to read/listen Jorge Ferrer:

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2011/05/jorge-ferrer-phd-transpersonal.html

 

Now: where to put Ramakrishna...? Kabir...? Were they "Abrahamic","Dharmic", both...?

How to classify the growing numbers of mystics that practice a "garland of sadhanas" (Lex Hixon's term): f. e. Vajrayana/Mystical Christianity/Shamanism...are they "Abrahamic", "Dharmic"..both...?

 

Just open questions to ponder us all... ; )

Ramakrishna was an advaitin so yeah he was dharmic. Kabir was a bhakti yogin, so he was dharmic true. The unique nature of dharmic traditions is inclusive plurality. There is no need or emphasis on uniformity...diversity is celebrated. So even their pluralistic attitude is reflective of dharma. Cant comment on modern hodge-podge mystics though...

[dwai]

It refutes the entire premise and title, even the thesis.

Did you even read the book? What are you afraid of?

[Informer]

Did you even read the book? What are you afraid of?

 

Hardly afraid, a thesis is generally designed to convey the jest of a book. Either A: he refuted it and would find the above statement in agreement or B: The premise being conveyed is not fully understood and has been refuted in the above.

 

I am not going to pay to find out, because it is not important to me. If it was free info I would be happy to look over it.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

I am not going to pay to find out, because it is not important to me. If it was free info I would be happy to look over it.

 

Hang on for a bit longer.

 

I'm about to post lengthy selections from the very beginning of the book (I've only just today reached Chapter 3 but the selections are from Chapter 1). It's good stuff. Maybe not you but perhaps someone else at Taobums will decide it's worth buying the book and checking it out.

 

 

 

I want to post enough sections so that people at least start to get an inkling of what the author (and Dwai) are saying.

 

At the very least the excerpts will be food for thought.

[Informer]

Hang on for a bit longer.

 

I'm about to post lengthy selections from the very beginning of the book (I've only just today reached Chapter 3 but the selections are from Chapter 1). It's good stuff. Maybe not you but perhaps someone else at Taobums will decide it's worth buying the book and checking it out.

 

 

 

I want to post enough sections so that people at least start to get an inkling of what the author (and Dwai) are saying.

 

At the very least the excerpts will be food for thought.

 

Sounds enticing. Would you agree that "Just be" would over-ride or refute "being different" ?

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

Sounds enticing. Would you agree that "Just be" would over-ride or refute "being different" ?

 

 

 

 

I would state that 'just be' includes 'being different'. That there is something a bit 'off' or 'not quite right' imo in thinking being different somehow means you aren't being 'just thus'. Which is what those quotes immediately made me think THEY (whoever made that song and that quote) were thinking.

 

This is, in fact (so far from what I can tell) the whole point the author is trying to make.

 

Western civilizations have this notion that "being different" is not being 'just thus' and consequently approaches it as an "error in thinking to be corrected' - aka: "a problem to be solved". Else why did you feel the need to post that quote in refutation of this thread - sight unseen of the book no less.

 

To be honest this type of thinking imo isn't strictly restricted to western civilizations. It's just that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic framework that colors a large portion of the globe's unconscious worldviews makes it particularly difficult to extend true respect to anyone who disagrees with those unconscious frameworks. That is...not extending respect has the legitimacy of religious conceptions of How Things Work behind it.

 

Note the excerpt I offered to the book

 

Letters to a Buddhist Jew

 

 

The religion deemed inferior was Zen. But if the author had been a Jewish Taoist, Jewish Confucian, Jewish Vedantin, Jewish Shaman, Jewish Theosophist, Jewish Wiccan, Jewish New Ager or whatever I think the the tone of the Rabbi would have been the same.

[Informer]

Being different is still being something other than you are . . . The song just related.

 

We can all change perspectives if we so choose.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

fine Will you show where?

 

Done!

 

Hope Taobums enjoy some of the Excerpts.

 

 

 

Note: all italics are from the original text, not my addition.

 

 

P. 19

 

Meanwhile, in my speaking engagements around the U.S., I began to tell others of my attempts to popularize 'mutual respect' in place of 'tolerance' [how very Confucian a teaching! - SB here ] and of my efforts to downplay offensive teachings against non-believers and other targeted groups. Soon several Hindu spiritual leaders started to discuss the need for mutual respect at interfaith meetings rather than tolerance.

