dachungzi

@steve Thank you for saying I'm justified in this anger. I do still want to apologize though. I've been through a lot, and I've had religion used to justify it, just about everyone I grew up with did, queer or not. And when I would read the Bible, I'd feel inundated with justifications for it, it makes no small wonder why the abusers always felt so vindicated. So many more passages for rather than against, and the against always uses much more passive and weak language. All of the worst people I have ever known in my life were deeply religious. Of course I've known plenty of warm, kind religious people, but it usually felt like despite it, and not because of it. I've been dodging explaining what my experiences were, they feel kind of personal and some part of me feels like it's almost taboo to say publicly what they were, I don't know why. Should I not? A part of me also wants to because I'm reconsidering if I'll really ever have anyone I want to tell this to face to face that I'd expect to have any kind of an answer for from, so why not cast a wider net? @Nungali I appreciate the concern even if it's loaded with snark, I've been snippy too. I mean, in so many words, I find it hard to extrapolate any other meaning from these, some emphasis mine, from https://people.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm: Thanks to everyone who's shared personal experiences and gave advice. Still feel pretty lost, but it's helped me maybe work through a little bit.

If there really is this degree of small minded pettiness from the mouths of the supposed sages, Buddhas and enlightened gurus why should I believe that any of these people have any idea of what they're talking about? That these practices have any merit? Why should I even practice their derivatives if the source is also meaningless? How is this in any way "enlightenment"? I feel only more and more affirmation that these all are simply an "alliance with the despot" as Thomas Jefferson had to say about clergy in "every country and age". Conniving miserable sycophants, cretins without any practical merit outside an affinity for manipulation and ritual, coaxing a higher social status out of elite patrons by pacifying a justifiably angry and miserable peasantry who have every right and reason to take their king's head, and otherwise attempting to take a crown for themselves when met with resistance. More and more affirmation in UG Krishnamurti in saying all religion and religious practice are empty forms that take you further away from truth and liberation rather than closer to it. That there is no truer statement in all the world's scriptures than the passage in the Avadhuta Gita that "There is no teacher, no teaching, and no one taught." and so I think I will leave this inn to kill the Buddha on the road. Good luck to you all, I guess.

I meant to phrase that "why did you" but I did try emailing him asking about this and he never replied : P

That's legit disgusting and would force me to discard the entire premise of all of their teachings as nonsense. Being non-WASP in America already makes you an outgroup btw. I really hope that wasn't Ian Duncan, why would you recommend him to me in the first thread I made?

I'm vaguely aware of the regions' ancient religions ties to current ones and how the Semites weren't originally monotheistic, though I had forgotten about this particular myth. Though honestly I can't read anything but malevolent intent in Ea/Enki, seeing humanity as a cruel experiment with probable nefarious, ambitious ends, and so does nothing to assuage my concerns of the Abrahamic deity as a malevolent entity if he is to exist. But at any rate I am certainly much closer to building an altar to Ishtar than I am to step foot back in a church again lol

@Nungali What I think is that I'd feel remiss to wholly reject tradition and say I would have the discernment to know what is true and what is not, and that I only feel certain about my identity and its harmlessness because of my lived experience with it and how fundamental to a person's behavior and personality something like their gender or sexuality is. Rather I've actually touched the infinite, let alone aligned with it, or can perceive and influence spiritual entities or forces, is wayyyyyyyy out of the depth of easily discernible realities like "Sleeping with and/or becoming romantically involved with consenting adults of whatever gender is harmless, it's never made me want to hurt people, it's in fact saved people, but denying it has hurt me and others." While the experiences I claim felt significant, and it feels gratifying to attach significance to them, I don't underestimate mine or anyone's capacity for delusion. I think a lot about UG Krishnamurti saying "Thought can create any experience you want--bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, melting away into nothingness--all those experiences. But this can't be the thing, because I have remained the same person, mechanically doing these things. This is not leading me anywhere." But clearly, a part of me is interested in further exploring these things. I suppose I feel drawn to a tradition because it at least has an anchor in its large body of current and former practitioners to look at and see what kind of lives and views it's given them. I was actually aware of Crowley and Thelema beforehand, he's certainly an interesting figure and I have respect for his being an open bi man in that era. He makes for a fun conversation and I often joke "I don't know what you'd expect your kid to grow up to be besides a wizard if you name him Aleister Crowley." But I get the impression honestly that he never really outgrew the Hermeticism, also seemed really into numerology which is at the bottom of my interests. Kabbalah, gematria, all that jazz, really never did anything for me, and it seems core to his teaching. And no offense, but... His religious writings read exactly how I'd expect from what I know about his personal life. Again, my background in psychology and unpleasant upbringings, I know stimulant psychosis when I see it. I won't say he couldn't or wasn't still touching on something profound, but his writing doesn't have the same kind of clarity of concise yet densely layered focus that rings my head like a bell that I feel in, say, the Dao De Jing or Zhuangzi. I'm very heavily verbally oriented if that isn't obvious by now, and that sort of thing is important to me. But if you'd like to talk to me more about it, I'd be open to listen

