Character and Neo Advaita.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Iamit

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

My hope is that if totalitarianism is challenged early and not ignored it wont develop to the stage of the excellant poem you have posted. I haven't seen it for a while and thank you for bringing it here.

It starts with the smearing of dissidents, in this case Neo Advaita but it could be any that dare to hold a view different to the establishment, in this case Traditional Advaita. Turn up the volume.

So in the long history some came for others, one being named this and the other that, so it really only comes down to the name and the assumed identity there under, for we know there is no NA nor TA, communist and so forth in the observable universe. Therefore, although there is error in 'coming for' NA (or other named , symbolic identity struture), they may come for NA in the name of TA, and as the poem proceeds , come for me, and after me, continue the same thing, just under different names.

The has always been resistance in the past, and as one binary paradigm collapsed in the pressure, another binary paradigm replaced it, because the creation of named identity necessitates the creation of an 'other'. For example, as J Krishnamurti said, to become a Christian Muslim Hindu Jew, or th=o be an American, Indian, German etc is itself violence in that by becoming such one separates themselves from the greater humanity. It's easy to see that all major 'coming fors' are 'in the name' that separates, and in such separation there is inevitable conflict.

People will resist, just as Islamic groups resist the onslaught brought from the West, and there were commies previous to terrorists, and Krauts previous to that, they, or we, always resisted and eventually one or the other was anhillated, only to be reborn as the next named thing.

So we see in our historical contect, resistance works in the immediate paradigm between names things, but doesn't address the fundamental act of naming itself. So in all our generations, despite all resistances, the primal exertion of power and control itself is never ending.

Hence, to me the bickering between factions in the general sense will never be solved by resistance, because resistance is endemic to power, not in opposition to it really, but integral to its opperation.

From here I would have to explain something of 'real living bodies' and the 'social bodies' - which will be tedious and uninteresting, but an old philosopher named Kantorowicz described the King's body. The 'real living body' of the king is born lives and dies, but the 'social body' of the King is the position which remains as the King's son inhabits it, then his son after him. In another body is 'the condemned man' whose living body is birth death, but the social body of the condemned is filled by one man after another. Kantorowicz explained that the excesses of the King's power is contained in the social body, and only quantified as the inverse proportion to that of the condemned man. Thus power itself is not of the king, but in his relationship with the man whom he condemns.

In this case, TA and NA are trying to occupy the 'king's body', so the speak, and therefore set about a create a 'condemned man' (in this case the 'social body' named NA).

If no one fills the body of the condemned, there is no way to site excess in the body of the king. In short, there would be no 'other' by which 'the one' may self-define and name.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Gem

So in the long history some came for others, one being named this and the other that, so it really only comes down to the name and the assumed identity there under, for we know there is no NA nor TA, communist and so forth in the observable universe. Therefore, although there is error in 'coming for' NA (or other named , symbolic identity struture), they may come for NA in the name of TA, and as the poem proceeds , come for me, and after me, continue the same thing, just under different names.

The has always been resistance in the past, and as one binary paradigm collapsed in the pressure, another binary paradigm replaced it, because the creation of named identity necessitates the creation of an 'other'. For example, as J Krishnamurti said, to become a Christian Muslim Hindu Jew, or th=o be an American, Indian, German etc is itself violence in that by becoming such one separates themselves from the greater humanity. It's easy to see that all major 'coming fors' are 'in the name' that separates, and in such separation there is inevitable conflict.

People will resist, just as Islamic groups resist the onslaught brought from the West, and there were commies previous to terrorists, and Krauts previous to that, they, or we, always resisted and eventually one or the other was anhillated, only to be reborn as the next named thing.

So we see in our historical contect, resistance works in the immediate paradigm between names things, but doesn't address the fundamental act of naming itself. So in all our generations, despite all resistances, the primal exertion of power and control itself is never ending.

Hence, to me the bickering between factions in the general sense will never be solved by resistance, because resistance is endemic to power, not in opposition to it really, but integral to its opperation.

From here I would have to explain something of 'real living bodies' and the 'social bodies' - which will be tedious and uninteresting, but an old philosopher named Kantorowicz described the King's body. The 'real living body' of the king is born lives and dies, but the 'social body' of the King is the position which remains as the King's son inhabits it, then his son after him. In another body is 'the condemned man' whose living body is birth death, but the social body of the condemned is filled by one man after another. Kantorowicz explained that the excesses of the King's power is contained in the social body, and only quantified as the inverse proportion to that of the condemned man. Thus power itself is not of the king, but in his relationship with the man whom he condemns.

In this case, TA and NA are trying to occupy the 'king's body', so the speak, and therefore set about a create a 'condemned man' (in this case the 'social body' named NA).

If no one fills the body of the condemned, there is no way to site excess in the body of the king. In short, there would be no 'other' by which 'the one' may self-define and name.

"For example, as J Krishnamurti said, to become a Christian Muslim Hindu Jew, or th=o be an American, Indian, German etc is itself violence in that by becoming such one separates themselves from the greater humanity"

This is plainly incorrect. It s not differences that cause conflict, just the lack of friendly acceptance of such differences. There are examples of different religions living side by side. It is when totalitarianism infects them that they can become violent.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Iamit

"For example, as J Krishnamurti said, to become a Christian Muslim Hindu Jew, or th=o be an American, Indian, German etc is itself violence in that by becoming such one separates themselves from the greater humanity"

This is plainly incorrect. It s not differences that cause conflict, just the lack of friendly acceptance of such differences. There are examples of different religions living side by side. It is when totalitarianism infects them that they can become violent.

