Being Different

[dwai]

which "I" is (so to speak) here before, during and after the universe...? (and universes that are coming and going in endless cycles)

 

Dharmas and karmas are exacting in responsibilities and unavoidable by a separate "you".

That is not applicable in the vyavaharik world. The I you are referring to is limited by the physical shell we wear...and is bound by the rules of the world it lives in. Lets not reject the relative while we have a relative existence...when we reach kaivalyam none of it will matter...but kaivalyam is not a destination we can reach by wishing way our everyday reality

[3bob]

That is not applicable in the vyavaharik world. The I you are referring to is limited by the physical shell we wear...and is bound by the rules of the world it lives in. Lets not reject the relative while we have a relative existence...when we reach kaivalyam none of it will matter...but kaivalyam is not a destination we can reach by wishing way our everyday reality

 

the "I" being alluded to has no such limits, so our communicating is off on that;

and of course there is (edit: no) wishing away of Dharmas or karmas, are you implying I'm saying there is?

[dwai]

the "I" being alluded to has no such limits, so our communicating is off on that;

and of course there is wishing away Dharmas or karmas, are you implying I'm saying there is?

Bob,

 

I get the sense that something like the was implied. I of course might be misreading the intent here. Here is the author's view on using nondualism to hide the differences or reuing them to insignificance...

 

Ellen's recent thread illustrates the common notion that non-duality is escapist from the mundane world on multiplicity. This became the handle with which Vedanta got thrashed as:

 

1) not progressive in the real world

2) causing dependency upon foreign Mother Teresa's to help the poor because Vedanta escapes responsibility

3) causing complicity with social irresponsibility.

 

Many colonial era writers made a big deal of this point and many Hindus ended up supplying them the fodder.

 

Today, Ken Wilber's reduction of dharma into what he calls "Advaita Hinduism" is used by him to claim that he has superseded the states of consciousness of Sri Aurobindo, and moved past the problems that dharma suffers from.

 

All this is a trap and many Vedantist teachers are unaware of the way their teachings get distorted.

 

Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami (cited in BD) are very clear and explicit that non-dualism does not mean that multiplicity is false. It means that multiplicity is dependent upon Oneness, and in the case of Sri Jiva all multiplicity is a form of the one, just as a smile is a form of the face and cannot be independent of it. The blueness of the blue lotus cannot exist separately from the lotus - a common example given in that tradition. This is the nature of the relationship between One and Many.

 

Another metaphor to understand the multiplicity is as lila, divine play.

 

Multiplicity is not false, be it seen as form of Brahman (Saguna Brahman) or as lila. If the face is real then its smile and all its forms are real as well.

 

The above misinterpretation of multiplicity has led many dharma scholars to criticize my notion of difference. They think its a bad idea, because they feel it takes us away from oneness. Shouldn't we be seeing only oneness, they ask? I refer to this notion as pop Vedanta; it is also called Neo-Vedanta. Interestingly, Sri Aurobindo also lashed out against this kind of misinterpretation of Vedanta.

 

So I have on many occasions asked Swami Dayananda Saraswati, considered the most prominent authority on Vedanta philosophy today. I asked directly: If the world is unreal then whats the basis for dharma, karma, worrying about what evangelists do, curing diseases, helping those in need, etc? I have this discussion many times. I must say that he gives very clear explanations to the effect that: we must deal with the differences in the world we live in, as part of dharma, karma, etc. The Gita's message is also this. Arjuna gave the escapist argument at first, to justify his inaction, and it takes Sri Krishna 18 chapters to explain why action in the world is necessary - without attachment to the results and without even the sense of being the doer.

 

Therefore, the dharma/Christian difference is as real for our lives as the dharma/adharma or deva/asura or tamas/sattva differences. Dharma is not moral relativism, though it is often attacked for being so.

 

Asserting differences is not a negation of Oneness. It is the insight into the richness of Oneness as including the differences as aspects within it.

 

Your posture towards difference should depends upon where you stand in terms of state of consciousness. If you are the rishi rooted in unity consciousness as your state (not some words you can parrot), then by all means you should act in the world in spontaneity - the One leads your actions amidst all the diversity. But if you are not there yet, you must make a conscious effort to understand right from wrong, what is what in the world - while at the same time reminding yourself that this relative level is a manifestation of one substratum.

[3bob]

Bob,

 

I get the sense that something like the was implied. I of course might be misreading the intent here. Here is the author's view on using nondualism to hide the differences or reuing them to insignificance...

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Dwai,

I basically agree with the quote and would also add that some of the misinterpretation mentioned may take place because of how different the lives of householders and renunciates can be, more so in certain sects and related cultures that are active in a very diverse country and population like there is India!

 

The last category of manifestation would not be without Paramatman, yet Paramatman does not come and go nor is "that" affected by categories.

 

Om

[Aaron]

It's because people start to think they are special, different, superior, inferior. It is obviously misguided when such statements prevail over the foundation. How can it be less than obvious that it is more often than not used as power? All of those statements for power exist within the elaborations, not the prophecies.

 

How you elaborate doesn't really change anything actual. It is only a slight to the foundation. Misinformation is more dominant than most care to believe, until they begin the search for it.

