Vedanta and the Temple

[Shivani Devi]

Also, as an aside...besides "No1wakesup"...and I am very appreciative and thankful for his kind comment, have you noticed how other threads are being responded to, yet it's only myself responding to this one?

Sit back for a moment and think why you believe that may be so.

Surely, if there were any counter-argument it would have been hitherto expressed by at least one other?

That often has me quite bamboozled as to why is it, that whatever I say basically goes unchallenged and is left to let stand, just as it is. Meditate on that one for a while...I know that I have, countless times.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Also, as an aside...besides "No1wakesup"...and I am very appreciative and thankful for his kind comment, have you noticed how other threads are being responded to, yet it's only myself responding to this one?

Sit back for a moment and think why you believe that may be so.

Surely, if there were any counter-argument it would have been hitherto expressed by at least one other?

That often has me quite bamboozled as to why is it, that whatever I say basically goes unchallenged and is left to let stand, just as it is. Meditate on that one for a while...I know that I have, countless times.

People aren't interested in the discussion. They are entertained by the competition. If there is no argument to win there is nothing to agitate the mind, and that agitation is what people want.

I have said often, but I don't mind repeating it, the right/wrong two sided debate will never address the spiritual subject. One has to listen to what is being said and check in against themselves to see the meaning according to the insight. However, that requires the attention of a quiet inquiring mind.

Lastly, people become lost without their knowledge, so if I say one thing, it's not a thing I learned to know per-se, there is no actual knowledge in it at all - it's just something said in the endless discourse which never arrives at a conclusion.

The purpose of the discourse is to elicit the exploration so people look into what is true of themselves, and unless that is what is going on, we can't reasonably call it a 'spiritual conversation'.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Gem

People aren't interested in the discussion. They are entertained by the competition. If there is no argument to win there is nothing to agitate the mind, and that agitation is what people want.

I have said often, but I don't mind repeating it, the right/wrong two sided debate will never address the spiritual subject. One has to listen to what is being said and check in against themselves to see the meaning according to the insight. However, that requires the attention of a quiet inquiring mind.

Lastly, people become lost without their knowledge, so if I say one thing, it's not a thing I learned to know per-se, there is no actual knowledge in it at all - it's just something said in the endless discourse which never arrives at a conclusion.

The purpose of the discourse is to elicit the exploration so people look into what is true of themselves, and unless that is what is going on, we can't reasonably call it a 'spiritual conversation'.

Yes, it's just the way the mind works.

Mine tends to work just a tad differently to others, in that I interpose and intermarry each thread I am involved in on here, as they relate to a concept or concepts I'm acknowledging internally...in that whole space of being aware of 'what's going on' as a whole...and not on an individual thread-by-thread basis, according to the actual premise OF that thread.

For a beautiful example and illustration of it, Iamit and myself have been at loggerheads lately, getting bogged down in TA 'this' and NA 'that' and being entertained by the whole competition until I was just about to place him on my 'ignore list' because it was getting us both nowhere.

Then, after saying everything I have been saying in this thread and in the Hindu thread, today I decided to read one more by him...just to make up my mind about whether to ignore him or not...and I come across this:

A Pilgrim travelled to the temple and stood before the statue of Shiva. The Warden came and said "It is our tradition that we do not point our feet towards Shiva". The Pilgrim replied "Certainly Sir if you will point to where Shiva is not".

That had the effect of immediately booting me out of my mind and back into my heart and follows on from what I was saying before in the Spiritual Development Forum about being prompted by others to actually recall/remember this when I am 'thinking too much'.

It all fits together....see?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Yes, it's just the way the mind works.

Mine tends to work just a tad differently to others, in that I interpose and intermarry each thread I am involved in on here, as they relate to a concept or concepts I'm acknowledging internally...in that whole space of being aware of 'what's going on' as a whole...and not on an individual thread-by-thread basis, according to the actual premise OF that thread.

For a beautiful example and illustration of it, Iamit and myself have been at loggerheads lately, getting bogged down in TA 'this' and NA 'that' and being entertained by the whole competition until I was just about to place him on my 'ignore list' because it was getting us both nowhere.

Then, after saying everything I have been saying in this thread and in the Hindu thread, today I decided to read one more by him...just to make up my mind about whether to ignore him or not...and I come across this:



That had the effect of immediately booting me out of my mind and back into my heart and follows on from what I was saying before in the Spiritual Development Forum about being prompted by others to actually recall/remember this when I am 'thinking too much'.

It all fits together....see?

I think Iamit gets to the point where if anyone can go with TA or NA, and there's no point using one the shoot the other down - really, these things allude what Christians call 'the peace that passeth all understanding'. Some were trying to paint an ugly picture of NA cults and so forth, which is pretty lame as I'm sure there are cultish aspects to TA just as much, and perhaps more. If people accuse the Buddhist school I'm associated with of being a cult, then I could explain how it does have cultish aspects, but people aren;t interested in that - they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Gem

[...] they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

Exactly Gem,

However it is important in the spiritual context (unlike purely social or political dynamics) in which different principles, orientation, and emphasis apply regarding sadhana (practice) which requires the conscious deliberate application of spiritual means, that an inwardly directed self-examination and transformation must displace the outward projection of un-regenerated traumas, imperfections, and ignorant orientations of the past, as the substantial life process.