 

The next big occasion that offered an opportunity to test my position was the United Nation's Millennium Religion Summit in 2000. This was a major gathering in New York City of hundreds of leaders from all religions. It was promoted as a pivotal event which would be a harbinger of harmony among all faiths in the new millennium. This goal was to be partly accomplished by the release of a resolution on the matter. Everything seemed to be going well until the last minute, when the New York Times reported serious disagreements over the final language of the resolution that was to be passed. A few days later, the Summit faced the prospect of a collapse with no resolution passed, prompting top UN officials to intervene in an attempt to try to break the impasse.

 

The Hindu delegation, led by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, had insisted that the term 'tolerance' in the draft be replaced with 'mutual respect'. However, the then representative of the Vatican, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict, had put his foot down in opposition to such a phrase. After all, if religions deemed 'heathen' were to start getting officially respected, there would be no justification for evangelizing and converting their adherents to Christianity. This would undermine the exclusive claims of Christianity which form the justification for the Church's large-scale proselytizing campaigns.

 

The matter reached a critical stage and there were media leaks that serious fighting had erupted between two factions demanding different terminology in the resolution. Swami Dayananda Saraswati held firm despite a great deal of pressure and the threat that his position would result in the collapse of the high-profile event. He was emphatic that the time had come for the non-Judeo-Christian religions to be formally respected as equals and not just tolerated by the 'religions of the book'. (ie., the three Abrahamaic religions). At the very last minute, the Vatican blinked. Cardinal Ratzinger conceded and the resolution declared that all religions would agree to respect one another. This change was big news and was widely broadcast among the non-Abrahamaic religions.

 

However, the matter did not end here. Within a month of the Millennium Summit's conclusion, presumably after the internal analysis of the consequence of this UN-affiliated resolution, the Vatican suddenly made an announcement which shocked liberal Catholic theologians.

 

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (an office which was previously known as the Inquisition), responsible for formulating and enacting official Catholic doctrine, issued a new policy to address the issue of religious pluralism. The policy document, called Dominus Jesus , reaffirms the historic doctrine and mission of the exclusivity of the Church. Paragraph 4 points out 'the danger to the Church of relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism...' Paragraph 22 rejects the notion that one religion is as good as another, stating that while 'followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. Many religious scholars, including many liberal Christians who favour pluralism, condemned this doctrine, arguing that it was a step backward in the ongoing struggle to foster religious harmony.

[JustARandomPanda]

Some more Excerpts:

 

Here's another example from the book involving yet a different branch of Abrahamaic-faith. This time, Muslim.

 

 

My experiments in proposing mutual respect have also involved liberal Muslims. Soon after the events of 11 September 2001, there was a period of increased camaraderie among Hindu Americans and Muslim Americans from the Indian subcontinent. During a trip to Dallas, I was invited to a radio interview by a Pakistani who produced a weekly talk show. I used the opportunity to explain why mutual respect for religions was better than tolerance, and after my talk listeners were invited to call into the station to comment. One caller, later identified as a local Pakistani community leader, congratulated me and expressed complete agreement with my views. "Rajiv ji", she said, "we are delighted and honored that you advocate mutual respect, which we as Muslims fully agree with."

 

I was glad to hear this but wanted to make sure she was not merely being politically correct, so I elaborated, for her benefit, the ideas and practices of my faith which she had so heartily agreed to respect. I explained that in Hinduism there was no injunction against worshiping images of the divine (what the Abrahamaic religions routinely and wrongly condemn as 'idolatry'). Indeed, I use images myself in my spiritual practice and felt glad that she had agreed to respect this practice. None of my practices, I reminded her, are being imposed on others. Mutual respect merely means that I am respected for my faith, with no compulsion for others to adopt or practice it. Furthermore, Hindus might view the divine in feminine form and believe in reincarnation rather than the notion of an eternal afterlife spent in either heaven or hell. I was clarifying what her promise of mutual respect entailed. The woman hung up.

 

I have found that people who represent Judea-Christian [i would have made it read Judeo-Christian-Islamic - but that's just me: SB] faiths are also generally reluctant to reject the mutual respect principle publicly, and yet once the details of the non-Judeo-Christian religions are explained unapologetically, they feel uncomfortable, for deep down they know that their religion demands not only the rejection of such heretical practices and beliefs but their outright destruction.