 

You're poking the bear here. What do you mean by feeling special, different, superior, or inferior? I think this characterizes the vast majority of Westerners who decide to practice Eastern traditions. In fact the people that practice religion, philosophies, and esoteric practices, more often than not, are doing so to feel special and different from the unclean masses. So when I say give up religion and philosophy it's the exact opposite of being special, unique, etc. but rather it is a call to understanding how we are not so special after all. When you realize that you are not the center of the universe then you can begin to understand the true nature of compassion. Compassion is not the act of a special or unique person, but the natural act of one person towards another, that springs forth from your empathetic connection to others.

 

Religions are for those who need to feel special, giving up religions is necessary to understand how you are not special. Diversity is an illusion, the only thing that allows it to persist is the notion of self evident in the beliefs that cause us to feel separate from each other.

 

Aaron

 

 

 

[3bob]

You're poking the bear here. What do you mean by feeling special, different, superior, or inferior? I think this characterizes the vast majority of Westerners who decide to practice Eastern traditions. In fact the people that practice religion, philosophies, and esoteric practices, more often than not, are doing so to feel special and different from the unclean masses. So when I say give up religion and philosophy it's the exact opposite of being special, unique, etc. but rather it is a call to understanding how we are not so special after all. When you realize that you are not the center of the universe then you can begin to understand the true nature of compassion. Compassion is not the act of a special or unique person, but the natural act of one person towards another, that springs forth from your empathetic connection to others.

 

Religions are for those who need to feel special, giving up religions is necessary to understand how you are not special. Diversity is an illusion, the only thing that allows it to persist is the notion of self evident in the beliefs that cause us to feel separate from each other.

 

Aaron

 

 

Giving up religion is just another form of "religion"... negation is no better than affirmation because it takes two to tango. Generalizations are seldom truisms, diversity is part and parcel to countless beings and not separated from feeling or fact, btw various manifestations of compassion (which knows no conditions or bounds) still uses all forms or sorts of diversity to act through, and that is a special wonder and joy when first realized compared to being deaf, dumb and blind to deathless Spirit...

 

Om

[Aaron]

Giving up religion is just another form of "religion"... negation is no better than affirmation because it takes two to tango. Generalizations are seldom truisms, diversity is part and parcel to countless beings and not separated from feeling or fact, btw various manifestations of compassion (which knows no conditions or bounds) still uses all forms or sorts of diversity to act through, and that is a special wonder and joy when first realized compared to being deaf, dumb and blind to deathless Spirit...

 

Om

 

Not true... Giving up religion is returning to your natural state of being. Unless of course you think religion is something we're born with.

 

Aaron

[3bob]

Not true... Giving up religion is returning to your natural state of being. Unless of course you think religion is something we're born with.

 

Aaron

 

and which natural state of being would that be... as a human body, as a mind, as a soul, as a spirit? Religion is part of form and to deny form is at least problematic.

[dwai]

You're poking the bear here. What do you mean by feeling special, different, superior, or inferior? I think this characterizes the vast majority of Westerners who decide to practice Eastern traditions. In fact the people that practice religion, philosophies, and esoteric practices, more often than not, are doing so to feel special and different from the unclean masses. So when I say give up religion and philosophy it's the exact opposite of being special, unique, etc. but rather it is a call to understanding how we are not so special after all. When you realize that you are not the center of the universe then you can begin to understand the true nature of compassion. Compassion is not the act of a special or unique person, but the natural act of one person towards another, that springs forth from your empathetic connection to others.

 

Religions are for those who need to feel special, giving up religions is necessary to understand how you are not special. Diversity is an illusion, the only thing that allows it to persist is the notion of self evident in the beliefs that cause us to feel separate from each other.

 

Aaron

 

 

 

 

Hmm..if one person gives up religion, is he then not being "different" from the others, unique, etc. To make a claim that those who have given up religion for a specific set of reasons have done so to get some benefit (in whatever shape or form) is the same as ascribing to them a "uniqueness".

 

Also, then to claim that everyone should become that way is nothing but a different tack on trying to create "sameness" (ie the same thing that christian or other religious evangelists want...the rationale used to justify this might be different however).

 

Why cant we accept that there are differences and that these differences should make us stronger collectively and not resort to one-up-manship?

 

If we look at nature, we will see that there is diversity but underlying there is integral unity. Why try to synthesize unity by omitting the diversity? As long as there is mutual respect, there will be no conflict. If there indeed is conflict, then it will be intellectually solvable instead of having to resort to violence.

 

For any conversation (dialog) to be successful, there has to be a common goal that the parties involved need to work towards. If there is no such common goal, there is no dialog (it is at best soliloquy or at worst confrontation).

 

This line of thinking is challenged very well in the book and its all the more reason to warrant a good read.

 

 

 

[Birch]

I think you've convinced me to give it a read Dwai!

But do you think my Western mind will get it? I'm serious. What if I'm genuinely cognitively hampered by decades of conditioning?

 

And not just because I agree with the stuff you mentioned on Vedanta:-)

[dwai]

I think you've convinced me to give it a read Dwai!

But do you think my Western mind will get it? I'm serious. What if I'm genuinely cognitively hampered by decades of conditioning?

 

And not just because I agree with the stuff you mentioned on Vedanta:-)

You will get it...

Anyone who is already in the way has had to discard the conditioining to a great extent. This book empowers us to identify the conditioning...perfect for spiritual warriors.

[dwai]

@SereneBlue,

 

Any new thoughts on the book?

[Aaron]

Hmm..if one person gives up religion, is he then not being "different" from the others, unique, etc. To make a claim that those who have given up religion for a specific set of reasons have done so to get some benefit (in whatever shape or form) is the same as ascribing to them a "uniqueness".