Simply put, your quoted passage also aptly describes an internalization of these inapt processes which take the form of anger, bitterness, remorse, resentment, etc. - also counterproductive emotional reactions/karma/samskara - all perpetuated indefinitely by their misapplied projection at others (society, or components thereof, including other religious 'factions') while disregarding the salient intention of spiritual practice for transformation of self, which is available, accessible, and significantly, now awakened.

In other words, a large part of this phenomenon (per your passage) is self-perpetuated, self-directed, and has nothing to do with these oft imagined bogeymen, feared and loathed as the rationale or excuse - no matter how reasoned or justified - who are supposedly oppressively preventing someone from engaging their own practice, when the internal availability of that practice is actually being obviated by the very outwardly projected blaming of these so-called agencies of oppression.

It's a clever substitution, borrowed or carried over from phases of life where these energetics were perhaps more appropriate at one time - but ultimately are not effective in the newly awakened context of spirituality.

It is effective however, for creating that continued emotional reaction within oneself, the continuous reliving of the unsatisfying past, which means perpetual dissatisfaction - involving the incessant reactivity that is born of that very process of a misdirected outward projection of blame/fault-finding, and false self-defence for the real abrogation of one's own responsibility regarding the opportunity offered by a spiritual awakening.

This is not to deny the existence of, justify or excuse actual regimes that are truly and pervasively oppressive, including physically - who's purpose and deliberate intention is substantially that very oppression - but to suggest that the process so described in your passage is often unnecessarily ascribed to external 'forces', when in fact it is a largely internal dynamic.


~ J

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think Iamit gets to the point where if anyone can go with TA or NA, and there's no point using one the shoot the other down - really, these things allude what Christians call 'the peace that passeth all understanding'. Some were trying to paint an ugly picture of NA cults and so forth, which is pretty lame as I'm sure there are cultish aspects to TA just as much, and perhaps more. If people accuse the Buddhist school I'm associated with of being a cult, then I could explain how it does have cultish aspects, but people aren;t interested in that - they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

Hi Gem

As you are again targeting me in your comments, I'd like to respond.


Definition of cult

1 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2); also : its body of adherents

Definition of spurious

1 : of illegitimate birth : *******
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
b : of a deceitful nature or quality

First of all, you speak incorrectly - I didn't use the word cult; I found first hand accounts of people who have dabbled in NA/Parsons (at Iamit's request) and this is where the word came from: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=118554&page=3

If you want to attack someone (not directly of course, but indirectly as usual) I suggest you stick to facts

Secondly, that having transpired, and in researching the exact meaning of the word, it appears that the word cult has some merit. Here (without utilizing or thinking of the word "cult") it seems the definition of cult above does actually apply: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...41#post1672441

The other definitions of cult are perhaps how you are referring to "your Buddhist tradition"

3 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
4 : formal religious veneration : worship

Also you presuppose knowing intent and malign others in the process. All I can say is "sad!" 'Purification' does work fortunately, but honesty is helpful - very useful, in my opinion.

Be well

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Exactly Gem,

However it is important in the spiritual context (unlike purely social or political dynamics) in which different principles, orientation, and emphasis apply regarding sadhana (practice) which requires the conscious deliberate application of spiritual means, that an inwardly directed self-examination and transformation must displace the outward projection of un-regenerated traumas, imperfections, and ignorant orientations of the past, as the substantial life process.

I personally advocate spiritual practice that enables the purification of the lifeform, so the practice itself is a higher spiritual way, and purification of mere consequence to it. Mine is not a practice for any desired ends, as the truth is regarless of anyone's desires. Hence, ardancy for the truth can not be the pursuit of personal desires. People want pleasure, desire, they do not want pain, aversion, but truth has no concern for what people want.

Simply put, your quoted passage also aptly describes an internalization of these inapt processes which take the form of anger, bitterness, remorse, resentment, etc. - also counterproductive emotional reactions/karma/samskara - all perpetuated indefinitely by their misapplied projection at others (society, or components thereof, including other religious 'factions') while disregarding the salient intention of spiritual practice for transformation of self, which is available, accessible, and significantly, now awakened.

Indeed, all the reactivity is stuck as attached to 'me', yet I am aware of it all, and If I am the one aware of reactions, then it isn't I who reacts.

In other words, a large part of this phenomenon (per your passage) is self-perpetuated, self-directed, and has nothing to do with these oft imagined bogeymen, feared and loathed as the rationale or excuse - no matter how reasoned or justified - who are supposedly oppressively preventing someone from engaging their own practice, when the internal availability of that practice is actually being obviated by the very outwardly projected blaming of these so-called agencies of oppression.

Well, in the context of the ND TA NA discussions, I like all those speakers and teachers, so there's nothing in me that goes against. Not that I agree with said teachers, I don't agree or disagree with it at all - I just see of myself what meaning they point to - and sometimes I can see the meaning. If I can't see the meaning it doesn't matter, so I don't mind.

