Tradition and the resistance to change.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I'm glad we could have this calm discussion on the matter.

Please allow me this opportunity to elaborate.

Speaking from my own personal experience, those who become attached to and fixated within their own ideology tend to decry and discredit those of an opposing one and then, those of the opposing paradigm will take offense or become totally defensive, often doing that which they accuse the other party of doing in a continual to-ing and fro-ing of intellectual hypocrisy.

For example, I am a Hindu...but I belong to a very obscure and often harshly criticised and demonised sect of it. In Hinduism, we have many different sampradayas (schools of thought) and the main ones being Vaishnavas (Vishnu devotees) vs Shaivites (Shiva devotees) and they have been at each other's throats for millennia. It's always the case of "my God is the one true God and your God is only a Deva...a 'demigod" (when BOTH are aspects of the other...and of Brahman itself) in the best case scenario, or the opposing deity is called 'Shetan' (Satan) or an 'Asura' (demon) in the worst case scenario...and of course, Hinduism had no notion of a 'Devil' before the Moghul emperors arrived and put the word "Shetan" into common usage among the Hindus...but I digress.

I would love to have $1 for everybody who said that I 'belonged to a cult' or I was 'insane'...or people who followed my way were also 'insane'...and all up, I'd probably have $100...and then, I think to myself "there are almost 8 billion people out there and most of them wouldn't care what I did...what path I followed, as long as it didn't interfere with their lives" and so, I try not to interfere with the lives of others.

I think the main 'stumbling block' in any discussion between TA and NA, is that the TA advocates will see their teachings as the 'original' and 'pure' ones, whilst anything that came after it was a 'copy' or a 'rip-off' of the original teachings...and the copies only cheapen the original teachings...in much the same way as you can go out and buy a pair of Nike shoes for $200 and get brand-name quality, or go and buy a pair of Nike clones for $50 which will probably fall apart after a month of wear. This is the whole issue in a nutshell.

It may be worthwhile to you, to back up your words with those from your philosophy itself, or from Tony Parsons in respect to all those, who as you say, are 'abusing' you...but remember, this is an internet forum and the small sample of those who reside here, don't represent the whole population at large.

So, we present a hypothetical here...just what do you do when a Mormon or a Seventh Day Adventist comes knocking at your door with the 'Good News'? I bet you say "sorry, not interested" despite protestations that you are 'of Satan' and will 'go to hell' for your criminal activity according to God....yeah, I bet you just say "okay, whatever" and slam the door in their face, right? This is no different.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) ,
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite).
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

Have a nice day.

We have a group here who gather for discussion. One is sufi/ muslim. two are Jehohas witnesses. Two are New age hippies and my wife and I and a few others are interested in nonduality (both TA and NA). We have been friends for many years. Even though challenging issues are raised, we enjoy our discussions because there is no abuse involved whilst attempting to understand and compare. Any other denominations would be welcome:)

The group does not meet as often these days as many children have come along who are experts at disrupting the proceedings :)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

We have a group here who gather for discussion. One is sufi/ muslim. two are Jehohas witnesses. Two are New age hippies and my wife and I and a few others are interested in nonduality (both TA and NA). We have been friends for many years. Even though challenging issues are raised, we enjoy our discussions because there is no abuse involved whilst attempting to understand and compare. Any other denominations would be welcome:)

The group does not meet as often these days as many children have come along who are experts at disrupting the proceedings :)

You must have some very open-minded Jehova's Witnesses there to discuss non-duality in light of their relation to Jehovah, Jesus and Satan. Never met one like that before...and I've met quite a few.

Even my neighbor objects to me listening to any music with 'drums' or a 'beat' in it because percussion instruments are the 'invention of Satan' because, historically, Shamans used them in their practice to contact the 'Spirit World' and if there's any label that can be affixed, he will affix it.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

You must have some very open-minded Jehova's Witnesses there to discuss non-duality in light of their relation to Jehovah, Jesus and Satan. Never met one like that before...and I've met quite a few.

Even my neighbor objects to me listening to any music with 'drums' or a 'beat' in it because percussion instruments are the 'invention of Satan' because, historically, Shamans used them in their practice to contact the 'Spirit World' and if there's any label that can be affixed, he will affix it.

Yes it may be surprising to you but there are variations of people in all walks of life, even NA, TA, and JW:)

[Shivani Devi]

Also, I have realised that a person's belief system is a tradeable commodity that is desirous to obtain...like money or any other material possession.

Whilst I was waiting for an appointment with my counselor the other day, I noticed all the reading material on a table in the waiting room...and most were magazines like "Watchtower" and "Awake" and such...

So, the cover of one grabbed my attention; "Angels and the New-Age" and there was a picture of Archangel Michael on the cover...and you know, that most people who are into the "New-Age" would be taken in by this...I'm not into "Angels" and all of that, but I wanted to read what the magazine had to say out of curiosity.

It basically said that there are only a very select few "good angels" who work directly for God and they don't really interfere with the lives of humans unless it's a very special case, but most of these 'angels' who appear to people are just demons in disguise and are all the work of Satan and people should shun these so-called 'angels'....I put the magazine down with "yeah, go figure".

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes it may be surprising to you but there are variations of people in all walks of life, even NA, TA, and JW:)

So, why do you become upset with others for saying what they do, even though you are aware of this?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

So, why do you become upset with others for saying what they do, even though you are aware of this?