@Bindi My personal interpretation of original sin, and what seems to be the common conception traditionally, is that it was the disobeying of God in the Garden of Eden, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, implying both a disobedience and attainment of knowledge before God had deemed humanity ready for, or perhaps never even intended to impart. But then you run into many circular arguments if you suppose, as the Bible frequently does, that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, and it does little to discourage non-literal interpretation, why is the tree in the Garden, did he not foresee this happening, did he really not intend for it then, why then punish us for something he did to us? But disobedience and its consequences feels like an especially strong theme in Genesis, really the books of Moses in general. I can only really interpret the Daoist and Hindu concepts as having something to do with some kind of energetic balance because there's a framework for that belief within those religions, Christianity doesn't really present this framework, any historical precedence for it is only with the "Christian mystics" like the Rosicrucian Order, and well, of course, it's all almost entirely inspired by their study of Eastern, Pagan and Hermetic texts, what a surprise. They just conveniently eschew any practices that reference other deities or spirits, but clearly the rest of this is God made nature and just fine to do! Except not, because we'll probably be fucking hanged if anybody found out we were nutting into eggshells and burying them in the ground trying to make homunculi, so we better keep this on the sly... And as for the Zohar, I'm with Gershom Scholem and the academic take, it's pseudoepigrapha with no basis in Judaism. I suppose that still leaves things like the Sefer Yetzirah but it feels like astrology and some basic mystic dialecticism to me, reminiscent of the basic elements concepts that exist in nearly all cultures, not as much contemplative and introspective technique or concern thereof.

Oh and just as a fun aside, Michael Winn also drank his own urine during a cave fast in the erroneous belief it would make for net hydration. Dunno if he encourages that to students, I sure hope not, but in any case, it doesn't, urine is dehydrating since it's full of salts and toxins your kidneys filter, and it's not sterile, you can give yourself enteritis. Fasts longer than a day or two can be a little dangerous even for a healthy adult, and dehydration kills you many magnitudes faster than starvation, starvation can take up to 100+ days, but health wonk for lack of a better word can arise in a week, so take care not to do anything extra deleterious to your health, and well if you're ever in a survival scenario, just remember you can't drink your piss unless you can distill it, that is, boil it all the way down and collect and separate the vapors as condensation.

I really feel in most cases, only one party is really correct in that judgement though. Making any outreach can be legitimately dangerous for both in a lot of cases, it can enable self-destructive behavior and opens channels for abuse and attack. I think most people try very hard for a very long time before they decide to make a complete break, or otherwise have very good reason to think they would be in mortal danger for so much as announcing their presence, completely no fault of their own. It's an obvious problem really just imagining the dynamic of a domestic violence situation, and you would encounter it again and again if you spent time helping people in a community, no need to experience it yourself. It feels so... uninspired to not temper precepts of filial piety with the knowledge of this reality. Worse yet to encourage the abuse, "spare the rod, spoil the child" and what not... At least there is a strong framework in Buddhism and Daoism for anti-literalist and anti-puritanical interpretation, "finger pointing to the Moon" and "The Dao that can be named is not the Eternal Dao" and such, that helps soften my criticisms but it still feels... Farcical in a lot of ways for me to uncritically integrate it into my life at this point. Too many things that grate against me when I look more deeply into its texts and past. Feel less well versed in Hinduism but I'm not holding my breath that there won't be similar confusions there. And even wondering rather it would actually help me even. I've felt some benefit in accepting some of these modes of thinking and experiences back into my life, but I can easily see how this could flip the other direction and turn me into a strange kind of spiritual hypochondriac, another layer of anxiety on my life. So I feel like some guidance would be really helpful, but all I see outside of traditional environments are... Dudes trying to sell me DVD sets and books to groom me into opening an energy healing business or help them do seminars and shit... I'm not interested. I read Dream Trippers and I literally laughed out loud and said "Exactly!" when Chen Yuming said "How could a man claiming to do Daoist cultivation possibly say something like that?" after Michael Winn told him "I'm a businessman!" in defense of his excessive haggling.

Also, the Fulfillment of the Law isn't referencing just the 10 Commandments, and shit, even the 10 Commandments I can't put my entire weight behind, filial piety in general throws me to be honest, with the simple question: what if your parents are assholes? I mean, like, life threatening level of toxic?

@Bindi I read it, and I'm sorry I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because all of those points are exactly what I meant by "laughably reaching" in earlier posts. I vehemently disagree the concept of original sin is a more fundamental problem than homosexuality being explicitly mentioned. Original sin is an abstraction and assumed that all have it, and judgement only between you and God; homosexuality is explicitly mentioned, it didn't need a word, let's not argue semantics, you know what "a man that lies with another man" means, and it is condemned with active, worldly violence. No such threat made to heterosexuals. There's also a pretty consistent internal logic to the grathis and the sanshi within their own contexts in my opinion, but I don't know.

I'm not cognizant of any past lives and I know more about psychology than I do religion, tell an actual psychology phd psychologist how much your memories of past lives weighs on your day to day life the diagnosis you're likely to get is schizotypal or schizoid, I promise, and yes I've wondered if I am not that myself. The cynical armchair psychiatrist in me is also a little scared for my temporal lobe. Though if I'm to accept the possibility of it, I do find it a little uncanny how close I came to proper practice of at least a couple different specific meditations when I was very, very young, based off just a very vague notion of what meditation is and the incidental desire to experience the things I suppose they were meant to produce.