I could only suggest listening to the teachers without agreeing and disagreeing and trying to discern if its true or false. Without making it wrong because another teacher said something which contradicts it. I would suggest disbanding all knowledge taken on authority, and just listen to what they have to say. The clinging to the known is really at the crux of all these thread's animosities, after all, and we aren't supposed to play knowledge, we're supposed be of the heart rather than the mind - so 'information' with which we may agree or disagree, be right about or wrong about... the argument is futility.

It's a clever substitution, borrowed or carried over from phases of life where these energetics were perhaps more appropriate at one time - but ultimately are not effective in the newly awakened context of spirituality.

It is effective however, for creating that continued emotional reaction within oneself, the continuous reliving of the unsatisfying past, which means perpetual dissatisfaction - involving the incessant reactivity that is born of that very process of a misdirected outward projection of blame/fault-finding, and false self-defence for the real abrogation of one's own responsibility regarding the opportunity offered by a spiritual awakening.

Yes, people are generally habitualised in asserting positions to create the defensive position of 'the other'. It's a basic facet of self-definition to imagine an 'other' against which to define oneself. I guess that's the basic operation of separation, which is conflict - which requires the knowledge of 'right vs wrong' - as the Adam and Eve legend alludes to, I suppose.

We have to go past this competitive paradigm, really, be on that feel level, where I can't call my sensation nor yours either right nor wrong.

This is not to deny the existence of, justify or excuse actual regimes that are truly and pervasively oppressive, including physically - who's purpose and deliberate intention is substantially that very oppression - but to suggest that the process so described in your passage is often unnecessarily ascribed to external 'forces', when in fact it is a largely internal dynamic.

Yes, it is the intent/volition/motive, completely an 'internal dynamic'.

Well said J, I appreciate your comments.

~G

[Shivani Devi]

Thank you for my daily dose of sardonic, colourful humour, Gem. :)

As for the whole TA vs NA bit. I'll throw my hat in to the ring.

Some people do not care about what others have to say about the path they follow, as they have their own traditions within that path to back them up and can also fall back on it if need be. The number of times Shiva has caught me in His 'cosmic arms' is too numerous to mention...and so now, they wrap around me and shield me from all that stuff.

Other people are quite sensitive to being told their path is a 'cult' or 'criminal' or whatever, despite saying 'there is room for all under the sun' and while we all have our own paths and ways, some things are better left unsaid, even though we personally know them to be 'true' according to us (and maybe our own 'traditions').

Those who are sensitive, are often prone to spiritual 'knee jerk reactions' which can be blown out of all proportion into sheer and utter absurdity - as we have witnessed, but it's just a cry to "stop doing this please..just let me be and stop picking on me".

Nobody can be responsible for the path and choices of another, we can outline the shortcomings of the philosophy of NA itself, if it has due merit (what I have been doing myself), but often, the practitioner will also see that as an attack on his persons in ad-hominem fashion, instead of an attack on the critique itself...and from ad-hominem, many straw men are thus built.

All we can do/say after the fact is "if it floats your boat" and leave it there. We may think/believe that what the other is doing is 'wrong'...or 'a waste of time' or even grab their hand and go 'enlightenment is thaddaway, mate' but in the end, if they want to just dig a hole and say "go away" then, we have no choice but to let them sort their own karma out their way and then all we can do is a 'Dr.Phil' and say "so, how's that working out for you?"

I'll get into more Vedanta philosophy soon, but my brain still doesn't wanna go there currently.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Hi Gem

As you are again targeting me in your comments, I'd like to respond.


Definition of cult

1 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2); also : its body of adherents

Definition of spurious

1 : of illegitimate birth : *******
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
b : of a deceitful nature or quality

First of all, you speak incorrectly - I didn't use the word cult; I found first hand accounts of people who have dabbled in NA/Parsons (at Iamit's request) and this is where the word came from: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=118554&page=3

If you want to attack someone (not directly of course, but indirectly as usual) I suggest you stick to facts

Secondly, that having transpired, and in researching the exact meaning of the word, it appears that the word cult has some merit. Here (without utilizing or thinking of the word "cult") it seems the definition of cult above does actually apply: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...41#post1672441

The other definitions of cult are perhaps how you are referring to "your Buddhist tradition"

3 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
4 : formal religious veneration : worship

Also you presuppose knowing intent and malign others in the process. All I can say is "sad!" 'Purification' does work fortunately, but honesty is helpful - very useful, in my opinion.

Be well

BT

Spiritual organisations and followings typically have a cultish aspect. The same is true of the school I am associated with. There are many publishing online who claim to be victims of this 'cult' as well, and in my time at the ashram I have seen people come to harm due to inadequate attention of care to them. The rigour of practice is such that there is a risk of opening doors that the individual is not stable enough to cope with, and it takes quite a deft skill and sensitivity to monitor the signs of more than 50 individuals' psychological well-being.

I made fair and balanced comments regarding the cult like aspects of following NA or TA or indeed my own school, and I have no interest whatsoever in creating a defensive position for you.

[Shivani Devi]

Cult [kuhlt]

NOUN
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

In light and view of these definitions, every religion and sacred tradition is a cult.