 

Also, then to claim that everyone should become that way is nothing but a different tack on trying to create "sameness" (ie the same thing that christian or other religious evangelists want...the rationale used to justify this might be different however).

 

Why cant we accept that there are differences and that these differences should make us stronger collectively and not resort to one-up-manship?

 

If we look at nature, we will see that there is diversity but underlying there is integral unity. Why try to synthesize unity by omitting the diversity? As long as there is mutual respect, there will be no conflict. If there indeed is conflict, then it will be intellectually solvable instead of having to resort to violence.

 

For any conversation (dialog) to be successful, there has to be a common goal that the parties involved need to work towards. If there is no such common goal, there is no dialog (it is at best soliloquy or at worst confrontation).

 

This line of thinking is challenged very well in the book and its all the more reason to warrant a good read.

 

 

 

 

Hello Dwai,

 

I hadn't noticed you'd responded to my post. I apologize for taking so long to respond.

 

Some things to think about, first, in nature diversity doesn't involve religious dogma that has no practical purpose towards a person's physical well being. Most people are religious because they were taught to be religious early in life, or because they hope to find something in religion to alleviate some condition that they perceive as being abnormal. This can be death, unhappiness, or simply a need to belong. In the natural world animals don't worry so much about death, but rather staying alive. Animals become unhappy, but they don't seek some magic cure, they accept it and allow themselves to pass through it as naturally as possible. When they feel the need to belong they seek others that will accept them and if they can't find anyone that will, then they live their lives to the best of their ability. They don't do this because of some moral compass or social bullying, but rather because they are invested instinctively towards pursuing these things.

 

Second, I'm not saying that everyone should pursue personal introspection, rather, I'm saying that the benefits of personal introspection far outweigh the benefits of religion and that religions tend to tell people that there is something wrong with them, whether it's a sinful nature, bad karma, or a disconnection with nature. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with us, except for what religion has helped to create. Man is not born with an innate desire to seek out religion, rather it is forced upon them, so my question is why force it upon them. I think the best course of action for any parent is to shield their children from religion until they become old enough to make a decision about it for themselves. In the meantime, as they are growing up, teach them to accept themselves for who they are, that they will have strengths and weaknesses, but that their weaknesses and strengths do not define who they are, but rather their actions do.

 

If each of us can live life with the simple idea that we will do no harm to ourselves or to others, then we will have a much greater chance of bringing the next generation into a world that actually is a better place to live. Sadly, most religious people are more intent on "saving" people and "enlightening" them, than they are actually helping them simply for the sake of helping. That speaks volumes about religion in my opinion.

 

As for diversity, do you really think their wouldn't be diversity without religion? There would absolutely be diversity, only the people would be diverse because they were following their own original nature, rather than what was constructed for them by society.

 

Aaron

Edited March 14, 2012 by Twinner

[steve]

I have nothing intelligent or insightful to add but I can't help but share a lyric from King Missle's song:

 

It's Saturday

 

I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like

I want to be just like all the different people

I have no further interest in being the same,

because I have seen difference all around,

and now I know that that's what I want

 

I don't want to blend in and be indistinguishable,

I want to be a part of the different crowd,

and assert my individuality along with the others

who are different like me

 

I don't want to be identical to anyone or anything

I don't even want to be identical to myself

I want to look in the mirror and wonder,

"who is that person? I've never seen that person before;

I've never seen anyone like that before."

 

I want to call into question thevery idea that

identity can be attached

I want a floating, shifting, ever changing persona:

Invisibility and obscurity,

detachment from the ego and all of it's pursuits.

 

Unity is useless

Comformity is competitive and divisive and leads only to

stagnation and death.

If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense,

that's because sense can not be made

It's something that must be sensed

And I, for one, am incensed by all this complacency

 

Why oppose war only when there's a war?

Why defend the clinics only when they're attacked?

Why are we always reactive?

Let's activate something

Let's fuck shit up

Whatever happened to revolution for the hell of it?

Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular, just

protesting cause it's Saturday and there's nothing else to do

 

John Hall and Roger Murdock

 

 

I mean no one any disrespect, I just dig this song and wanted to share it...

 

[dwai]

Hello Dwai,

 

I hadn't noticed you'd responded to my post. I apologize for taking so long to respond.

 

Some things to think about, first, in nature diversity doesn't involve religious dogma that has no practical purpose towards a person's physical well being. Most people are religious because they were taught to be religious early in life, or because they hope to find something in religion to alleviate some condition that they perceive as being abnormal. This can be death, unhappiness, or simply a need to belong. In the natural world animals don't worry so much about death, but rather staying alive. Animals become unhappy, but they don't seek some magic cure, they accept it and allow themselves to pass through it as naturally as possible. When they feel the need to belong they seek others that will accept them and if they can't find anyone that will, then they live their lives to the best of their ability. They don't do this because of some moral compass or social bullying, but rather because they are invested instinctively towards pursuing these things.

 

Aaron, no worries. These things take time to think about and respond to.

 

You are conflating two different things here. I am saying that most "religions" aren't dogmatic by their very nature. First, the term religion is not appropriate to describe them...they are dharma (especially the eastern ones) (which is a lot more amorphous while at the same time being greatly wider in scope). One good description of the difference between the two is in the intent: "religion is dogma when one follows it for rewards or fear of punishment (heaven or hell) while it is dharma is what one follows it for knowledge, harmony and insights". Do certain cultures tend to lean towards one or the other? Sure they do. Does that make religion bad...I don't think so.