 

 

Another personal account from the author:

 

 

In early 2007, I was invited to an event in Delhi where a visiting delegation from Emory University in the US was promoting their newly formed Inter-Religious Council. It was a well-staged, professional presentation with all the right buzzwords about the new forum's potential to usher in religious harmony. The leaders from the Emory were pleasant, friendly and well intentioned. The audience in this case did not contribute anything that could deepen the discussion or go beyond the political correctness that is characteristic of such gatherings, so I raised my hand and started a discussion about some issues central to the objectives of such a forum. My first question was how Rev. Susan T Henry-Crowe, Emory's dean of chapel and religious life and an ordained Lutheran minister herself, was able to declare in such a forum that there was 'no religious difference among religions'. Was this denial caused by her anxiety in dealing with religious differences?

 

I wanted to know if she was advocating merely one-sided sameness designed to encourage Hindus in the audience to conceive of their religion in 'generic/universal' terms, or whether this sameness was reciprocal, in which case it also applied to the dean's own Lutheran faith. I asked the dean if her work on the Inter-Religious Council was consistent and compatible with her preaching as a Lutheran minister, and she confidently replied that it was so. So I made my question more specific: "Is the Lutheran doctrine merely to 'tolerate' other religions or also to respect them, and by respect I mean acknowledging them to be legitimate religions and equally 'valid paths to God?' She replied that this was 'an important question', one she had been 'thinking about' but which did not have 'easy answers'. In other words, she dodged the real issue, despite my persistent attempts to excavate the deep anxieties between religions.

 

As part of my homework for the meeting, I had researched the official policies of the Lutheran Church. After all, the dean could not in good faith be preaching one thing in the church and representing something contradictory to people in India! I learned that Lutherans are required to believe that the Bible is the source of all revealed divine knowledge and that it alone (sola scriptura) is the final authority for all matters of faith and doctrine. Indeed, it is mandatory for a Lutheran minister to preach that the Bible is the only reliable guide for faith and practice. Lutheran theology demands, as a requirement for membership, the belief that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and that consequently all human beings are saddled with original sin, born sinful and unable to avoid committing sinful acts. Lutherans believe that original sin is the 'chief sin, a root and fountainhead of all actual sins'. This theology is formulated in the Formula of Concord (1577), regarded as the authoritative statement of Lutheran faith to this day. Lutherans insist that without divine intervention humans are not capable of doing any good works that can satisfy God's justice, because, no matter what they do, every human thought and deed is colored by sin and sinful motives emanating from the original sin. Because of this, all humanity deserves eternal damnation in Hell - except, of course, those who are saved. Lutherans teach that salvation is possible only because of the grace of God expressed through Jesus' birth, life, suffering, death and resurrection.

 

These formal teachings of her church would seem to make it impossible for the dean to respect Hinduism. It amazed me how easily the friendly dean could smile away and evade the Christian posture of exclusivity, one of the chief causes of disharmony among religions, while presenting herself as a champion of religious harmony. It is quite possible that she is indeed, as she suggested, torn between the belief that Christianity alone opens the door to salvation on the one hand and a desire for harmony with those belonging to the so-called 'false' faiths on the other. The only way to begin to reconcile the underlying contradictions present in such inter-religious settings is to be explicit about the differences that are in fact crucial to Christianity. Many Hindus are either not knowledgeable about theological matters or too timid to probe, which in turn makes them susceptible to the sameness argument. Deception may not have been the goal of the Lutheran delegation, but it is a matter of record that disingenuous preachers in India have often used the pretense of sameness as a ploy to disarm and eventually convert others.

 

I continued with my questions: "As a Lutheran minister, how do you perceive Hindu 'murtis' (sacred images) which are often referred to as "idols" by the church, and are there not official injunctions in your teachings against such idols? "Do you consider Krishna and Shiva to be God, or among the "false gods" condemned in the Bible? "How do you see the Hindu Goddess in the light of the church's claim that God is specifically masculine?" "How do you see the Hindu concept of self as "sat-chit-ananda" (meaning inherently divine) in the light of the church's notion of the individual self as a "fallen sinner"? The Emory University delegation deftly evaded every one of those questions.

