Tradition and the resistance to change.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Iamit

You need to re read the relevant posts.

Just in case you cant be bothered here's a summary.

Projection=Condemning in others what one has been conditioned to believe is unacceptable in oneself.

So on this forum we have on the one hand TA saying that those who dare to prefer NA are criminals, crazy, delusional. and suicidal. And on the other hand we have NA saying that there is room for both TA and NA depending on the character of seekers and the choices they may make about what suits them.

I hope you can see the difference.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's like Richard Feynman famously said, "The first principle is you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool", so when one says nothing need be done, is that speaker aware of their current doings?

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't advocate tradition, posit one tradition above an other, or concern myself with it at all. To me it's like, tradition is part of life, a necessary component of culture, and it can be here, go away, change, for all the difference it makes. The attempts to stamp on one or another, favour the older over the newer, is mere personal preference, so it's individuals' prerogative, and that's not really my concern.

Hi Gem,

Any profusion of autobiographical proclamations regarding intentions are fascinating and much appreciated. They bring even more joy into the world when fulfilled.

~ J

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Its the same old cry. Meditation good, Ego bad because thats what TA says it is. What this always overlooks is that one approach does not work for all! And those sad people who do not see Ego as the enemy and think and feel they have ended the search without taking it on are smeared as deluded by TA.

For some who challenge this view, Ego is seen as essential as a defensive mechanism without which we would be vulnerable or dead. Mental hospitals are full of people whose ego has collapsed (as I know from many years working as a social worker in mental health)

Mind is regarded by some as the agent that seeks out solutions to the search and resonates with the one regarded as most approriate for the Ego it has created for very good defensive reasons. This may well be another difference between the East and West because we do not have traditions with people we call gurus but we do have many thinkers such as Freud, Jung, Laing, and Esterson among many others.

We know from history that when tradition denies and smears individual choice as invalid, mad, or criminal that it can lead to persecution. In fact religious traditions have gone in for that quite a lot. Best tackle those that smear you for your choice as early as you can and assert your right to freely consider and choose what solution to the spiritual search suits you .

Hi Iamit,

Comments:

The portion bolded in your above quote is a very apt illustration of duality and illusion at play.

On the contrary, their ego has not 'collapsed' - it has become porous to other forces, and in some cases never was integrated in the first place. But (as with Moondance's reference to 'ripeness'), as a general rule, way before an awakened seeker begins to actualize a spiritual aspiration (which indicates that awakening has occurred), ego has already been well consolidated and actualized, otherwise who is aspiring, a brainless helpless sheep? Hardly - although some make a good case for it. Therefore, ego is not an enemy, but an expedient. And in that case, the ranks of the realized are full of those whose ego has collapsed!

When a spiritual aspiration descends into a receptive mind, receptivity being the requisite - and usually after seeing first hand the futile and frustrating consequences of enabling and promoting ego as a means (because by definition it cannot progress spiritually by its own devices) - that mind becomes a searching and seeking mind thus beginning to transcend itself by identifying beyond itself - it is an embrace or surrender - not the white knuckle clutch of a duplicitous separative petty mind defending the status quo (of ego/mind) for its own sake.

we do not have traditions with people we call gurus but we do have many thinkers such as Freud, Jung, Laing, and Esterson among many others.

Even in the East these would qualify as intellectuals, certainly not realized gurus. But in a globalizing world the tenets of the East are being subsumed by their counterpart and vice versa - and that includes spiritually as well as culturally and economically.

Finally - you rail at 'tradition' and then invoke 'history'. Very good (and conveniently selective)! I guess it depends on which tradition suits one's real (vs professed) needs in the present moment - here and now. Meanwhile...
How can any tradition, the purpose of which is to liberate, the authentic practitioners of which are consistent with the best intentions and means, in and through legitimate and benign action, ever oppress and persecute? Simply said, a legitimate authentic liberation doesn't oppress, but rather fulfills spiritual potential. Again, it is not the truly viable components of the tradition that persecute per se, but the untransformed misapplied ignorance of any so-called practitioner misidentified accordingly as a proponent of that tradition by the very projection of untransformed ego or its defence e.g., disguised or posing as a spiritual quest, when really it is an intellectual reactivity.
"tackle those that smear you"?!?
"assert your right"?!?
Who is obstructing or oppressing any practice (here)? - but surely there might be some spontaneous sincere and valid response to insistent yet questionable promotions. That is one purpose of discussion.