I'd argue that they absolutely are required to do those things and that most Americans are circumcised regardless of their personal faith, because of Christianity. It's plain as day to me Peter's dreams to "kill and eat" was obviously a commandment to put evangelism above his personal purity as a higher virtue; that he'll never convert the heathens unless he can break bread with them. Not the complete disavowal of Kashrut European Christians were eager to make it out to be so they could keep their pig farms and not upset their status quo in adopting this hogwash. Yes I would say that The Bible's many, many internal contradictions are a demerit and not a merit. And then the question is raised, how do you discern what commandments to uphold and which not to and when, when Jesus clearly states holding and teaching all of them is the highest virtue? And further from there, there is still the fundamental problem: why is it a sin in the first place? Why is homosexuality explicitly, violently condemned where slaveowning and genocide is clearly allowed for the former and is commanded in the latter (not even the fucking livestock of the Amalekites was to be spared!) and rape is only grievous if the woman is married and a slap on the wrist if they're not, with the clear logic being that it's violating the property of the husband or father of the woman. Why? And is it not obvious that the suggestion is that being a gay or effeminate man is considered more obscene and detrimental than fucking slaveowning and genocide? Where is the compassion, the wisdom, the divinity in that? That's nice if that works for you, but that is a reading so incongruous with any interpretation of the Bible I can possibly fathom and completely outside the realm of any body of practitioners until just extremely recently maybe, whereas some 95+% of Christians would absolutely tell you you're doing witchcraft and would like to see you hanged, saying: "Look the queers are subverting our sacred faith into demon worship to recruit our kids!"

From Diamond J himself: Matthew 5:18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. The Law, capitalized, because it refers to the Torah, Hebrew for law, in fact basically all ancient languages refer to religion as such. Dharma is also Sanskrit for law or duty. The Torah contains the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, of which Leviticus is the third. I really don't have to tell you just how important Moses is as a prophet to all of the Abrahamic traditions do I? So no, Jesus emphatically states you are called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, at best, for your views, that we should forget all the bloodthirsty and prejudiced rhetoric of the Tanakh, least of all the vaunted Torah, until Heaven and Earth DISAPPEAR. Do you sir still stand on Earth and believe there to be a Heaven? Even if you suppose a poetic reading, do you truly believe the line between Heaven and Earth have fully blurred together in this day and age? And what do you suppose of the obvious implication that stoning your brother and sisters to death for not wanting to make progeny or, like, making or owning a jacket with a wool liner or a polycotton blend, or insisting that all these rules about how long the awl you drive through your slaves' ear must be and how long of a coma they can be in from a beating before it counts as a sin is actually necessary, and not grotesque and needless because slavery itself is an abomination? I'm sorry, this religion makes no such claim that these things are wrong, it quite confidently proclaims the exact opposite in fact. I am really, very sorry, but our culture is the way it is for a reason, this religion plays no small part. I will not say it is the only factor, but it is most definitely one such factor, and a strong one. I really cannot possibly see a path to liberation for a queer individual in this faith that makes any kind of sense and can't very easily descend you into self hate and persecution from your peers.

I feel remiss to wholly reject a tradition and say I would have the discernment to know what is true and what is not, I can only be this certain about my identity because, well, it is my identity, it is such a basic and fundamental part of myself, the closest thing to permanence in my behavior, though I'm not without variance in that regard of course, but would hope to find a tradition that at least comes close to what feels like has an insight and a way of teaching that speaks to me, I understand that it'll be a largely personal undertaking still. It just irks me if there really is a homogeneity of opinion in traditional sources that people that fall outside sexual and gender norms are inherently spiritually deviant misfits. Some part of me can accept dysphoria being a kind of karmic backlash, and not everyone feels it at the same intensity, but that I am more of an uncontrollable misfit than any random hetero male is a damned laugh to me. And who is to say that karmic backlash isn't for being prejudiced in a past life? What could possibly be a more fit lesson? And I do not doubt this state can come about without it, not one bit. And even when I consider the agrarian feudal society dynamic, the rate at which such people appear in the population, and if you're homosexual you're not making any more mouths to feed, and won't be burdened with children of your own already should there be orphans in your community, and if you're bi/pan you still can! There is absolutely no legitimate threat perceivable in any scenario to allowing these people simply be and instill in them a love for their community that they're perfectly capable of returning in spades. I frankly feel like it's a small miracle my upbringing didn't turn me into a literal psychopath. I am not patting myself on the back for that, but it's harrowing to think how easily I could've broken in a very bad way, and I don't feel like I or anyone deserves that. It is just so obviously a confidence trick, an easy scapegoat to other and burn as an effigy and say "Look, we are doing something, we are recanting evil" and condition people to have stone hearts for their neighbors, that it makes me fucking nauseous and anyone that would continue that demented, old lie is so far gone in my heart that I cannot believe they have ever seen truth