 

 

Second, I'm not saying that everyone should pursue personal introspection, rather, I'm saying that the benefits of personal introspection far outweigh the benefits of religion and that religions tend to tell people that there is something wrong with them, whether it's a sinful nature, bad karma, or a disconnection with nature. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with us, except for what religion has helped to create. Man is not born with an innate desire to seek out religion, rather it is forced upon them, so my question is why force it upon them. I think the best course of action for any parent is to shield their children from religion until they become old enough to make a decision about it for themselves. In the meantime, as they are growing up, teach them to accept themselves for who they are, that they will have strengths and weaknesses, but that their weaknesses and strengths do not define who they are, but rather their actions do.

 

You don't understand Karma. Karma is neither good, nor bad. Karma is karma. The more karma one does the more entangled one gets in the cycle of this universe, the more obscured they get from their true self.

 

Everything else you write is true...but that is true irrespective of whether there is religion or not. Any ideology will force an individual to do that (as will the so-called secular ones -- eg post-modern humanism or it's predecessor communism). It is foolish to throw the proverbial baby out with the dish water...

 

If each of us can live life with the simple idea that we will do no harm to ourselves or to others, then we will have a much greater chance of bringing the next generation into a world that actually is a better place to live. Sadly, most religious people are more intent on "saving" people and "enlightening" them, than they are actually helping them simply for the sake of helping. That speaks volumes about religion in my opinion.

 

As for diversity, do you really think their wouldn't be diversity without religion? There would absolutely be diversity, only the people would be diverse because they were following their own original nature, rather than what was constructed for them by society.

 

Aaron

 

Do you think diversity without religion is any better than it is with it?

Do you think there would be diversity if there were only one skin-tone in the world (sure there are so many other attributes besides skin tone, right)?

Do you think there would be diversity without different languages? Different dietary habits? Different musical interests? The list could go on and on...

 

You might say, these are all culture dependent. I would say, so are religions. They are as much a part of natural evolution of the human species as it is for the dinosaurs that developed wings and finally resulted in the avian species...

[dwai]

I have nothing intelligent or insightful to add but I can't help but share a lyric from King Missle's song:

 

It's Saturday

 

I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like

I want to be just like all the different people

I have no further interest in being the same,

because I have seen difference all around,

and now I know that that's what I want

 

I don't want to blend in and be indistinguishable,

I want to be a part of the different crowd,

and assert my individuality along with the others

who are different like me

 

I don't want to be identical to anyone or anything

I don't even want to be identical to myself

I want to look in the mirror and wonder,

"who is that person? I've never seen that person before;

I've never seen anyone like that before."

 

I want to call into question thevery idea that

identity can be attached

I want a floating, shifting, ever changing persona:

Invisibility and obscurity,

detachment from the ego and all of it's pursuits.

 

Unity is useless

Comformity is competitive and divisive and leads only to

stagnation and death.

If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense,

that's because sense can not be made

It's something that must be sensed

And I, for one, am incensed by all this complacency

 

Why oppose war only when there's a war?

Why defend the clinics only when they're attacked?

Why are we always reactive?

Let's activate something

Let's fuck shit up

Whatever happened to revolution for the hell of it?

Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular, just

protesting cause it's Saturday and there's nothing else to do

 

John Hall and Roger Murdock

 

 

I mean no one any disrespect, I just dig this song and wanted to share it...

 

 

Deep stuff there Steve! I like it...

[JustARandomPanda]

I urge people to look past these things and examine the self without any preconceived notion.

 

Good idea but I'm not even sure this is possible. GoldisHeavy has often spoken on this subject and I tend to agree with him. Because from my personal experience when I toss one idea overboard another lurks in the shadows to take it's place. I'm just unconscious to the replacement until something jars me enough to make me see the new (unconscious) lens.

 

When one allows themselves to seek truth through a lens, then invariably what they will see will be colored by that lens.

 

This is where awareness watching awareness watching itself begins to be useful. Turn the gaze around and focus it back upon prajna itself. But that is a high level of skill. I'm not sure most people who post at Taobums are at that stage. You'd have to have broken through every single one of the skandas before you can begin to do that.

 

 

Twinner...when you finally come into some extra money go ahead and read the book. You might find it interesting.

[Aaron]

Aaron, no worries. These things take time to think about and respond to.

 

You are conflating two different things here. I am saying that most "religions" aren't dogmatic by their very nature. First, the term religion is not appropriate to describe them...they are dharma (especially the eastern ones) (which is a lot more amorphous while at the same time being greatly wider in scope). One good description of the difference between the two is in the intent: "religion is dogma when one follows it for rewards or fear of punishment (heaven or hell) while it is dharma is what one follows it for knowledge, harmony and insights". Do certain cultures tend to lean towards one or the other? Sure they do. Does that make religion bad...I don't think so.

 

 

There is no difference (at all) between Catholicism and Buddhism, nor Taoism and Islam, when they are practiced as religions. The basic purpose doesn't change, only the premise. One desires to save the soul so they can ascend to heaven, the other to break the cycle of karma/dharma so one can be free from suffering. In both cases we are taught that there is something wrong with us, that we're flawed, and that's the issue I have. If you don't think Buddhism has dogma, then what do you call the four noble truths, the eightfold path, sidhis, skandas, etc. Hinduism is the same, although Vedanta at its core has the potential for the least dogma.