 

Such public forums will never resolve the complex, age-old incompatibilities of the world's religions (if there were easy solutions, the problem would have been solved long ago), but we can at least demand that their participants, who presumably are serious thinkers, face and address issues head on and not cover up differences by pretense. There is today an entire movement built on the notion of sameness - fueled by political correctness, ignorance and, in many cases, sheer dishonesty. We must tease out the real issues that lie beneath the mask of hypocrisy pervading most interfaith dialogues. Sameness cannot be one-sided: if X is the same as Y, Y must also be the same as X. But how many churches [or synagogues or mosques - my addition: SB ] are willing to worship Krishna or Shiva as the same universal God described in the Bible [or Torah or Koran - my addition: SB ]? This gives us a pragmatic method for empirically testing the sameness claim in any instance.

 

The reactions of the Indians at the Emory presentation in Delhi were typical of most such audiences: lack of interest in examining the deeper issues, suspicion of the motives of those who dare to speak up, and unquestioning support for the proponents of unity and interfaith. At this and other interfaith meetings I've attended, the problem is always the same: speakers pay lip service to 'mutual respect' and 'underlying unity' while failing - or refusing - to grasp what these ideas might mean for some of their cherished beliefs. Consequently, many Hindu spiritual leaders are easily duped into imagining that true respect and unity are on the table (an offer they can not refuse, so to speak).

[Informer]

An obvious feint by the Vatican. Thanks for taking time to type it, it sounds interesting.

[JustARandomPanda]

Being different is still being something other than you are . . . The song just related.

 

We can all change perspectives if we so choose.

 

 

Daniel Ingram would LOVE you Informer.

 

 

Why the Notion That You Can Not Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

[Informer]

The First Council of Nicaea seems to be a relative topic coinciding with the last excerpt .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Protector]

Sounds like just the book for me. Since around 2007 I've been looking into the sameness of religions as a way of studying Taoism, and funny enough, the two major things I looked into are Christianity and Hinduism

 

I need to get my hands on this book

[Informer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

 

"The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus, applying to him the term "God". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

 

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the persons of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God as being a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

 

All of this 300 years after he is dead . . .

 

I think he was trying to explain that jesus was saying that we are all a part of the same thing he was. We are all a part of "god" , but that was squashed real quick, purity traded for power and control. (imo)

Edited February 21, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

Here is a curious excerpt from Jocelyn Godwin's book

 

The Golden Thread: The Ageless Wisdom of Western Mystery Traditions

 

I sure would love to see a discussion between Godwin and Malhotra. I do think Godwin would point out that Western Mystic paths have existed down throughout Western civilizations despite the tremendous pressure and persecution to stamp them out. Godwin is a scholar and researcher in precisely this area.

 

Enjoy!

 

P. 70 of the paperback

 

Christianity has always had problems with its mystics and philosophers, because they cannot help straying from the path laid out for the great mass of the faithful. With very rare exceptions, of which Socrates is the most famous, this problem did not arise in polytheistic cultures. It is a symptom of the contradiction that lies at the heart of monotheistic religions. Semetic monotheism, often celebrated as a great advance in the history of religious ideas, was actually a retrograde step in almost every respect. It illustrates how a truth, when transposed to the wrong level, can spawn a host of false concepts in the exoteric [not esoteric - my note: SB] mind.

 

The subtle intelligence of Indian, Egyptian, and Greek philosophers easily grasped the truth of monotheism: that there can be only one ultimate source of all things but the ordinary worshiper, in every religion, takes comfort not from metaphysics but from faith, and draws spiritual sustenance from a personal relationship with a god or goddess. A polytheistic culture like ancient Rome or modern India recognizes that there are many worthy objects for such devotion, and allows everyone his or her divinity of choice. The philosophers keep their understanding to themselves and do not interfere in people's religious customs by saying: "You should throw down the idols of Jupiter (Shiva, Isis, etc) and worship the ineffable One!" Not so the monotheisms.

 

The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam insist that there is only one God, and in a sense they are right. But what they call God is no longer the One of the philosophers. He is a masculine entity with attributes of a far lower order, such as tribal chauvinism, the desire for love, response to prayers or bribery, and intervention in human affairs. He is no better than the gods of Olympus, yet he is supposed to be the source of all. And as he acts, with bitter enmity to the worshipers of other gods, so do his followers - as if the One could care.

 

I can not blame Christ, or the esoteric school that originated the Christian mythology, for the millennium and a half of heresy-hunting, schisms, persecutions, inquisitions, and civil wars waged in his name. I can only blame the "one way" mentality which leads to rigidity, dogmatism, and the conviction that it has a monopoly on truth, backed by an anthology of Hebrew and Greek writings still held by many people to be the Word of God. When the cause of these terrors was not basely political or economic, it stemmed from someone's conviction that he possessed some truth about God which his opponents disputed or denied. Few things are more dangerous in human affairs, or have such painful consequences, than the religious person's conviction of his own rightness.