Note the different words (bolded)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Gem

Note the different words (bolded)

Well they may gather separately but that does not mean there is intolerance of difference. It is the latter that causes conflict, not the former.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Well they may gather separately but that does not mean there is intolerance of difference. It is the latter that causes conflict, not the former.

I think the separation involved with 'named things' is more fundamental, and it involves conflict at a very fundamental level. I understand it, so I don't attack any one of them in particular, but would make a reasoned critique of all of them in the general sense.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Challenging totalitarianism is not easy. By definition it is the establishment that is seeking to crush dissidents and the establishment is usually in power with all the forces of suppression at its disposal. If it can be sucessfully challenged before it gets power (at the stage of smearing dissidents) the terrible consequences may be avoided.

Invariably that challenge will cause illwill and acrimony in the establishment, as we have seen here from TA, because it is being challenged and will likely try to increase its denial of freedom to choose differently by smears. But what is the alternative to challenging it? If we are to avoid the consequensies described in the excellant poem that has been posted in this thread, challenging totalitarianism as early as possible may be the best way.

That is my conclusion from reading history. Do you know of another way from your perspective?

I also don't subscribe to Scientology and saying that I don't buy into their system of beliefs , or that I don't believe it is a spiritual religion is not suppression or totalitarianism or religious violence believe it or not. Do you know why this forum has most probably ignored your multiple "I am being abused - help" calls? I believe it is because whilst there is much discussion and critique, there is no abuse, and the only actual totalitarianism I can see is you trying to suppress speech around your beloved Neo-Advaita and Tony Parsons, as well as the litany of lies you have spread in these forums. Given it is the New Year, it might be time to wake up from a belief system that is clearly and demonstrably not only false, but seems to have adherents in some sort of self induced persecution fantasy. The more you post, the more evident how this "I believe in Oneness" is far and away removed from genuine spiritual realization.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Iamit

I cant remember who said it about totalitarianism but it was something like. "First they came for dissidents and no-one did anything. Eventually they came for me".

:)

Iamit - Neo-Advaita/Tony Parsons extraordinaire Ambassador of 2017 playing every trick in the NA book??

*Links underlined*

The Fable of NA v "Anyone else"

Round 1: it's because TA is jealous of us!

Round 2: It's a matter of West v East

Round 3: It's a matter of personality

Round 4: NA suits people who are tired of being told they are not good enough and that they are not enlightened

Round 5: There is just anger from the tried and tested way - you are scared of NA dethroning you!

Round 6 Mega Punch: NA is a rebellion against the "totalitarian" regime of Advaita-Vedanta

Round 7: We need to defend ourselves against the mad persecution of Advaita-Vedanta and other dangerous traditionalists!

Round 8: This is a matter similar to Human Rights Watch on Religious Violence - HELP I AM BEING ATTACKED ON A FORUM IN ONENESS AND IT IS SERIOUS

Round 9: Rinse and repeat

BT

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

I also don't subscribe to Scientology and saying that I don't buy into their system of beliefs , or that I don't believe it is a spiritual religion is not suppression or totalitarianism or religious violence believe it or not. Do you know why this forum has most probably ignored your multiple "I am being abused - help" calls? I believe it is because whilst there is much discussion and critique, there is no abuse, and the only actual totalitarianism I can see is you trying to suppress speech around your beloved Neo-Advaita and Tony Parsons, as well as the litany of lies you have spread in these forums. Given it is the New Year, it might be time to wake up from a belief system that is clearly and demonstrably not only false, but seems to have adherents in some sort of self induced persecution fantasy. The more you post, the more evident how this "I believe in Oneness" is far and away removed from genuine spiritual realization.

BT

You know very well that it is not disagreement that is totaltarian. It becomes totalitarian when you think TA applies to all and reject the right of others to choose NA without smearing them as criminal, crazy, or fraudulant. Which is why you run away from the N question with your tail between your legs and long may totalitarians like you be defeated by a single question:).

Was Nisargadatta criminal, crazy, or fraudulant when using the direct approach?

:)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Iamit - Neo-Advaita/Tony Parsons extraordinaire Ambassador of 2017 playing every trick in the NA book??

*Links underlined*

The Fable of NA v "Anyone else"

Round 1: it's because TA is jealous of us!

Round 2: It's a matter of West v East

Round 3: It's a matter of personality

Round 4: NA suits people who are tired of being told they are not good enough and that they are not enlightened

Round 5: There is just anger from the tried and tested way - you are scared of NA dethroning you!

Round 6 Mega Punch: NA is a rebellion against the "totalitarian" regime of Advaita-Vedanta

Round 7: We need to defend ourselves against the mad persecution of Advaita-Vedanta and other dangerous traditionalists!

Round 8: This is a matter similar to Human Rights Watch on Religious Violence - HELP I AM BEING ATTACKED ON A FORUM IN ONENESS AND IT IS SERIOUS

Round 9: Rinse and repeat

BT

Was Nisargadatta criminal, crazy, or fraudulant when using the direct approach?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think the separation involved with 'named things' is more fundamental, and it involves conflict at a very fundamental level. I understand it, so I don't attack any one of them in particular, but would make a reasoned critique of all of them in the general sense.

Ok but there are plenty of seperate belief systems living together without conflict when there is no intolerance. I have run meetings for years which have included Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, TA, NA, and others with people who have a friendly acceptance of difference.

Separation of the One into the many is one of the things that makes life interesting and the manifestation is full of it:)