 

You don't understand Karma. Karma is neither good, nor bad. Karma is karma. The more karma one does the more entangled one gets in the cycle of this universe, the more obscured they get from their true self.

 

As for karma... it's not so cut and dry as karma is karma. Karma is the accumulation of one's prior actions and by definition can be good or bad.

 

Everything else you write is true...but that is true irrespective of whether there is religion or not. Any ideology will force an individual to do that (as will the so-called secular ones -- eg post-modern humanism or it's predecessor communism). It is foolish to throw the proverbial baby out with the dish water...

 

The baby in the bathwater isn't real, it's just plastic, and hence is only valuable to those who see it as such. There is no harm in throwing the baby out, if in fact it's not real to begin with. And that's the crux, religion isn't real! It's a conceptualized idea. It doesn't exist outside the confines of the human mind. Why must we form a conceptualized view of reality, in lieu of reality?

 

Do you think diversity without religion is any better than it is with it?

Do you think there would be diversity if there were only one skin-tone in the world (sure there are so many other attributes besides skin tone, right)?

Do you think there would be diversity without different languages? Different dietary habits? Different musical interests? The list could go on and on...

 

You might say, these are all culture dependent. I would say, so are religions. They are as much a part of natural evolution of the human species as it is for the dinosaurs that developed wings and finally resulted in the avian species...

 

Religions are not culture dependent. We know that religion, as we know it, was formed when men ceased to be nomadic and instead focused on agriculture as a means to survive. The increase in protein from these food sources allowed these cities to grow at astounding rates and soon they became kingdoms and empires. In order to regulate these communities and direct them away from the nomadic ways, they formed religions so that there was a set moral code that dictated acceptable behavior. Religion is a form of control and those religions that are successful are the ones that allow the leaders of a country to rule over it's people with the minimum resistance.

 

 

As for diversity, diversity without religion is the only form of honest diversity, because a person becomes who they are, not through a social construct, but by the experience of self and the world that surrounds them. Religion is not the backbone of society. It isn't the heartbeat of music or the pulse of a generation, rather it is an outdated dogma that holds society back from advancing to a greater state of being.

 

Again, I don't hate religion, but I see it for what it is. It can be good and bad, but the fact of the matter is that it's not needed. If anyone thinks they need religion then they should ask themselves a simple question, does this religion offer me anything beneficial in this life that I couldn't achieve without it? If the answer is no, then why do they follow it?

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Good idea but I'm not even sure this is possible. GoldisHeavy has often spoken on this subject and I tend to agree with him. Because from my personal experience when I toss one idea overboard another lurks in the shadows to take it's place. I'm just unconscious to the replacement until something jars me enough to make me see the new (unconscious) lens.

 

I'm glad you say "sure" because that at least means there is a chance for you to see otherwise. Returning to your original nature does not mean that you abandon and discard this notion of self, but rather that you look past it and see what exists without it. It is when you can see what exists without it that you can then begin to see the true nature that exists within you and the intrinsic connection you have with everything that exists.

 

This is where awareness watching awareness watching itself begins to be useful. Turn the gaze around and focus it back upon prajna itself. But that is a high level of skill. I'm not sure most people who post at Taobums are at that stage. You'd have to have broken through every single one of the skandas before you can begin to do that.

 

Why do you believe this is necessary to become aware of your original nature? Because someone has told you it is. Is this your experience? That is a good question.

 

My goal is to try to make people aware that there is an answer beyond religion, that one can be spiritual without joining a religion or following a preordained philosophical path. We each have the ability to achieve a state of awareness without direction from anyone. There is no harm in receiving direction, but one should always remember that direction lead to specific destinations. If one tells you that this destination is holy, true, good, and righteous, it doesn't make it so. Good and bad are just subjective terms.

 

The first key to true introspection is to give up this notion of good and bad and examine yourself for what you are. If you can achieve this, then you can begin to see how the you that you are was formed, and then see the you that you were from the beginning. When you can see the original you, then you will begin to truly understand your original nature.

 

Twinner...when you finally come into some extra money go ahead and read the book. You might find it interesting.

 

 

If I do, I'll take a look. I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

There is no difference (at all) between Catholicism and Buddhism, nor Taoism and Islam, when they are practiced as religions. The basic purpose doesn't change, only the premise. One desires to save the soul so they can ascend to heaven, the other to break the cycle of karma/dharma so one can be free from suffering. In both cases we are taught that there is something wrong with us, that we're flawed, and that's the issue I have. If you don't think Buddhism has dogma, then what do you call the four noble truths, the eightfold path, sidhis, skandas, etc. Hinduism is the same, although Vedanta at its core has the potential for the least dogma.

 

you come across as a smart guy. Why this obsessive dislike toward religion? You re being so reductionistic, it is almost juvenile...

I could answer you point by point but i will be wasting my energy...like i have told others before. You will learn as you grow older.

 

 

As for karma... it's not so cut and dry as karma is karma. Karma is the accumulation of one's prior actions and by definition can be good or bad.

 

er...yes thats what i said...karma is is karma or action. There is no good or bad karma...because the chain of causality is so complex, it is useless to ascribe a value to the effect...what might seem good on the surface might be bad in the long term but in even longer term might be good and so on...