 

The conviction of Dionysus; Eriugena, Eckhart, and the like was of an entirely different order. But once they descended from the heights of metaphysical contemplation, they too could not avoid using the imagery, and eventually the dogmas, that Church and Bible had instilled in them. Dionysus, for example, wrote a companion volume to his Celestial Hierarchy in which he defended the ecclesiastical hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons on the grounds that it reflected the orders of angels. Eriugena, for all his unitive vision of God and Nature, felt obliged to attack the Arian heresy, which holds that the Son is not equal to the Father, as well as the theologies of the Jews and Pagans.

 

Eckhart strove to extract hidden meanings from every phrase of Scripture, with touching confidence that its authors were more divinely inspired even than himself. The same relationship to revealed writings existed in other monotheisms. In the medieval Islamic world there were mystics of no lesser distinction than the Christian ones, for whom everything, apart from the unknowable God, appeared in the theological categories of the Qur'an, which expresses horror that God should be said to bring forth a Son. And the enlightened masters of the Kabbalah, who felt authorized to speak of the Ain - the indescribable plenitude of Nothingness - did not believe that they had come to it through the grace of Jesus Christ.

[Informer]

Daniel Ingram would LOVE you Informer.

 

 

Why the Notion That You Can Not Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

 

It is actually a road block for those incapable of deeper inquiry. Intentionally or not? *shrugs*

 

1) This notion encourages people to not practice. You can say what you like, but again and again I see people who subscribe to this and similar notions resting on their cleverness and grand posteriors and not actually getting it in the same way that my accomplished meditator friends get it. It seems so comforting, this notion that you are already something that you, in fact, are not. This brings us to the question of what you are and are not.

There was a guy on a blogsite to which I sometimes post who kept inserting comments in our discussion such as you can not become what you already are, awakening is not about more knowledge but instead about less knowledge, and that awakening happens regardless of study and meditation. I have encountered this vile point of view and its variants before, and so replied as follows, in slightly edited form

 

Not everyone exercises the ability to change perspectives. Instead, realize that it is a choice to choose a fixed one.

 

The focus of the "essay" (if you wanna call it that) seems to be more about acquiring something, and why attachments are not important. False knowing builds constructs that must be seen through, to build a new basis for true knowing.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

And just cause it has no small link to this thread Taobums might wanna check out this one (especially check out the YouTube vid )

 

 

 

One never has no-preconceived notions as long as one draws breath.

[Aaron]

I just wanted to point out that this topic seems to be a consensus of people that agree that the western view is inferior to the eastern view and that in order for westerners to realize their full potential they must understand how that's wrong and begin to think like Easterners.

 

This is a common topic on Taoist forums, in fact this is the fourth time in two years I've seen it pop up. The stance I've taken, and still take, is that this is really a matter of intellectual supremacy, one side views their beliefs to be superior and thus they tend to deprecate those practices they see as inferior.

 

I see nothing inherently wrong with the Western frame of mind, nor with the Eastern frame of mind, especially since there is no such thing as wrong when one investigates these sorts of things. It's like saying an amazonian tribe is superior to american culture, because they have a healthier diet.

 

What people should be focusing on isn't the differences, but the actual experiences that exist within both cultures, to understand what these mean on a deeper level, but also how these views of self effect one's own self identity. I have no desire to become "eastern", nor do I have any desire to remain "western", rather my goal is to understand on an intimate level the reasons I am who I am, and most importantly who I actually am. I don't think the east or the west have an advantage when it comes to this, (they certainly all suffer from the same ills of society) but rather that the trick is to understand the cultural bias surrounding your own view of self, so that you don't trade one bias for the other.

 

As for being different, well that's just another way of saying something is wrong with someone else.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

I just wanted to point out that this topic seems to be a consensus of people that agree that the western view is inferior to the eastern view and that in order for westerners to realize their full potential they must understand how that's wrong and begin to think like Easterners.

 

This is a common topic on Taoist forums, in fact this is the fourth time in two years I've seen it pop up. The stance I've taken, and still take, is that this is really a matter of intellectual supremacy, one side views their beliefs to be superior and thus they tend to deprecate those practices they see as inferior.