~ J

.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Iamit,

Comments:

The portion bolded in your above quote is a very apt illustration of duality and illusion at play.

On the contrary, their ego has not 'collapsed' - it has become porous to other forces, and in some cases never was integrated in the first place. But (as with Moondance's reference to 'ripeness'), as a general rule, way before an awakened seeker begins to actualize a spiritual aspiration (which indicates that awakening has occurred), ego has already been well consolidated and actualized, otherwise who is aspiring, a brainless helpless sheep? Hardly - although some make a good case for it. Therefore, ego is not an enemy, but an expedient. And in that case, the ranks of the realized are full of those whose ego has collapsed!

When a spiritual aspiration descends into a receptive mind, receptivity being the requisite - and usually after seeing first hand the futile and frustrating consequences of enabling and promoting ego as a means (because by definition it cannot progress spiritually by its own devices) - that mind becomes a searching and seeking mind thus beginning to transcend itself by identifying beyond itself - it is an embrace or surrender - not the white knuckle clutch of a duplicitous separative petty mind defending the status quo (of ego/mind) for its own sake.

Even in the East these would qualify as intellectuals, certainly not realized gurus. But in a globalizing world the tenets of the East are being subsumed by their counterpart and vice versa - and that includes spiritually as well as culturally and economically.

Finally - you rail at 'tradition' and then invoke 'history'. Very good (and conveniently selective)! I guess it depends on which tradition suits one's real (vs professed) needs in the present moment - here and now. Meanwhile...
How can any tradition, the purpose of which is to liberate, the authentic practitioners of which are consistent with the best intentions and means, in and through legitimate and benign action, ever oppress and persecute? Simply said, a legitimate authentic liberation doesn't oppress, but rather fulfills spiritual potential. Again, it is not the truly viable components of the tradition that persecute per se, but the untransformed misapplied ignorance of any so-called practitioner misidentified accordingly as a proponent of that tradition by the very projection of untransformed ego or its defence e.g., disguised or posing as a spiritual quest, when really it is an intellectual reactivity.
"tackle those that smear you"?!?
"assert your right"?!?
Who is obstructing or oppressing any practice (here)? - but surely there might be some spontaneous sincere and valid response to insistent yet questionable promotions. That is one purpose of discussion.

~ J

.

Mind has a way of making Ego appear as though it has collapsed in the so called realized because that is what the followers expect, while it sits behind that facade smoking a cigar. It is extreme rejection/punishment that causes the ego to actualy collaspe (fragment) Laing describes it as the double bind.."Stand up or I'lll shoot you, sit down or I'll shoot you. That looks very different to sitting in the lotus position in front of an adoring audience, and requires a lot of support to overcome.

History is neutral. tradition is not.

[revolver]

Tradition is nothing more than conditioning, if we were born into another tradition we would be following that tradition, its not who we are.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Laing describes it as the double bind.."Stand up or I'lll shoot you, sit down or I'll shoot you.

I'll just lay down then, Mr Laing, by your leave.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I'll just lay down then, Mr Laing, by your leave.

To continue the double bind point, you would not be allowed to do anything to avoid being shot. Thats the sort of treatment that collapses the ego.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by revolver

Tradition is nothing more than conditioning, if we were born into another tradition we would be following that tradition, its not who we are.

It's true, as the tradition is a cultural paradigm useful for transferring knowledge from generation to generation, but the epistemology, although functional for its purpose, isn't 'actually true'. In essence, the stories traditions are built on are myths lost in antiquity which are re-interpreted again and again so they remain 'sensible' throughout the ages.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

To continue the double bind point, you would not be allowed to do anything to avoid being shot. Thats the sort of treatment that collapses the ego.

Then either/or sitting standing will become moot, because you will be shot anyway, so it is not 'double-blind'. It's "I am going to shoot you regardless" is it not?

[revolver]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's true, as the tradition is a cultural paradigm useful for transferring knowledge from generation to generation, but the epistemology, although functional for its purpose, isn't 'actually true'. In essence, the stories traditions are built on are myths lost in antiquity which are re-interpreted again and again so they remain 'sensible' throughout the ages.

Yes we can use them as a tool, but always remembering we are not that, we are far more then mere traditions.