Because abuse is designed to end discussion of that which is disagreed with. Just as shouting "Judas" was designed to stop Bob Dylan performing with The Band. Despite turning up the volume and continuing, he was so affected by it, he did not go on tour again for many years.

Noone intersted in diversity whats to have to deal with that stuff. Abusers know that, thats why they do it. to shut diversity down and just hear there own views.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Because abuse is designed to end discussion of that which is disagreed with. Just as shouting "Judas" was designed to stop Bob Dylan performing with The Band. Despite turning up the volume and continuing, he was so affected by it, he did not go on tour again for many years.

Well, I guess the option is there for you to continue the discussion despite the 'abuse' and not let that be the 'end-all' of it, or just place such people who you think are being unfair or unreasonable onto your 'ignore list' and continue on regardless...'tis what I do.

Also, there is a forum rule on here:

Discussion: Members are reminded this is a discussion forum and not a debate forum. That is to say: Debates are destructive as they present one-sided opinions and destroy reasoned arguments, whereas discussions are constructive and encourage the expression of opinion. Trolling and preaching are not forms of discussion and posts or threads of that nature may be deleted, and those who persistently debate / troll / preach without looking to discuss may be subject to warnings leading to Disciplinary Action.

Respect: Please respect other member’s and their beliefs, opinions, and views at all times. Members are also advised to be polite to other members at all times. Aggression, disrespect, baiting, flaming, homophobia , racism , name calling (this includes calling people trolls or accusing them of trolling.), belittling, sarcasm, bullying, gossiping, are all unacceptable behaviour and will, if persistent despite reminders and warnings, result in Disciplinary Action. If, however, the breach of the above rule is considered too severe, Staff may at their discretion forego both the reminder and warning and resort immediately to Disciplinary Action. Adversarial and aggressive posts deter people who would like to contribute to discussions from participation in these boards.

If you feel that other members are 'debating' instead of 'discussing' or are being totally disrespectful to your chosen belief system, you could always send a PM to Lynn the Admin and she's very fair about such issues.

...and of course, you also realise that calling people 'trolls' is breaking the rules too. ;)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Well, I guess the option is there for you to continue the discussion despite the 'abuse' and not let that be the 'end-all' of it, or just place such people who you think are being unfair or unreasonable on your 'ignore list' and continue on regardless...'tis what I do.

Also, there is a forum rule on here:



If you feel that other members are 'debating' instead of 'discussing' or are being totally disrespectful to your chosen belief system, you could always send a PM to Lynn the Admin and she's very fair about such issues.

...and of course, you also realise that calling people 'trolls' is breaking the rules too. ;)

Its merely shorthand for what I have been talking about. So the full term is people who use abuse to end discussion of what they disagree with.They know what they are doing. When they shouted "Judas" at Bob Dylan they wanted to stop him performing withThe Band. Although he turned up the volume and continued, he was affected by it and did not go on tour again for many years.

People who accept and embrace diversity do not want to have to deal with that traditionalist narrowness when it resists change abusively. They know this, thats why they do it. So the effect unforunately is that they are often successful to shut down discussion using that tactic.

Surely lumping people in with criminals and the insane already contravene the rules you refer too and I did call for moderation.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Its merely shorthand for what I have been talking about. So the full term is people who use abuse to end discussion of what they disagree with.They know what they are doing. When they shouted "Judas" at Bob Dylan they wanted to stop him performing withThe Band. Although he turned up the volume and continued, he was affected by it and did not go on tour again for many years.

People who accept and embrace diversity do not want to have to deal with that traditionalist narrowness when it resists change abusively. They know this, thats why they do it. So the effect unforunately is that they are often successful to shut down discussion using that tactic.

...and so, Bob Dylan let those people 'win' and gave them the satisfaction of not seeing him perform for many years...they must have all thrown a huge party at his expense.

When you see it in this light, you will go "I will do whatever I WANT, as long as I am not breaking any rules by doing it" (and yeah, occasionally I will push that to the very limit and it will backfire on me, but I also know I totally asked for it). lol

You are letting them win, mate...and while ever people are prepared to chuck in the towel, the dominant philosophy will always prevail because it will remain unchallenged.

It takes a very strong person with the hide of an elephant to do that though and a lesson in 'toughening up' is required....you may even be the only person on the planet who believes what you do...but seeing as how ALL personal experience is totally subjective, this does not matter.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

...and so, Bob Dylan let those people 'win' and gave them the satisfaction of not seeing him perform for many years...they must have all thrown a huge party at his expense.

When you see it in this light, you will go "I will do whatever I WANT, as long as I am not breaking any rules by doing it" (and yeah, occasionally I will push that to the very limit and it will backfire on me, but I also know I totally asked for it). lol

You are letting them win, mate...and while ever people are prepared to chuck in the towel, the dominant philosophy will always prevail because it will remain unchallenged.

It takes a very strong person with the hide of an elephant to do that though and a lesson in 'toughening up' is required....you may even be the only person on the planet who believes what you do...but seeing as how ALL personal experience is totally subjective, this does not matter.

Yes they probabley did have a party. Understandably people do not want to also be abused and leave challengers, perhaps only one, to do the work on there own, hoping they will be successful but not prepared to share the burden themselves. and at the same time critisise them for giving up.