 

Actually all this book is trying to do is show that the overwhelming need for uniformity (and conformity) in the Western system is incompatible with study of eastern traditions (especially esoterica).

 

I see nothing inherently wrong with the Western frame of mind, nor with the Eastern frame of mind, especially since there is no such thing as wrong when one investigates these sorts of things. It's like saying an amazonian tribe is superior to american culture, because they have a healthier diet.

 

What people should be focusing on isn't the differences, but the actual experiences that exist within both cultures, to understand what these mean on a deeper level, but also how these views of self effect one's own self identity. I have no desire to become "eastern", nor do I have any desire to remain "western", rather my goal is to understand on an intimate level the reasons I am who I am, and most importantly who I actually am. I don't think the east or the west have an advantage when it comes to this, (they certainly all suffer from the same ills of society) but rather that the trick is to understand the cultural bias surrounding your own view of self, so that you don't trade one bias for the other.

 

And each is fine in its own context. Taken out of context, we have confusion and contradictions.

 

As for being different, well that's just another way of saying something is wrong with someone else.

 

Aaron

 

Is it? Have you read the book? In fact the book is trying to emphasize that we need to celebrate the differences (which are obvious) and not try to whitewash everything to look the same. It is also calling for mutual respect between various traditions of the world (as opposed to tolerance, which a superior concedes towards an inferior).

 

It is trying to identify the differences between the dharmic and the abrahamic systems (and their approach to spirituality) and it would serve a western seeker well to be aware of these differences (and see if they can truly reconcile their internal beliefs (religious) with an externally implanted system like say Buddhism or Daoism or Vedanta (which aren't that religious))..

 

 

And the other thing it does is flips the field of anthropology in reverse direction (so instead of a western scientist studying a foreign culture via the lens of his framework (anthropology), a native is studying the west).

[Informer]

Actually all this book is trying to do is show that the overwhelming need for uniformity (and conformity) in the Western system is incompatible with study of eastern traditions (especially esoterica).

 

 

 

And each is fine in its own context. Taken out of context, we have confusion and contradictions.

 

 

 

Is it? Have you read the book? In fact the book is trying to emphasize that we need to celebrate the differences (which are obvious) and not try to whitewash everything to look the same. It is also calling for mutual respect between various traditions of the world (as opposed to tolerance, which a superior concedes towards an inferior).

 

It is trying to identify the differences between the dharmic and the abrahamic systems (and their approach to spirituality) and it would serve a western seeker well to be aware of these differences (and see if they can truly reconcile their internal beliefs (religious) with an externally implanted system like say Buddhism or Daoism or Vedanta (which aren't that religious))..

 

 

And the other thing it does is flips the field of anthropology in reverse direction (so instead of a western scientist studying a foreign culture via the lens of his framework (anthropology), a native is studying the west).

 

 

Common ground exists within the similarities, division divide.

 

When the common ground or "base pairs" (I like to call it) are found, then the differences can bloom in their own way, yet still with that common ground to keep us together and from straying to far away. (Like DNA)

Edited February 22, 2012 by Informer

[dwai]

Common ground exists within the similarities, division divide.

 

When the common ground or "base pairs" (I like to call it) are found, then the differences can bloom in their own way, yet still with that common ground to keep us together and from straying to far away. (Like DNA)

 

Agreed...common ground is very desirable. The common ground this book is calling for is "Mutual Respect". I respect your practices and you respect mine. Net result is win-win...but the implications of this mutual respect is what messes staunch abrahamics up...because it means that there would be no need to try and convert people from other religions, and there would be no exclusivity claims (since by respecting my tradition, you are agreeing that it too is a valid way to seek the divine. Your way might be best for you, but my way is best for me. There is no absolute "BEST")....

 

In context of being able to learn a new system, if the approach is made from a place knowledge (ie knowing the implication of learning system A well), the learning is more fruitful and successful (avoids contradictions and confusion in the student).

 

An analogy would be a student of Western medicine trying to understand TCM from a Western Medicine perspective. It won't make sense because TCM uses a different framework. While a mapping might be possible, it is not going to bridge the gap between the two ever. They are two completely different ways of looking at disease and treatment.

 

If a student cannot empty his/her cup, the cup will overflow and all the tea will be wasted

Edited February 22, 2012 by dwai

[Informer]

I personally don't care if someone is trying to convert me or not, it is ultimately up to me to choose to let them convert me. I would assert my stance on the matter, and hopefully they would respect my views in turn.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Informer