 

Good or bad are dependent on perspective. Lets say a mosquito bites you, you smack it and it dies. Do you accrue bad karma?

 

 

The baby in the bathwater isn't real, it's just plastic, and hence is only valuable to those who see it as such. There is no harm in throwing the baby out, if in fact it's not real to begin with. And that's the crux, religion isn't real! It's a conceptualized idea. It doesn't exist outside the confines of the human mind. Why must we form a conceptualized view of reality, in lieu of reality?

 

and we are what? Humans right? so why would religion exist outside the human mind? However, just because it does makes it bad? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that you say "reality" is in itself a conceptualization, your use of english is a conscptualization, living in this society, you cannot avoid conceptualized views of reality. Why? Because thats how our faculties are set up...even the most enlightened being has to return to the dualisitic world to navigate his way around and immediately conceptualized view of reality is used.

 

 

Religions are not culture dependent. We know that religion, as we know it, was formed when men ceased to be nomadic and instead focused on agriculture as a means to survive. The increase in protein from these food sources allowed these cities to grow at astounding rates and soon they became kingdoms and empires. In order to regulate these communities and direct them away from the nomadic ways, they formed religions so that there was a set moral code that dictated acceptable behavior. Religion is a form of control and those religions that are successful are the ones that allow the leaders of a country to rule over it's people with the minimum resistance.

 

 

As for diversity, diversity without religion is the only form of honest diversity, because a person becomes who they are, not through a social construct, but by the experience of self and the world that surrounds them. Religion is not the backbone of society. It isn't the heartbeat of music or the pulse of a generation, rather it is an outdated dogma that holds society back from advancing to a greater state of being.

 

Again, I don't hate religion, but I see it for what it is. It can be good and bad, but the fact of the matter is that it's not needed. If anyone thinks they need religion then they should ask themselves a simple question, does this religion offer me anything beneficial in this life that I couldn't achieve without it? If the answer is no, then why do they follow it?

 

Aaron

 

so you do agree that being different is not only natural but also a good thing...

If you spend some more time thinking about your position, you will find dogma in that as well...and find flaws in logic which i dont have to point out rigth now. Mark in your calendar an arbitrary date a few years later...and then come back and read your comments here and smile...because i bet you if you spend some more time on this in honest introspection, you will "break free"

[Aaron]

you come across as a smart guy. Why this obsessive dislike toward religion? You re being so reductionistic, it is almost juvenile...

I could answer you point by point but i will be wasting my energy...like i have told others before. You will learn as you grow older.

 

Actually I may be older than you. This isn't juvenile behavior, most juveniles aren't anti-religious, rather they're ambivalent or hyper-religious. Also I don't have an obsessive dislike of religion, you saying that doesn't make it so. I just see it for what it is and you see it as something else. This is what I call redirection in lieu of an actual response.

 

er...yes thats what i said...karma is is karma or action. There is no good or bad karma...because the chain of causality is so complex, it is useless to ascribe a value to the effect...what might seem good on the surface might be bad in the long term but in even longer term might be good and so on...

 

Good or bad are dependent on perspective. Lets say a mosquito bites you, you smack it and it dies. Do you accrue bad karma?

 

You actually said "Karma is Karma", but never alluded to it being subjective in nature. Karma is nothing more than India's answer to heaven and sin. You must be good and you must break the chains of Karma and suffering. Are you saying that you can't see how this concept helps to keep the masses in line?

 

and we are what? Humans right? so why would religion exist outside the human mind? However, just because it does makes it bad? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that you say "reality" is in itself a conceptualization, your use of english is a conscptualization, living in this society, you cannot avoid conceptualized views of reality. Why? Because thats how our faculties are set up...even the most enlightened being has to return to the dualisitic world to navigate his way around and immediately conceptualized view of reality is used.

 

If you read my response to Serene, you'd understand that returning to original nature has nothing to do with being rid of conceptualized responses, but rather understanding them for what they are. Religion isn't real, it's not objective, it's a subjective conceptualization that has absolutely no basis on reality. That's my point. Everything you find in most religions is dependent on faith, rather than an objective analysis.

 

so you do agree that being different is not only natural but also a good thing...

If you spend some more time thinking about your position, you will find dogma in that as well...and find flaws in logic which i dont have to point out rigth now. Mark in your calendar an arbitrary date a few years later...and then come back and read your comments here and smile...because i bet you if you spend some more time on this in honest introspection, you will "break free"

 

I do not see anything right or wrong in being different. It is neither good or bad. I've spent some time (decades in fact) coming to understand what I have and I doubt I'll change my mind anytime soon. It's only until the last few years I've become brave enough to break the shackles of faith and see the world as it is, rather than how I've been told it is. As for dogma, there is nothing dogmatic in telling people not to blindly follow dogma.

 

There is no good or bad, right or wrong, there is no righteous or sinful, there is only me and you. See yourself for who you really are and see me for who I really am, then you can understand everything you need to understand.

 

 

If you can answer this question for me and if you can do it satisfactorily, I'll happily become religious again, what does your religion offer you in this world that you can't achieve without it? Now once you've answered that, perhaps the next best question is, what does it take from you and what does it give you? You don't have to answer the second question, but I think it's a good thing to examine.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

Actually I may be older than you. This isn't juvenile behavior, most juveniles aren't anti-religious, rather they're ambivalent or hyper-religious. Also I don't have an obsessive dislike of religion, you saying that doesn't make it so. I just see it for what it is and you see it as something else. This is what I call redirection in lieu of an actual response.

 

I must apologize...my intent wasn't to suggest that you are juvenile. The feeling I got from your post was that the idea was almost juvenile (in that, that is how I used to argue against religion when I was a teen).

 

I am glad you don't have an obsessive dislike for religion. In that case, perhaps you should be open to the possibility that what you are suggesting as the "characteristics" of religion are infact not inherently intrinsic to them, but to interpretations of suggestions there in? Would it be reasonable to suggest that as a theory?

 

You actually said "Karma is Karma", but never alluded to it being subjective in nature. Karma is nothing more than India's answer to heaven and sin. You must be good and you must break the chains of Karma and suffering. Are you saying that you can't see how this concept helps to keep the masses in line?

 

You don't really understand Karma. Karma is not India's answer to heaven and sin. Karma is the incentive for being Wu Wei (Nishkama Karma). The fact of the matter is, this has never served the purpose of keeping the masses in line. What it has done is allowed the adventurous individuals to break free from the bondage of ignorance. Like I said, your approach is way too reductionist to actually appeal to me...and I used to think like that 20 years back.

 

 

If you read my response to Serene, you'd understand that returning to original nature has nothing to do with being rid of conceptualized responses, but rather understanding them for what they are. Religion isn't real, it's not objective, it's a subjective conceptualization that has absolutely no basis on reality. That's my point. Everything you find in most religions is dependent on faith, rather than an objective analysis.

 

Ah...objectivity...I see. Hmm...what is the means of gathering objective information? A subjective observer

Oh and the rules that define objectivity? Those are called categorical frameworks. You can be assured that there is no reality that is not interpreted via a categorical framework.

 

I can also assure you that there are things that have to be taken on faith. Without that, you cannot start down any path. Imagine you are driving in a new city and your have a map. If you dont' take the map on faith you will be lost. Religion is like that map.

 

Let me ask you this...do you think that what you see is objective reality? If there was no categorical framework that set down the rules to interpret what you see, there would be no way to make sense of anything. Everything that you take for granted in the mundane world is based on a conceptualization of reality (categorical framework). The moment we ascribe a description and label onto something, it becomes a conceptualized intepretation of the "real" thing. The paradox is that without this, we cannot operate.

 

Try walking in the middle of your busiest express way without that framework...you'll get run over by a speeding car...

 

I do not see anything right or wrong in being different. It is neither good or bad. I've spent some time (decades in fact) coming to understand what I have and I doubt I'll change my mind anytime soon. It's only until the last few years I've become brave enough to break the shackles of faith and see the world as it is, rather than how I've been told it is. As for dogma, there is nothing dogmatic in telling people not to blindly follow dogma.

 

There is no good or bad, right or wrong, there is no righteous or sinful, there is only me and you. See yourself for who you really are and see me for who I really am, then you can understand everything you need to understand.

 

 

If you can answer this question for me and if you can do it satisfactorily, I'll happily become religious again, what does your religion offer you in this world that you can't achieve without it? Now once you've answered that, perhaps the next best question is, what does it take from you and what does it give you? You don't have to answer the second question, but I think it's a good thing to examine.

 

Aaron

 

I am not insisting that you become religious. I just don't like the presumption that something has to be rejected purely on a superficial analysis (I don't see any depth in your analysis so far...there are so many more layers to things than what you have articulated).

 

Moreover, this was about the book Being Different and what it posits. It is by no means a call to become religious. It is a book for intellectuals who like to see things from a perspective that is different from the norm.

[steve]

[zanshin]

There is no difference (at all) between Catholicism and Buddhism, nor Taoism and Islam, when they are practiced as religions. The basic purpose doesn't change, only the premise. One desires to save the soul so they can ascend to heaven, the other to break the cycle of karma/dharma so one can be free from suffering. In both cases we are taught that there is something wrong with us, that we're flawed, and that's the issue I have.

 

 

Amen, my brother! Very well said.

 

 

 

 

Religions are not culture dependent. We know that religion, as we know it, was formed when men ceased to be nomadic and instead focused on agriculture as a means to survive. The increase in protein from these food sources allowed these cities to grow at astounding rates and soon they became kingdoms and empires. In order to regulate these communities and direct them away from the nomadic ways, they formed religions so that there was a set moral code that dictated acceptable behavior. Religion is a form of control and those religions that are successful are the ones that allow the leaders of a country to rule over it's people with the minimum resistance.

 

 

 

This too, I agree with, not necessarily against religion, but it absolutely should not have anything to do with politics. Always people and groups will disagree, but wars and killing over who really is god's chosen people might be the height of human folly No...I'll still give it second place to destroying the environment, no to dominion over the Earth too. Now with evolution, all living things are my distant cousins, all people are my brothers and sisters. I find the idea of evolution sort of spiritual, all the same tree lots of branches.

[Aaron]

I must apologize...my intent wasn't to suggest that you are juvenile. The feeling I got from your post was that the idea was almost juvenile (in that, that is how I used to argue against religion when I was a teen).

 

I am glad you don't have an obsessive dislike for religion. In that case, perhaps you should be open to the possibility that what you are suggesting as the "characteristics" of religion are infact not inherently intrinsic to them, but to interpretations of suggestions there in? Would it be reasonable to suggest that as a theory?

 

 

 

You don't really understand Karma. Karma is not India's answer to heaven and sin. Karma is the incentive for being Wu Wei (Nishkama Karma). The fact of the matter is, this has never served the purpose of keeping the masses in line. What it has done is allowed the adventurous individuals to break free from the bondage of ignorance. Like I said, your approach is way to reductionist to actually appeal to me...and I used to think like that 20 years back.

 

 

 

 

Ah...objectivity...I see. Hmm...what is the means of gathering objective information? A subjective observer

Oh and the rules that define objectivity? Those are called categorical frameworks. You can be assured that there is no reality that is not interpreted via a categorical framework.

 

I can also assure you that there are things that have to be taken on faith. Without that, you cannot start down any path. Imagine you are driving in a new city and your have a map. If you dont' take the map on faith you will be lost. Religion is like that map.

 

Let me ask you this...do you think that what you see is objective reality? If there was no categorical framework that set down the rules to interpret what you see, there would be no way to make sense of anything. Everything that you take for granted in the mundane world is based on a conceptualization of reality (categorical framework). The moment we ascribe a description and label onto something, it becomes a conceptualized intepretation of the "real" thing. The paradox is that without this, we cannot operate.

 

Try walking in the middle of your busiest express way without that framework...you'll get run over by a speeding car...

 

 

 

I am not insisting that you become religious. I just don't like the presumption that something has to be rejected purely on a superficial analysis (I don't see any depth in your analysis so far...there are so many more layers to things than what you have articulated).

 

Moreover, this was about the book Being Different and what it posits. It is by no means a call to become religious. It is a book for intellectuals who like to see things from a perspective that is different from the norm.

 

There is a great deal of depth to what I'm saying, you're just ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that nothing you've said has countered my argument. You didn't even bother answering the question. I know it's a tough question, but I find when I pose it to people they tend not to answer simply out of fear, fear that the framework upon which they've laid their lives upon might be fallible.

 

I am not making a presumption based on superficial analysis, read wikipedia and numerous other books and you'll find the same message. I'm not the first to come up with this notion, nor will I be the last, because the first thing that most people realize when they do break the chains of faith, is that faith is what has held them prisoner.

 

Buddha himself said the same thing I'm saying, the only difference between my message and his is that people decided to worship him and raise him up on a pedestal. Did you know Buddha never admitted to being divine, so why did people decide to make him divine? Well the fact of the matter is that the people didn't do it so much as the rulers did. Buddhism is the perfect religion to spread to the masses, because it emphasizes compassion and passivity. The same goes for Taoism and other philosophies. The fact of the matter is that compassion is fundamental to our original nature, but religions distort it into an act that one commits to receive something. The highest form of compassion is the kind that is done without regard to self, that is compassion that thrives from original nature.

 

It might surprise you that many of my ideas stem from Vedanta, in particular Vedanta minus the dogma and scripture, and rather just the fundamental ideas. There is nothing wrong with ideas mind you, but as anyone who has studied Vedanta knows, ideas are not who we really are. If one pursues the act of introspection and meditation, then eventually, I would say invariably, they will touch upon their original nature at some point, whether in a flash of light or a gradual realization, they will begin to see themselves as who they really are, rather than who they've been defined to be for so long.

 

My way isn't the way, it's just a way. I encourage people to find their own way, one that involves understanding who they are and how they were formed by the constructs that society has created. At one time we wandered the world, taking what we needed and moving on when things got scarce. The change in our psyche as a society and culture came when we stopped being satisfied with what we needed and instead pursued what we wanted. The same can be said for spirituality or the desire to know the mystery that eludes us. At one time we all knew that mystery, but the gradual change in how we behaved necessitated a change in how we believed. With that necessary change from a nomadic existence to an agricultural existence there came a gradual excess that occurred, and as we often do, we found a way to deal with it, greed.

 

Religion itself isn't evil or good, as I've said, but it isn't beneficial anymore. Steve's quote is an excellent example of this, but if you look even deeper, look at the amount of suffering and abuse that occurs in the name of religion, you'll find that he majority of this abuse is perpetrated directly by the religious leaders. Can good come from religion? Of course, but that isn't my point, my point is whether or not we need religion to satisfy our worldly concerns.

 

In regards to faith, there is a very big difference between accepting that a map to a city may be correct and accepting that if I become enlightened I will be free of the dharmic cycle. As far as karma goes, I think it's you who might be a little off on the concept. When asked why the last tsunami killed so many people in Thailand a monk replied that it was because the people of that region had developed so much karmic debt, not because an earthquake occurred that shifted the tectonic plates causing a sudden displacement in the ocean. So should I accept that the tsunami occurred because the people had done bad things in their past life or that there was an earthquake? I think the answer is simple. Karma is a crutch that allows us to shirk our responsibilities in this life, by blaming them on a previous one.

 

The irony is that I believed as you did for quite a long time, but it wasn't until a recent period of awakening that I began to see religion and philosophy for what they are. We could go round and round on this topic, but the fact of the matter is that my point of view wont change.

 

As an aside, I often times encourage people to study the Tao Teh Ching and other philosophies, but I also remind them that they are merely ideas, that true awareness comes from experiencing the original nature of one's self. That is the most important message I can share with people, examine who you are without any preconceived ideas. If you do it long enough, you will eventually see it. It start with silencing your mind, but it ends with an awakening of the soul.

 

Aaron

Edited March 15, 2012 by Twinner